Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How have international organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International assessed women's rights reforms under Mohammed bin Salman?
Executive summary
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have not both been directly quoted in the supplied sources about recent Saudi women’s-rights reforms; Human Rights Watch explicitly criticized proposed reforms as “neglect[ing] basic rights,” arguing that legal changes cannot be credible while critics are punished [1]. Other coverage in the set shows the Saudi state has enacted visible reforms—driving rights, new personal status regulations in 2025, easing some guardianship rules—but critics say reforms are top-down and coexist with repression of activists who had pressed for the same changes [2] [3] [4].
1. Human Rights Watch: reforms are hollow without basic rights
Human Rights Watch frames the Crown Prince’s legal and social initiatives as incomplete and potentially performative, arguing that “when the government brutally punishes citizens and residents who dare provide honest critical feedback, it can’t credibly spin proposed reforms as genuine efforts to improve people’s lives,” and specifically criticized the 2021 judicial and personal-status reform package for neglecting basic freedoms such as expression, association and assembly [1].
2. Amnesty International: not directly cited in the current reporting
The search results provided do not include a piece from Amnesty International. Available sources do not mention Amnesty International’s specific assessment of the listed reforms; therefore this file cannot summarize Amnesty’s stance from these documents (not found in current reporting).
3. State-led reforms: clear, incremental legal changes
Multiple sources document concrete policy shifts under Mohammed bin Salman, including lifting the driving ban (2017/2018), easing some guardianship and mobility restrictions, criminalizing sexual harassment, and the 2022 Personal Status Law with implementing regulations published in 2025 that include 41 articles intended to curtail aspects of male guardianship, restrict forced marriages, and expand women’s rights in divorce and custody [5] [6] [2].
4. Critics: reforms co-exist with repression of activists
Reporting and analysis repeatedly emphasize a paradox: the state has adopted reforms that activists fought for, yet activists who campaigned for those changes were prosecuted or imprisoned. Foreign Policy and advocacy commentary cite the detention of prominent campaigners (e.g., Loujain al‑Hathloul) as evidence that the state both appropriates reform credit and suppresses independent civil society voices [3] [4].
5. Legal ambiguity and reliance on judicial discretion
Analysts note the 2025 implementing regulations build on prior laws but leave substantial room for interpretation by courts; many provisions “still rely on court discretion,” raising questions about consistent implementation and whether the changes constitute structural shifts in gender relations or mostly state-managed legal modernization [2].
6. Competing narratives: modernization vs. image-making
Pro‑reform accounts and state-aligned outlets present MbS and Vision 2030 as driving economic and social modernization that places women “at the forefront” of change and opens opportunities in education, work, and public life [7] [8]. Critics frame the same developments as “performative” — useful for foreign audiences and investment — while domestic repression undercuts claims of genuine empowerment [4] [1].
7. What this means for assessments by international NGOs
Given Human Rights Watch’s explicit critique that reforms cannot be credible while dissent is punished [1], an NGO assessing Saudi changes would weigh both legal texts and implementation practices: the enacted laws and regulations [2] versus the treatment of activists and limits on basic freedoms [1] [3]. Amnesty’s detailed view is not present in these sources, so readers should consult Amnesty International directly for its official assessments (not found in current reporting).
8. Limitations and where to look next
This briefing is limited to the supplied search results. It does not include direct Amnesty International statements, UN reviews, or the Saudi government’s own implementation reports beyond what is cited here (not found in current reporting). For a fuller picture, consult primary NGO reports (Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International), the Official Gazette/Implementing Regulations text cited by analysts, and independent monitoring of court decisions and the status of former activists [1] [2].
In sum, available reporting in this set shows visible legal reforms improving some women’s rights while Human Rights Watch warns those reforms are undermined by continued repression and lack of basic civil liberties—Amnesty International’s specific position is not present among these sources [1] [2] [3].