Listen to the story here:

The fight for a world full of workplaces that are free from of all forms of discrimination, stigma and exclusion is  a worthy one. A world in which sex work is decriminalized and recognized as work is part of this.

A world where all workers have safe working conditions, dignified wages, and can enjoy the same rights like health care, pension pay, sick days, holidays, job security and more, no matter their gender, race, ethnicity, age or ability. Labor rights are feminist issues, and feminist unions play a key role in advancing the legal, labor and economic rights of all workers, especially migrant workers, domestic workers, informal workers and sex workers. These are folks who have most recently been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, its burdens of care, lockdowns, curfews and increased policing. Let us introduce you to the stories of feminists and union organizers that are fighting for better working conditions and better worlds for all.

In 2002 AWID celebrated its 20th anniversary. Given the challenging political, economic and funding environment in which women's organizations must survive, a milestone such as this is worthy of recognition.

In the past two decades the geo-political landscape has been transformed and development theories have come and gone, but approaches to ensure women benefit from development processes have endured.

In its twenty-year history, AWID grew from a volunteer organization for U.S. "Women in Development" (WID) specialists to an international network striving to support proactive and strategic gender equality research, activism and policy dialogue.

On the occasion of its 20th anniversary, this paper charts not only the changes in AWID's organizational structure and goals but also the shifts in policy approaches to gender equality in a changing global environment, through the lens of a membership organization committed to improving the lives of women and girls everywhere.

In our 2015 Online Tribute to Women Human Rights Defenders No Longer With Us we are commemorating four women from Sub-Saharan Africa, three of whom were murdered due to their work and/or who they were in their gender identity and sexual orientation. Their deaths highlight the violence LGBT persons often face in the region and across the globe. Please join AWID in honoring these women, their activism and legacy by sharing the memes below with your colleagues, networks and friends and by using the hashtags #WHRDTribute and #16Days. 

Please click on each image below to see a larger version and download as a file

See Our 2015 WHRD Tribute

In the current context, we have identified five major threats to the struggle towards feminist just economies.

1. Financialisation of the world economy.

“Financialisation refers to the increasing importance of financial markets, financial motives, financial institutions, and financial elites in the operation of the economy and its governing institutions both at the national and international levels”. - Gerald Epstein

Epstein Gerald A. 2006: Financialization and the World Economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Financial institutions exert a strong influence over economic governance and the direction of development policy. The growing dominance of the corporate sector and international financial institutions in defining local and global public policies, has resulted in the capture of the State in the interest of capital. The current financial system, including controversial credit and debt policies, are integral to the reproduction and expansion of capital accumulation processes.

This raises important questions of how to regulate and re-think the global financial system, not only to avoid serious negative consequences of debt-driven crises,but to allow for sustainable livelihoods and the realization of economic and social rights without retrogression.

For more details, see the article by Balakrishnan and Heintz  “Debt, Power, and Crisis: Social Stratification and the Inequitable Governance of Financial Markets”

2. Harmful trade agreements.

For the past 20 years, trade agreements (both bilateral or multilateral) have expanded their role demonstrating increased interest in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to be given to corporations.

IPR has clearly benefitted transnational corporations with huge impacts on the ability of poorer nations and peoples to realize human rights, notably:

• the right to food,
• the right to conserve,
• the right to use and sell seeds, and
• the right to access to essential medicines.

In addition, agriculture import liberalisation resulting in an influx of cheap goods jeopardise women’s self-employed farmers in poor countries and food security. Investment protection clauses included in trade agreements limit the policy space of national governments to create and enforce regulations on issues as crucial as environmental protection, labour rights, and the duration of copyrights.

Feminist movements have been, and are, at the forefront of resistance to these agreements exposing its pitfalls.

(See for example, the reactions by feminist networks around the globe to both the Transatlantic and TransPacific Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement negotiations.)

3. Unprecedented scale of threat to ecosystems and biodiversity.

The commodification of the Earth’s resources and resulting environmental degradation and climate change produced by decades of aggressive industrialisation, plunder and extractivism of the world’s resources, have damaged biodiversity and ecological resilience. These damages are now threatening the existence of human society itself.

The international community has failed to address production and consumption patterns sitting at the root of the problem. Instead, governments –with the support of large corporations interested in making a profit - are leaning towards a “green economy” approach promoting “energy-efficient technologies” (including nuclear energy, biofuels, genetically modified organisms and geo-engineering) and carbon trade schemes as the silver bullet.

4.Commodification of land and accelerating global phenomenon of land and resource grabbing.

While the processes of land and resource appropriation is not new – in fact, they are central struggles in colonial histories- what is new is the advanced means by which land and natural resource wealth are becoming commodities in new markets.

International Financial Institutions play a central role in promoting land markets in developing countries. These institutions finance land reforms that enable powerful actors to use land for speculative gain in exchange of meagre promises of jobs and growth. Land-grabbing has far reaching negative impacts on local peoples’ access to essential goods and services apart from displacement and environmental degradation that are associated with it.

People who are resisting land grabbing, among them women human rights defenders, face diverse forms of violence including physical attacks and sexual abuse, on a daily basis.

5. Entrenched patriarchal foundations that structure the capitalist system

This patriarchal foundation is particularly hegemonic in today’s neoliberal models.

The many ways in which political economy and development are connected to sexuality or gender is evident: think how capitalism defines what can even be characterized as labour and ties human worth to wage-labour productivity.

For the most part, women’s position in the global economy continues to be one of gender-based labour exploitation with women’s work undervalued in precarious jobs, domestic subsistence, reproduction, and in unwaged household production.  Because reproductive labour has been naturalized as women's unpaid work, it has provided an immense subsidy to capitalism at the same time as a source of gender oppression and subjugation.

This situation is aggravated by the fact that as social protection mechanisms begin to dwindle, women’s care burden increases.

Further, the phenomenon of global migration spurred on by thousands of economic refugees escaping oppressive poverty across the globe is not estranged to that of capitalist gender power relations. Remittances become a major source of development financing for the families and communities, but at a major cost for women migrants who struggle to earn a living wage in their new country.

In the same vein, we have seen how patriarchal capitalist systems are using violence and oppression to maintain their status quo. Rising global expenditures in militarism and violence, both perpetrated by state and non-state actors, is increasingly used to control dissent, women’s bodies and voice and settle economic, political and social disputes.

Across the world, violence, incarceration and discrimination disproportionately targets

• women, communities of colour,
• indigenous peoples,
• people with disabilities,
• sex workers,
• impoverished people, and
• LGBTQI people.

An intersectional analysis linking gender, race, ethnicity, age, ability, nationality, sexual orientation and gender identity, among other status is needed to challenge structural violence and its links with a capitalist global system.

A profound crisis in the current global governance system is also evident in the feeble inter-governmental agreements reached and how they often lack the most fundamental accountability mechanisms. The multilateral system that served global governance before is failing to respond to the current multiple crises. The same system continues to be deeply undemocratic, with increasing presence and power by corporations occupying the spaces where States used to be.

Rethinking, Renewing & Reactivating

These threats challenge feminists to re-think our framework and strategies. To renew and reactivate our commitment to movement building with others for a just economy.

They challenge us to consider broad agendas for socio-economic transformations, from a feminist perspective, in ways that address the realities of the majority of the impoverished. Now is the time to bring about change for a just economy and to address the persistent systemic challenges.

See also

Where does the project come from?

Our vision

Our partners

Despite their rigidity in matters of doctrine and worldview, anti-rights actors have demonstrated an openness to building new kinds of strategic alliances, to new organizing techniques, and to new forms of rhetoric. As a result, their power in international spaces has increased.

There has been a notable evolution in the strategies of ultra conservative actors operating at this level. They do not only attempt to tinker at the edges of agreements and block certain language, but to transform the framework conceptually and develop alternative standards and norms, and avenues for influence.

Strategy 1: Training of UN delegates

Ultra conservative actors work to create and sustain their relationships with State delegates through regular training opportunities - such as the yearly Global Family Policy Forum - and targeted training materials.

These regular trainings and resources systematically brief delegates on talking points and negotiating techniques to further collaboration towards anti-rights objectives in the human rights system. Delegates also receive curated compilations of ‘consensus language’ and references to pseudo-scientific or statistical information to bolster their arguments.

The consolidated transmission of these messages explains in part why State delegates who take ultra-conservative positions in international human rights debates frequently do so in contradiction with their own domestic legislation and policies.

Strategy 2: Holding international convenings

Anti-rights actors’ regional and international web of meetings help create closer links between ultra conservative Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), States and State blocs, and powerful intergovernmental bodies. The yearly international World Congress of Families is one key example.

These convenings reinforce personal connections and strategic alliances, a key element for building and sustaining movements. They facilitate transnational, trans-religious and dynamic relationship-building around shared issues and interests, which leads to a more proactive approach and more holistic sets of asks at the international policy level on the part of anti-rights actors.

Strategy 3: Placing reservations on human rights agreements

States and State blocs have historically sought to undermine international consensus or national accountability under international human rights norms through reservations to human rights agreements, threatening the universal applicability of human rights.  

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has received by far the most reservations, most of which are based on alleged conflict with religious law. It is well-established international human rights law that evocations of tradition, culture or religion cannot justify violations of human rights, and many reservations to CEDAW are invalid as they are “incompatible with the object and purpose” of CEDAW. Nevertheless, reference to these reservations is continually used by States to dodge their human rights responsibilities.

‘Reservations’ to UN documents and agreements that are not formal treaties - such as Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions - are also on the rise.

Strategy 4: Creating a parallel human rights framework

In an alarming development, regressive actors at the UN have begun to co-opt existing rights standards and campaign to develop agreed language that is deeply anti-rights.

The aim is to create and then propagate language in international human rights spaces that validates patriarchal, hierarchical, discriminatory, and culturally relativist norms.

One step towards this end is the drafting of declarative texts, such as the World Family Declaration and the San Jose Articles, that pose as soft human rights law. Sign-ons are gathered from multiple civil society, state, and institutional actors; and they are then used a basis for advocacy and lobbying.

Strategy 5: Developing  alternative ‘scientific’ sources

As part of a strategic shift towards the use of non-religious discourses, anti-rights actors have significantly invested in their own ‘social science’ think tanks. Given oxygen by the growing conservative media, materials from these think tanks are then widely disseminated by conservative civil society groups. The same materials are used as the basis for advocacy at the international human rights level.  

While the goals and motivation of conservative actors derive from their extreme interpretations of religion, culture, and tradition, such regressive arguments are often reinforced through studies that claim intellectual authority. A counter-discourse is thus produced through a heady mix of traditionalist doctrine and social science.

Strategy 6: Mobilizing Youth

This is one of the most effective strategies employed by the religious right and represents a major investment in the future of anti-rights organizing.

Youth recruitment and leadership development, starting at the local level with churches and campuses, are a priority for many conservative actors engaged at the international policy level.  

This strategy has allowed for infiltration of youth-specific spaces at the United Nations, including at the Commission on the Status of Women, and creates a strong counterpoint to progressive youth networks and organizations.

Strategy 7: Defunding and delegitimizing human rights mechanisms

When it comes to authoritative expert mechanisms like the UN Special Procedures and Treaty Monitoring Bodies and operative bodies like the UN agencies, regressive groups realize their potential for influence is much lower than with political mechanisms^[1].

In response, anti-rights groups spread the idea that UN agencies are ‘overstepping their mandate,’ that the CEDAW Committee and other Treaty Bodies have no authority to interpret their treaties, or that Special Procedures are partisan experts working outside of their mandate. Anti-rights groups have also successfully lobbied for the defunding of agencies such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

This invalidation of UN mechanisms gives fuel to state impunity. Governments, when under international scrutiny, can defend their action on the basis that the reviewing mechanism is itself faulty or overreaching.

Strategy 8: Organizing online

Conservative non-state actors increasingly invest in social media and other online platforms to promote their activities, campaign, and widely share information from international human rights spaces.

The Spanish organization CitizenGo, for example, markets itself as the conservative version of Change.org, spearheading petitions and letter-writing campaigns. One recent petition, opposing the establishment of a UN international day on safe abortion, gathered over 172,000 signatures.

Overarching Trends:

• Learning from the organizing strategies of feminists and other progressives.
• Replicating and adapting successful national-level tactics for the international sphere.
• Moving from an emphasis on ‘symbolic protest’ to becoming subversive system ‘insiders.’

By understanding the strategies employed by anti-rights actors, we can be more effective in countering them.

[1] The fora that are state-led, like the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and UN conferences like the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on Population and Development

Other Chapters

• Key impacts on the international human rights system
• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses

Read the full report

Other Chapters

• Key impacts on the international human rights system
• Key opposition actors
• Key opposition discourses

Read the full report