Home › Legal › UN resolutions on gender

UN resolutions on gender

The United Nations has, through the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, adopted several resolutions that touch on violence and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). These resolutions are not legally binding and — contrary to what is sometimes suggested in Dutch policy documents — there is no global consensus on the term "gender" and the recognition of "gender identity" as a protected ground. UN discourse on gender is politically contested and the voting patterns in Geneva and New York reflect that.

The UN system in brief

The relevant bodies are:

• The Human Rights Council (HRC): an intergovernmental body that adopts resolutions and commissions reports.
• The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): the secretariat that conducts research and reports.
• The General Assembly: the plenary body issuing broad declarations.
• Treaty bodies: monitoring bodies for treaties such as the ICCPR and CEDAW.

Key Human Rights Council resolutions

Resolution 17/19 (2011) was the first UN resolution to give explicit attention to human rights violations on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The resolution was adopted with 23 votes in favour, 19 against and 3 abstentions — hardly an overwhelming majority. Follow-up resolutions (27/32 in 2014, 32/2 in 2016) established and renewed the mandate of an Independent Expert on SOGI. Each time this was adopted with narrow margins and considerable opposition from African, Asian and Islamic member states. The mandate of the IE SOGI is not a treaty provision; it can in principle also be withdrawn.

More information is available on the website of the OHCHR.

The contested nature of "gender" in UN documents

The word "gender" is politically charged in UN jargon. During negotiations on conference declarations its meaning is debated heavily each year. Two positions face one another:

• An interpretation in which "gender" refers only to the social dimension of men and women — effectively synonymous with "sex" in a sociological context. This reading was even explicitly laid down by the UN General Assembly when adopting the Rome Statute (1998): "the term \"gender\" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society."
• A broader reading in which "gender" also encompasses "gender identity" apart from biological sex. This view is advanced by Western states, NGOs and the Independent Expert on SOGI, but is not accepted by a considerable part of the UN membership.

The Russian Federation, a number of African and Asian countries and the Holy See repeatedly call for reaffirmation of the narrow definition. In the CEDAW context there is a similar tension: the convention protects "women", which various states interpret exclusively as biological, while the CEDAW Committee in General Recommendations uses a broader interpretation.

Women's rights and the term "gender"

An important and, in the Netherlands, under-reported critique comes from feminist circles. As "gender" gradually came to encompass "gender identity" in the UN context, data and rights previously focused on "women" (in the sense of biological sex) became conceptually blurred. A number of feminist thinkers and organisations (DBT, Women's Declaration International, many rapporteurs in the CEDAW context) point out that precise terminology is necessary in order to continue to address, for instance, female genital mutilation, maternal mortality, unpaid care work and sexual violence coherently.

The Independent Expert on SOGI

The IE SOGI reports annually to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. The position is not uncontested; at each mandate renewal motions are tabled to abolish the function, each time with substantial votes against. The substantive output of the expert is regarded by some states as policy proposals rather than human rights interpretation.

Treaty bodies

Treaty bodies such as the Human Rights Committee (ICCPR) and CEDAW make recommendations to states. These "concluding observations" are not binding, but are presented as authoritative interpretation. A number of states, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have explicitly objected to interpretations that extend the original treaty text.

The Netherlands and the UN

The Netherlands voted in favour of the SOGI resolutions and contributes financially to the IE SOGI mandate. At the same time, the Netherlands itself receives recommendations from treaty bodies, for instance on the position of women in employment and violence against women — areas where the conflation of "sex" and "gender" in official statistics has now become a methodological challenge.