
Faith Kandaba

The Human Rights Council (HRC) is the key intergovernmental body within the United Nations system responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe. It holds three regular sessions a year: in March, June and September. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is the secretariat for the HRC.
Debating and passing resolutions on global human rights issues and human rights situations in particular countries
Examining complaints from victims of human rights violations or activist organizations on behalf of victims of human rights violations
Appointing independent experts (known as “Special Procedures”) to review human rights violations in specific countries and examine and further global human rights issues
Engaging in discussions with experts and governments on human rights issues
Assessing the human rights records of all UN Member States every four and a half years through the Universal Periodic Review
AWID works with feminist, progressive and human rights partners to share key knowledge, convene civil society dialogues and events, and influence negotiations and outcomes of the session.
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.
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.
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.
This section is based on CWGL’s blog “Applying a Human Rights Framework to Macroeconomic Policies” (2012).
إيستر لوبيز راقصة وكاتبة تركز أبحاثها على الجسد والنوع والعرق والعلاقات الطبقية. هي مدرّبة بيلاتيس ومعلمة فنون. تخرجت إستر في دراسة المسرح المعاصر – العمليات الإبداعية (في FAINC) وفي الرقص والوعي بالجسم (في USCS). يشمل تخصصها الموسيقي الغناء الشعبي والإيقاع. تلقت تدريبًا في “نوفوس برينكانتس” مع فليرا فيرو وماتيوس برادو وأنطونيو مييرا في معهد Brincante في عامي 2015 و 2016.
Sí, por favor. El mundo ha cambiado desde 2021, y te invitamos a proponer una actividad que refleje tus realidades y prioridades actuales.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Compilación de noticias sobre la organización y/o el trabajo de AWID
Notas de prensa, dosieres y kits
«Este sería un buen momento para repensar cómo podría ser la revolución. Quizás no sera una marcha por las calles de cuerpos enojados y sin discapacidades. Quizás será más como el mundo detenido porque todos los cuerpos que hay en él están exhaustos: porque el cuidado debe ser priorizado antes de que sea demasiado tarde.»
- Johanna Hedva
Los hospitales son instituciones, espacios vivientes del capitalismo, y lo que se manifiesta cuando alguien está supuestamente haciendo reposo allí es un microcosmos del sistema en que vivimos.
Las instituciones están organizadas para separarnos de nuestros sistemas de cuidados: en ellas nos encontramos aisladxs en estructuras rígidamente jerárquicas, y a menudo sentimos como si ese cuidado fuera algo que se nos hace a nosotrxs, en lugar de algo dado/recibido como parte de una conversación. Debido a su integración en la demanda capitalista, el cuidado institucional está compartimentado: una persona trata tu pierna y solo tu pierna, otra persona trata tu presión arterial, etc.
El mes pasado, la fotógrafa Mariam Mekiwi tuvo que someterse a una cirugía y documentó el proceso. Sus imágenes de entornos esterilizados (luces blancas de neón, filas y filas de estructuras repetitivas), con una paleta de colores desteñidos, reflejan un lugar que estaba vaciado de vida y de movimiento. Esta fue una de las formas en que Mariam mantuvo vivo su propio espíritu. Era una forma de protesta desde dentro de los confines de una institución con la cual tenía que interactuar.
Las fotos constituyen un retrato de algo increíblemente vulnerable, porque observar a alguien atravesar el colapso de su propio cuerpo es siempre un recordatorio sagrado de nuestra fragilidad. Son también un testimonio de la fragilidad de estos sistemas de cuidado, que nos pueden ser negados por diversas razones: desde no tener dinero hasta no estar en un cuerpo considerado lo suficientemente valioso, un cuerpo que es quizás demasiado femenino, demasiado queer, o demasiado marrón.
El cuidado experimentado como algo desencarnado y solitario, que puede ser revocado en cualquier momento, no nos ayuda a prosperar. Y es muy diferente del modo en que los seres humanos se comportan en la realidad cuando cuidan unos de otros. ¿En qué sería diferente nuestro mundo si nos comprometiéramos a desmantelar las actuales estructuras capitalistas referidas a nuestra salud? ¿Cómo sería nuestro mundo si lo reinventáramos en forma radical?
Click on the image to open the PDF
![]() |
Where we are now |
Where we want to be |
Current funding by sector |
Download & share | Download & share | Download & share |
Consejo editorial Co-editorxs Diseño e ilustración Estratega de las comunicaciones Editora de la versión árabe Responsable de la traducción
Corrección |
Traducciones árabes
Corrección
Corrección |
La información contenida en esta comunicación es confidencial y está destinada exclusivamente la persona que lo recibe.
Esta comunicación podría contener información que es propiedad de la Asociación para los Derechos de las Mujeres y el Desarrollo (AWID, por sus siglas en inglés). Esta información no puede reproducirse ni diseminarse ni parcialmente ni en su totalidad sin el consentimiento escrito de AWID.
AWID no garantiza que la información aquí contenida sea completa o correcta. Esta comunicación no es una oferta para elaborar ningún tipo de acuerdo y no es una confirmación de ningún acuerdo descrito en este documento, a menos que el contexto indique claramente lo contrario.
AWID no está actuando en calidad de asesora de ningún acuerdo que pueda surgir de este documento, y esta comunicación no constituye una recomendación, guía o propuesta para elaborar un acuerdo.
AWID no garantiza o asegura los resultados esperados de cualquier acuerdo. Esta comunicación puede contener puntos de vista y opiniones que pueden no corresponderse con aquellos de AWID.
No tendrá derecho a utilizar la información contenida en esta comunicación con fines de llegar a cualquier tipo de propuesta de acuerdo u otro.
عندما كنت في السادسة من العمر، علِمت أنّ جدّي كان يملك داراً للسينما. أخبرَتني أمّي كيف أنه افتتحها في أوائل الستينيّات، وكانت هي حينها في مثل عمري، إذ كان عمرها قُرابة الستّ سنوات. تذكّرتُ أنهم في الليلة الأولى عرضوا فيلم «صوت الموسيقى».