International human rights standards ARTICLE 19 According to the GNI Implementation Guidelines, companies should encourage governments to be ‘specific, transparent and consistent’ when their demands impact freedom of expression or privacy. 26 They should also adopt policies and procedures for responding to such demands. If required to restrict communications or remove content, they should require governments to follow established domestic legal processes and ‘request clear written communication from the government which explain[s] the legal basis’ for such requests.27 Participating companies should also interpret government demands narrowly. If a request appears to be overbroad or inconsistent with domestic or human rights law, companies should seek clarification or modification; seek assistance from relevant authorities, human rights bodies, and NGOs; and challenge the government in domestic courts.28 Taking such steps can help companies to meet their responsibilities under Principle 23 of the UNGPs. Using the basic framework of the UNGPs, this report considers the situation in China, Vietnam, and Myanmar. For each country, it provides brief background context and then summarises the main legal obligations placed on tech companies which could implicate them in violations of the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. It then highlights how companies have responded to these requirements, focusing on select case studies. This is used as background for a practical discussion of how the UNGPs can be implemented in highly authoritarian contexts where tech companies face legal requirements which conflict with their human rights responsibilities. ____________________________________________ 26 GNI, Implementation Guidelines, Guideline 3.3(a). GNI, Implementation Guidelines, Guideline 3.2(b). 28 GNI, Implementation Guidelines, Guideline 3.3. 27 16