‘After Decades of Denial and Silence, the Suffering of Rohingya People Is Being Heard at the World’s Highest Court’

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender Violence, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Feb 9 2026 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with Mohammed Nowkhim of the Arakan Rohingya Society for Peace & Human Rights (ARSPHR), a civil society organisation led by Rohingya people born out of refugee camps in Bangladesh to document atrocities, preserve survivor testimony and advocate for accountability and justice.


‘After Decades of Denial and Silence, the Suffering of Rohingya People Is Being Heard at the World’s Highest Court’

Mohammed Nowkhim

On 12 January, the ICJ began hearings in the genocide case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar over the military’s treatment of the Rohingya Muslim minority. The Gambia, representing the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s 57 members, accuses Myanmar of breaching the Genocide Convention. The Gambia’s justice minister presented evidence of mass killings, sexual violence and village destruction during a government crackdown in 2017 that forced over 700,000 Rohingya people to flee to Bangladesh. Rohingya survivors testified in closed sessions. Myanmar denies genocidal intent, characterising its actions as counterterrorism. A final judgment is expected before the end of the year.

What atrocities were committed against Rohingya people and what is being examined in court?

During what were called ‘clearance operations’ in 2017, Myanmar security forces burned entire villages, raped women, killed children and threw them into fires and wells. According to documented reports, over 10,000 people were killed and around 700,000, including me, were forced to flee Myanmar. These were not random acts of violence; they were systematic and targeted attacks aimed at erasing our community.

In 2019, The Gambia, supported by 11 other states, filed a case against Myanmar at the ICJ, accusing it of genocide. Judges are now examining evidence of mass killings, sexual violence, village destruction and forced displacement. They are also reviewing official policies and actions that show intent to destroy Rohingya people as a group, including patterns of violence, coordination by state forces and the systematic denial of basic rights.

This case shows that genocide claims can be examined through law rather than dismissed for political convenience. But for the Rohingya, this is not just a legal process. It represents acknowledgment and a source of hope for present and future generations. After decades of denial and silence, our suffering is being heard at the world’s highest court and recognised in a legal space where truth matters. The hearings can’t erase our wounds, but they can offer some solace and a path towards justice.

What evidence supports the case against Myanmar?

The case was built on years of evidence-gathering. The Gambia relied on extensive material from the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and United Nations (UN) fact-finding missions, as well as documentation collected over many years by human rights organisations, including Fortify Rights, Human Rights Watch and Rohingya-led groups.

Civil society played a key role when states failed to act. Even when the world looked away, organisations continued to document the truth and refused to let these crimes be erased or rewritten. Long before any court agreed to listen, groups including the ARSPHR were collecting survivor testimonies, documenting violations and carefully preserving evidence, knowing it might one day be used in court. Without that work, much of what happened would have been lost and perpetrators couldn’t have been challenged.

In a way, civil society became the memory of the Rohingya people. Today, this evidence forms part of the case before the ICJ.

Why is accountability so difficult?

Politics often protects perpetrators. Those with power choose stability over justice and shield those responsible for crimes. Myanmar’s authorities continue to deny wrongdoing and refuse to cooperate, which delays justice.

International law also has its limits. Justice moves slowly because ICJ rulings do not automatically lead to consequences. International courts can establish the truth, but they can’t force states to act. Enforcement depends on political will, often through the UN Security Council, where countries such as China and Russia can block action, even when crimes are clear and well documented.

What must happen to ensure justice?

There must be real action. Perpetrators must be held accountable, Rohingya citizenship must be restored and discriminatory laws that enabled genocide must be removed. Any return of refugees must be voluntary, safe and dignified. It can’t happen without international monitoring and guarantees of protection. People can’t be sent back to the same conditions that forced them to flee.

Ultimately, justice is not only about the past, but also about ensuring that future generations of Rohingya can live with rights, safety and dignity. This case is only the beginning. What happens after the judgment will decide whether justice is real or only symbolic.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Threads
Twitter
Mohammed Nowkhim/Facebook
Mohammed Nowkhim/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Myanmar’s junta tightens its grip CIVICUS Lens 12.Dec.2025
International Court of Justice offers hope of rules-based order CIVICUS Lens 19.May.2025
Myanmar at a crossroads CIVICUS Lens 28.Oct.2024

  Source

‘Since the Coup, Factory Employers Have Increasingly Worked with the Military to Restrict Organising and Silence Workers’

Active Citizens, Asia-Pacific, Child Labour, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender Violence, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Labour, TerraViva United Nations

Jan 28 2026 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks to the Business and Human Rights Centre (BHRC) about labour rights abuses in Myanmar’s garment industry since the 2021 military coup.


Myanmar’s garment sector, which employs hundreds of thousands of workers, is in deep crisis. Since the coup, labour protections have collapsed, independent unions have been dismantled and workers who try to organise face intimidation, dismissal and arrest. Inside factories, reports show multiple cases of child labour, forced overtime, harassment, poverty wages and unsafe conditions. At the same time, rising living costs and US tariffs are pushing many workers further into insecurity as factories close and layoffs become more common. Garment workers, most of them women, are trapped between exploitation, repression and a rapidly shrinking industry.

How have conditions inside Myanmar’s garment factories changed since the coup?

Our monitoring between February 2021 and October 2024 shows a sharp rise in both the number and severity of pre-existing labour rights abuses. Since the coup, factory employers have increasingly worked with the military to restrict organising and silence workers. This collaboration has led to threats, arrests and violent attacks against workers. In one case, security forces carried out joint military and police raids on the homes of workers who demanded unpaid wages and limits on overtime.

Factories have also expanded surveillance. Workers report invasive searches, phone confiscation and installation of CCTV inside factories, including near toilets. Employers also force workers to lie during audits. These practices aim to hide abuses and have exacerbated the abuses workers already faced.

What abuses do garment workers suffer in the workplace?

Factories force workers to meet extreme production targets through excessive and often unpaid overtime. Many workers must stay overnight until dawn, often without enough food, water or ventilation, leading to exhaustion and health problems. Managers threaten and abuse workers who refuse to work overtime or fail to meet targets. We have documented a case where supervisors denied workers food and water as punishment for not meeting targets.

Health and safety conditions have worsened. Workers report dirty, insufficient toilets, poor food quality and unsafe drinking water. They’ve also reported blocked emergency exits, inadequate ventilation and leaking roofs that put lives at risk. Factory-provided transport creates further dangers, as they are often overcrowded and suffer frequent road accidents. In one case, a major crash involving a worker shuttle left several workers badly hurt, including one who needed abdominal surgery.

Women workers face particularly severe abuses, including hair-pulling, physical assault, sexual harassment and verbal attacks. In one case, supervisors punched and kicked women workers and called them ‘dogs’.

What happen to workers who try to speak out or organise?

Workers who dare speak out face brutal reprisals. After the military declared 16 labour unions and labour rights organisations illegal, arrests, home raids and surveillance increased, particularly against union leaders and activists linked to the Civil Disobedience Movement. The movement began after the coup and brings together workers who refuse to cooperate with military rule through strikes and other forms of non-violent resistance.

Inside factories, employers threaten and dismiss union leaders on false grounds. In one case, a factory reopened and refused to reinstate union members and publicly humiliated them. Employers have also created Workplace Coordination Committees to replace independent unions, denying workers the right to choose their representatives and silencing their complaints. Prominent union leaders such as Myo Myo Aye have been arrested multiple times simply for continuing to organise.

What should international brands be doing in this context?

Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, brands operating in conflict settings must carry out heightened, conflict-sensitive due diligence and demonstrate, with independent and verifiable evidence, that it works. In Myanmar’s current context, where surveillance and violent repression run through all the supply chain, this standard is exceptionally hard to meet.

Any brand that stays must deliver clear and demonstrable improvements in working conditions. Brands that can’t meet this threshold must carry out a responsible exit, working with workers and their representatives and taking steps to reduce harm, rather than adding to the instability garment workers already face under military rule.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
BlueSky
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Myanmar’s junta tightens its grip CIVICUS Lens 12.Dec.2025
Historic wins and hard truths at International Labour Conference CIVICUS Lens 27.Jun.2025
Business and Human Rights Treaty: a decade of struggle for corporate accountability CIVICUS Lens 08.Mar.2025

  Source

‘Freedom Always Returns – but Only If We Hold Fast to Our Values and Sustain the Struggle’

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender Violence, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Jan 23 2026 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS speaks with Belarusian activist, blogger and journalist Mikola Dziadok about his experiences as a two-time political prisoner and the repression of dissent in Belarus. Mikola was jailed following mass protests in 2020.


CIVICUS speaks with Belarusian activist, blogger and journalist Mikola Dziadok about his experiences as a two-time political prisoner and the repression of dissent in Belarus

Mikola Dziadok

Amid continued repression, Belarus experienced two limited waves of political prisoner releases in 2025. In September, authorities freed around 50 detainees following diplomatic engagement, and in December they pardoned and released over 120, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski and opposition figure Maria Kolesnikova. Many were forced into exile. Human rights groups stress that releases appear driven by geopolitical bargaining rather than systemic reform, with over 1,200 political prisoners believed to remain behind bars.

Why were you arrested following protests in 2020?

I was arrested because I was not silent and I was visible. During the 2020 uprising, I ran Telegram and YouTube channels where I shared political analysis, explained what was happening and gave people advice on how to resist repression. I talked about strategies to protect ourselves, counter state violence and survive under authoritarian pressure. The regime viewed this as extremely threatening.

By that time, I had around 17 years of experience in the anarchist movement, which is a part of a broader democratic movement in Belarus. But most people who joined the protests weren’t political at all: they’d never protested before, never faced repression, never dealt with police violence. They were desperate for guidance, particularly as there was an information war between regime propaganda, pro-Kremlin narratives and independent voices.

Authorities made a clear distinction between ‘ordinary people’ who apologised and promised never to protest again, who were released, and activists, organisers and others who spoke publicly, who were treated as enemies. I was imprisoned because I belonged to the second category.

What sparked the 2020 uprising?

By 2020, Belarus had already lived through five fraudulent elections. We only had one election the international community recognised as legitimate, held in 1994. After that, President Alexander Lukashenko changed the constitution so he could rule indefinitely.

For many years, people believed there was nothing they could do to make change happen. But in 2020, several things came together. The COVID-19 pandemic left the state’s complete failure exposed. As authorities did nothing to protect people, civil society stepped in. Grassroots initiatives provided information and medical help. People suddenly saw they could do what the state couldn’t. From the regime’s perspective, this was a very dangerous realisation.

But what truly ignited mass mobilisation was violence. In the first two days after the 9 August presidential election, over 7,000 protesters were detained. Thousands were beaten, humiliated, sexually abused and tortured. When they were released and showed their injuries, the images spread through social media and Telegram, and people were shocked. This brought hundreds of thousands onto the streets, protesting against both election fraud and violence against protesters.

What’s the situation of political prisoners?

Since 2020, over 50,000 people have spent time in detention, in a country of only nine million. There have been almost 4,000 officially recognised political prisoners, and there are now around 1,200, although the real number is higher. Many prisoners ask not to be named publicly because they fear retaliation against themselves or their families.

Repression has never subsided. Civil society organisations, human rights groups and independent media have been destroyed or forced into exile. Belarussians live under constant pressure, not a temporary crackdown.

Political prisoners are treated much worse than regular prisoners. I spent 10 years as a political prisoner: five years between 2010 and 2015, and another five years after 2020. During my second sentence, I spent two and a half years in solitary confinement. This is deliberate torture designed to break people physically and psychologically.

How did your release happen?

My release was a political transaction. Lukashenko has always used political prisoners as bargaining chips. He arrests people, waits for international pressure to reach its peak and then offers releases in exchange for concessions. This time, international negotiations, unexpectedly involving the USA, triggered a limited release.

The process itself was terrifying. I was taken suddenly from prison, handcuffed, hooded and transferred to the KGB prison in the centre of Minsk. I was placed in an isolation cell and not told what would happen. It was only when I saw other well-known political prisoners being brought into the same space that I realised we were going to be freed, most likely by forced expulsion.

No formal conditions were announced, but our passports were confiscated and we were forced into exile. We were transported under armed guard and handed over at the Lithuanian border. Many deportees still fear for relatives who remain in the country, because repression often continues through family members. That’s why I asked my wife to leave Belarus as quickly as possible.

What should the international community and civil society do now?

First, they should make sure Belarus continues receiving international attention. Lukashenko is afraid of isolation, sanctions and scrutiny. Any attempt to normalise relations with Belarus without real change will only strengthen repression and put remaining prisoners at greater risk.

Second, they should financially support independent Belarusian human rights organisations and media. Many are struggling to survive, particularly after recent funding cuts. Without them doing their job, abuses will remain hidden and prisoners will be forgotten.

Most importantly, activists should not lose hope. We are making history. Dictatorships fall and fear eventually breaks. Freedom always returns – but only if we hold fast to our values and sustain the struggle.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
Instagram

SEE ALSO
‘Belarus is closer than ever to totalitarianism, with closed civic space and repression a part of daily life’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Human Rights House 14.Oct.2025
Belarus: ‘The work of human rights defenders in exile is crucial in keeping the democratic movement alive’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Natallia Satsunkevich 15.Feb.2025
Belarus: a sham election that fools no one CIVICUS Lens 31.Jan.2025

  Source

Beijing+30: A Culmination of International, Intergenerational Dialogue

Conferences, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Gender, Gender Identity, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women & Climate Change, Women & Economy, Women in Politics, Women’s Health

IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse

Participants at the Non-Governmental Organizations Forum meeting held in Huairou, China, as part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, on 4-15 september 1995. Credit: UN Photo/Milton Grant

Participants at the Non-Governmental Organizations Forum meeting held in Huairou, China, as part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, on 4-15 september 1995. Credit: UN Photo/Milton Grant

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2025 (IPS) – Thirty years since the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the resolve that defined and united the world toward a global agenda for gender equality make it just as relevant in 2025.


The Beijing Conference represents a turning point for the global movement in gender equality. It is marked by the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, which is still held up as a landmark document in presenting a comprehensive blueprint to achieve gender equality.

The Beijing Conference was just “one stop in a long and continuing journey of feminist advocacy,” said Sia Nowrojee, a Kenyan women’s rights advocate with more than thirty years’ experience.

“Even though it’s thirty years later, it’s absolutely relevant. It was the culmination of twenty years of advocacy and gender equality.” Nowrojee is the UN Foundation’s Associate Vice President of their Girls and Women Strategy division.

The Beijing Conference was the first time that the international community integrated gender equality into the global development and rights agenda. It was recognition that securing the rights and dignities for all women and girls would be integral to achieving widespread development. This was key for the countries that had emerged in the post-colonial era.

Sia Nowrojee, UN Foundation’s Associate Vice President of Girls and Women Strategy. Credit: UN Foundation

Sia Nowrojee, UN Foundation’s Associate Vice President of Girls and Women Strategy. Credit: UN Foundation

The leadership of advocates from the Global South was instrumental to the Beijing PoA. Representatives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America pushed for the measures that make the framework as inclusive as it is. Nowrojee gave the example of girls’ rights being recognized thanks to the efforts of African feminists in the lead-up to Beijing.

Hibaaq Osman, a Somali human rights activist and founder of El-Karama, considers that the Global South activists had been uniquely prepared to participate as they had lived through their countries’ great political upheavals against colonialism and racism.

Osman attended Beijing 1995 as part of the Center of Strategic Initiatives of Women, a civil society network.

Hibaaq Osman, a Somali human rights activist and founder of El-Karama. Credit: UN Foundation

Hibaaq Osman, a Somali human rights activist and founder of El-Karama. Credit: UN Foundation

“For me, as a young woman, I was shocked by the things that I heard. I was raised to believe that everything was a privacy. But to hear a woman speaking for herself and sharing things that I never thought you could share with others, including violence against women… It absolutely opened my eyes and made me see, ‘Oh my god, I can actually share things with other women,’” Osman told IPS.

For Osman, the Beijing conference represented the possibilities of what could be achieved through a shared agenda and a shared sense of hope. The unique energy from that conference drove her advocacy work through groups like the Strategic Initiative for Women in the Horn of Africa (SIHA) and then El-Karama, which is working to end violence against women in the Arab region and South Sudan.

General view of the opening session of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Credit: UN Photo/Milton Grant

General view of the opening session of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. Credit: UN Photo/Milton Grant

Beijing 1995 also provided the expectation of accountability from governments and policy makers if they did not implement the PoA. “That had never happened before. There was a mechanism for the first time…,” said Osman. “You can hold governments and policymakers accountable. But you also have the connection with grassroots. That it was no longer the individual woman that could claim that she was the leader, but having accountability to your own people, I think that whole thing was fantastic.”

“I think the legacy of Beijing 1995 honestly, it gave us a legacy of getting out of our corners and just wide open to the rest of the women. And I think that vision, that framework is still working.”

Delegates working late into the night to draft the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Credit: UNDP/Milton Grant

Delegates working late into the night to draft the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Credit: UNDP/Milton Grant

The success of the Women’s Conferences also demonstrated the UN’s role as a space to build up the gender equality movement, Nowrojee remarked. The UN has also served as a platform for emerging countries to raise their issues to the international community and to shape global agendas on their terms.

Prior to Beijing, the UN World Conference on Women had previously been held in Nairobi (1985), Copenhagen (1980) and Mexico City (1975). These were also key forums for people from all parts of the world to build relationships and for there to be a “cross-pollination of ideas and experiences”, laying down the groundwork for what was later achieved in Beijing.

Nowrojee was 18 years old when she attended the Nairobi 1985 Conference as part of a school/youth delegation. The experience was formative in listening to women’s activists from the region impart their wisdom and insights.

“To see the world’s women come to my home and talk about the fact that we mattered was life-changing for me,” Nowrojee said. “I made friends who I still work with and love and see today. And I think there is that sort of personal part, which is both personally sustaining, but it’s a critical part of feminist movement building.”

Each conference built up momentum that saw no sign of slowing down. Osman and Nowrojee explained that as gains were being made at local, national and global levels, this encouraged those in the movement to act with urgency and go further. This provided them the spaces to learn how to refine the messages for local contexts.

Delegates at the Fourth UN World Conference on Women in Beijing 1995.' Credit: UNDPI /UN Women

Delegates at the Fourth UN World Conference on Women in Beijing 1995. Credit: UNDPI /UN Women

The gains towards gender equality should be noted: the codification of women’s rights around the world, their increased participation in politics and in peace negotiations. Evidence has shown that investing in women’s participation in society through health, education and employment leads to economic growth and prosperity. More women in the workforce mean greater economic gains and stability. Increased social protections for women lead to more stability in communities.

And yet, there was backlash to the momentum. Recent years have seen the rise of anti-rights and anti-gender movements gain greater traction, combined with increasing attempts to strip women of their rights. UN Women has warned that one in four countries are reporting a backlash to women’s rights.

Nowrojee remarked that the autocratic leaders that champion these movements target women’s rights because it threatens their own agenda. “If you are silencing half the human family, and you are hampering their ability to make decisions about their bodies, to participate in political process… these are very, very effective ways of undermining democracy, development, peace and the achievement of all the goals and values that we hold dear.”

“They understand that if you bring women down, you are bringing society down, because women are the core of society,” Osman added.

The modern movements are also well-funded and well-organized. But there is an irony to it in that they use the same tactics that feminist movements have been using for decades by organizing at the grassroots level before moving their influence up to the national level and beyond. But this should not be where activists fall to despair. Instead they should understand, Osman and Nowrojee remarked, that women in this space already know what actions need to be taken to regain lost momentum.

“I’m sure that Sia and I and many, many others who were part of that are also thinking about today and what’s happening, and we know the space for civil society is shrinking,” Osman said. “The space for democracy, human rights, justice, reproductive rights, for all of that, there is absolutely a rollback, But it’s not going to delay us. We are just going to be more sophisticated and ask ourselves “Where are the blocks, how do we build… diverse constituencies?”… So it is hard, but we are not slowing down whatsoever.”

Today, it may seem the pursuit of gender equality is an ongoing struggle that faces the threat of autocratic movements that sow distrust and division. For the people who championed the women’s rights movement and can recall a time before the Beijing PoA, they are all too aware of what is at stake. The leaders in modern movements today need to look back to the past to take lessons, and to take courage.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

New Report Investigates Violence Against Women and Girls Through Surrogacy, Sparks Global Dialogue

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Gender, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Health, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem recently released her report on violence against women and girls with a focus on surrogacy, one of the most controversial topics in the medical field.

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 19 2025 (IPS) – A United Nations report calling for the global abolition of surrogacy has sparked intense debate among experts, with critics arguing that blanket bans could harm the very women the policy aims to protect.


Reem Alsalem, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, issued a report on violence against women and girls with a specific focus on surrogacy as a form of exploitation. The report, officially titled “The different manifestations of violence against women and girls in the context of surrogacy,” was published on July 14, 2025, and is slated for discussion at the upcoming UN General Assembly session in October.

The report calls surrogacy “direct and exploitative use of a woman’s bodily and reproductive functions for the benefit of others, often resulting in long-lasting harm and in exploitative circumstances.”

It further delves into the danger of surrogacy business models, in particular, which embrace the ambiguity of international law to churn a profit, often at the expense of both the surrogate and the prospective family. Alsalem recommends the abolition of surrogacy and asks member states to “work towards adopting an international legally binding instrument prohibiting all forms of surrogacy.”

One of the largest problems with surrogacy today, according to Senior Lecturer at Swinburne University Jutharat Attawet, is a lack of comprehensive education and legal standards around the practice. This results in social alienation and false conceptions, which worsen exploitation of people who participate in surrogacy—they are not provided adequate resources

Attawet, who specializes in surrogacy healthcare and domestic policy, considers surrogacy itself a beneficial tool for nontraditional family building. However, she acknowledges the steps it has to take to ensure autonomy and respect for surrogates.

Attawet’s research, cited in Alsalem’s report, shows that approximately 1 percent of babies born in Australia are from surrogates, so although the number has doubled over the past decade, doctors are not familiar with the process. Furthermore, legislation is primarily top-down rather than region- or area-specific. Since doctors in places like Australia are “intimidated by the language” surrounding surrogacy due to minimal education, they are less willing to openly engage with the procedures. This pushes families to seek surrogates elsewhere, where laws are less stringent and doctors more comfortable with the procedures.

Another incentive for overseas surrogacy, Attawet says, is lack of national support for surrogacy. Since it does not fulfill the criteria of most healthcare insurance plans, prospective parents often seek a more affordable surrogacy birth internationally. This further contributes to the exploitation both she and Alsalem note in their respective research—international surrogacy is much more difficult to regulate between different countries’ laws and often primarily harms the surrogate and the child, who is less likely to know their birth mother from an international surrogacy.

Alsalem criticized the practice of international surrogacy as an exploitative technique to perpetuate wealth inequality between different countries, but many experts argue that the job is one of the few accessible, well-paying jobs for child-bearing people who need to care for their family full-time. Polina Vlasenko, a researcher whose work was also cited in Alsalem’s report, explained to IPS that international surrogacy in Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia “is the type of job you can combine with having a kid and being a full-time caretaker of your kid… it still benefits women.”

Vlasenko elaborated, saying that most workers in the surrogacy industry, including intermediaries and clinicians, were women who had some sort of pre-existing connection to the process—often being former surrogates. To ban surrogacy entirely, Vlasenko argues, would merely harm women in all facets of the industry rather than resolving wealth gaps. She said, “this inequality is much deeper than services of surrogacy.”

Social worker and professor at Ohio State University Sharvari Karandikar similarly opposes the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation of abolition. In an interview with IPS, Karandikar explained that “in countries like India, it’s really hard to implement policies in a uniform way, and I think that one needs to have proper oversight of medical professionals and how they’re engaging in surrogate arrangements and medical tourism. Blanket bans do not work.”

She emphasized the dangers of surrogacy without regulation, saying it would only do more harm.

Instead, Karandikar advocates for “the safety, the better communication, more education, more informed choice and decision, more safeguards, better treatment options, and long-term health coverage for women who engage in surrogacy” as “a wonderful way to speak about women’s choices, decisions and their health instead of penalizing anyone.”

However, in order for the global conversation surrounding surrogacy to center around female agency, experts like Vlasenko say the perception of surrogates needs to change. She said, “sex work is not seen as violence or exploitation when it’s done for free… it’s the same with childbirth… surrogate mothers are taking the only work that, in their situation, allows them to fulfill certain responsibilities like childcare and income generation. They think that they’re agents in this process, but society sees them as victims.”

Ultimately, the surrogacy debate reflects broader questions about women’s autonomy, economic inequality and reproductive rights. As Vlasenko noted, addressing the “much deeper inequality” that pushes women to surrogacy may prove more effective than focusing solely on limiting the practice itself.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Protect Women’s Rights, Especially in a Time of Equality Backlash, Say Activists

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Conferences, Development & Aid, Featured, Gender, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women & Economy, Women in Politics

Gender

UN Women's Executive Director Sima Bahous at a 2025 UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development side event. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

UN Women’s Executive Director, Sima Bahous, at a 2025 UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development side event. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21 2025 (IPS) – Discriminatory laws and the absence of legal protections impact more than 2.5 billion women and girls worldwide in various ways. Legal reform is paramount to securing gender equality, and the world cannot afford to roll back on decades of progress in women’s rights.


On the sidelines of the 2025 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development on July 17, Equality Now and UN Women, with their partners the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), the Global Campaign for Equality in Family Law, the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights (GCENR), Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU), hosted an official side event, “Accelerating Law Reform to Keep the Promise of Beijing, the SDGs, and the Pact for the Future.”

The purpose of the event was to spotlight the success in ending discrimination through the passing of robust, inclusive legislation and acknowledging the work that remains in combatting legal discrimination against women and girls. Bringing together stakeholders across the public sector and nongovernmental organizations, the event highlighted the relevance of global agreements that center on sustainable development and uphold international law, Equality Now Executive Director Mona Sinha pointed out.

“It is ever more urgent in these times of backlash against gender equality that the right to equality on the basis of sex as a fundamental human right is protected and promoted by States and the international community,” said Sinha.

“At UN Women, we are proud to lead a global strategy to achieve equality in law for women and girls by 2030 with our partners… We are racing against time to repeal discriminatory laws and to replace them with protections rooted in dignity and equality,” said UN-Women Executive Director Sima Bahous.

The event coincided with the launch of a joint publication from Equality Now and GCENR  ‘Select Draft Articles on Nationality Rights to Ensure Gender Equality.’

The publication is intended to be used by policymakers as guidelines for drafting inclusive policies that enshrine protections for nationality rights for women and their children and partners. This was spotlighted as a persistent form of discrimination that restricts certain rights by virtue of their identity.

Panelists at the Equality Now side event at the 2025 UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

Panelists at the Equality Now side event at the 2025 UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

Catherine Harrington, Campaign Manager of the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights, remarked on the “utter injustice” that men should have the “inherent right” to pass down nationality to their child or spouse, but women are not granted the same.

There are 24 countries where women legally cannot pass down their citizenship to their child, and at least 40 countries where women cannot confer the rights of citizenship to a non-citizen spouse. Such restrictions prevent impacted people from exercising other fundamental rights, including access to education, healthcare and even the right to enter the country they were born in or consider home.

The fight over equal nationality rights is emblematic of the broader issue of gender equality, as it demonstrates how a lack of legal protections can leave people vulnerable to having their rights denied or exploited.

“What does it say about women’s status as citizens and their equality in the family when the law that establishes the very foundation of political personhood, citizenship, holds that men naturally have the right to pass citizenship as full citizens and women do not and are not deserving of the same?” said Harrington. “What does it mean to be committed to combating gender-based violence when we know that gender discriminatory laws are linked with multiple forms of GBV and contribute to the root cause of gender-based violence, which is women’s unequal status in society?”

Women’s participation in public spaces, including politics, is also a measure of gender equality and a step toward sustainable development. A report from UN Women stated that while there was a boost in the proportion of women in parliament, as countries had taken steps to boost women’s participation in national and local legislatures, such as with gender quotas, three out of four parliamentarians were still men. These environments need to be created to be gender-inclusive and safe to ensure women’s participation. As long as the institutions that are meant to represent the people are shaped by laws that only benefit a select few, there is no room for equality.

“Democracy cannot be credible or effective if it does not reflect the diversity of people,” said Paddy Torsney, Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Permanent Observer to the UN. Tornsey remarked that fostering inclusive political environments allows women the “power, protection and the platform to lead.” These environments can be created through inclusive policies and a zero tolerance for gender-based violence in all forms.

Effective, inclusive legislation can only be driven by “reliable data,” according to Hikaru Yamagishi from the World Bank. Yamagishi added that through the Women, Business and Law Project, the World Bank has provided “comprehensive, comparable data” on how laws affect women’s jobs to lawmakers across 190 economies.

Among their findings was that although women have 64 percent of the rights of men, economies have less than 40 percent of the systems in place needed to implement those rights in practice. This indicates a ‘significant’ implementation gap, Yamagishi said, between formal legislation and what women actually experience in real life.

“This implementation gap must be tracked alongside legal [gaps]. The Women Business and Law report evidences the importance of legal reforms like banning discrimination… but it also shows that those reforms only go so far without supportive policies,” she added.

The event brought together representatives from member states to share how their countries dealt with eliminating discrimination through legal reform. In the Kyrgyz Republic, steps were taken to reform the labor code, including 400 professions that were previously restricted from women.

Bakyt Sydykov, Minister of Economy and Commerce of the Kyrgyz Republic, remarked on federal programs that boosted employment opportunities for women living in rural areas. Along with civil society and trade unions, international partners like UN Women and the International Labour Organization (ILO) consulted the country’s legislative reform in ensuring equal employment opportunities.

“We believe that Kyrgyzstan’s experience can offer a useful reference point for other countries where similar challenges arise,” said Sydykov. “Our approach shows that when reforms stem from nationwide dialogue and international standards, implemented in partnership with all segments of society, they can succeed.”

“As a country that has elected two women to the highest position in the government, the Philippines can confidently say that gender equality is robust and highly needed in our society. However, there are still areas for improvement along the way,” said Noel Mangaoang Novicio, Minister, Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the UN. Novice cited his country’s Magna Carta of Women, adopted in 2009, a comprehensive human rights law for women that is based on the principles of international law.

These examples demonstrate that widespread gender equality is achievable. Nevertheless, no country has achieved true gender parity, so it remains an ongoing effort. This also shows the importance of partnerships across multiple sectors and stakeholders. Governments can enforce legal reforms on a wide scale, the private sector can advocate for reforms and lead by example, and multinational organizations such as the UN and the World Bank have the resources to provide evidence of where change is needed and bring stakeholders together.

“When we work together to make legal equality a reality, it unlocks economic potential and fuels inclusive progress,” said Yamagishi.

The event, which included youth advocates and representatives from around the world among its attendees, demonstrated one of the UN’s roles in a microcosm: a convening body that brings together governments, civil society and experts on a global stage to drive forward shared commitments.

Antonia Kirkland, Equality Now’s Global Lead, Legal Equality and Justice, remarked that this makes the UN “an indispensable force in pushing for transformative, rights-based legal reforms worldwide.”

“By amplifying the voices of women’s rights advocates, particularly those from the Global South, UN platforms provide an opportunity to elevate grassroots demands to the international level, to influence legal and policy change. The UN provides an essential space for peer accountability, shared learning, and collective pressure that no single organization or government could generate alone,” said Kirkland.

Kirkland explained to IPS the ‘uniquely powerful’ role the UN and its agencies play in promoting legal reforms for gender equality. The UN has helped to set international legal standards, and its treaties and special mechanisms provide the frameworks to hold members accountable and call them out on legal discrimination.

With that said, the UN must continue its support and wield its influence amidst increasing attacks from anti-rights movements that threaten to reverse the progress on women’s legal rights.

Kirkland told IPS that anti-gender equality and anti-rights movements have been working to “erase or dilute the concept of ‘gender’ from UN documents, negotiations, and frameworks.” Erasing gender-inclusive language risks undermining international human rights standards and further weakening accountability for gender-based violence and discrimination and marginalizing the diverse experiences of women and girls.

Therefore, the UN needs to strengthen its monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for international commitments such as CEDAW and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and use its platforms to publicly track progress in legal reform. This will also require the support of member states through reaffirming their international commitments and through sustained funding to the UN.

“At a time of rising authoritarianism and anti-rights backlash, a strong, well-resourced UN is essential. Governments also need to enhance and defend the UN’s legitimacy in multilateral forums and resist political efforts to weaken its role in protecting rights and holding states accountable,” Kirkland said.

“Let us invest in feminist leadership. Let us enshrine equality, not only in our speeches, but in our statutes and in our actions,” Bahous said in her closing remarks. “The law must not be a tool of oppression. It must be the first guarantee of justice. Only when we achieve equality for all women and girls under the law can we get back on track to the SDGs, and SDG 5 [Gender Equality] remains our docking station upon which all SDGs depend.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source