
Vicky HernaÌndez Amador

El Consejo de Derechos Humanos (CDH) es el cuerpo intergubernamental del sistema de las Naciones Unidas responsable de la promoción y protección de todos los derechos humanos en todo el mundo. El HRC se reúne en sesión ordinaria tres veces al año, en marzo, junio y septiembre. La La Oficina del Alto Comisionado para los Derechos Humanos (ACNUDH) es la secretaría del Consejo de Derechos Humanos.
Debate y aprueba resoluciones sobre cuestiones mundiales de derechos humanos y el estado de los derechos humanos en determinados países
Examina las denuncias de víctimas de violaciones a los derechos humanos o las de organizaciones activistas, quienes interponen estas denuncias representando a lxs víctimas.
Nombra a expertos independientes que ejecutarán los «Procedimientos Especiales» revisando y presentado informes sobre las violaciones a los derechos humanos desde una perspectiva temática o en relación a un país específico
Participa en discusiones con expertos y gobiernos respecto a cuestiones de derechos humanos.
A través del Examen Periódico Universal, cada cuatro años y medio, se evalúan los expedientes de derechos humanos de todos los Estados Miembro de las Naciones Unidas
Se está llevarando a cabo en Ginebra, Suiza del 30 de junio al 17 de julio de 2020.
AWID trabaja con socios feministas, progresistas y de derechos humanos para compartir conocimientos clave, convocar diálogos y eventos de la sociedad civil, e influir en las negociaciones y los resultados de la sesión.
There are varied conceptualizations about the commons notes activist and scholar Soma Kishore Parthasarathy.
Conventionally, they are understood as natural resources intended for use by those who depend on their use. However, the concept of the commons has expanded to include the resources of knowledge, heritage, culture, virtual spaces, and even climate. It pre-dates the individual property regime and provided the basis for organization of society. Definitions given by government entities limit its scope to land and material resources.
The concept of the commons rests on the cultural practice of sharing livelihood spaces and resources as nature’s gift, for the common good, and for the sustainability of the common.
Under increasing threat, nations and market forces continue to colonize, exploit and occupy humanity’s commons.
In some favourable contexts, the ‘commons’ have the potential to enable women, especially economically oppressed women, to have autonomy in how they are able to negotiate their multiple needs and aspirations.
Patriarchy is reinforced when women and other oppressed genders are denied access and control of the commons.
Therefore, a feminist economy seeks to restore the legitimate rights of communities to these common resources. This autonomy is enabling them to sustain themselves; while evolving more egalitarian systems of governance and use of such resources. A feminist economy acknowledges women’s roles and provides equal opportunities for decision-making, i.e. women as equal claimants to these resources.
Découvrez ces projets élaborés par les équipes de l'AWID pour promouvoir le plaidoyer et les perspectives féministes.
Despite their rigidity in matters of doctrine and worldview, anti-rights actors have demonstrated an openness to building new kinds of strategic alliances, to new organizing techniques, and to new forms of rhetoric. As a result, their power in international spaces has increased.
There has been a notable evolution in the strategies of ultra conservative actors operating at this level. They do not only attempt to tinker at the edges of agreements and block certain language, but to transform the framework conceptually and develop alternative standards and norms, and avenues for influence.
Ultra conservative actors work to create and sustain their relationships with State delegates through regular training opportunities - such as the yearly Global Family Policy Forum - and targeted training materials.
These regular trainings and resources systematically brief delegates on talking points and negotiating techniques to further collaboration towards anti-rights objectives in the human rights system. Delegates also receive curated compilations of ‘consensus language’ and references to pseudo-scientific or statistical information to bolster their arguments.
The consolidated transmission of these messages explains in part why State delegates who take ultra-conservative positions in international human rights debates frequently do so in contradiction with their own domestic legislation and policies.
Anti-rights actors’ regional and international web of meetings help create closer links between ultra conservative Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), States and State blocs, and powerful intergovernmental bodies. The yearly international World Congress of Families is one key example.
These convenings reinforce personal connections and strategic alliances, a key element for building and sustaining movements. They facilitate transnational, trans-religious and dynamic relationship-building around shared issues and interests, which leads to a more proactive approach and more holistic sets of asks at the international policy level on the part of anti-rights actors.
States and State blocs have historically sought to undermine international consensus or national accountability under international human rights norms through reservations to human rights agreements, threatening the universal applicability of human rights.
The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has received by far the most reservations, most of which are based on alleged conflict with religious law. It is well-established international human rights law that evocations of tradition, culture or religion cannot justify violations of human rights, and many reservations to CEDAW are invalid as they are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of CEDAW. Nevertheless, reference to these reservations is continually used by States to dodge their human rights responsibilities.
‘Reservations’ to UN documents and agreements that are not formal treaties - such as Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions - are also on the rise.
In an alarming development, regressive actors at the UN have begun to co-opt existing rights standards and campaign to develop agreed language that is deeply anti-rights.
The aim is to create and then propagate language in international human rights spaces that validates patriarchal, hierarchical, discriminatory, and culturally relativist norms.
One step towards this end is the drafting of declarative texts, such as the World Family Declaration and the San Jose Articles, that pose as soft human rights law. Sign-ons are gathered from multiple civil society, state, and institutional actors; and they are then used a basis for advocacy and lobbying.
As part of a strategic shift towards the use of non-religious discourses, anti-rights actors have significantly invested in their own ‘social science’ think tanks. Given oxygen by the growing conservative media, materials from these think tanks are then widely disseminated by conservative civil society groups. The same materials are used as the basis for advocacy at the international human rights level.
While the goals and motivation of conservative actors derive from their extreme interpretations of religion, culture, and tradition, such regressive arguments are often reinforced through studies that claim intellectual authority. A counter-discourse is thus produced through a heady mix of traditionalist doctrine and social science.
This is one of the most effective strategies employed by the religious right and represents a major investment in the future of anti-rights organizing.
Youth recruitment and leadership development, starting at the local level with churches and campuses, are a priority for many conservative actors engaged at the international policy level.
This strategy has allowed for infiltration of youth-specific spaces at the United Nations, including at the Commission on the Status of Women, and creates a strong counterpoint to progressive youth networks and organizations.
When it comes to authoritative expert mechanisms like the UN Special Procedures and Treaty Monitoring Bodies and operative bodies like the UN agencies, regressive groups realize their potential for influence is much lower than with political mechanisms[1].
In response, anti-rights groups spread the idea that UN agencies are ‘overstepping their mandate,’ that the CEDAW Committee and other Treaty Bodies have no authority to interpret their treaties, or that Special Procedures are partisan experts working outside of their mandate. Anti-rights groups have also successfully lobbied for the defunding of agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
This invalidation of UN mechanisms gives fuel to state impunity. Governments, when under international scrutiny, can defend their action on the basis that the reviewing mechanism is itself faulty or overreaching.
Conservative non-state actors increasingly invest in social media and other online platforms to promote their activities, campaign, and widely share information from international human rights spaces.
The Spanish organization CitizenGo, for example, markets itself as the conservative version of Change.org, spearheading petitions and letter-writing campaigns. One recent petition, opposing the establishment of a UN international day on safe abortion, gathered over 172,000 signatures.
By understanding the strategies employed by anti-rights actors, we can be more effective in countering them.
[1] The fora that are state-led, like the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and UN conferences like the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on Population and Development
Manal Tamimi Palestine
Bubulina Moreno, Colombia
Karolina Więckiewicz, Poland
Anwulika Ngozi Okonjo, Nigeria
La creciente dominación de los mercados y las instituciones financieras internacionales en la definición de las políticas económicas globales ha tenido como resultado la captura del poder popular en aras del interés de las élites y las grandes corporaciones globales.
Este informe «Flujos financieros ilícitos» analiza su desproporcionado impacto de género y los marcos legales y políticos actuales que permiten a las corporaciones multinacionales beneficiarse del fraude fiscal en detrimento de las personas y el planeta.
El informe concluye con siete recomendaciones feministas de políticas para exigir transparencia y rendición de cuentas por parte del poder corporativo para frenar los flujos financieros ilícitos.
Los flujos financieros ilícitos están llamando la atención como nunca antes: ya sea en negociaciones para el desarrollo, como los que condujeron a la Agenda 2030 y a la Conferencia sobre Financiamiento para el
Desarrollo de Addis Abeba en 2015, u ocupando los titulares de los medios hegemónicos con la publicación de documentos filtrados sobre finanzas offshore conocidos como los «Panama Papers». En otro ejemplo, en un
referendum de febrero de 2017, el pueblo ecuatoriano votó para prohibir que políticxs y funcionarixs públicxs posean acciones, compañías o capital en paraísos fiscales. El Gobierno de Ecuador es ahora, dentro del grupo
G-77, una de las voces principales que reclaman en las Naciones Unidas la creación de un organismo tributario global para poner fin a los paraísos fiscales.
Esta atención pública potencialmente da impulso para que lxs feministas, los movimientos sociales y lxs defensores de la justicia tributaria presionen por la transformación del sistema financiero internacional, donde
se arraigan desigualdades globales, incluidas las desigualdades de género.
Ofrecemos aquí siete pedidos de políticas como contribución a los crecientes esfuerzos de incidencia de actores por la justicia social, feministas, por los derechos de las mujeres y por la igualdad de género.
4. Promover la transparencia y la recolección de datos con perspectiva de género:
7. Poner fin a la impunidad de las actividades delictivas asociadas con los flujos financieros ilícitos y garantizar la rendición de cuentas:
![]() |
Asamblea Placentera: Tejiendo Proyectos Feministas ColaborativosGhiwa Sayegh, Kohl: A Journal for Body and Gender Research De brujeria, chamanismo y otros conocimientos insurrectos contra el patriarcadoSofía Blanco Sixtos, Colectiva Feminista MAPAS |
สำหรับข้อมูลด้านนี้สามารถอ่านรายละเอียดได้ที่ เปิดรับสมัครกิจกรรม รวมถึงข้อมูลในหัวข้อ “สิ่งที่คุณต้องรู้”
在您計劃將要在論壇上開展的活動時,請同時考慮如何為參加論壇提供資金支持。典型的費用支出包括:住宿、旅行、簽證、論壇註冊費等。
重要的是請注意,該論壇將有很多“開放空間”和學習、交流運動的機會,而正式會議的數量則少很多。(請參閱下面的“在籌款中如何描述我們的論壇”,以瞭解在您的宣傳中可使用的語言。)
首先聯繫您當前的資助者:最好的選擇始終是求助於當前的捐助者。
請確保提前準備:我們建議最晚在2020年初與這些資助方聯繫。許多支持女權組織的資助者為論壇旅行分配了一些預算。其他的資助方也可能將其囊括在續訂補助金中或包含在其他旅行基金裡。
如果貴組織有資助者,請告訴他們您想參加AWID論壇並學習、體驗、交流和建立網絡,即使您的活動還未被選中。為了能夠支持您的參與,您的捐助者需要提前了解此事,因此請立即告訴她們吧!(她們已經在決定將在2020年分配哪些資金)。
如果您目前沒有捐助者的支持或無法獲得論壇旅行的贈款,請考慮與新的捐助者聯繫。
各個資助方的申請截止日期和要求不盡相同,並且撥款審查過程可能需要數月的時間。如果您正在考慮申請新的資金,請盡快開始申請。
女權主義運動長期以來在資助我們自己的行動方面保持著創造力。以下是我們收集的一些想法,用於啟發不同的籌款方式:
想瞭解更多靈感,請參閱AWID正在進行的關於自主資源的系列文章,其中包括有關籌集參會資金的具體想法。(in English)
AWID正在努力使論壇成為一個真正的全球性聚會,保障來自不同運動、地區和年齡層的參會者都可以參與。鑑於此,AWID為參與者調集資源並提供有限數量的機會補助金,以幫助她們支付參加論壇的費用。
AWID的機會補助金將為部分論壇參與者和會議/活動的主持人提供支持。您可以在申請過程中指出是否要申請AWID機會補助金。我們無法保證您能否申請到,所以我們強烈建議您為自己參加會議和論壇尋求其他資助。
即使您已申請了AWID的機會補助金,我們仍鼓勵您繼續探索其他的選擇來資助您參加論壇。機會補助金的申請結果將在2020年6月結束之前得到確認。請記住,這些資源非常有限,我們無法為所有申請人提供支持。
當您與資助方或您自己的網絡聯繫時,這裡的一些示例信息可能會有所幫助。您可以隨時以對您有用的任何方式進行調整!
AWID論壇是一個聯合創建的女權運動空間,可激發參與者自身的行動積極性,並在多種權利和正義運動中加強與他人的聯繫。參與者可以從希望、能量和激進的想像力中汲取靈感,加深共享的分析和學習,建立跨領域的運動團結,以製定更加綜合的議程並推進聯合戰略。
我們的組織正在尋求資金參加論壇,以便與來自世界各地的其他活動家和運動聯繫在一起,加強我們的戰略並分享工作成果。我們受到過往參與者的啟發,她們描述了這場全球女權主義聚會的力量:
“在四天的時間裡……各種聲音交織在一起,形成了關於性別平等狀況的全球視角。當我說“全球”一詞時,我是指同時翻譯成七種不同的語言……”
“它提醒著我們,我們並不孤單。論壇提供了必要的途徑幫助我們將集體力量轉化為運動。無論是何種意識形態、身份或邊界,我們的力量都體現在我們的願景和對彼此的支持中。”
重要的是請注意,該論壇將有很多“開放空間”和學習、交流運動的機會,而正式會議的數量則少很多。儘管很多與會者不會參加正式的會議,但仍有寶貴的空間來學習、制定戰略和體驗女權運動在行動中的集體力量。
在計算花費以及思考需要募集多少款項時,最重要的是要考慮可能出現的成本。以下是要考慮的關鍵項目支出的示例:
該論壇不僅僅是一個四天的會議。它更為女權主義現實實踐的運動增強之旅提供了另一個驛站,該旅程早已開始也將在論壇結束後繼續。