Publications

On June 4, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that ended the constitutional right to abortion in the US. Following the ruling, many states have moved to ban abortion and issue new restrictions on abortion care. This factsheet answers questions about protections for abortion under international law. Over the last few decades, multiple human rights treaties have been developed that, together, establish reproductive autonomy as a human right. 1. What human rights treaties has the US ratified? There are nine core international human rights treaties that together establish standards for the protection and promotion of human rights. The US has ratified three: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). These treaties are binding, and as such they require the US to comply with its international human rights obligations, one of which is ensuring access to abortion. Additionally, the US has signed but not ratified other relevant treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and has an obligation not to defeat those treaties’ object or purpose. 2. Who enforces these treaties? How do they hold the US accountable? Implementation of the human rights treaties is monitored by treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee (which monitors the ICCPR), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Committee against Torture. Treaty bodies periodically review States parties for their compliance with their treaty obligations. The treaty bodies undertake a variety of activities, including reviewing States parties reports, issuing concluding observations and recommendations, considering complaints, and conducting inquiries. For example, in August 2022 the CERD’s concluding observations specifically called on the US to take all necessary measures — at the federal and state level — to provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion in line with its international human rights obligations. Download Full Factsheet

We write because your administration’s consistently yielding response to the Israeli government’s escalating attacks against prominent Palestinian human rights and civil society groups over the past 10 months has put the safety and well-being of Palestinian human rights defenders at serious risk. We call for immediate action in response to the Israeli government’s latest escalation so as to curtail any further imminent repressive tactics by Israeli authorities and ensure Palestinian civil society is free to continue its critical work.

On 11 November 2019, the Republic of The Gambia filed suit against the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) for violating the Genocide Convention. Two months later at the request of The Gambia, the ICJ ordered the government of Myanmar to take certain actions to protect the Rohingya via “provisional measures” while the case proceeds. This historic lawsuit brings a critical focus to Myanmar’s responsibility as a state for the Rohingya genocide.

As a human rights non-governmental organization, we write to express our deep concern with the Commission, its work to date, and the potential harm that a final report produced by the Commission, in line with its mandate and the views expressed by several of its members, may have on the international human rights framework.

As human rights organizations, scholars, defenders and activists, we the 167 undersigned, write to express our grave concern about the work of the U.S. State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights and any potential report or output that undermines the international human rights system and purports to reinterpret its respective treaties and monitoring bodies. In particular, we urge the Commission to reject the prioritization of freedom of religion as a cloak to permit violations of the human rights of women, girls, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

Gender permeates the planning, commission, and resolution of criminal acts within the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. It is woven into perpetrators’ planning and commission of crimes, as well as victims’ (individual and collective) experience and recovery of acts committed against them. Accordingly, gender must be a central criterion in the group of independent experts’ review of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “the Court”) and the Rome Statute system. Laudably, the Rome Statute was among the first international treaties to extensively address sexual and gender-based violence. Moreover, from the beginning of her term ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has made it a priority to close the gender justice gap, as evidenced by her Policy Paper on Sexual and GenderBased Crimes, the first ever such policy for an international court or tribunal. Despite these foundational pillars and priorities, in the 18 years of the Court’s operation there has only been one standing conviction on sexual violence. This submission highlights avenues for improving gender justice at varying stages of a case. It identifies opportunities for progress regarding staffing and prosecutorial strategies on case selection, prioritization, and investigation that hinder access to justice in these cases. Until gender is mainstreamed throughout all stages of ICC cases, the Court will be limited in its capacity to deliver justice.

Executive Summary During the United States’ (“US”) second-cycle Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”), multiple recommendations were made with respect to US abortion restrictions on foreign assistance, including the Helms Amendment. The US has failed to take any action on these recommendations, and in fact, in 2017, the Trump Administration entrenched and expanded the scope of these policies further with the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule (or “GGR”, officially termed “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance”). This submission highlights continuing concerns over these US policies which impose blanket prohibitions on abortion services and speech, in violation of US obligations under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, customary international law, and UN Security Council Resolutions. Download PDF

by Eva Marie Wüst Vestergaard The inauguration of president-elect Donald Trump is one week away, and with it comes enormous potential for violations of international law. President-elect Trump has proposed plans for laws and policies that discriminate based on religion, race and gender. If enacted, these policies would have a shattering effect on America’s democracy, and must be prevented by all means. Many of Trump’s statements over the course of the campaign trail involved religious and racial discrimination. For example, when talking with ABC News in November 2015, he proposed setting up a database just of refugees; “I want a database for the refugees that — if they come into the country. We have no idea who these people are. When the Syrian refugees are going to start pouring into this country, we don’t know if they’re ISIS, we don’t know if it’s a Trojan horse.” Such proposals are not just morally wrong, but can also lead to negative consequences for the country. Racial discrimination causes harm on an individual level by dehumanizing the one who is subject to racism. On a societal level, it demoralizes a society that should be based on equality and democracy. Religious freedom, or the right to have your own beliefs, is a foundational doctrine of the US. The idea that the state should not interfere with citizen’s beliefs is at the core of American values. Therefore, this proposal would have devastating consequences for American ideals and the global rule of law if fulfilled. Trump has also issued many statements that constitute gender discrimination. In an interview with ABC News in 1994 he said, “Putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing,” and in an interview with NBC in 2004 he said, “[Pregnancy is] a wonderful thing for the woman, it’s a wonderful thing for the husband, it’s certainly an inconvenience for a business. And whether people want to say that or not, the fact is it is an inconvenience for a person that is running a business.” This perception of women being unequal to men, and not involving women in the labor market, is wrong because it, as with racial discrimination, leads to an unequal and unjust society. To achieve gender equality, women must be in power equally with men so that there can be a true representative democracy. International laws are created to protect civil society from threats and ensure progress. These promises of discrimination violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating that everyone is “born free and equal in dignity and rights.” They also violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that obliges States Parties to ensure equal rights and circumvent discrimination. The US holds obligations to prevent discrimination as a member state of these conventions. The US has been defined by democracy, equality, and freedom throughout history up until today. This is what makes America great. That is the reason why America must hold onto these values, and why the international community must hold America responsible if it breaks them. Photo: Gage Skidmore

As a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Myanmar must fulfill its obligations to ensure both de jure and de facto equality for women. Yet, despite these obligations, women and girls across Myanmar face multiple obstacles to realizing their rights to substantive equality and non-discrimination. A deep history of patriarchy and negative gender stereotypes, decades of oppressive military dictatorship, and the continued power of the military have left an unfavorable legacy in the form of legal structures that discriminate against women, legal provisions that do not guarantee gender equality or adequately protect women, and inadequate resource allocation to promote policies and programmes to ensure women’s empowerment. These deeply-embedded shortcomings have meant that women in large part have not been the beneficiaries of the democratic reforms begun in 2011 and continue to be marginalized in politics and the peace process. With a new government in charge, there is a unique opportunity in Myanmar to undertake wide-ranging legal and institutional reform to ensure that women are able to enjoy rights as equal citizens. The Government must work in tandem with civil society to ensure progress, to promote women’s rights and fulfill its obligations under CEDAW.