CIVICUS discusses the foreign agents’ law recently adopted in Republika Srpska, one of the two main political entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina, with Damjan Ožegović, Senior Researcher and Legal Affairs Associate at Transparency International (TI) Bosnia. TI Bosnia is the national chapter of TI, a global civil society organisation (CSO) that works against corruption by promoting transparency, accountability and integrity.

Republika Srpska’s new foreign agents’ law requires civil society and media organisations that receive international funds to register as foreign agents and subjects them to extensive controls. While the law is ostensibly intended to safeguard national security and counter foreign interference, it forms part of a concerning global pattern of similar legislation designed to restrict independent voices.

What are the key provisions of the new foreign agents’ law?

The law passed on 6 March by the parliament of Republika Srpska – the Bosnian Serb-majority entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina – automatically labels any organisation that receives international funding as a ‘foreign agent’, even though the government itself receives money from the same sources. The legislation imposes stringent reporting requirements and explicitly prohibits these organisations from proposing laws or ‘influencing public opinion’. Effectively, it punishes CSOs for raising social issues.

The government claims the new law is meant to improve transparency and regulate foreign-funded organisations to prevent outside political interference, but its real purpose is to silence dissent and target independent CSOs, media and opposition voices. Similar laws in other countries have been used to discredit and restrict CSOs critical of the government, making this less about transparency and more about political control.

Institutions in Republika Srpska already have the power to monitor CSOs’ finances and activities, and some laws already prohibit political activities by CSOs. What’s particularly revealing is that these restrictions don’t apply to government-backed organisations, which receive public funding and openly support political parties and candidates during elections with no repercussions.

What’s the political context behind the new law?

The law was rushed through parliament under a fast-track procedure. But the move wasn’t about transparency as claimed, but rather a retaliatory measure following a court verdict against Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik. Dodik was convicted of undermining the constitutional order by refusing to implement decisions issued by High Representative Christian Schmidt, who oversees the civilian implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia.

The authorities justified this extraordinary process by claiming that rejection of the law would create conditions for the ‘collapse of the constitutional order’ orchestrated by media outlets and organisations they had previously labelled as enemies. This framing reveals the political motivation behind the legislation.

How will this law impact on civil society and fundamental rights?

The new law gives the government broad powers to shut down any organisation it disagrees with. Its vague wording allows authorities to target groups arbitrarily, by accusing them of engaging in political activities or threatening the constitutional order.

The law will seriously undermine freedoms of association, expression and access to information. It is likely to lead to widespread self-censorship, similar to the effects we’ve already seen from recent amendments to Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code that re-criminalised defamation. Organisations will avoid discussing sensitive issues to escape government scrutiny. Being labelled ‘foreign agents’ will also lead to stigmatisation, potentially damaging their credibility and isolating them from the public.

The impacts extend far beyond human rights and anti-corruption groups. Sports clubs, women’s rights organisations, trade unions, consumer rights associations and humanitarian groups that provide essential services – such as social aid, legal support and protection from violence – could all be affected. If these groups are forced to close, many vulnerable people who rely on them will suffer directly.

How has civil society responded?

Civil society groups, independent media and human rights activists have widely condemned the law as posing serious human rights concerns. It was introduced without proper justification, risk assessment or consultation with those affected. Its vague and overly broad provisions fail basic legal standards of clarity, foreseeability and proportionality. The reporting requirements are excessive, the fines disproportionate and there are no safeguards to ensure fair legal recourse.

In response, we have issued public statements, organised protests and launched advocacy campaigns. We have also formed coalitions to coordinate our actions and consulted lobbying experts on strategies to fight the law.

Humanitarian organisations and service providers with a public profile, such as soup kitchens and safe houses, have taken a leading role in raising awareness, speaking to the media on behalf of wider civil society. Their goal is to gain public support against the law.

What can the international community do to help?

So far, international responses have been limited to official statements and open letters to Republika Srpska officials. But this isn’t enough. We need stronger action to challenge this law and support affected groups, and the international community has several tools it could use. Diplomatic pressure, financial assistance, legal support and public advocacy could help mitigate the negative effects and prevent further civic space restrictions.

Diplomatic pressure must be more visible and decisive. The international community should engage in direct talks with the authorities, push for the law to be repealed and demand protections for civil society, journalists and activists. To achieve this, they could threaten to freeze or reduce financial assistance. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s integration into the European Union (EU) could also be tied to the authorities aligning laws with EU human rights standards.