We bring together information on the legal frameworks for the right to information from more than 100 countries.
You are here: Home Exceptions to Access National Security

National Security


National security is one of the exceptions under all access to information (ATI) laws. However, few of the laws, or their implementing regulations, define national security for purposes of withholding information. Nor do they set froth clear standards or procedures for classifying or otherwise withholding information on security grounds.

National security and the public’s right to know are often viewed as pulling in opposite directions. While there is at times a tension between a government’s desire to keep information secret on national security grounds and the public’s right to information held by public authorities, a clear-eyed review of recent history suggests that legitimate national security interests are, in practice, best protected when the public is well informed about the state’s activities, including those undertaken to protect national security.

In order to protect the full exercise of human rights, in certain circumstances it may be necessary to keep information secret to protect legitimate national security interests. Striking the right balance is made all the more challenging by the fact that courts in many countries demonstrate the least independence and greatest deference to the claims of government when national security is invoked. This deference is reinforced by provisions in the security laws of many countries that trigger exceptions to the right to information as well as to ordinary rules of evidence and rights of the accused upon a minimal showing, or even the mere assertion by the government, of a national security risk. A government's over-invocation of national security concerns can seriously undermine the main institutional safeguards against government abuse: independence of the courts, the rule of law, legislative oversight, media freedom, and open government.

In recent years, a significant number of states around the world have embarked on adopting or revising classification regimes and related laws. This trend in turn has been sparked by several developments. Perhaps most significant has been the rapid adoption of access to information laws since the fall of the Berlin Wall, with the result that, as of June 2013, more than 5.2 billion people in 95 countries around the world are entitled to exercise the right of access to information—at least in law, if not in practice. People in these countries are—often for the first time—grappling with the question of whether and under what circumstances information may be kept secret.  Other developments contributing to an increase in proposed secrecy legislation include government responses to terrorism or the threat of terrorism, and an interest in having secrecy regulated by law in the context of democratic transitions.


Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (the Tshwane Principles)

On 12 June 2013, 17 organizations and five academic centres, working in all parts of the world, issued a set of Principles on National Security and the Right to Information.

These Principles were developed in order to provide guidance to those engaged in drafting, revising or implementing laws or provisions relating to the state’s authority to withhold information on national security grounds or to punish the disclosure of such information.

They are based on international and regional law and standards, evolving state practice, the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, and the writings of experts.

For more detail, see a full page dedicated to the Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information (the Tshwane Principles), including international and regional law and standards and writings of experts.


Country Information


In 2013 Japan passed a new State Secrecy Law that, according to the UN Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression and the Right to Health, "includes serious threats to whistleblowers and even journalists reporting on secrets.” The following documents provide additional information about the law, and how it compares on an international level.


  • Halperin, Morton, Japan's State Secrecy Law Doesn't Meet International Standards, 9 May, 2014, Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan. [54:47]
  • Repeta, Lawrence, Japan’s New Secrecy Law, interview by Shingetsu News Agency, 3 September, 2014.  Professor Lawrence Repeta of Meiji University gives a lucid account of the Japanese government's war against transparency and political accountability. He notes that Japan’s new Secrecy Law, adopted Dec 6, 2013, provides up to ten years in prison for leakers and up to five years for “soliciting” leaks, and offers no protection for whistleblowers.  He notes differences between Japanese and US law, and instances in which criminal penalties have been used to suppress Japanese government misinformation on significant public policy issues, as well as other information of high public interest. [17:13]

South Africa

Information related to South Africa's Secrecy Law will be added shortly.


Relevant cases