The 2025 World Social Summit Must Not Be a Missed Opportunity

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, Labour, Poverty & SDGs, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

GENEVA / NEW YORK, May 29 2025 (IPS) – Rumors circulating at UN Headquarters suggest there is little appetite for ambition at the Second World Summit for Social Development, set to take place in Doha on 4-6 November 2025. Diplomats and insiders whisper of “summit fatigue” after a packed calendar of global gatherings—the 2023 SDG Summit, the 2024 Summit of the Future, and the upcoming June 2025 Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development. Compounding this fatigue is the chilling rise of anti-rights rhetoric and political resistance from some governments, casting a shadow over multilateral efforts. For some, just getting any multilateral agreement is good enough. As a result, the Zero Draft of the Social Summit Political Declaration lacks the ambition required to confront the multiple social crises our world faces.

Isabel Ortiz

Many have raised the alarm: we need more than vague recommitments—we need a strong plan to bring people back to the center of the policy agenda. The stakes could not be higher. The world has changed dramatically since the historic 1995 first Social Summit in Copenhagen. Then, world leaders recognized the need for human-centered development. Today, the urgency has grown exponentially in our fractured and volatile world. People face multiple overlapping crises — a post pandemic poly-crisis, a cost-of-living crisis pushing millions into poverty, corporate welfare prioritized over people’s welfare, a rapid erosion of democracy leading to staggering disparities, an escalating climate emergency, a prolonged jobs crisis that is poised to dramatically worsen by the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Trust in governments and multilateral institutions is eroding, social discontent and protests are multiplying, and inequalities—within and between countries—have reached grotesque levels. A timid declaration would be a betrayal of the people who look to the United Nations as a beacon of fairness and human dignity.

The Summit is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for governments and the UN to remedy the grievous social malaise and lead a global recommitment to social justice and equity. For this, the Social Summit Declaration must offer more than aspirational language; it must define binding action with explicit commitments to build societies that work for everyone and bring prosperity for all, in areas such as:

    • Reducing income and wealth inequalities, which deeply erode social cohesion, democratic governance, and sustainable development;

    Odile Frank

    • Making gender justice a pillar of the Declaration: a Social Summit that fails to prioritize gender equality will fail half of the world population and fail in its mission to deliver on human rights, dignity, and sustainable development;
    • Delivering universal, quality public services by committing to publicly funded and delivered systems, with a clear focus on protecting public sector workers and eliminating barriers to quality services, in the context of robust public investment, grounded in fairer financing, reversing austerity cuts and aid cuts;
    • Ringfencing social development from budget cuts, privatization and blended finance, reversing the harmful impacts of austerity cuts, privatization/PPPs and commodification of public services, particularly their negative impact on affordability, accessibility, quality and equity of public services;
    • Addressing rising income precarity by investing in decent work with labor rights/standards and universal social protection systems and floors;
    • Regulating and taxing technology equitably. While AI is generating unprecedented private wealth, it is estimated that 40% of jobs could be lost to AI by 2030, with administrative roles (predominantly held by women) facing nearly triple the risk of displacement; governments need to redress the negative social impacts of IA such as job displacement and wealth concentration, providing adequate social protection measures for those affected by job losses and taxation of AI-driven profits to redistribute benefits back to societies;

    Gabriele Koehler

    • Promoting a care economy supportive of women that prioritizes well-being over GDP growth;
    • Moving beyond GDP growth, recognizing the limitations of growth-centric paradigms and committing to policies that promote ecological sustainability and equitable development;
    • Systematically assessing the social impacts and distributional effects of economic policies, including disaggregated data by, at least, gender and income group; if analysis reveals that the majority of people are not the primary beneficiaries or that social outcomes and human rights are undermined, policies must be revised to ensure equitable development;
    • Ensuring fair and sustainable resource mobilization, committing to progressive taxation, eliminating/reducing illegitimate debt, fighting illicit financial flows, collecting adequate social security contributions from corporations, and other feasible financing options;
    • Pushing back against anti-rights and anti-gender movements, reaffirming global commitments to human rights and democracy.

Us make this summit the moment we choose dignity and social justice over apathy and mediocrity. We know we must strive for more ambitious commitments. The 2025 World Social Summit must not be a missed opportunity.

Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, was Director at the International Labor Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and a senior official at the UN and the Asian Development Bank.

Odile Frank, Executive Secretary, Global Social Justice, was Director, Social Integration at the UN and senior official at the OECD, ILO and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Gabriele Koehler, Board Member of Global Social Justice and of Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), was a senior official at UN-ESCAP, UNCTAD, UNDP and UNICEF.

IPS UN Bureau

 

UNOC3: Bringing Ocean Education and Science to the Global Agenda

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Caribbean Climate Wire, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Ocean Health, PACIFIC COMMUNITY, Pacific Community Climate Wire, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Ocean Health

Li Junhua, head of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the Secretary-General, Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France to the UN and Costa Rican Ambassador Maritza Chan Valverde during a press conference ahead of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice: Credit: Twitter

Li Junhua, head of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the Secretary-General, Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France to the UN and Costa Rican Ambassador Maritza Chan Valverde during a press conference ahead of the UN Ocean Conference in Nice: Credit: Twitter

UNITED NATIONS, May 28 2025 (IPS) – A greater understanding and appreciation of the world’s oceans is needed to protect them. As the global community prepares to convene for the ocean conference, they must also prepare to invest in scientific efforts and education that will bolster their joint efforts.

France and Costa Rica will co-host the 3rd United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3) in Nice, France, from June 9-13. Over the course of the week, governments, the private sector, intergovernmental groups, and non-governmental groups, among others, will convene over the urgent actions that need to be taken to promote the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans.

This year’s conference will be the first to take place during the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), which brings together stakeholders in which the UN and its partners will oversee the actions that need to be taken to protect the oceans’ unique ecosystems and biodiversity and how to promote greater awareness and research into ocean sciences and how to better protect them.

UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) oversees and tracks the progress of the UN Ocean Decade, which brings together the global ocean community on the principles of understanding, educating, and protecting the oceans.

There will be an emphasis on strengthening the data-collection capacities in the global system for observing the ocean. Data scarcity and limitations in collection methods have meant that organizations have challenges grasping the full scope of the ocean and the changes they face in the wake of climate change.

Julian Barbiere, UNESCO’s Head of Marine Policy, told reporters that science-based discussions will be at the core of UNOC. For UNESCO, there will be discussions over how to translate scientific facts into tangible climate actions. This includes scaling up the current efforts at ocean-floor mapping. At present, only 26.1 percent of the seafloor has been mapped out by modern standards, with the goal to have 100 percent of the seafloor mapped out by 2030.

Seaweed is grown or farmed in the shallow waters of the Indian Ocean, off Wasini Island, Kenya, with plants tied to ropes in the water. Mandatory Credit: Anthony Onyango / Climate Visuals

Seaweed is grown or farmed in the shallow waters of the Indian Ocean, off Wasini Island, Kenya, with plants tied to ropes in the water. Credit: Anthony Onyango / Climate Visuals

Joanna Post, head of the IOC’s Ocean Observations and Services, remarked that there is a “real need for recognition” of the critical functions that the system performs, such as in monitoring weather conditions, mapping the ocean floor, maritime security, and disaster risk management. She announced a new initiative that would mobilize at least 10,000 commercial and research ships to collect data and measure the ocean. Commercial and research ship vessels play a key role in tracking and collecting data on the oceans, which Post emphasized must be shared across global channels.

UNESCO’s agenda for this forum also includes encouraging stakeholders to invest in and strengthen global education efforts on the ocean. “Education is key if we want to have a new generation that is aware of the importance of the ocean system,” said Francesca Santoro, a senior programme officer in UNESCO, leading the Ocean Literacy office.

Santoro stressed that education is not limited to students and young people; private investors should also be more aware of the importance of investing in the oceans.

UNESCO aims to continue expanding the networks of schools and educators that incorporate ocean literacy into their curricula, especially at the national level. Ocean literacy emphasizes the importance of the ocean for students, educators, and local communities within multiple contexts.

One such programme is the SEA BEYOND initiative, in partnership with the Prada Group, which provides training and lessons to over 20,000 students in over 50 countries. Under that initiative, a new multi-partner trust fund will be launched at UNOC3 on June 9, which will be used to support projects and programs that work toward ocean education and preserving ocean culture. As Santoro noted, “For many people and local communities, the main entry point to start interest in the oceans… is in [identifying] what UNESCO calls ‘intangible cultural heritage.’”

Human activity, including pollution, “directly threatens” the health of the ocean, according to Henrik Enevoldsen from UNESCO-IOC’s Centre of Ocean Science.

He announced the development of a new global assessment, led by UNESCO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), on marine pollution, to be launched on June 12.  This would be a “major leap forward,” Enevoldsen remarked, adding that this assessment would be the first of its kind that provided a global overview of ocean pollution.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

A New Pope at a Pivotal Moment: Civil Society’s Hopes for Leo XIV

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Eloisa Lopez/Reuters via Gallo Images

LONDON, May 22 2025 (IPS) – The new pope, the latest in a line dating back almost 2,000 years, was quickly subjected to a very modern phenomenon: no sooner had Pope Leo XIV delivered his first address than people started trawling his social media history for clues about his views. In the context of an ongoing culture war, the fact that far-right grievance entrepreneurs were quick to decry the new pope as ‘woke’ seemed reason enough for progressives to welcome him. But for civil society and the global human rights community, it’s how Leo acts that matters.

The numbers alone make Leo’s appointment an event of global significance: Catholics make up over 17 per cent of the planet’s population, and they live predominantly in the global south. Catholicism remains overwhelmingly the dominant religion in Latin America, while the faith continues to grow, particularly in Africa.

This gives the pope great moral influence, which he can use for good – such as by urging climate action and mobilising compassion for migrants and refugees – or for ill, including by maintaining restrictions on women’s and LGBTQI+ rights. The pope is unquestionably a global leader. In an era dominated by right-wing populist and nationalist politicians who are attacking human rights, the pope’s voice can offer a vital counterweight.

Pope Francis’s progressive legacy

Pope Francis broke significant new ground. The first Latin American pope, the Argentinian lived modestly. He didn’t shy away from controversy, speaking out to defend the rights of migrants and refugees. He criticised right-wing populism, neoliberal economics and Israel’s assault on Gaza. He urged action on climate change and made moves to enable women to play a greater role in the church and open up the possibility of blessing for people in same-sex relationships.

ON his watch, the papal office became that of an international diplomat, helping negotiate a Cuba-US rapprochement, later reversed. Critics however pointed to his apparent reluctance to call out Vladimir Putin’s aggression as he sought to help negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. He also maintained the church’s opposition to ‘gender ideology’, a term routinely used to undermine demands for women’s and LGBTQI+ rights, particularly trans rights.

Though Francis took many progressive positions, that offered no guarantee his successor would follow suit. Historically a pope seen as liberal is often followed by a more conservative one. Francis however moved to make this less likely, appointing 163 cardinals from 76 countries. Many were from global south countries, including several that had never received such recognition, such as El Salvador, Mali and Timor-Leste. He appointed the first Indigenous Latin American cardinal, and the first from India’s excluded Dalit community.

Francis chose 79 per cent of cardinals aged under 80, eligible to vote on the new pope – including Leo, elevated in 2023. For the first time, the conclave had a non-European majority, with Europeans comprising only 52 of the 133 electors.

Francis’s re-engineering may have foreclosed the prospect of a particularly regressive choice. The result was another piece of history, with Leo the first pope from the USA, while his dual citizenship of Peru makes him the first Peruvian one as well. Known as an ally of Francis but a less outspoken figure, he may have emerged as a compromise choice.

Early days: promise and controversy

Leo’s nationality had been assumed to count against him: with the USA being the dominant global power, received wisdom held that the pope should come from elsewhere. In this Trump-dominated era, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that some who picked a US pope were trying to send a message – although time will tell whether it’s one of flattery or defiance.

US right-wingers, many of whom embrace conservative Catholicism – as Vice President JD Vance exemplifies – made clear they knew what the message was, reacting with anger. Another conservative Catholic, Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon – who routinely vilified Pope Francis – had aggressively lobbied for a conservative appointment, such as Hungarian hardliner Péter Erdő. Trump supporters allegedly promised huge donations if the conclave selected a pope to their liking, then quickly mobilised outrage about the selection of their fellow citizen, vilifying him as a ‘Marxist pope’.

Among the pre-papacy actions they deemed controversial was Leo’s sharing on Twitter/X of a link to a comment piece that disagreed with Vance, who’d argued that Christians should prioritise their love for their immediate community over those who come from elsewhere. Leo had also shared a post criticising Trump and El Salvador’s hardline leader Nayib Bukele over the illegal deportation of migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

In other past posts, he’d supported climate action and appeared to back gun control, defended undocumented migrants and shown solidarity with George Floyd, the Black man whose murder by a police officer in 2020 triggered the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Leo’s choice of name also appears to indicate a reformist intent. But on the other side of the ledger, a history of anti-LGBTQI+ comments quickly came to light. Leo is also accused of mishandling past sexual abuse allegations against priests under his supervision.

A moral voice in turbulent times

For civil society, what Leo does next matters more than his social media history. There are some encouraging early signs. Leo has signalled a more sympathetic approach to Ukraine and called for the release of jailed journalists.

The likelihood, if Leo’s career so far is anything to go by, is that he’ll be less outspoken than his predecessor, and more inclined towards negotiation and compromise. But the papacy offers a very different platform to that of a cardinal. Leo should take account of the fact that he’s assumed office at a time of enormous conflict, polarisation and turmoil, where many of the established assumptions about how politics and governance should be conducted are being torn up, and when global institutions and the idea of a rules-based order are coming under unprecedented strain. There’s a moral leadership vacuum in the world right now. He should help fill it.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

  Source

Agenda for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review Conference Still Unclear

Posted on by admin

Aid, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Nuclear Disarmament, Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Weapons, Peace, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Nuclear Disarmament

The closing session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Credit: UN TV

The closing session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Credit: UN TV

NEW YORK, May 21 2025 (IPS) – The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism, the preparatory committee at the UN heard.

This year, the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (April 28-May 9) was intended to address procedural issues related to the treaty and the upcoming conference next year. The meeting was the third and final preparatory session before the review conference next year. As such, the session was an opportunity for countries to reaffirm the principles of the NPT by agreement.

Throughout the two weeks, delegations expressed their positions and deliberated over recommendations that would shape the agenda for the 2026 conference. Beyond member states, other stakeholders such as civil society groups were emphatic in expressing the urgency of the nuclear issue and calling for member states to take action.

“The continued existence of nuclear weapons remains one of the most urgent and existential dangers facing life on this planet,” said Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer for the International Coalition Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). He went further to state, “The non-proliferation norm must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism. If the NPT is to have a future, States Parties must send an unambiguous signal: Nuclear weapons are not to be spread. Not to be shared. Not to be normalized.”

The committee’s chair, Ambassador Harold Agyeman, who serves as the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, told reporters early on that the success of the review conference in 2026 would be “dependent on the political will of state parties” in demonstrating progress on their obligations of the treaty and to “strengthen accountability for the related implementation of existing commitments.”

“Indeed, many around the world are concerned by the lack of raw progress on nuclear disarmament, and emerging proliferations risk that could undermine the hard-won norms established to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons and a regime to achieve that goal,” said Agyeman.

The third preparatory session took place in a time of increasing global anxiety over nuclear proliferation and even escalation. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan has the world on edge that two nuclear powers might engage in war. Since April, Iran and the United States have been in negotiations over a new nuclear deal, which at times has seen both sides at a deadlock over limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Given that context, plus pre-existing tensions between other global powers, such as Russia and the war in Ukraine, this session was an opportunity for countries to act with urgency towards non-proliferation and to respect their obligations under the NPT. By the end of the conference, however, it seemed no agreement was reached. Revised recommendations for the review conference failed to reach consensus. This continues a concerning pattern of preparatory meetings that also failed to adopt an outcome.

As the meeting reached its conclusion on May 9, delegations expressed regret that the draft agreement did not reach consensus. “We regret that the desired breakthrough on transparency and accountability in the context of the strengthened due process was not reached,” said one delegate from Egypt. “The discussion was mature and based itself on mutual respect and commitment to multilateralism.

Many delegations made sure to reaffirm their commitment to the NPT and to strengthening the review process. Yet there was also a recurring acknowledgement of the “complex geopolitical situation” that presented a challenge in reaching consensus.

Civil society organizations have also been vocal in their disappointment at the lack of agreement or outcome document. ICAN stated that the lack of an agreement reflected a “horrifying lack of urgency in response to current risks.” Reaching Critical Will went further to criticize nuclear-armed states for refusing to comply with international law and their obligations to the NPT, which calls for them to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is expected to be held in New York from 27 April to 22 May 2026. The PrepComm nominated Vietnam to chair the RevCon. Ambassador Dang Hoang Giang, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations, stated that the presidency would be “characterized by inclusive, transparent, and balanced proceedings” that would ensure that the perspectives and interests of all state parties would be respected.

“The road ahead will be challenging, but we remain confident that through collective wisdom and shared determination, meaningful progress is not only possible but achievable. A robust and effective treaty ensures a safer and more secure work for everyone,” said Giang.

The presence—and threat—of nuclear weapons looms large. For good reason, they cannot simply be relegated to history as a relic of hubris and ambition when we can observe their influence in modern geopolitics. If the spirit for nuclear nonproliferation is indeed still there, then the international community must be vigilant in advocating for the NPT and other disarmament treaties, rather than let a small percentage of parties dictate the global agenda. This must be an ongoing process, lest we see the continued undermining of nonproliferation and multilateralism.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION

  Source

‘Our Legal Challenge of the Funding Freeze Is Testing the Judiciary’s Ability to Check Executive Power’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Development & Aid, Education, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

May 19 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks with Eric Bjornlund, President and CEO of Democracy International, about the impacts of the US foreign aid freeze and the resulting legal challenges the Trump administration is facing. Democracy International is a global civil society organisation (CSO) that works for a more peaceful and democratic world.

Upon taking office, Trump immediately suspended all foreign aid and dismantled the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), blocking over US$40 billion in congressionally approved funding. This halted crucial global work in democracy, development, health and human rights. In February, several CSOs, including Democracy International, filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s legal authority to freeze these funds. Despite a court ruling ordering the release of the money and the restoration of foreign assistance, legal proceedings continue.

Eric Bjornlund

What are the most severe consequences of the funding freeze?

The impact on vital international work on democracy, healthcare, human rights and international development has been devastating and far-reaching. The government has even refused to honour invoices or reimburse legally authorised expenses, including those incurred under the previous administration. With 83 per cent of programmes cancelled, many organisations have been forced to shut their operations.

Health services were among the first to collapse: thousands of healthcare workers were dismissed, with essential medicine and food aid left stockpiled and expiring, being damaged or stolen. This has increased deaths from HIV/AIDS and malaria and left reproductive health needs unmet.

Beyond healthcare, the damage spans multiple sectors: education for girls cut, demining operations suspended, Ukrainian refugee shelters compromised, protection for minors from gang recruitment in Central America terminated, cybersecurity in Ukraine halted and support for civil society opposing authoritarian violence in Myanmar ended. Even efforts tracking zoonotic diseases in Bangladesh have ceased.

How has Democracy International been affected?

With 98 per cent of our 2024 revenue from USAID, we’ve been crippled. Despite a federal court declaring the terminations unlawful, all our programmes have been cancelled, forcing staff furloughs, office closures and delayed payments.

The human cost has been immense. In Bangladesh, we’ve discontinued medical assistance to students injured during protest crackdowns. In Burkina Faso, the lives of human rights defenders documenting violence against Christian communities are at risk because we can no longer relocate them. The same lack of crucial support is affecting Nicaraguan political prisoners, state violence victims in Mozambique, government critics in the Philippines and democracy advocates in Tanzania. In Jamaica, over 500 vulnerable young people risk being recruited by gangs without our counselling services, apprenticeship opportunities and vocational skills-building training.

We’ve also been forced to abandon critical governance initiatives. We’ve suspended support for Bangladesh’s post-authoritarian transition, legal assistance for civil society navigating foreign agent laws in Kyrgyzstan, funding coordination for displaced Armenians and democracy leadership in Libya.

Beyond immediate harms, this has broken the trust of communities we’ve supported for years, undermined civil society credibility and surrendered significant political influence to authoritarian powers such as China and Russia.

What collective action has civil society taken?

The freeze blindsided us, but we quickly recognised the need for a coordinated response. We’ve partnered with former USAID officials – particularly those whose work focused on democracy and human rights – to advocate for foreign aid restoration and defend democracy and the rule of law in the USA. We’ve also worked with USAID implementing partners, consulted global experts and sought to identify new funding opportunities.

But our strongest strategy has been legal action. We joined a coalition of USAID partners to file a lawsuit that secured a temporary restraining order in February and a preliminary injunction in March, ordering the government to resume payments and restore funding.

Despite our case reaching the Supreme Court, the administration has largely failed to comply, creating a constitutional crisis that’s testing the judiciary’s ability to check executive power. While legal action remains central to our strategy, we recognise the need for congressional involvement to achieve a sustainable solution.

What are your legal arguments?

We challenge the government on multiple grounds. First, we argue the blanket termination of foreign assistance under the Administrative Procedure Act is both arbitrary and unlawful. Second, we contend this action fundamentally breaches the constitutional separation of powers. Neither the President, Secretary of State nor USAID Administrator has legal authority to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds or dismantle a statutory agency.

The administration has violated both Congress’s exclusive power over spending and its shared foreign policy role. The Impoundment Control Act explicitly prohibits defunding programmes based merely on policy preferences without following strict procedural requirements.

The court has agreed with our position that no rational basis exists for such a sweeping freeze if the stated purpose was merely to review programmes’ efficiency and consistency. The government has also disregarded organisations’ significant reliance on these funds, forcing many to close permanently.

How can democratic institutions be strengthened against such overreach?

Constitutional checks and balances function only when all branches respect them. Congress must defend its spending authority, courts must continue asserting their oversight role and ultimately, the executive must respect the rule of law. But whether it will do so remains uncertain.

If this situation persists unresolved, the humanitarian toll will continue mounting globally while the security, prosperity and global standing of the USA deteriorate. Robust accountability mechanisms and institutional safeguards are essential to protect aid systems globally and democracy at home.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
USA: ‘Trump is advancing a 21st-century US variant of fascism, backed by a white nationalist ideology’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Samuel Worthington 03.May.2025
Trump and Musk take the chainsaw to global civil society CIVICUS Lens 07.Mar.2025
Tech leaders cosy up to Trump CIVICUS Lens 20.Feb.2025

  Source

Rights with No Age Limit: Hopes for a Convention on the Rights of Older People

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Featured, Global, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Cover photo by Defensoría del Pueblo de Bolivia

BRUSSELS, Belgium / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, May 9 2025 (IPS) – The world’s population is ageing. Global life expectancy has leapt to 73.3 years, up from under 65 in 1995. Around the world, there are now 1.1 billion people aged 60-plus, expected to rise to 1.4 billion by 2030 and 2.1 billion by 2050.

This demographic shift is a triumph, reflecting public health successes, medical advances and better nutrition. But it brings human rights challenges.

Ageism casts older people as burdens, despite the enormous social contribution many older people make through family roles, community service and volunteering. Prejudice fuels widespread human rights violations, including age discrimination, economic exclusion, denial of services, inadequate social security, neglect and violence.

The impacts are particularly brutal for those facing discrimination for other reasons. Older women, LGBTQI+ elders, disabled seniors and older people from other excluded groups suffer compounded vulnerabilities. During conflicts and climate disasters, older people face disproportionate hardships but receive disproportionately little attention or protection.

These challenges aren’t limited to wealthy countries such as Japan, where more than one in 10 people are now aged 80 and over. Global south countries are experiencing population ageing too, and often at a much faster pace than occurred historically in the global north. Many people face the daunting prospect of becoming old in societies with limited infrastructure and social protection systems to support them.

Despite these escalating challenges, no global human rights treaty specifically protects older people. The current international framework is a patchwork that looks increasingly out of step as global demographics shift.

The first significant international breakthrough came in 2015, when the Organization of American States adopted the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons. This landmark treaty explicitly recognises older people as rights-bearers and establishes protections against discrimination, neglect and exploitation. It demonstrates how legal frameworks can evolve to address challenges faced by ageing populations, although implementation remains uneven across signatory countries.

Globally, the World Health Organization’s Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021-2030) represents progress in promoting age-friendly environments and responsive healthcare systems. But it’s a voluntary framework without legally enforceable protections. Only a binding treaty can deliver human rights guarantees.

That’s why the UN Human Rights Council’s decision on 3 April to establish an intergovernmental working group to draft a convention on older persons’ rights offers real hope. In the current fractured geopolitical landscape, the resolution’s adoption by consensus is encouraging.

This positive step came as a result of over a decade of dogged advocacy through the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing, established by the UN General Assembly in 2010. Through 14 sessions, states, civil society and national human rights institutions built an overwhelming case for action, culminating in an August 2024 recommendation to develop a treaty. Strategic cross-border campaigning and coalition-building by civil society organisations such as AGE Platform Europe, Amnesty International and HelpAge International were instrumental in advancing the cause.

Now the crucial phase of transforming principles into binding legal protection begins. The Human Rights Council resolution sets out the path forward. The first meeting of the drafting working group is due before the year’s end. Once drafted, the text will advance through the UN system for consideration and adoption. If adopted, this convention will follow in the footsteps of those on the rights of children in 1989 and people with disabilities in 2006, which have significantly advanced protections for their target groups.

This convention offers a rare opportunity to redefine how societies value their older members. The journey from declaration to implementation will demand persistent civil society advocacy, first to ensure the text of the convention delivers meaningful, enforceable protections rather than mere aspirational statements, and then to prevent the dilution of protections through limited implementation. But the potential reward is profound: a world where advancing age enhances rather than diminishes human dignity and rights.

Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, writer at CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

  Source