Fundamental rights under geopolitical pressure: The limits of restricting freedoms in democracies bordering authoritarian or totalitarian regimes

The tension between national security and the protection of fundamental rights has become increasingly acute in democracies bordering authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Governments frequently rely on the ‘geopolitical argument’ to justify restrictions on rights, such as freedom of expression, assembly or political participation. While external security threats are real, the uncritical use of geopolitics risks transforming it into a general justification for limitations that may undermine democratic governance. This article examines the permissible limits of relying on geopolitical reasoning when restricting fundamental rights. It analyses the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and selected constitutional case law, with particular attention to decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. Using doctrinal and comparative methods, the study identifies the legal standards governing such restrictions, including legality, necessity, proportionality and evidentiary substantiation. The findings show that geopolitical con-siderations may justify heightened security measures only where concrete and verifiable threats are demonstrated and where restrictions remain subject to strict judicial scrutiny. This article concludes that democratic self-defence must not rely on abstract geopolitical narratives but on principled, evidence-based reasoning. The resilience of democracy lies in its ability to respond to external pressure without compromising the rule of law and fundamental rights.