Abstract

Excerpted From: Tamar Ezer and R. Denisse Córdova Montes, An Analysis of Global and Regional Human Rights Standards on Gender-Based Violence, 24 Seattle Journal for Social Justice 245 (Spring 2026) (335 Footnotes) (Full Document)

Human rights law provides an extensive normative and global governance framework regulating gender-based violence (GBV). It further offers a much needed moral and legal compass and connection to global discourse as “gender” itself has become a suspect word, and women’s rights are pitted against transgender rights, despite a common source for violations. Moreover, viewing GBV as a human rights violation signifies “an important conceptual shift,” as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recognizes: GBV is not just a private matter taking place “by accident, or because of an in-born vulnerability.” Instead, “[GBV] is the result of structural, deep-rooted discrimination, which the state has an obligation to address.” Human rights violations are both a cause and manifestation of GBV. GBV undermines fundamental human rights to equality and non-discrimination, life, health, security of person, privacy, and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Moreover, GBV can prevent individuals from exercising additional rights, including rights to family, employment, and housing.

Under international human rights law, states have the responsibility to address these violations, and human rights standards provide a framework to guide states and set benchmarks for monitoring compliance. International and regional human rights bodies have repeatedly highlighted the importance of a coordinated, sustained, and long-term approach at the national level to address GBV. In this context, National Action Plans on Violence Against Women serve as a best practice for tackling GBV by setting a concrete metric for implementing human rights standards.

This article provides an analysis of international and regional human rights standards and interpretations regarding GBV, which can help inform national policies and action plans. It looks across the United Nations (U.N.) and each of the major regional human rights systems--the European, Inter-American, and African--identifying key intersections, tensions, and gaps. This jurisprudential review is then accompanied by recommendations to strengthen human rights standards and ensure greater consistency, taking survivor perspectives into account. It builds on work by the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, undertaken in conjunction with the Lancet Commission on GBV and Maltreatment of Young People. This analysis draws on the following: discussions during the April 2022 Gender Justice and Human Rights Symposium at the University of Miami School of Law and at meetings of the Lancet Commission on Gender-based Violence and Maltreatment of Young People; interviews with subject matter experts; and desk research on the applicable human rights frameworks.

Most countries have committed to addressing GBV and violence against children through binding treaty obligations. At the international level, with 189 and 196 state ratifications respectively, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), addressing the rights of women and children, are two of the most ratified human rights treaties. In the African system, the key treaties addressing women’s and children’s rights are the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. In the European system, the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) focuses specifically on GBV. Similarly, in the Inter-American system, the Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women (Belém do Pará Convention) targets GBV. Moreover, the Inter-American system is unique among the regional human rights systems in that it established a Follow-up Mechanism to the Belém do Pará Convention (MESECVI), specifically tasked with analyzing progress in the implementation of the Belém do Pará Convention. In each of these systems, human rights bodies further provide authoritative, though often nonbinding, interpretations of treaty obligations and monitor state compliance. These interpretations include general guidance interpreting particular treaty provisions through General Recommendations or Comments; recommendations to states upon periodic review of their human rights records; and case law addressing specific complaints against a state.

This article provides an analysis of key themes and gaps across the various human rights systems, as well as recommendations to strengthen human rights standards addressing GBV. Part I focuses on defining GBV, exploring categories of GBV, evolving terminology, intersections with inequality, and recognition of a collective dimension. Part II examines cross-cutting approaches to GBV that are both survivor-centered and survivor-led and that encompass GBV across the lifecycle. Part III analyzes state responsibilities in addressing GBV, focusing on prevention, healing, and justice, a typology proposed by the survivors working group of the Lancet Commission on Gender-Based Violence and Maltreatment of Young People. Part IV then concludes with a summary of key findings, as well as recommendations to address current gaps.

[ . . . ]

While international and regional human rights law, including the U.N., African, Inter-American, and European human rights systems, set out a powerful framework for addressing GBV, there is room for further development to incorporate survivor-led approaches. The following key findings and recommendations emerge from an analysis of global and regional human rights standards on GBV:

• The international, African, and European human rights systems recognize GBV as “intended or likely to cause” “physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm or suffering.” The Inter-American human rights system includes the other components, but does not include the economic axis. In the context of Indigenous Peoples, the international and Inter-American systems have further recently recognized spiritual and social harms. The international system has also recognized social harm in the context of children. These various dimensions of GBV can be more consistently recognized across the systems.

• Terminology used to refer to GBV has evolved with most recent guidance at the international level in 2017 referring to “gender-based violence against women,” making explicit the gendered causes and impacts of violence and the understanding of GBV as a social, rather than individual problem.

• The international, European, and Inter-American human rights systems have increasingly recognized GBV beyond a gender binary. They categorize violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity as GBV since it is “driven by a desire to punish those defying gender norms.” Drawing on these developments, GBV can be comprehensively defined as “violence targeting or disproportionately impacting individuals due to their gender or prevailing gender norms.”

• The various human rights systems define GBV as a violation of the fundamental right to equality and non-discrimination. The various human rights systems further emphasize the importance of an intersectional approach addressing intersecting discrimination in tackling GBV.

• There has been some initial recognition of the collective dimension experienced at a community level and intergenerational impacts of GBV in the context of Indigenous Peoples in the international and Inter-American human rights systems. The various human rights systems can build on this and further develop the concept of the collective dimension of GBV more broadly, recognizing its applicability for other populations.

• While there is some recognition of the need for survivor-centered approaches to addressing GBV by the international and European human rights systems, this recognition could be further developed. There should be greater focus on survivor-centered and survivor-led approaches across the various systems.

• While the various human rights systems could further develop a lifecycle approach to GBV, they examine particular vulnerabilities to GBV with regard to childhood, reproductive health, and older persons. This is an area for a potential joint report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health.

• International and regional human rights frameworks recognize that states must exercise “due diligence” to address GBV.

• The various human rights systems should more fully embrace the survivor-centered framework of “prevention, healing, and justice.” This would entail expanding notions of redress beyond safety and protection by the criminal justice system and recognizing the justice needs of families and communities.

• A focus on GBV prevention is consistent with the proactive orientation of the human rights framework, which addresses “the underlying conditions that perpetuate violations of rights.” Prevention under international and regional human rights law includes addressing cultural biases, enacting legislation, training justice actors, education programs, public awareness, safe public spaces, treatment for perpetrators, and media and private sector regulation and accountability.

• To align human rights frameworks with the survivor-centered notion of ““healing,” “protect” under human rights law should place greater focus on long-term access to resources meeting the basic needs of survivors, including access to food, housing, transportation, technology, paid safe leave, and social protection. Moreover, an expanded “protect” obligation should address broader community needs, including those of perpetrators, and expand protection ecosystems for survivors beyond the criminal justice system.

• To align human rights frameworks with a survivor-centered approach to justice, accountability under human rights frameworks should more explicitly link to prevention and a broad range of human rights, prioritize survivors’ agency and autonomy, and include a greater focus on restorative justice and society’s responsibilities towards survivors’ families and communities.

Thus, international and regional human rights law set out a powerful framework for addressing GBV. Human rights standards define GBV expansively to include physical, sexual, psychological, or economic harm. Additionally, they address GBV throughout the lifecycle, including during childhood, in connection with reproduction, and for older persons. There is further emerging recognition of the collective dimension and intergenerational impacts of GBV. Human rights law fundamentally conceives of GBV as a social problem linked to intersecting discrimination, requiring state action to address. Moreover, human rights standards increasingly recognize GBV beyond a gender binary to include violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the same time, international and regional human rights law can better incorporate survivor-led approaches to address GBV and more fully embrace the survivor-centered frame of “prevention, healing, and justice.” This would entail expanding notions of safety and protection beyond the criminal justice system to ensure access to food, housing, transportation, technology, paid safe leave, and social protection. Additionally, this calls for a more holistic approach to justice that explicitly links to prevention and takes into account the needs of families and communities.

Tamar Ezer is the Faculty Director of the Human Rights Program, Acting Co-Director of the Human Rights Clinic, and Associate Professor of Professional Practice, Educator Faculty, at the University of Miami School of Law.

R. Denisse Córdova Montes is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Legal Studies at the University of Central Florida.