Irish Centre for Human Rights Blog

While sometimes criticised as reflecting a conceptual and institutional split between human rights on the one hand, and women’s rights on the other, the UN CSW annual meeting in NYC is now established as the largest civil society gathering on the UN calendar. The mandate of the CSW, (ECOSOC resolution 11(II), 21 June 1946), was expanded in 1996, to include monitoring the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA). This year’s CSW, marking 25 years since the adoption of the BPfA, was preceded by a series of regional preparatory meetings and voluntary national reviews.  Ultimately, however, the outbreak of COVID-19 and the imposition of meeting restrictions at UN buildings led to a truncated agenda. Instead of the planned gathering of almost 1000 civil society activists, CSW64 was reduced to a procedural meeting only on March 9^th, leading many to express concern that the voices of feminist activists and civil society were becoming further marginalised within the UN system. The adoption of the Political Declaration (E/CN.6/2020/L.1) at CSW64 has attracted little commentary, coming as it did against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic, urgent concern to ensure effective protection of equal rights to health, and a rapid roll out of emergency legislation by many states, with accompanying derogations from UN and regional human rights treaties. As we begin now to reflect on the gender dimensions of the COVID-19 pandemic and possible recovery, CEDAW and other UN bodies have highlighted the relevance of key themes of the Political Declaration (Guidance: CEDAW on COVID-19 and OHCHR Guidance on COVID-19 and Women’s Human Rights).

The 12 critical areas of concern identified in the BPfA, are reiterated in the 2020 Declaration. The legal language of ‘women and…’ is open, of course, to criticism, as failing to transform or challenge underlying structural inequalities, leaving intact a deeply unequal status quo. Controversy at Beijing had included dispute on sexual and reproductive health, recognition of diverse family forms and sexualities, and use of the term gender. Gender troubles as we know, continue today, underpinning more recently a backlash against ratification of the Istanbul Convention.  Zeroing in on ‘language at the CSW’, a Guide for NGO and women’s rights activists at CSW 2020, highlights ‘sticky points’ and ‘contentious issues’ that have hindered previous CSW meetings, including blocking the adoption of Agreed Conclusions at CSW 47 (2003) (on Women’s human rights and elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls), and again at CSW 56 (2012). The 2020 Political Declaration follows more recent Declarations in stating simply that the Beijing Declaration and PfA and the obligations imposed by CEDAW are mutually reinforcing, calling on States that have not yet done so, ‘to consider’ ratifying or acceding to CEDAW and the Optional Protocol. A commitment to achieving the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination is reiterated, without returning to any further statement on SRHR. No attempt is made to expand protections against unsafe abortion, or to address the many reservations and interpretive declarations appended to the Beijing Declaration and PfA.[1] This caution follows on from repeated attempts to limit recognition of reproductive rights in recent multilateral fora. The Statement of the US mission to the UN on the adoption of the Political Declaration repeatedly refers to “faith-based and civil society organisations”, and welcomes the omission of “controversial terms and concepts”. Reflecting the pushback against standard setting roles of UN treaty bodies such as CEDAW, and the inter-governmental processes of CSW, the US statement emphasises that the Declaration does not change the current state of “conventional or customary international law”, and does not impose obligations under international instruments to which states are not a party. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement, non-ratification of ICESCR and therefore non-justiciability of the rights protected, as well as limiting the right to equal pay to equal work (rather than work of equal value), are all noted.

Another key theme in the preparations for CSW 64 was a concern to engage with feminist youth protests and social media activism. While some referred to new forms of feminist activism, in particular in emphasising the intersectionality of inequalities, others pointed to  continuity in themes and modes of protest, including street protests. A series of background papers presented at an Expert Group meeting convened by UN Women in September 25-26 2019, focused on the significance of changing methods of feminist activism, feminist tech responses to digital revolutions, and democratic backsliding and backlash against women’s rights. The future of the peace, security and humanitarian agenda from a gender perspective was also discussed. In her preparatory paper, Sibongile Ndashe highlights the importance of movement building work, supporting individuals and movements to challenge injustice, and the pervasiveness of limited understandings of equality, the consequences of which are evident in law reform and litigation strategies. The required shifts, Ndashe argues, include deliberate work in deepening an understanding of substantive equality, one that recognises multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. This theme is taken up by Flávia Biroli, who writes that gender conflicts were and continue to be about democracy:

Individual rights are displaced in the name of the rights of nuclear families defined by their heterosexual character and the purpose of reproduction. These families must be “functional”. The contradictions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are “resolved” by enlarging the responsibility of the nuclear families and those of the women within these families.” (p.7)

It is not only liberal democracy that is being disputed here, but rather, “a conception of the public expressed by the shared responsibility for human vulnerability.” Rather than this shared responsibility, there is increasing privatization of insecurity: “The moralization of insecurities opens a path to mobilize popular support for discriminatory, authoritarian solutions.” As we reflect now on the gender inequality outcomes of privatised care roles, and the risk of further erosion of democratic accountability, Biroli’s concern at the limits of shared responsibility is particularly prescient. A recurring theme also (recognised in the Political Declaration) is the gender dimension of the use of biometric technology in social protection systems, raised by former UN SR on Extreme Poverty, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, who notes the risks of exclusion and potential for heightened personal security risks when biometric technology is implemented without a gender impact assessment.

The preparation for CSW also marked 20 years of SC Res 1325. (Ireland has co-sponsored all 10 SC Resolutions on WPS. SC Res 2493 was led by South Africa and is the first resolution to specifically emphasise the importance of ‘in context’ action. SC Res 2467, as we know, fell victim to the pushback against SRHR and women’s human rights defenders in particular.) Preparatory discussions on Res 1325 have repeatedly expressed concern at the continuing limits of the liberal peacebuilding project, and the hyper visibility of women as victims of violence. The  re-emergence of the protective impulse of international law is evident again in the language of the 2020 Political Declaration and the foregrounding of women as victims of violence. The need for a transformative concept of security, recognising socio-economic rights and climate justice as essential to a just and equal security, is touched upon only briefly.

In its call for Joint Action on COVID-19, the CEDAW Committee calls for concrete action on the commitments contained in CSW 64 and the Generation Equality forum (now postponed to 2021). Noting the pre-existing condition of deeply rooted inequalities, CEDAW argues that the consequences of the current crisis has impacted women in a disproportionate and more severe manner: “Women have experienced multiple and compounded forms of discrimination while on the front lines of responses, at home, in the health workforce and in various sectors of production.” Returning to a recurring theme of feminist futures, they call on States to adopt transformative strategies based on women’s empowerment and leadership, especially in the area of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. Values of solidarity, connection and care, not new to feminist thinking are again to the fore. Ultimately CEDAW’s call notes that:  “States should emerge from the COVID-19 crisis with increased solidarity, by adhering to human rights norms, promoting inclusive governance, social justice and peace.” Much on the agenda. Let’s see what comes next.

[1] See for example Statements of the Argentine and Dominican Republic representatives ((p.44  and p.162) and of the Holy See (p. 164-5).