Queering CEDAW? Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) in international human rights law

ABSTRACT

In 2020 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) found for the first time that a state had breached its obligations to prevent discrimination against women in the case of a lesbian couple subjected to a homophobic hate crime. No international human rights treaty specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The UN treaty bodies are developing a jurisprudence on the basis of such claims, with claimants sometimes forced to argue that they were discriminated against on the basis of ‘other status’. This article situates the CEDAW Committee's Views in ON and DP v Russian Federation in the context of attempts to queer international law, and international human rights law in particular. It analyses the costs and benefits of three strategies aimed at queering international human rights law: equality/universalism, special rights/a SOGIESC treaty; and queering CEDAW. The article aims to evaluate the significance of the first decision finding for the complainants on the basis of intersectional sexuality discrimination under CEDAW and to assess whether this amounts to queering CEDAW.

KEYWORDS:

• Queer
• CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)
• UN human rights
• SOGIESC (sexual orientation
• gender identity and expression
• sex characteristics)

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Andrew Byrnes, Shaunnagh Dorsett, Katherine Fallah, Beth Goldblatt, Vanja Hamzic, Wayne Morgan, Brian Opeskin, Linda Steele and participants at the Harvard Law School Institute for Global Law and Policy Conference 2018 for discussion and comments on earlier versions. Thanks also to Tamsin Paige for editorial comments, to two anonymous referees for insightful feedback, and to Seemantani Sharma for excellent research assistance funded by a UTS Research Equity Initiative Covid19 Carer's Grant.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The authors of the communication requested anonymity: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Communication No 19/2017, UN Doc CEDAW/C/75/D/119/2017 (27 March 2020) (‘ON and DP’) footnote 1.

2 ON and DP (para 2.2).

3 ON and DP (para 2.3).

4 ON and DP (paras 2.4–2.16).

5 ON and DP (para 7.4).

6 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, opened for signature 18 December 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (entered into force 3 September 1981) (CEDAW).

7 CEDAW, art. 1.

8 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) (ICCPR); Human Rights Committee, Communication No 488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994) (‘Toonen v Australia’).

9 Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987) (UNCAT).

10 On gender identity, see Human Rights Committee, Communication No 2172/2012, UN Doc CCPR/C/119/D/2172/2012 (2 December 2011) (‘G v Australia’).

11 Discrimination on the basis of sex includes on the basis of sexual orientation: Toonen v Australia, para 8.7.

12 Jagose (1997), p 3.

13 Morgan (1995), pp 30–31.

14 Morgan (2000), p 217.

15 Carpenter (2020), p 4.

16 Gross (2017), p 165.

17 Eg Hawley (2001).

18 On sexual subalterns, see Kapur (2005).

19 Although the project of queering international human rights law began earlier: Morgan (2000).

20 Otto (2017), p 1.

21 Otto (2017), p 1.

22 Otto (2017), p 1.

23 Otto (2017), pp 6–7.

24 Otto (2017), p 7.

25 On mining see Buss and Rutherford (2017); on internet rights see Zalnieriute (2017).

26 Morgan (2000), p 217.

27 Kapur (2017), p 132.

28 Kapur (2017), p 132.

29 Kapur (2017), p 132.

30 Kapur (2017), p 134.

31 Kapur (2017), p 140.

32 Kapur (2017), p 141.

33 Halley et al (2018); Halley et al (2019).

34 Kapur (2017), p 143.

35 Halley et al (2006), p 335.

36 Gross (2017), pp 154–157.

37 See further Rao (2017).

38 Gross (2017), pp 154–157.

39 For a detailed discussion, see Rao (2020).

40 Adebisi Alimi, cited in Gross (2017) 155.

41 Gross (2017), p 158.

42 Gross (2017), p 165.

43 Otto (2015), p 300.

44 The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (2006) (the Yogyakarta Principles); The Yogyakarta Principles +10 Additional Principles and State Obligations on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics to complement the Yogyakarta Principles (2017). http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A5_yogyakartaWEB-2.pdf.

45 Human Rights Council, Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/32/2 (30 June 2016).

46 Gross (2017), p 167.

47 Saida Ali et al (2015), p 31.

48 Gross (2017), p 168.

49 Bamforth (2010).

50 Rao (2017), p 15.

51 Hamzic (2011), pp 265–266.

52 Morgan (1994a, 1994b), p 409.

53 Baisley (2016), p 134.

54 Garvey (2010), p 659.

55 State Obligations Concerning Change of Name, Gender Identity, and Rights Derived from a Relationship Between Same-Sex Couples (Interpretation and Scope of Articles 1(1), 3, 7, 11(2), 13, 17, 18 and 24, in relation to Article 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 Requested by the Republic of Costa Rica (Inter – American Court of Human Rights, 24 November 2017), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_24_eng.pdf; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Advances and Challenges Towards the Recognition of the Rights of LGBTI Persons in the Americas’, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/LGBTI-RecognitionRights2019.pdf.

56 Izugbara et al (2020).

57 European Court of Human Rights (2020); Salzberg (2019).

58 For South-east Asia, see Tan (2011).

59 Goodyear (2021).

60 OHCHR (n.d.) a; Hennebel (2020), p 355.

61 Byrnes (2020a), p 500.

62 Eg Human Rights Committee, Communication No 338/2008, UN Doc CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 (23 May 2011) (‘Uttam Mondal v Sweden’); Human Rights Committee, Communication No 562/2013, UN Doc CAT/C/56/D/562/2013 (23 November 2015) (‘JK v Canada’).

63 Byrnes (2020b), pp 426–428.

64 ICCPR art. 40; CEDAW art 18.

65 ICCPR art 28; CEDAW art 17; UNCAT art 17. Although the propensity of states to elect current and former diplomats and government officials potentially detracts from their independence: Hennebel (2020), pp 343–344; Byrnes (2020b), pp 399–400.

66 Eg ICCPR: On detention on the basis of sexual orientation: Honduras (CCPR/C/HND/CO/1, 2006), para 13; on imprisonment for consensual same sex activities of adults: Cameroon (CCPR/C/CMR/CO/4) 2010, para 12; Eg CEDAW: Singapore, CEDAW/C/SGP/CO/4 (10 August 2011), para 22 (a).

67 ICCPR art 40; UNCAT art 19; CEDAW art 21.

68 Committee Against Torture, General Comment 2 on Implementation of article 2 by States Parties UN Doc CAT/C/GC/2 (24 January 2008), para 21.

69 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 37 on the Right of Peaceful Assembly (Article 21), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/37 (27 July 2020) paras 25 and 46; General Comment No 26: Article 6 (Right to life), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/36 (3 September 2019) paras 36 and 61; General Comment No 4 (2017) on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22, UN Doc CAT/C/GC/4 (4 September 2018) para 45; General Comment No 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of the Person), UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/35 (16 December 2014) paras 3 and 9.

70 CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No 27 on older women and the Protection of Human Rights, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/27 (16 December 2010), para 13; General Recommendation No 28 on Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28 (16 December 2010) at para 18; General Recommendation 32 on gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/32 (14 November 2014) paras 6, 16, 32.

71 General Recommendation No 33 on Women's Access to Justice, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/33 (3 August 2015) paras 8, 49; General Recommendation No 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation 19, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/35 (26 July 2017) paras 12 and 31.

72 Eg The NGO Sayoni's Shadow Report led the CEDAW Committee to pose questions relating to sexuality discrimination to the representative of Singapore which were reflected in the Concluding Observations. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Concluding Observations on Singapore, UN Doc CEDAW/C/SGP/CO/4/2011 (10 August 2011), para 22(a), cited in Holtmaat and Post (2015), p 319.

73 (First) Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 1; Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 18 December 2002, 2375 UNTS 237 (entered into force 26 June 2006) art 22 (OP CAT); Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 6 October 1999, 2131 UNTS 83 (entered into force 22 December 2000) art 2 (OP CEDAW).

74 On the inquiry procedure under the CAT, see Byrnes (2020a), pp 492–497; on the inquiry procedure under CEDAW, see Byrnes (2020b), pp 432–436.

75 OP-CEDAW, art 8; UNCAT, art 20.

76 UNCAT, arts 20, 28; OP-CEDAW, art 10.

77 For the Committee Against Torture, see https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Inquiries.aspx. For the CEDAW Committee, see Mali (female genital mutilation) (UN Doc CEDAW/C/OP.8/MLI/1) (2019); the UK and Northern Ireland (access to abortion in Northern Ireland) (UN Doc CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1); Kyrgyz Republic (bride abduction and marriage of minors) UN Doc CEDAW/C/OP.8/KGZ/1; the Philippines (access to contraception in Manila) (UN Doc CEDAW/C/OP8/MLI/1); Canada (murders and disappearances of indigenous women) (UN Doc CEDAW/C/OP.8/CAN/1); Mexico (femicides in Ciudad Juarez) (UN Doc CEDAW/C/2005/OP.8/MEXICO).

78 Registered cases for each year are available on the OHCHR website: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/TableRegisteredCases.aspx. See also ILGA (2019b).

79 Art 2(1): 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (emphasis added). Art 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (emphasis added).

80 See Toonen v Australia. In a separate opinion, Mr Bertil Wennergren found a breach of article 26: Toonen v Australia, Appendix.

81 Communication No 061/1979, UN Doc Supp No 40 (A/37/40) at 161 (1982) (‘Hertzberg v Finland’) was unsuccessful on a claim under article 19 relating to a radio program; since then Communication No 1932/2010, UN Doc CCPR/C/106/D/1932/2010 ( 19 November 2012) (‘Fedotova v Russia’); Communication No 1873/2009, UN Doc CCPR/C/109/D/1873/2009, (25 October 2013) (‘Alekseev v Russia’); Communication No 2092/2011, UN Doc CCPR/C/116/D/2092/2011 (30 March 2016) (‘Androsenko v Belarus’) and Communication No 2318/2013, UN Doc CCPR/C/123/D/2318/2013 (17 July 2018) (‘Nepomnyaschiu v Russia’) have all successfully argued article 19 in relation to protests and gay pride marches.

82 Human Rights Committee, Communication No 902/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/75/D/902/1999 (30 July 2002) (‘Joslin v New Zealand’) argued unsuccessfully for the right of same sex marriage; since then Communication No 941/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (2003) (Young v Australia); Human Rights Committee, Communication No 1361/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/1361/2005 (2001) (‘X v Colombia’) (pension benefits for same sex partners) and Human Rights Committee, Communication No 2216/2012, UN Doc CCPR/C/119/D/2216/2012 (1 November 2017) (‘C v Australia’) (denial of divorce to same sex couple married abroad) were upheld.

83 Human Rights Committee, Communication No 1833/2008, UN Doc CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008 (17 January 2012) (‘X v Sweden’); Human Rights Committee, Communication No 2149/2012, UN Doc CCPR/C/108/D/2149/2012 (25 July 2013) (‘MI v Sweden’); Human Rights Committee, Communication No 2462/2014, UN Doc CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 (12 July 2016) (‘MKH v Denmark’).

84 Morgan (1994), p 740; Morgan (1993), p 277.

85 Toonen v Australia, para 8.6.

86 Dudgeon v UK App No 7525/76 [1981] ECHR 5; Norris v Ireland App no 10581/83 [1988] ECHR 22, 13 EHRR 186; Modinos v Cyprus App No 15070/89 [1993] 16 EHRR 485 discussed in Morgan (2000), 209–210 and 218–219.

87 Toonen v Australia, para 8.7.

88 Morgan (1994a), 741.

89 Morgan (1994a), 743.

90 UNCAT, art 1.

91 Human Rights Committee, Communication No 338/2008, UN Doc CAT/C/46/D/338/2008 (23 May 2011) (‘Uttam Mondal v Sweden’); Human Rights Committee, Communication No 562/2013, UN Doc CAT/C/56/D/562/2013 (23 November 2015) (‘JK v Canada’).

92 Committee Against Torture, Communication No 573/2013, UN Doc CAT/C/60/D/573/2013 (23 June 2017) (‘DC and DE v Georgia’).

93 Article 1 defines discrimination against women; article 2 imposes the obligation on states to eliminate discrimination by public authorities and by private actors.

94 CEDAW, arts 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16.

95 CEDAW, art 4.

96 Eg CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation 19, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/35 (26 July 2017).

97 CEDAW art 18; Byrnes (2020b), pp 404–405.

98 Eg, CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 37 on the gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/37 (2 February 2018), para 57(c); cf CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 30 on conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/30 (18 October 2013) includes no reference to lesbian, bisexual, trans or intersex; neither does General Recommendation 34 on the rights of rural women, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/34 (7 March 2016) despite several references to intersectional discrimination.

99 For an account of the potential of CEDAW particularly in relation to the intersection of gender, race and poverty, see Campbell (2015), p 479.

100 ON and DP, para 6.7.

101 ON and DP, para 7.2.

102 The Committee appears to have omitted the word ‘includes’. See ON and DP, para 7.3.

103 ON and DP, para 7.4 (emphasis added).

104 ON and DP, para 7.8.

105 ON and DP, para 7.9.

106 ON and DP, para 9.

107 ON and DP, para 10. At time of writing, no response had been published.

108 Eg General Recommendation 35, paras 12 and 31 cited in footnote 70; ON and DP, para 10.

109 Cassell (2020).

110 Application No 134/2018 cited in ILGA (2019a), p 42.

111 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Communication No 51/2018 (UN Doc CRC/C/86/D/51/2018) 5 February 2021 (‘AB v Finland’).

112 Eg ‘other status’: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 16 on the Equal Right of Men and Women to the Enjoyment of all Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art 3 of the Covenant) UN Doc E/C.12/2005/4 (11 August 2005), paras 5 and 10.

113 ILGA (2019a), p 56.

114 Gross (2008), p 239.

115 Gross (2008), pp 245–249.

116 Rubin (1984), pp 151–153.

117 In the absence of such a treaty, see O’Flaherty (2015), p 280.

118 Baisley (2016), pp 155–160.

119 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Article 12 of the Covenant) contained within UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4 (11 August 2000), para 18 (sexual orientation); General Comment 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, UN Doc E/C.12/GC/20 (23 July 2009) para 32 (sexual orientation and gender identity) para 11 (sexual orientation).

120 Kapur (2017), p 132.

121 Rosenblum (2011), p 194.

122 Hernandez-Truyol (2011), p 195.

123 For example, the negotiation of the draft Convention on the Rights of Older Persons is proceeding very slowly although Covid-19 may change this: Bridget Sleap et al (2020).

124 Yogyakarta Principles, see n 42, preamble.

125 Otto (2015), p 308.

126 Byrnes (1989), p 1.

127 Eg the Independent Expert on Protection Against Violence and Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity appointed under Human Rights Council Resolution 32/2, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/32/2 (15 July 2016), extended in Human Rights Council resolution 41/18, UN Doc A/HRC/RES/41/18 (19 July 2019).

128 Otto (2017), p 1.

129 ON and DP, para 7.4 (emphasis added).

130 ON and DP, para 7.9.

131 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for drawing out the implications of this decision in light of my argument on queering CEDAW.

132 Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation 2001, art 6.21; Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation [2014] no 24 cited in Bayev and others v Russia, Application No 67667/09 [2017] ECHR, para 25.

133 Bayev and others v Russia, Application No 67667/09 [2017] ECHR, para 92. See further Human Rights Committee, Communication No 2318/2013, UN Doc CCPR/C/123/D/2318 (17 July 2018) (Nepomnyashiu v Russia).

134 Kirby (2011), pp 10–12.

135 Bayev v Russia, para 65.

136 Rosenblum (2011), p 98.

137 Rosenblum (2011), p 101.

138 Rosenblum (2011), pp 119–125.

139 Rosenblum (2011), p 105.

140 Rosenblum (2011), pp 118–120.

141 Rosenblum (2011), p 176.

142 Rosenblum (2011), p 166.

143 Carpenter (2020), p 1.

144 Ernst (2012), p 19.

145 Holtmaat and Post (2015), p 336.

146 Otto (2015), p 316.

147 On the continued focus on women that ignores dialogues with queer theory, see Heathcote (2019), p 143. On the split between feminist and queer theory, see Halley (2006).

148 Nussbaum (2016), p 609; Atrey (2018), p 859.

149 Otto (2015), p 306.

150 Article 16(1) except in their rights as a parent which are to be enjoyed regardless of marital status’ Otto (2012), p 326.

151 Otto (2012), p 326.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gabrielle Simm

Gabrielle Simm's research takes socio-legal and feminist approaches to international law. Before entering academia, she was a diplomat and government lawyer where her responsibilities included advising on CEDAW. These views are her own.