![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper stems from the hypothesis that there are various key factors rooted in economic, political, and social grounds which actively influence and determine the adoption and evolution of LGBT+ rights in the legal framework of any country. The goal of this research is to analyze these factors and understand how they channel the LGBT+ legislation in our present world. Assuming there is an asymmetry in this application and by extension in LGBT+ individuals’ human rights, which are often ignored if not deprived in many parts of the world, this study seeks to understand the reasons behind that asymmetry. Based on a sample of 127 countries, a correlation analysis and a Panel data model were developed to analyze the real impact of these factors.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. LGBT+ stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual plus others (this last group referring to people who do not identify their gender identity and/or sexuality with the previous categories).
2. Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable level of physical and mental health. Report E/CN.4/2004/49/Add.1 March 1 from 2004.
3. The results of this study confirm that States having a common law legal system or where Islam is the majority religion are more likely to outlaw same-sex sexual relations. However, while globalization and economic development would help decriminalize homosexual acts, the effect of democracy is not statistically significant.
6. C 13–94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECRI—2143.
7. X and Others v Australia, Application. No 19010/07, Merits and Just Satisfaction, 19 February 2013.
8. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile, IACtHR Series C 239 (2012).
9. Toonen vs Australia,(488/92) Admissibility CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992.
10. International Commission of Jurists, Yogyakarta Principles—Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, March 2007, available at: www.refworld.org/docid/48244e602.html.
11. One good example of this heterogeneity can be found in Ettelbrick and Zerán (Citation2010).
12. In the same political line, although less demanding and binding, is the OAS (Organization of American States), which pushes for LGBT+ inclusive legislation among its members.
13. In the 1990s, works like Giddens (Citation1991, Citation1992) and Beck (Citation1992) advocated for the connection between globalization and issues of intimacy, gender relations, and relationships.
14. According to Andersen and Fetner (Citation2008), the respondents from former communist countries have an average tolerance score of around 14% lower than that of countries without a communist history. A similar conclusion is drawn in Valfort (Citation2017), which stresses the lower acceptance of homosexuality and support for gender equality in Eastern European countries during the period 2001–14.
15. This phenomenon is especially seen in Europe (Freude and Vergés, Citation2020), but also present and relatively important in North and South America (Nebeling and Myong Citation2015).
16. Includes ‘explicit legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in health, education, housing and the provision of goods and services’ (ILGA, Citation2020; 18).
17. It has increased in 66 countries in the sample, stayed constant in 48 and decreased in 13.
18. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and Uruguay also obtained scores of 8 or more for that year.
19. Since the sample only includes one Oceanic country (Australia), the average is not calculated for this region.
20. Since the last available year for this indicator is 2019, this series is based on the values of the KOF globalization index for 2010, 2015 and 2019.
21. It is based on indicators such as imports and exports of goods and imports and exports of services (as a share of GDP), capital flows and stocks of foreign assets and liabilities, liberalization of international trade, trade regulations, taxes, tariffs and free trade agreements, openness of the capital account, and international investment agreements.
22. It measures direct interactions among citizens living in different countries and is calculated using indicators such as personal calls across borders, number of mobile phones per capita, migration, tourism, number of airports hosting international flights, foreign students, and international transfers.
23. It aims to summarize the actual flow of ideas, knowledge, and images and is based on indicators like internet bandwidth, people with access to the internet, number of television sets per capita, the press freedom index, international patents, and high technology exports.
24. It approximates cultural assimilation across the world using the number of McDonalds’ restaurants, IKEA stores, stock of trademark applications by nonresidents, trade in cultural goods and personal, cultural and recreation services, the gender parity index on gross primary school enrollment, the human capital index, and the civil freedom index.
25. It is calculated using indicators like participation in UN peacekeeping missions, number of embassies and international NGOs, number of multilateral treaties signed since 1945, and number of memberships in international organizations.
26. Since the available information for this indicator is displayed in intervals, this series is based on the values for the following periods: 2009–2013, 2014–2017 and 2017–2020.
27. Given the low variability of this variable, the missing value for 2015 is calculated as the average of the values for 2010 and 2020.
28. When data are not available for 2010, 2015 or 2020, the closest value is taken.
29. Although correlation is positive in all the dimensions in the case of political globalization, the correlation is very weak.
30. The bilateral relation between LGBT+ social acceptance and LGBT+ rights is confirmed by the works that have analyzed the topic (Allport, Citation1954; Altemeyer, Citation2002; Stangor, Citation2000; Van den Akker et al., Citation2013; Zajonc, Citation1968).
31. Since the Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, and the United Arab Emirates were not initially included in the sample due to lack of information for the variable social acceptance, the removal of this variable from the model allows the size of the sample to be increased with the incorporation of these six countries, thus consolidating a final sample of 133 countries.