Philippe Leroyer | Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Special Focus

AWID is an international, feminist, membership organisation committed to achieving gender equality, sustainable development and women’s human rights

Women Human Rights Defenders

WHRDs are self-identified women and lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LBTQI) people and others who defend rights and are subject to gender-specific risks and threats due to their human rights work and/or as a direct consequence of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

WHRDs are subject to systematic violence and discrimination due to their identities and unyielding struggles for rights, equality and justice.

The WHRD Program collaborates with international and regional partners as well as the AWID membership to raise awareness about these risks and threats, advocate for feminist and holistic measures of protection and safety, and actively promote a culture of self-care and collective well being in our movements.


Risks and threats targeting WHRDs  

WHRDs are exposed to the same types of risks that all other defenders who defend human rights, communities, and the environment face. However, they are also exposed to gender-based violence and gender-specific risks because they challenge existing gender norms within their communities and societies.

By defending rights, WHRDs are at risk of:

  • Physical assault and death
  • Intimidation and harassment, including in online spaces
  • Judicial harassment and criminalization
  • Burnout

A collaborative, holistic approach to safety

We work collaboratively with international and regional networks and our membership

  • to raise awareness about human rights abuses and violations against WHRDs and the systemic violence and discrimination they experience
  • to strengthen protection mechanisms and ensure more effective and timely responses to WHRDs at risk

We work to promote a holistic approach to protection which includes:

  • emphasizing the importance of self-care and collective well being, and recognizing that what care and wellbeing mean may differ across cultures
  • documenting the violations targeting WHRDs using a feminist intersectional perspective;
  • promoting the social recognition and celebration of the work and resilience of WHRDs ; and
  • building civic spaces that are conducive to dismantling structural inequalities without restrictions or obstacles

Our Actions

We aim to contribute to a safer world for WHRDs, their families and communities. We believe that action for rights and justice should not put WHRDs at risk; it should be appreciated and celebrated.

  • Promoting collaboration and coordination among human rights and women’s rights organizations at the international level to  strengthen  responses concerning safety and wellbeing of WHRDs.

  • Supporting regional networks of WHRDs and their organizations, such as the Mesoamerican Initiative for WHRDs and the WHRD Middle East and North Africa  Coalition, in promoting and strengthening collective action for protection - emphasizing the establishment of solidarity and protection networks, the promotion of self-care, and advocacy and mobilization for the safety of WHRDs;

  • Increasing the visibility and recognition of  WHRDs and their struggles, as well as the risks that they encounter by documenting the attacks that they face, and researching, producing, and disseminating information on their struggles, strategies, and challenges:

  • Mobilizing urgent responses of international solidarity for WHRDs at risk through our international and regional networks, and our active membership.

Related Content

Alternative framework for economic governance

Context

The current global economic crisis provides stark evidence that the economic policies of the last 3 decades have not been working.

The devastation that the crisis has wrought on the most vulnerable households in the Global North and Global South is a reminder that the formulation of economic policy and the realization of human rights (economic, social, political, civil and cultural) have for too long been divorced from one another. Economic policy and human rights do not have to be opposing forces, but can exist symbiotically.

Macroeconomic policies affect the operation of the economy as a whole, shaping the availability and distribution of resources. Within this context, fiscal and monetary policies are key.

Definition

  • Fiscal policy refers to both public revenue and public expenditure, and the relationships between them as expressed in the government budget.
  • Monetary policy includes policies on interest and exchange rates and the money supply, as well as the regulation of the financial sector.
  • Macroeconomic policies are implemented using instruments such as taxation, government spending, and control over the supply of money and credit.

These policies affect key prices such as interest and exchange rates that directly influence, among other things, the level of employment, access to affordable credit, and the housing market.

Applying a human rights framework to macroeconomic policy allows States to better comply with their obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill economic and social rights. Human rights are internationally agreed-upon universal standards. These legal norms are articulated in United Nations treaties including, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Article 1 of the UDHR states that, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Although the UDHR was written about six decades ago its relevance is enduring. Many of the ideas address concerns and critical issues that people continue to face globally. Issues regarding inhuman punishment (Art. 5), discrimination (Art. 7), property ownership (Art. 17), equal pay for equal work (Art. 23/2), and access to education (Art. 26/1) are pertinent matters in countries South and North of the equator.

More specifically, States have an obligation under international law to respect, protect and fulfill human rights, including the economic and social rights of people within their jurisdiction. This is particularly relevant now given the financial crisis. In the U.S., regulation is skewed in favor of certain interests. The failure to extend government’s supervisory role in the context of social and economic change is a failure with regard to the obligation to protect human rights.

Feminist perspective

States should abide by key human rights principles to achieve economic and social rights. Some of the principles have potentially important implications for governance of financial institutions and markets, yet these possibilities have been underexplored.

Economic and social rights have a concrete institutional and legal grounding. Global declarations, international treaties, covenants, and, in a number of cases, national constitutions have incorporated aspects of the economic and social rights framework—providing an institutional infrastructure in national and international law.

Some have suggested that a consideration of global justice may not be a useful pursuit because of the institutional complexities involved. However, this does not get around that fact that global institutions already have an impact on social justice, both positive and negative.

It is useful to tease out the implications that elements of alternative frameworks have for economic governance, specifically those supported by existing institutions. Economic and social rights represent one such concrete framework. The framework is an evolving one, and ongoing discussion and deliberation is necessary to address underdeveloped areas and potential deficiencies.


Learn more about this proposition

This section is based on CWGL’s blog “Applying a Human Rights Framework to Macroeconomic Policies” (2012).

Part of our series of


  Feminist Propositions for a Just Economy

Наша группа, организация и/или движение не зарегистрированы – можем ли мы принять участие в опросе?

Безусловно, мы хотим услышать ваше мнение и о вашем опыте привлечения ресурсов.

Snippet FEA Georgia's minimum wage (FR)

Le salaire minimum en Géorgie est l’un des plus bas dans le monde. Cette réalité touche surtout les femmes.

Non seulement le pays a un écart de rémunération important entre les genres, mais les femmes travaillent également des heures plus longues et moins réglementées avant de rentrer chez elles pour s'occuper des tâches ménagères et de leur famille. Il n'y a pas de congé de maternité, pas d'augmentation de salaire pour les heures supplémentaires, pas d'assurance-chômage, et pas de congé de maladie ou d'autre protection sociale. Sous la pression d’organisations occidentales, les partis politiques oligarchiques géorgiens ont mis en œuvre des réformes qui détruisent l'État-providence, augmentent les mesures d'austérité et aggravent l'exploitation des travailleur·euses, le tout au profit des grandes entreprises qui applaudissent le pays pour sa «facilité à faire des affaires». Les médias, cooptés par des intérêts privés et corporatifs, sont partiaux sur ces questions ou les réduisent au silence. L'organisation syndicale reste l'une des rares options pour lutter pour les droits humains fondamentaux et pour tenir l'État et les entreprises responsables des violations et persécutions quotidiennes et généralisées contre les travailleur·euses, et en particulier les femmes.

Source: Minimum-Wage et entretien avec Sopo Japaridze dans Open Democracy

Key impacts on the international human rights system

Anti-rights actors have had a substantive impact on our human rights framework and the progressive interpretation of human rights standards, especially rights related to gender and sexuality.

When it comes to the impact of conservative actors in international policy spaces, the overall picture today is of stasis and regressions.


We have witnessed the watering down of existing agreements and commitment; deadlock in negotiations; sustained undermining of UN agencies, treaty review bodies and Special Procedures; and success in pushing through regressive language in international human rights documents.

Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)

The CSW, held annually in March, has long been one of the most contested sites in the UN system. In March 2015, conservative efforts set the tone before events or negotiations even began; the outcome document of the Commission was a weak Declaration negotiated before any women’s rights activists even arrived on the ground.

At 2016’s CSW, the new Youth Caucus was infiltrated by large numbers of vocal anti-abortion and anti-SRHR actors, who shouted down progressive youth organizations. Again, intensive negotiations resulted in a lacklustre text, which included regressive language on ‘the family.’

Precisely when addressing women’s human rights is of urgent importance, the CSW has been rendered a depoliticized and weakened space. Using it to advance rights has become harder and harder since progressives’ energy is taken up trying to hold the ground against conservative backlash.

Human Rights Council (HRC)

As the intergovernmental body responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe, the HRC is a key entry point for conservative actors. In recent years, this mechanism has been the scene for a number of damaging anti-human rights moves.

In conversation with other anti-rights actors, one strategy of conservative states, and blocs of states, is to aggressively negotiate out positive language and to introduce hostile amendments to resolutions, most often resolutions focusing on rights related to gender and sexuality.

To take one example, during the June 2016 session of the HRC, opposition was mounted towards a resolution on discrimination against women by the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and allies. During contentious negotiations, multiple provisions were removed, including women’s and girls’ right to have control over their sexuality, sexual and reproductive health, and reproductive rights; and the need to repeal laws which perpetuate the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in families, and those criminalizing adultery or pardoning marital rape.

The HRC has also been the site of pernicious conservative initiatives to co-opt human rights norms and enact conservative “human rights” language, such as that of the Russia-led “traditional values” resolutions, and more recently the “Protection of the Family” agenda.

Human Rights Committee

In 2015, moving their sights to another front, a number of religious right organizations began to target the Human Rights Committee, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a pivotal human rights instrument.

Anti-human rights groups mobilized in hopes of cementing their anti-abortion rhetoric into the treaty.

When the Committee announced it was drafting a new authoritative interpretation of the right to life, over 30 conservative non-state actors sent in written submissions, advocating their misleading discourse on ‘right to life’ - that life begins at conception and that abortion is a violation of the right - be incorporated in the Committee’s interpretation of article 6.

Conservative groups targeting the Human Rights Committee was a shift considering that historically anti-human rights actors have repeatedly attempted to undermine and invalidate the essential work of the treaty monitoring bodies, including the Human Rights Committee.

SDG negotiations and Agenda 2030

Anti-human rights actors were involved in lobbying towards the development of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, focusing again on rights relating to gender and sexuality. These efforts had limited traction in their attempts to embed regressive language in Agenda 2030.

However, after successfully pushing back against progressive language in the final text, conservative actors then pivoted to another strategy. In an attempt to evade state accountability and undermine the universality of rights, several states have repeatedly made reservations to the Goals.

On behalf of the African Group, Senegal claimed that African states would only “implement the goals in line with the cultural and religious values of its countries.”

The Holy See also made a number of reservations, stating it was “confident that the related pledge ‘no one will be left behind’ would be read” as meaning “the right to life of the person, from conception until natural death.”

Saudi Arabia went one step further, declaring that the country would not follow any international rules relating to the SDGs that reference sexual orientation or gender identity, describing them as running “counter to Islamic law.”

General Assembly (GA)

Anti-rights actors have made increasing headway at the UN General Assembly (GA).  Most recently, during the 71st session in 2016, the GA was the scene of feverish anti-rights organizing in opposition to the new mandate created by the Human Rights Council resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity in June 2016: the Independent Expert on SOGI. Four separate attempts were made to undercut the mandate in GA spaces.

One approach was to introduce a hostile resolution at the Third Committee[1], led by the African Group, which in essence aimed to indefinitely defer the new mandate. While this approach was not successful, such an attempt in the GA to retroactively block the creation of a mandate brought forward by the Human Rights Council represented a new and troubling tactic - anti-right actors are now working to directly undermine the HRC’s authority respective to the General Assembly.

Another approach targeted the Fifth Committee (responsible for administration and budgetary matters) as an entry point to attack the mandate. In an unprecedented move a number of States attempted (again, unsuccessfully) to block the funding of UN human rights experts, including the new IE on SOGI[2],.

While these multiple efforts were unsuccessful in blocking the creation and continuation of the new mandate, the significant support they received, the novel strategizing employed, and the strong alliances built along regional lines through negotiations point to difficulties ahead.


[1] The Third Committee of the GA deals with agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs, and human rights issues.  Each year it discusses and issues resolutions on issues including the advancement of women, the protection of children, family, and youth.

[2] While UN Special Procedures experts (i.e. Special Rapporteurs, Working Group members and Independent Experts) work pro bono, some funds are generally allocated to facilitate country visits on the invitation of the national government, and support staff.

 


Other Chapters

Read the full report

Qual é a definição de financiamento externo?

Financiamento externo inclui subsídios e outras formas de financiamento de fundações filantrópicas, governos, financiadores bilaterais, multilaterais ou empresariais, e doadores individuais, tanto a nível nacional como internacional. Não inclui recursos gerados autonomamente por grupos, organizações e/ou movimentos, como, por exemplo, quotas de membres, contribuições voluntárias de colaboradores, membres e/ou apoiantes, angariações de fundos comunitários, aluguer de espaços ou venda de serviços. Para facilitar a consulta, estão incluídas no inquérito definições dos diferentes tipos de financiamento e descrições resumidas de diferentes doadores.

Snippet FEA collaborator and allies Photo 5 (EN)

This photo represents a group of 15 workers sitting together in a living room with white walls. Some are sleeping, others are standing, talking with each other, or watching their phones.

Sala de prensa

AWID en los medios

Compilación de noticias sobre la organización y/o el trabajo de AWID


 

 


Notas de prensa

Notas de prensa, dosieres y kits


 

Kits de social media

Contacto para medios

Email de contacto

+1 416 594 3773

لغتي ليست واحدة من لغات الاستطلاع الرسمية ولدي صعوبة بتعبئته. ماذا يمكن أن أفعل؟

تلتزم جمعية حقوق المرأة في التنمية بالعدالة اللغوية ونأسف على عدم توفر الاستطلاع بلغات أخرى في الوقت الحالي. إن كنتم/ن بحاجة لدعم من مترجم/ة أو أردتم/ن تعبئة الاستطلاع بأي لغة أخرى، الرجاء الكتابة لنا عبر البريد الالكتروني: witm@awid.org

Snippet FEA lines of work Against (ES)

Ilustración un libro rosa que dice "Derechos laborales" con una X roja

VIOLACIONES DE DERECHOS LABORALES

Here are your report and infographics: Toward a feminist funding ecosystem

Сколько времени занимает заполнение опроса?

Ориентировочное время для завершения опроса составляет 30 минут.

Snippet FEA Wage Parity (FR)

Illustration de deux personnes à la peau blanche portant des lunettes, à gauche en arrière-plan se trouve un mand et à droite au premier plan se trouve une femme. Le fond est turquoise.

LA PARITÉ SALARIALE

Reason to join 2

Trouvez et créez des connexions. L’AWID compte plus de 6 000 membres, qui s’efforcent tou·te·s de résoudre des questions complémentaires et interconnectées. Cette diversité favorise la pérennité des mouvements et acteures féministes.