Home / Publications

Publications

See more

Submission to UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar — Gendered Impacts of the Coup

Asia
Myanmar
Sexual Violence
United Nations
The following responds specifically to question 1 regarding discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality through laws, policies, directives, and requirements that target the rights of women and people with diverse gender identities, including members of Myanmar’s LGBTQ community. Gender-discriminatory laws and policies, and impunity for sexual and gender-based crimes, have long been the norm in Myanmar. Since independence in 1948, successive military regimes have perpetuated systemic discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The 2021 military coup greatly exacerbated gender-based discrimination and violence against women and people with diverse gender identities, and put an immediate end to any attempts to reform or eliminate these structural barriers to equality. The 2008 Constitution At the heart of Myanmar’s discriminatory laws and policies is the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The same document that laid the groundwork for the February 2021 coup through its broad emergency powers provision has also enabled a culture of complete impunity for military-perpetrated crimes, including sexual and gender-based violence. Though the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) voted shortly after the coup to abolish the 2008 Constitution, it remains the law of the land in the parts of the country under junta control, and the junta regularly cites the Constitution’s authority. Even before the coup, the military faced no civilian oversight or accountability. The Constitution grants the military “the right to independently administer and adjudicate all affairs of the armed forces,” leaving it to hold itself accountable. This has created a culture of complete impunity for serious human rights violations, with a very small number of exceptions aimed at appeasing the international community. Furthermore, the Constitution grants amnesty for any crimes committed by the military under current or previous administrations, stating that no “proceeding” can be initiated against a member of the military “in respect of any act done in the execution of their respective duties.” The Constitution also exempts the Commander-in-Chief from all legal constraints, stating that his decision in the adjudication of military justice “is final and conclusive.” This provision has allowed the Commander-in-Chief, Min Aung Hlaing, to issue pardons to members of the military without oversight.
Read more

Report to Human Rights Committee on US Abortion Bans as Violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Abortion
Human Rights Treaties
Reproductive Rights
United States
Introduction Since the United States (US) was last reviewed by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) nearly a decade ago in 2014, there have been significant developments in the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) for women, girls, and people who can become pregnant living in the US, including the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022. This decision overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US after 50 years of precedent following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Human rights experts warned before the Dobbs decision that overturning Roe would violate the rights of women, girls, and all people who can become pregnant in the US, as well as healthcare providers’ rights. Following the decision, the experts noted that whereas the restrictive new legal environment would not reduce the need for abortions, it would be guaranteed to increase the number of women and girls seeking clandestine and unsafe abortions, particularly for people of color and those living in poverty, and would fuel abortion stigma, leading to abuse of people in need of post-abortion care. They added: The decision to continue a pregnancy or terminate it must fundamentally and primarily be a woman’s decision as it will shape her whole future personal life and family life. The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her own body and reproductive functions is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality, non-discrimination, health, and privacy. As our submission details below, the restrictive environment around abortion in the US now also violates the rights to life and to be free of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (CIDT), as well as rights to free expression and movement, as guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Read more

Letter to UN Special Procedures on US Abortion Rights

Abortion
Human Rights Council
Reproductive Rights
United Nations
United States
US Abortion Laws
Executive Summary Following the United States (US) Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022, people residing in the US who can become pregnant are facing a human rights crisis. This urgent appeal to United Nations (UN) mandate holders, supported by a coalition of 196 signatories, details these intensifying harms, discusses the ways in which Dobbs contravenes the US’ international obligations, and sets forth calls to action. With the Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutionally protected right to access abortion, leaving the question of whether and how to regulate abortion to individual states. Approximately 22 million women and girls of reproductive age in the US now live in states where abortion access is heavily restricted, and often totally inaccessible. The harms of the Dobbs decision detailed in this appeal include: the impact on women’s lives and health; the penalization of healthcare, including criminalization; threats to privacy from increased digital surveillance; infringement on freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief; and the disproportionate impact on marginalized populations.  By overturning the established constitutional protection for access to abortion and through the passage of state laws, the US is in violation of its obligations under international human rights law, codified in a number of human rights treaties to which it is a party or a signatory. These human rights obligations include, but are not limited to, the rights to: life; health; privacy; liberty and security of person; to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; equality and non-discrimination; and to seek, receive, and impart information. The signatories call on the UN mandate holders to take up their calls to action, which include communicating with the US regarding the human rights violations, requesting a visit to the US, convening a virtual stakeholder meeting with US civil society, calls for the US to comply with its obligations under international law, and calls for private companies to take a number of actions to protect reproductive rights.
Read more

Submission to UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: US Abortion Restrictions are a Form of Racial Discrimination

Abortion
Human Rights Treaties
Reproductive Rights
United Nations
US Abortion Laws
Introduction “Racism in America is more than the fire hoses, police dogs and Alabama sheriffs you envision when you hear the words,” writes Petula Dvorak. It is also the tyranny inflicted on racialized women when they are stripped of their reproductive autonomy, shackled while giving birth, and excluded from lifesaving health care and information on cervical cancer. This submission under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) discusses three sites of systemic racism and intersectional discrimination that oppress women of color, particularly Black women, in the United States (US): abortion restrictions, the shackling of pregnant prisoners, and racial inequalities in cervical cancer mortality. While many of the laws and practices described in this submission do not directly target women of color and are presented in facially neutral terms, they disproportionately impact the human rights of women of color. We urge the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD, or the “Committee”) to recognize the disproportionate effects of these policies on the lives of racial minorities and the racial inequalities that they perpetuate. US abortion restrictions are a form of racial discrimination In June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the constitutional guarantee to access abortion. As a result, more than half of US states are poised to ban abortion; as of July 7, 2022, thirteen states have already criminalized or severely restricted abortion. Anti-abortion regulations affect all women and people who can become pregnant, but health inequities and racialized socio-economic inequalities mean that it is women and adolescents of color whose disproportionately suffer. Read the full submission
Read more

List of Issues submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination during its periodic review of the United States

Abortion
Human Rights Treaties
Reproductive Rights
US Abortion Laws
The United States’ combined report to the Committee does not consider the current national crisis in reproductive health care and its disproportionate impact on women and pregnant people of color. To mitigate this omission, this submission discusses four sites of gendered racial discrimination in the US: the shackling of pregnant prisoners, inequalities in screening and treatment for cervical cancer, abortion restrictions, and the criminalization of pregnant people and pregnancy outcomes.
Read more

Submission to UN Special Rapporteur on Health — Racism and the right to health

Abortion
Reproductive Rights
United Nations
The United States (US) is experiencing a national crisis in reproductive health care and its disproportionate impact on women and pregnant people of color. This response discusses three sites of gendered racial discrimination in the US: the shackling of pregnant prisoners, abortion restrictions, and the criminalization of pregnant people and pregnancy outcomes.
Read more

Submission to UN Special Rapporteur on Health — Abortion and Violence

Abortion
Reproductive Rights
Sexual Violence
United Nations
The following is responding specifically to question 2 regarding how the legal framework defines, punishes, and provides redress for the relevant types of violence. Denial of abortion is deeply entwined with violence as everything from risk factor to lack of redress. Indeed, the denial of abortion is itself a form of structural violence. Additionally, access to abortion bears a cyclical relationship with direct violence. Lack of access places people at greater risk for violence. Meanwhile, experiencing direct violence often increases the need and demand for abortion services. This is especially true in situations of conflict and mass violence. This section outlines the international standards to which any State must adhere in the context of mass or systemic sexual and gender-based violence (“SGBV”). They establish a minimum framework to actively ensure the right to health. Access to abortion is necessary to meaningfully redress and prevent SGBV The denial of abortion is an act of structural violence. It strips pregnant people of their rights, can cause severe physical and psychological harm, and prevents them from meeting their basic needs for healthcare. It is also inextricably linked to direct forms of SGBV, as both an outcome and a driver. There is an implicit logic that an increase in forced sex would yield an increase in unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortion access. Individually, denial of abortion reduces economic stability and independence, leaving people vulnerable to exploitation. Denial of abortion is also a form of discrimination and inequality, which are both root causes of societal instability, mass violence, and violence against women. A primary goal of international law is to avoid irreparable harm and to “restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred.” Forcing a person to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term resulting from SGBV denies them restitution for that harm. The Secretary-General’s Guidance Note on Reparations for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence recommends access to safe abortion services as an administrative reparation program to respond to the immediate needs of survivors, particularly in the context of conflict and widespread violence. Repairing harm is a baseline, but reparations “cannot simply be about returning them to where they were before the individual instance of violence, but instead should strive to have a transformative potential.” Justice and accountability also bear a role in prevention, including through guarantees of non-repetition. Among other necessary measures, legislation is required to provide people who become pregnant as a result of rape, with the choice of safe and legal abortion. Download the Full Report
Read more

Submission UN Special Rapporteur on Abortion Restrictions During COVID-19

Abortion
The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented challenges to access to sexual and reproductive health services. As states enacted their COVID-19 response plans in the early phase of the pandemic, GJC noted an uptick in focus on abortion in the United States and around the globe - resulting in a mix of outcomes, both positive and negative. The unevenness with which abortion was dealt with underscores the importance that access to safe abortion services be protected as a matter of human right, recognized by officials as essential medical care, and not subject to restrictions.
Read more

GJC Public Comment – Commission on Unalienable Rights

United States
Dear Members of the US State Department Commission on Unalienable Rights, This past May, the Global Justice Center sent a submission regarding our concerns with respect to the Commission, its work, and the potential harm that a final report produced by the Commission may have on the international human rights framework, specifically as it pertains to the right to abortion. Now, we write to you again as part of the two week public comment period following the release of the Commission’s draft report on July 16, 2020. First, we wish to call attention to the fact this is an inadequate length of time for meaningful engagement, both by the public and by the Commission, before finalization of the report. There is little reason to believe that this report is even viewed as a draft version, since the Commission has already completed all of its meetings and there is no mention of “draft” in the text of the draft report itself. Having reviewed the July 16 “Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights” (“report”) and listened to Secretary Pompeo’s speech at its unveiling, as well as the following Commission meeting, we write again to express our concerns with the report and any final product that emerges from this Commission. More specifically, we are alarmed by the Commission’s flawed representation of the international human rights framework, its legal requirements, and its framing of abortion. Download the full Public Comment
Read more