Report on a UN Human Rights Debate and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A significant debate has emerged within the United Nations human rights framework concerning the definition of “woman” in the context of international rights and protections. The controversy centers on the work of Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, whose recent report has been met with both strong support and considerable opposition. This report details the core issues, stakeholder actions, and the direct implications for the advancement of Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality) and Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Chronology of Events and Stakeholder Positions

The current discourse stems from a series of actions and responses involving the Special Rapporteur, media organizations, civil society groups, and UN bodies.

1. Publication of the Special Rapporteur’s Report: Ms. Alsalem released a report (A/HRC/59/47) to the Human Rights Council that called for the protection of women and girls to be based on their biological sex. This position is framed by her mandate to address violence against women, a key component of SDG 5, Target 5.2.
2. Criticism from Advocacy and Media Groups: The report was criticized by several organizations, including the Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI), and in an article by Geneva Solutions. These groups argue that Ms. Alsalem’s approach undermines a more inclusive understanding of gender equality that is essential for achieving SDG 5 for all.
3. The Special Rapporteur’s Rebuttal: Ms. Alsalem issued a formal response, stating that the criticism misrepresents her work and reinforces the challenges faced by women’s rights defenders. She asserted that her position has substantial global support from numerous women’s organizations.
4. Institutional Process Concerns: Ms. Alsalem reported a delay by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in publishing her response online. This incident raises questions related to institutional procedures and the operational integrity of UN mechanisms, which are central to SDG 16. The response was eventually published.

Analysis of Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 5: Gender Equality

The debate directly impacts the global strategy for achieving gender equality. Key points of contention include:

• Defining the Beneficiaries of Protections: The core of the conflict is the definition of “woman” and “girl” for the purposes of policy, data collection, and the implementation of protections against discrimination and violence (Targets 5.1 and 5.2).
• Competing Frameworks: One framework, advocated by the Special Rapporteur, prioritizes sex-based rights to safeguard spaces and protections for biological women. The opposing framework, promoted by her critics, advocates for a gender identity-inclusive approach to ensure that the rights of transgender individuals are also protected under the umbrella of gender equality.
• Policy Implications: The outcome of this debate could influence how member states and UN agencies design and implement programs aimed at ending all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The controversy also has significant implications for the strength and impartiality of international institutions.

• Independence of UN Mandate Holders: The public criticism and institutional friction experienced by the Special Rapporteur highlight the pressures faced by independent experts within the UN system. The effective functioning of these mandates is a cornerstone of building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions.
• Institutional Accountability: The reported delay in the publication of Ms. Alsalem’s official response by the OHCHR points to potential challenges in ensuring transparent and accountable processes within UN bodies, which is fundamental to Target 16.6 (Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels).
• Role of Civil Society and Media: The situation underscores the influential role of media and civil society partnerships (related to SDG 17) in shaping human rights discourse, while also bringing to light the potential for conflict and bias within these multi-stakeholder dynamics.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem’s work reveals a fundamental cleavage in the international approach to gender equality. While the conflict presents challenges to the coherence of efforts under SDG 5, Ms. Alsalem has expressed that the increased visibility, however contentious, provides an opportunity for public discourse and discernment. This highlights the complex and evolving nature of implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly in areas involving deeply held norms and definitions of human rights.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 5: Gender Equality – The article’s core subject is the debate over the definition of “woman” and the best way to protect women’s rights and achieve equality, which is central to SDG 5.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article highlights a conflict within the UN system, questioning the accountability, transparency, and fairness of its institutions, specifically the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It also touches upon the protection of fundamental freedoms for a UN expert.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – The text describes the interactions and conflicts between various stakeholders, including UN bodies, media groups (Geneva Solutions), and civil society organizations (Sexual Rights Initiative, women’s organizations supporting Alsalem), which relates to the multi-stakeholder partnerships essential for the SDGs.

Identified SDG Targets

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

   The article revolves around a fundamental disagreement on how to define “women and girls” for the purpose of rights and protections. Reem Alsalem’s report “called on countries to fight against gender ideology and to defend women based on their biological status as women,” arguing this is necessary to prevent discrimination against them. This directly engages with the implementation of policies aimed at ending discrimination.

2. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.

   This target is directly relevant as it is the specific mandate of the expert at the center of the article, Reem Alsalem, the “UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls.” The entire debate is framed within the context of her work and her reports on how to best ensure the safety and equality of women.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The article calls the accountability and transparency of a UN institution into question. It states that “The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights initially refused to publish her response on the UN website” and that Alsalem accused the office of using a “pretext.” This points to a perceived lack of institutional accountability and transparency within the UN system itself.

4. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

   This target is implicated by the actions taken against the UN expert. The article describes how Alsalem is being “threatened, smeared and undermined for asserting their dignity.” Furthermore, the attempt by the UN rights office to block the publication of her official response is a direct challenge to ensuring public access to information and protecting the freedom of a UN-mandated expert to express her professional conclusions.

5. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

   The article illustrates the complex and often conflicting nature of these partnerships. It identifies several actors: a UN-satellite media group (Geneva Solutions), a civil society group backed by an international NGO (Sexual Rights Initiative, backed by Planned Parenthood’s Canadian branch), and other “hundreds of individual women and women’s organizations” that support Alsalem. The conflict described shows a breakdown in effective partnership, highlighting the challenges in achieving consensus among different stakeholders.

Mentioned or Implied Indicators

1. Implied Indicator for Target 5.c (Adopt and strengthen sound policies): The existence and content of policy-guiding reports.

   The article repeatedly mentions Alsalem’s “latest report (A/HRC/59/47) to the Human Rights Council.” This report, which calls on countries to adopt a specific approach to women’s rights based on biology, serves as a tangible, albeit qualitative, indicator of efforts to create and strengthen policies for gender equality. The “fiery debate” it caused is an indicator of its impact on policy discussions.

2. Implied Indicator for Target 16.6 (Accountable and transparent institutions): Adherence to internal procedures and principles of fairness.

   The article provides a specific incident that can be used as a qualitative indicator of institutional accountability. Alsalem states that “mandate holders are not required to share statements with civil society ahead of publishing it,” yet the UN rights office used this as a “pretext” to block her response. This specific procedural dispute serves as an indicator of whether the institution is operating transparently and accountably toward its own experts.

3. Implied Indicator for Target 16.10 (Public access to information): Instances of blocking or attempting to block the publication of information from human rights advocates.

   The article explicitly states that the UN rights office “initially refused to publish her response on the UN website.” This action is a direct, concrete event that can be used as an indicator of challenges to ensuring public access to information, especially when that information comes from an official UN mandate holder.

Summary of Findings

Source: c-fam.org