While practitioners and academics have highlighted that over the past decade democracies have been increasingly regulating CSOs, there is still a lack of comprehensive, cross-national analyses of which EU member states have made CSO regulation more restrictive in response to different crises, and how and why. Most studies focus narrowly on legislation tied to particular crises (e.g. terrorism), types of organizations (e.g. human rights) or regions (e.g. Central Eastern Europe). The CIVILSPACE project measures the evolution of legally defined space for CSOs broadly. It takes into account the multidimensional nature of regulation —encompassing legal domains that directly or indirectly influence CSO survival, resource access and (especially political) activities. It analyzes not only sector-wide regulation but also regulation tailored to specific CSO types (e.g. pro-migrant CSOs) whose growth by definition enhances the unequal treatment of CSOs within the sector. Importantly, it also recognizes that legal reforms can bring about not just restrictive but also enabling changes, arguing that legal restrictiveness and permissiveness need joint consideration. In the second main project phase, the project team will theorize and explore CSOs responses to different legal environments, distinguishing behavior conforming with legal requirements from so-called “chilling effects”, whereby CSOs self-censor, i.e. might be dissuaded from engaging in legal political activities essential for democracy. Large scale CSO survey experiments will help to disentangle implications of distinct reform elements as well as the responses of different CSO types. Bringing this second project phase on behavioural consequences of the law together with the project results to date, CIVILSPACE will advance the theoretical and empirical literature on civil society regulation and their consequences for democratic civil society. It thereby speaks to broader debates in politics, sociology and law concerned with the growth of restrictiveness in democracies’ legal architectures, including debates on democratic recession, militant democracy, and counterterrorism legislation. Further, it can inform discussions on democratic resilience and policy development in the field, as its insights provide a foundation to evaluate which EU members are prone to be vulnerable in times of crisis and which measures might be suitable responses to address those vulnerabilities.