Abstract
The term 'human rights defender' has no specific definition. It is a controversial term with many interpretations and conjectures. The current UN framework for its definition does not provide enough guidance on who is a defender and who is not. The focus of research based on its definition has gradually evolved in the last decade from a microscopic examination of the semantics of UN literature to a broader analysis of the conceptualization of its praxis, its relation to the overarching architecture of risks and protection mechanisms, and its foundational role in the establishment of the right to defend human rights. All previous publications and research regarding the term ‘human rights defender’ focus on criticizing its scope and interpreting it in the light of alternative approaches, frameworks, and theories. However, none of them proposed a new, revised definition of the term. This is interesting because it shows there are some underlying constraints in formulating a definition that is new, indisputable, unambiguous, and compelling on all fronts. This is the research gap this paper wishes to accommodate. The research objective of this paper is to identify the barriers to reaching a watertight definition of the term 'human rights defender.' The paper takes an exploratory approach as the topic of constraints has not been explored before. It conducts a textual analysis of key documents that form the basis of the definition, a content analysis of national laws that are struggling to use the definition, a thematic analysis of interviews with human rights defenders, and an analysis of field notes taken during expert workshops. The paper addresses the problematic aspects of the existing definition, the current gaps in understanding and implementation of the term, and the potential pathways to redefinition and reconceptualization. In conclusion, the paper identifies four constraints to formulating an alternative or revised definition of the term ‘human rights defender.’