Confronting Extractivism & Corporate Power

Women human rights defenders (WHRDs) worldwide defend their lands, livelihoods and communities from extractive industries and corporate power. They stand against powerful economic and political interests driving land theft, displacement of communities, loss of livelihoods, and environmental degradation.


Why resist extractive industries?

Extractivism is an economic and political model of development that commodifies nature and prioritizes profit over human rights and the environment. Rooted in colonial history, it reinforces social and economic inequalities locally and globally. Often, Black, rural and Indigenous women are the most affected by extractivism, and are largely excluded from decision-making. Defying these patriarchal and neo-colonial forces, women rise in defense of rights, lands, people and nature.

Critical risks and gender-specific violence

WHRDs confronting extractive industries experience a range of risks, threats and violations, including criminalization, stigmatization, violence and intimidation.  Their stories reveal a strong aspect of gendered and sexualized violence. Perpetrators include state and local authorities, corporations, police, military, paramilitary and private security forces, and at times their own communities.

Acting together

AWID and the Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition (WHRD-IC) are pleased to announce “Women Human Rights Defenders Confronting Extractivism and Corporate Power”; a cross-regional research project documenting the lived experiences of WHRDs from Asia, Africa and Latin America.

We encourage activists, members of social movements, organized civil society, donors and policy makers to read and use these products for advocacy, education and inspiration.

Share your experience and questions!

Tell us how you are using the resources on WHRDs Confronting extractivism and corporate power.

◾️ How can these resources support your activism and advocacy?

◾️ What additional information or knowledge do you need to make the best use of these resources?

Share your feedback


Thank you!

AWID acknowledges with gratitude the invaluable input of every Woman Human Rights Defender who participated in this project. This project was made possible thanks to your willingness to generously and openly share your experiences and learnings. Your courage, creativity and resilience is an inspiration for us all. Thank you!

Related Content

Snippet FEA Get Involved Story 3 (EN)

GET INVOLVED!

Follow the cooperative's work on Facebook and Instagram, share their campaigns and stay tuned to their actions and fundraising events!

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

As realidades de financiamento para movimentos feministas mudam rapidamente. Este questionário é um ocorrência única?

Não. Tem por base a história de 20 anos da AWID de mobilizar mais financiamento de maior qualidade para mudanças sociais lideradas por feministas e é a terceira edição do nosso inquérito “Onde está o dinheiro para organização feminista?”. O nosso objetivo é repetir o inquérito WITM a cada 3 anos.

Yelena Grigoriyeva

Yelena Grigoriyeva, often called Lena by friends, was a prominent LGBT rights campaigner in Russia.

She was part of democratic, anti-war and LGBT movements. In her activism, Yelena was a fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin and his administration, expressing her opposition against Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula and the ill-treatment of prisoners. 

Yelena came out as bisexual earlier in 2019.

"Her coming out was a surprise to me, and I didn't approve of it. I told her 'Listen, Lena, you already have a target painted on you because of your political activity. You've just pinned another to your chest."
- Olga Smirnova

Yelena did receive multiple death threats and according to some of her acquaintances, was listed on a homophobic website that called on its visitors to hunt down LGBT persons. She reported the threats to the police, however the Russian state failed to provide protection. 

But even in a society where political opposition, as well as members of the LGBT community and advocates for their rights, face continuous and increasing violence, Yelena kept campaigning for social justice and equality.

“She did not miss a single action. And they detained her so often that I already lost count,”
- Olga Smirnova (fellow opposition activist and friend).

Yelena was murdered on 21 July 2019, not far from home. A suspect was arrested but according to some sources, many friends and fellow activists believe that the suspect is a scapegoat and that this was a targeted political killing. 

For Yelena’s relatives and friends, her case remains unsolved even though the suspect confessed. 

In 2013, Russia passed legislation banning the spreading of what it described as ‘gay propaganda’. In 2014, Human Rights Watch published a report relating to this. 

Body

Snippet FEA Who takes care of them S4 (ES)

...¿QUIÉN LES CUIDA A ELLXS?

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

هل يمكنني التواصل مع أي أحد إن كانت لدي أسئلة أو أمور تثير قلقي؟

إن كانت لديكم/ن أسئلة أو أمور تثير قلقكم/ن، الرجاء التوجه الينا عن طريق هذا النموذج وكتابة "استطلاع أين المال" في العنوان أو راسلنا على witm@awid.org

Magaly Quintana

Magaly Quintana era conocida por muchxs en Nicaragua como 'La Maga'. Fue una historiadora feminista, activista y defensora inquebrantable de los derechos de las mujeres que exigía justicia para las víctimas de femicidio.

Magaly se comprometió a documentar y elaborar estadísticas sobre las mujeres y niñas que fueron asesinadas como resultado de la violencia sexual en el país.

"Ella reconstruyó la vida de cada una, de sus familias, para mostrar así las vidas que habían sido  destrozadas". - Dora María Téllez

Magaly también criticó al gobierno por la reforma de la Ley 779 que trata la violencia contra las mujeres.  Como resultado del arduo trabajo de los movimientos de mujeres nicaragüenses, esta ley, antes de su reforma, incluía importantes disposiciones para penalizar el femicidio. Magaly argumentó que estas reformas legislativas debilitaban la ley, y limitaban la definición de los femicidios a homicidios, invisibilizando, como resultado, los delitos violentos contra las mujeres.

La organización feminista de Magaly se fundó a principios de los ‘80. Fue la directora de Mujeres Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir, que defiende el derecho al aborto terapéutico tras su prohibición en 2006. En 2018, apoyó las protestas contra el gobierno de Daniel Ortega.

Magaly nació en mayo de 1952 y falleció en mayo de 2019.

"Hasta luego, mi querida Magaly Quintana. Muchas gracias, gracias por tu legado. Te veremos de nuevo, tan fuerte y poderosa como siempre."- Erika Guevara Rosas (Directora Americana de Amnistía Internacional).
 

Snippet FEA collaborator and allies Photo 2 (FR)

La photo montre huit femmes se tenant ensemble lors d'une manifestation. Beaucoup tiennent des banderoles tandis que Sopo tient le mégaphone près de la bouche d'une ouvrière aux cheveux roux courts, portant une écharpe blanche et un manteau noir, qui lit un manifeste.

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

AWID Community Jobs board - EN

Community Jobs Board

Are you job hunting? One of the perks of joining the AWID Community, is getting access to our community curated jobs board. You'll get to explore new opportunities, and you will also have the chance to share vacancies and call for proposals with all members.

Janet Benshoof

Janet Benshoof était une avocate des droits humains oeuvrant aux États-Unis et défenseure de l’égalité des femmes et de leurs droits sexuels et reproductifs.

Elle a milité pour l’élargissement de l’accès à la contraception et à l’avortement dans le monde entier, et s’est battue contre des décisions anti-avortement dans le territoire américain de Guam. Arrêtée en 1990 pour son opposition à la loi anti-avortement la plus restrictive de son pays, elle a remporté une mise en demeure [MB1] au tribunal local à Guam qui a bloqué la loi, pour ensuite remporter l’affaire devant la Cour d’Appel de Ninth Circuit, décision qui devait supprimer définitivement celle-ci.

 « Les femmes à Guam sont dans une situation absolument dramatique. Je n’ai nullement l’intention d’arrêter d’en parler », Janet Benshoof pour People Magazine

Janet a créé plusieurs précédents juridiques, dont l’approbation par l’US Food and Drug Administration de la contraception d’urgence, ainsi que l’application du droit international afin de garantir leurs droits aux victimes de viol lors des poursuites pour crimes de guerre de l’époque de Saddam Hussein, devant la Cour Suprême iraqienne. 

Janet était présidente et fondatrice du Global Justice Center, ainsi que fondatrice du Center for Reproductive Rights, la première organisation internationale pour les droits humains, centrée sur le choix reproductif et l’égalité. Elle a siégé pendant 15 ans en tant que directrice du projet pour les droits reproductifs de l’American Civil Liberties Union, où elle a mené de nombreuses procédures juridiques qui ont contribué à façonner la loi constitutionnelle des États-Unis sur l’égalité de genre, la liberté d’expression et les droits reproductifs.

 « Janet était connue pour son brillant esprit juridique, son sens de l’humour vif et son courage face à l’injustice », Anthony D. Romero.

Nommée l’une des « 100 avocat·e·s les plus influent·e·s d’Amérique » par le National Law Journal, Janet a reçu de nombreux prix et distinctions. 

Née en mai 1947, Janet est décédée en décembre 2017. 

Snippet FEA Meet the Solidarity Network (EN)

SOLIDARITY NETWORK

Meet the Solidarity Network, a health and service union mostly led by women. Emerging as a response to increasing precarity, severe underpayment and hostile work environments faced by workers in Georgia, Solidarity Network fights for dignified compensation and work places.

Its goal? To create a national worker’s democratic movement. To do so, it has been branching out, organizing and teaming up with other local and regional unions and slowly creating a network of unions and empowering women workers to become union leaders.

Its political approach is a holistic one. For Solidarity Network, labor rights issues are directly connected to broader national political and economic agendas and reforms. That’s why they are pushing for tax justice, women and LGBTQIA+ rights, and fighting against the dismantling of the Georgian welfare state.

The Solidarity Network is also part of Transnational Social Strike (TSS), a political platform and infrastructure inspired by migrant, women and essential worker organizing that works to build connections between labor movements across borders and nurture global solidarity.