Black Panther, the film, presents the United Nations as a peaceful alternative to an armed revolution. But can this intergovernmental institution truly live up to such expectations?

International Women’s Day, firmly rooted in the struggles of women, is the perfect occasion to recall that we will not be on the path of gender equality without a binding treaty. States must support and engage constructively in the negotiations if they truly wish to champion women’s rights. 

The 36th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council ended in the final days of September with a few successes, a few question marks and a few “I can’t believe I just heard that” moments.

HRC36 allowed another round of governments playing state games, wielding power to their advantage and using ideas about culture, sovereignty and neoliberal economic policy as tactics to assert regional or national dominance.

For better and for worse, women’s human rights concerns remained a theme throughout.

The Human Rights Council (HRC), which generally meets three times a year in Geneva, is the UN’s main human rights “political body” where governments both advance human rights standards but also fight out political conflicts. In this session, the “big ticket” regional discussions focused on Syria and Palestine. Government delegations argued, of course in the most diplomatic of terms, about the Assad regime and the Israeli government occupation of Palestine and what strategies need to be adopted or stopped to end the human rights and humanitarian crises there.

But each Council session also convenes discussions in which governments adopt country and thematic resolutions. Gender and sexuality issues are often in the hidden fibers of these debates.

The Question of the Death Penalty

One of the most controversial resolutions focused on the “question of the death penalty” – but not actually whether the use of it infringes on human rights, which, of course it does. The death penalty violates, for instance, not only the right to life but also the right to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As governments haven’t been able to come to agreement about banning its use, they continue to give one another permission to legally kill, based on claims to sovereignty of national legal systems. 

In this case, the Council resolution focused on the right to equality and discriminatory application in the use of the death penalty, with some emphasis on “deploring” and “condemning” execution of those exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, those under 18 at the time of the crime, people with mental or intellectual disabilities, and in an interesting nod to gender and sexual rights, concerns about killing of pregnant women, people who engage in same-sex sexual relations and those who engage in adultery.

As for that last item, the final resolution noted the disproportionate use of the death penalty to punish women who have sex outside of heterosexual marriage (of course it didn’t use that exact language, but heteronormativity is implied).

The language of adultery and the focus on women is a good development in promoting a gendered analysis of state killing. So is the referencing of people who are killed because of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Some delegations opposed these references to gender and sexuality with thinly veiled extremist arguments - they argued that the language of the resolution challenged their national and cultural systems.

In other words, they argued that because their cultures or legal systems allow for killing people who engage in certain sexual behaviours, they couldn’t vote to support the non-discrimination language - or sometimes any language - in the text. There were close to ten amendments proposed to the resolution – all put forward by Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - to limit its reach. Two were focused on the issue of sovereignty itself. All amendments were defeated, yet human rights and sexual rights advocates have reason to be concerned as some votes were a bit too close for comfort.

These states voted against the resolution: Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the United States.

One note about the final vote and post Council media: since the Council ended, a few media outlets have used a “gay spin” in their coverage about the death penalty resolution that’s a bit misleading. They have implied that the US voted against the resolution because it referenced consensual same-sex behavior. In fact, sometimes their spin made this seem like that reference was at the core of the resolution. But, in reality, the US generally votes against any death penalty resolution because execution is still legal – and used (as recently as in early October in the states of Alabama, Florida and Texas) - as a form of punishment.

So, the content of any resolution may not matter much: The US will still oppose it.

This is a joint written contribution by 14 organisations*, including AWID, submitted to the third session of the UN Open-ended intergovernmental working group (IGWG) on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, on 23 October 2017.

AWID took to Geneva this June to participate in the 35th session of the Human Rights Council (HRC).   The HRC is the key intergovernmental body within the United Nations system responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.

With the global surge to the right and the attacks on civic space, many hope that powerful corporations can be allies for the civil society. Among them, the panelists of  “The Business Case for Civic Space”, a public event organized by CIVICUS, on 14 June 2017, in the headquarters of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The panelists included high level UN leadership and a Microsoft representative.

Women Human Rights Defenders are at the forefront of rights struggles. WHRDs are targeted because of our work, including for what we do, the fact that we do it, and the identities we carry.

AWID and partners express our strong concerns about the draft resolution on the protection of the family. We are concerned that the resolution attempts to instrumentalize older persons and their rights.

AWID works with partners to share key knowledge, convene civil society dialogues and events, and influence negotiations and outcomes of the 35th session of the Human Rights Council. We met with Meghan Doherty, Cynthia Rothschild and Alejandra Sardá-Chandiramani, who are involved in this process. They reflect on their perspective.

As we look ahead to the 35th session of the Human Rights Council we share a refresher on key progressive language relating to religion, culture, and tradition that came out of the last session (27 February - 24 March 2017).