International Law for Women

a resource for women's human rights advocates

Category: United States of America

Recent political policies and their legal ramifications

When States effectively ban contraception – the international legal framework

(reading: 25 minutes; post-graduate level)

Monthly oral contraception pills on a yellow background; photo by Karola, courtesy of Pexels

The United Nations considers access to birth control to be a universal human right, but that right is increasingly denied even in democratic States. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), education and information on sexual and reproductive health, combined with access to contraception, have been proven to reduce teenage pregnancies, unsafe abortions, maternal morbidity and mortality, and the transmission of STDs.[i] Policies that effectively ban contraception choices violate international human rights law. Therefore, this paper examines a case study on the international legal findings by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that may shed light on the declining situation for women and adolescents of the United States of America and elsewhere. As women’s rights to sexual and reproductive healthcare are increasingly threatened, knowledge sharing is essential.

“HHS is aligning the program with President Trump’s pro-life and pro-family agenda.”
Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the United States Department of Health and Human Services

The impacts of the United States’ increasing interference on contraception can be foreseen through the case study of a situation in the Philippines from between 2004 – 2012. The rhetoric of the public policy planning is alarmingly similar to the current U.S. Administration’s. Under a multi-party democracy with an elected president and legislature, women and girls in the Philippines were effectively denied access to contraception and comprehensive information on sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), including family planning.

Case study: inquiry concerning the Philippines

In 2008 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women received a joint submission from NGOs in the Philippines related to legislative acts imposed by concurrent mayors of Manila. A decentralization of health services, family planning and population development in the Philippines allowed the Manila City Council to enact legislation by ordinance, while the mayor had the authority of executive orders.

“Executive Order No. 003 recalled the sanctity of life including the protection of the life of the mother and the unborn, as enshrined in the Constitution, and declared that the City of Manila would take an ‘affirmative stand on pro-life issues’ (…).” “The Order also provided that the City would ‘promote responsible parenthood and uphold natural family planning not just as a method but as a way of self-awareness in promoting the culture of life while discouraging the use of artificial methods of contraception like condoms, pills, intrauterine devices, surgical sterilization, and other’.”[ii]

While Executive order No. 003 did not expressly prohibit the use of contraceptives, the implementation of the policies in practice severely limited access, which effectually resulted in their banning in Manila. The situation was worsened by the subsequent mayor, who continued its implementation and issued Executive Order No. 030, which imposed a funding ban on modern contraception.

Both mayors who imposed these executive orders were Catholic.

Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines; photo by Sean Yoro; courtesy of Unsplash

The CEDAW Committee considered the complaint information received “to be reliable and indicative of grave or systemic violations”[iii] according to international standards. As such, they conducted a confidential inquiry through the assistance of relevant NGOs to investigate the availability of contraceptives in Manila. They found evidence women and girls were provided with information on ‘natural family planning’ but were given misinformation about modern methods of contraception even though listed as Essential Medicines by the World Health Organization.[iv]

By excluding access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health services and commodities between 2007-11, women in Manila experienced damaging impacts on their health and lives. In particular, the executive orders “had detrimental consequences for economically disadvantaged women and drove them further into poverty by depriving them of an opportunity to control the number and spacing of their children.”[v] The multiple pregnancies adversely affected women’s mental and physical health, increased their exposure to STDs including HIV/AIDS, and “contributed to tension with their husbands or partners and fostered domestic violence.”[vi]

Executive Order Nos. 003 and 030 negatively affected women as

“such implementation over many years had a severe impact on their health and on their access to adequate health care services. The Committee observes that the lives and health of many women were put at risk, given that they were compelled to have more children than they wanted or than their health permitted them to have. The Committee particularly takes note of the potentially life-threatening consequences of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies as a direct consequence of the denial of access to the full range of contraceptive methods, as well as of the strict criminalization of abortion without any exemptions provided for in the State party’s legislation. Complications resulting from unsafe and illegal abortions are a prominent cause of maternal death in Manila, as acknowledged by the State party. It is therefore evident for the Committee that the failure of the State party to provide the full range of sexual and reproductive health services, commodities and information resulted in unplanned pregnancies, unsafe abortions and unnecessary and preventable maternal deaths.”[vii]

The Committee also found that “adolescent girls were exposed to an increased risk of unwanted pregnancies and pregnancy-related injuries or death following unprotected or coerced sex, to which they are particularly vulnerable.”[viii]

In the Manila case, the CEDAW Committee clarified that

“distinctive health features that differ for women in comparison to men include biological factors such as women’s reproductive functions. Given that such factors have a bearing on women’s reproductive health needs, the Committee considers that substantive equality requires that States parties attend to the risk factors that predominantly affect women. Given that only women can become pregnant, lack of access to contraceptive is therefore bound to affect their health disproportionately. (…) Women in Manila primarily bore the consequences of and were disproportionately disadvantaged by the inability to gain access to and use the full range of reproductive health services, including modern methods of contraception.”[ix]

The CEDAW Committee found the Republic of the Philippines in violation of the CEDAW Convention, Articles 2 (d), 2 (f) and Article 12.

The prohibition of discrimination and the right to health

According to Article 2 of CEDAW

States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women and, to this end, undertake:

(a) To embody the principle of the equality of men and women in their national constitutions or other appropriate legislation if not yet incorporated therein and to ensure, through law and other appropriate means, the practical realization of this principle;

(…)

(d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women and to ensure that public authorities and institutions shall act in conformity with this obligation;

(…)

(f) To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) provides for family planning services, in Article 12, para. 1.

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women distributed General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and health) in 1999. It clarified the obligations of the State, including

13. The duty of States parties to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health-care services, information and education implies an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil women’s rights to health care. States parties have the responsibility to ensure that legislation and executive action and policy comply with these three obligations. They must also put in place a system that ensures effective judicial action. Failure to do so will constitute a violation of article 12.[x]

Furthermore,

17. The duty to fulfil rights places an obligation on States parties to take appropriate legislative, judicial, administrative, budgetary, economic and other measures to the maximum extent of their available resources to ensure that women realize their rights to health care. Studies such as those that emphasize the high maternal mortality and morbidity rates worldwide and the large numbers of couples who would like to limit their family size but lack access to or do not use any form of contraception provide an important indication for States parties of possible breaches of their duties to ensure women’s access to health care. [xi]

A group of children playing a traditional game on streets of Philippines. Photo by Grace; courtesy of Pexels.

Whiles those obligations cited under the Manila investigation by the CEDAW Committee are owed under the Convention, there are other international human rights and domestic legal obligations that may also apply.

Similar rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the prohibition of discrimination, frequently fall under multiple treaties because human rights are both interdependent and interrelated. Many obligations will be owed by several UN Member States, depending on the treaties they have each ratified; their domestic law should reflect those human rights accordingly.

Health rights and reproductive freedoms

Access to contraception is anchored in international human rights lawunder the right to health, which is found in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

ICESCR – Article 12

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) – Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESR) is tasked with the interpretation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The Committee provides clarity on the normative content of Article 12 in its General Comment No. 14 as follows.

(8.) The right to health is not to be understood as a right to be healthy. The right to health contains both freedoms and entitlements. The freedoms include the right to control one’s health and body, including sexual and reproductive freedom, and the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free from torture, non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation. By contrast, the entitlements include the right to a system of health protection which provides equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest attainable level of health.[xii]

Furthermore, the State is bound to the principle of non-discrimination, including discrimination according to sex and gender. Specifically,

“States are under the obligation to respect the right to health by, inter alia, (…) abstaining from imposing discriminatory practices relating to women’s health status and needs. (…) In addition, States should refrain from limiting access to contraceptives and other means of maintaining sexual and reproductive health, from censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting health-related information, including sexual education and information, as well as from preventing people’s participation in health-related matters.”[xiii]

The Committee on Economic and Social Rights interprets Article 12.2 (a), The right to maternal, child and reproductive health, as follows.

14. “The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child” (art. 12.2 (a))¹⁰ may be understood as requiring measures to improve child and maternal health, sexual and reproductive health services, including access to family planning, pre- and post-natal care,¹¹ emergency obstetric services and access to information, as well as to resources necessary to act on that information.”

Photo by Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition; courtesy of Unsplash

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) also recognized that “sexual and reproductive health is an integral part of the right to health”[xiv] when they published General Comment No. 22 on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) in 2016.

Under the normative content of the right to sexual and reproductive health, the OHCHR stated that “Essential medicines should also be available, including a wide range of contraceptive methods, such as condoms and emergency contraception, medicines for abortion and for post-abortion care, and medicines, including generic medicines, for the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and HIV.”[xv]

Furthermore, “Unavailability of goods and services due to ideologically based policies or practices, such as the refusal to provide services based on conscience, must not be a barrier to accessing services. An adequate number of health-care providers willing and able to provide such services should be available at all times in both public and private facilities and within reasonable geographical reach.”[xvi] This is applicable not only to contraception, but also to abortion and post-abortion care. Policy making based on ideology alone runs counter to human rights.

Freedom of religion serves atheists too

Often referred to as the ‘separation of church and State’ in domestic law, international law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or beliefs – this includes the protection of those who choose no religion. This provision is found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966).

ICCPR – Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed.
General Comment No. 22 by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (1993)

Freedom of religion also entails the right to have no religion at all. In 1993 the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) adopted General Comment No. 22 to clarify the scope of Article 18 of the ICCPR.

2. Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed.

(…)

5. The Committee observes that the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including, inter alia, the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief. Article 18 (2) bars coercions that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as for example those restricting access to education, medical care, employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant are similarly inconsistent with article 18 (2). The same protection is enjoyed by holders of all beliefs of a non-religious nature.

Manila, Philippines. Photo by Mike Mijares; courtesy of Pexels.

‘Natural family planning’, which was promulgated in the Executive Orders 003 and 030 in Manila, is central to Catholic teaching. However, under Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Declaration of Principles and State Policies Principles, “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”[xvii] The CEDAW Committee found that despite the inviolability of Church and State “the Church has considerable influence on policy making. Religion has been relied upon as the basis for sexual and reproductive health policies, including at the level of local government units”.[xviii]

Likewise, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.[xix] The United States Courts (.gov) website, reads “Today, what constitutes an ‘establishment of religion’ is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the ‘Lemon’ test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.”[xx]

In 2009 the Republic of the Philippines adopted an Act providing for a comprehensive women’s human rights instrument – the Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710). The Act incorporated elements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights such as the principle of non-discrimination, and much of the CEDAW Convention, into the Philippine national framework.

Section 3 of the Magna Carta of Women affirms a general principle of international law, which is that because human rights are interdependent and interrelated “the fulfillment of one right often depends, wholly or in part, upon the fulfilment of others”[xxi]. Unfortunately, the Philippine government failed to fully implement the Act, specifically on family planning provisions from Section 17 – Women’s Right to Health, and to monitor for compliance. Essentially, human rights were violated by integrating religious doctrine into public policy.

Freedom of expression and the right to receive information

States have an obligation to provide comprehensive information on healthcare, including contraception methods, their effectiveness and side effects. Campaigns of misinformation and disinformation by the State may be a human rights violation.

The World Health Organization states that “people must have guaranteed access to sexuality education, including information about contraceptives, that enables them to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, as well as access to specific educational information to help ensure the health and well-being of families”.

The International Declaration of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19, provides for the fundamental freedom of expression. The clause on the right to receive information is found within Article 19, para. 2.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Photo by Vitaly Gariev; courtesy of Unsplash

Freedom of expression and the right to seek and receive information, according to Article 19 of the ICCPR, combined with the right to health, was expressed in the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (CESR) General Comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health.

8. (…) States should refrain from limiting access to contraceptives and other means of maintaining sexual and reproductive health, from censoring, withholding or intentionally misrepresenting health-related information, including sexual education and information, as well as from preventing people’s participation in health-related matters.”[xxii]

The Philippine Magna Carta of Women, which took effect on September 15, 2009, provides the right for women and girls to receive information related to their sexual and reproductive health.

“All people have the right to participate in and access information relating to the decision-making processes that affect their lives and well-being.”[xxiii]

That statement is consistent with the World Health Organization and the United Nations’ own statements and recommendations.

State responsibility and the devolution of powers in domestic law

As the primary subjects of international law, the nation State bears responsibility for all acts and omissions that violate international agreements – not the sub-national levels of government whether provincial, territorial, regional or local. As clarified in the International Law Commission’s Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), General Commentary, “The State is treated as a unity, consistent with its recognition as a single legal person in international law.”[xxiv] Therefore, the Philippines bears responsibility for all acts and omissions by its sub-national government entities, including the City of Manila. So too does the United States of America, for example, over any of its sub-national States. This principle runs throughout international law.

A map of the United States’ terrain, and neighbouring States.

See CEDAW’s General Comment No. 28, paragraph 39, on the devolution of powers.

39. “…The decentralization of power, through devolution and delegation of Government powers in both unitary and federal States, does not in any way negate or reduce the direct responsibility of the State party’s national or federal Government to fulfil its obligations to all women within its jurisdiction. In all circumstances, the State party that ratified or acceded to the Convention remains responsible for ensuring full implementation throughout the territories under its jurisdiction. In any process of devolution, States parties have to make sure that the devolved authorities have the necessary financial, human and other resources to effectively and fully implement the obligations of the State party under the Convention. The Governments of States parties must retain powers to require such full compliance with the Convention and must establish permanent coordination and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the Convention is respected and applied to all women within their jurisdiction without discrimination. Furthermore, there must be safeguards to ensure that decentralization or devolution does not lead to discrimination with regard to the enjoyment of rights by women in different regions.”[xxv]

Findings of human rights violations are attributed to the State under whose jurisdiction the violations occurred. This was affirmed in the Magna Carta of Women under Section 3.

States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights. They must comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in international human rights instruments in accordance with the Philippine Constitution. Where they fail to do so, aggrieved rights-holders are entitled to institute proceedings for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law.[xxvi]

The tacit acceptance or official endorsement of violations of international law, as attributable to the State, was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in the case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, United States v Iran (1979).[xxvii]

A comparative analysis of the international legal framework between the Philippines and the United States

Consent to jurisdiction is a primary consideration in international law. Each nation State will have differing legal obligations which are dependent on their consent through the ratification of treaties, conventions and other legal instruments. This is notwithstanding customary international law, general principles of international law, and jus cogens, which are non-derogable norms.

The Philippines ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on August 5, 1981, and its corresponding optional protocol on November 12, 2003. In accordance with Articles 8 and 9 of the CEDAW Optional Protocol , the Philippines accepted the Inquiry procedure on November 12, 2003. Previous to that, the Philippines ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on October 23, 1986, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on June 7, 1974. The Philippines has ratified eight out of nine core international human rights treaties[xxviii] and four out of a possible five optional protocols; the optional protocols provide the United Nations treaty bodies jurisdiction over complaints of alleged human rights abuses in violation of their corresponding treaties.

The United States of America signed the CEDAW on July 17, 1980, but failed to ratify the Convention and its optional protocol, so it is not a member party. Similarly, the U.S.A signed the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on October 5, 1977, but never ratified that Covenant either. The United States has ratified only three of the nine core human rights treaties and zero out of five optional protocols. The U.S.A. did however ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on June 8, 1992,[xxix] but unfortunately did not ratify either of its two optional protocols, which would have given the United Nations Human Rights Committee jurisdiction to hear complaints from individuals on civil and political rights abuses. Effectively, this means that protection from human rights abuses in the United States is reliant mostly on domestic remedies. However, customary international law, general principles of international law and jus cogens may be applicable under specific circumstances.

An overwhelmed mother sits in the park with her unhappy five children of various ages. (AI generated)

Conclusion

In April 2026 United States’ President Donald Trump released new guidance intended to overhaul family planning services, prioritizing childbirth over contraception.[xxx] Then in July of 2026 the Trump Administration gutted funding for 53 programs intended and proven to reduce teen pregnancies, because they were allegedly ‘normalizing sexual activities for minors’[xxxi]. These acts and omissions are likely to have dire consequences on the population of women and girls in the United States, undermining their rights to non-discrimination, the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, the right to health, the right to receive information, the right to education and the right to work. These human rights abuses will generally deepen gender inequality unless addressed.

The global rolling back of women’s rights continues. And while nation States may bear the legal responsibility, it is women, girls and gender diverse persons that bear the impact.

– August 2026

Additional resources:

See the World Health Organization’s Model List of Essential Medicines – 24^th List (2025); 22. Medicines for Reproductive health and Perinatal Care; pages 54 – 55 includes (22.1) Contraceptives and (22.4) Medicines for medical abortion: mifepristone – misoprostol.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/B09474

See the World Health Organization’s Fact sheet on Emergency Contraception; Nov. 9, 2021; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/emergency-contraception and on Abortion; Dec. 8, 2025; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

[i] Family planning/contraception methods; published July 3, 2025; World Health Organization; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception (accessed Aug. 16, 2026)

[ii] Para. 2, Summary of the inquiry concerning the Philippines under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; April 22, 2015; CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1.

[iii] Ibid, para. 3.

[iv] Ibid; Para. 8.

[v] Ibid; para. 13.

[vi] Ibid; para. 13.

[vii] Ibid; para. 33;

[viii] Ibid, para. 34.

[ix] Para. 32; General Comment No. 14 – Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights; 2000; United Nations Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2000/4.

[x] Para. 13; General recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (women and health); 1999; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

[xi] Ibid, para. 17. Summary of the inquiry concerning the Philippines under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; April 22, 2015; CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1.

[xii] Para. 8, General Comment No. 14 – Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights; 2000; United Nations Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2000/4.

[xiii] Ibid. Para. 34.

[xiv] Para. 1; General comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health (article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights); 2016; United Nations Office of the High Commissioner; E/C.12/GC/22.

[xv] Ibid, Para. 13; footnote 15 (Essential medicines are defined by WHO as “those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population” and that “are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality, and at a price the individual and community can afford”. See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights general comment No. 14; and WHO, Model List of Essential Medicines, 19th ed. (2015).)

[xvi] Ibid, Para. 14; footnote 16 (International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network v. Italy, complaint No. 87/2012 (2014), resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 30 April 2014.)

[xvii] Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines; February 1987; https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353

[xviii] Findings of fact; para. 7; Summary of the inquiry concerning the Philippines under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; April 22, 2015; CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1.

[xix] Constitution of the United States; https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

[xx] First Amendment and Religion; United States Courts website; https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/first-amendment-and-religion (Accessed July 29, 2026)

[xxi] An act providing for the Magna Carta of Women; Republic Act No. 9710, Aug. 14, 2009. Section 3, paras. 2-3.

[xxii] Para. 8, General Comment No. 14 – Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights; 2000; United Nations Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2000/4.

[xxiii] An act providing for the Magna Carta of Women; Republic Act No. 9710, Aug. 14, 2009. Section 3, paras.

[xxiv] General Commentary – Chapter I – General Principles – [82] (6); ILC (2001) Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. International Court of Justice https://www.icj-cij.org/node/202882

[xxv] Para. 23 (39) CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1

[xxvi] An act providing for the Magna Carta of Women; Republic Act No. 9710, Aug. 14, 2009. Section 3, para. 6.

[xxvii] Case concerning United States diplomatic and consular staff in Teheran (United States of America v. Iran); International Court of Justice; 29 November 1979. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/64

[xxviii] UN Treaty Body Database; Ratification Status for the Philippines; https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/treaty.aspx (Accessed August 4, 2026)

[xxix] UN Treaty Body Database; Ratification Status for the United States (accessed August 5, 2026)

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/treaty.aspx

[xxx] Mary Zeigler; Trump Is Going After Birth Control. Here’s Why. April 25, 2026; Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/04/25/birth-control-maha-abortion-trump-00889738

[xxxi] Trump administration cancels grants aimed at reducing teen pregnancies; NPR July 7, 2026; Selena Simmons-Duffin on Morning Edition. https://www.npr.org/2026/07/07/nx-s1-5875464/trump-administration-cancels-grants-aimed-at-reducing-teen-pregnancies

2026-08-31
Backsliding of women’s rights and threats to political participation

The current global state of women’s rights

At the 69^th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women, held at the United Nations Headquarters in NYC this past September, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that “women’s rights are under siege. The poison of the patriarchy is back – and it is back with a vengeance”.

The global condition of women is deteriorating. In fact, the United Nations predicts that it will be almost 300 years before gender equality is achieved worldwide if it continues at the current pace. Regressive laws are rolling women’s back rights by decades in a variety of countries, from liberal democracies like the United States, electoral autocracies like Russia, and in (now) closed autocracies like Afghanistan. They have found something in common, which is the desire to oppress women. The global trend of de-democratization threatens to bring women’s progress down with it. State hostility towards women’s movements threatens to replace existing women’s equality organizations with state-operated agencies aimed at preserving the traditional family and women’s gendered roles as mothers and caretakers.

The principle of non-discrimination, which includes women,is provided for in the nine core international human rights treaties. According to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 2, paragraph 1:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

A diverse group of resolute-looking women in suits stand in front of a neoclassical building.
(AI generated image)

Threats to women’s political participation

“A move towards authoritarianism is often accompanied by a resurgence of patriarchal values, with devastating effects on gender equality. Leaders with authoritarian leanings will encourage intolerance of and misogyny against women in public life, with the goal of dividing and cultivating fear. As countries inch towards authoritarianism, this backlash against women is noticeable.”[i]

On June 14^th of 2025 Minnesota State Representative and Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman, along with her husband, were the victims of a politically motivated assassination. Police found a hit list in the car of the shooter that included the names of almost 70 pro-abortion advocates and lawmakers.[ii]

On November 5^th of 2025, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum was sexually assaulted by a man as she made a public appearance; the incident was captured on video that went viral.[iii] Acknowledging that this was an indication of the extensive sexual violence that Latin American women face daily, she is pressing charges and is calling for a review of sexual harassment laws.

In January 2019 an AI-generated ‘deepfake’ porn video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez circulated online, traumatizing the Democratic Congresswoman. In response, as a survivor of sexual violence, she spoke out publicly against deepfakes as “a way of digitizing violent humiliation”, citing violations of privacy and autonomy.[iv] Fighting against this injustice that so many young women are subjected to, she promulgated the Take it Down act[v], which the U.S. Senate passed into law on May 19, 2025.

In October 2022, the home of U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was broken into where her husband was brutally bludgeoned on the head with a hammer by an assailant intent on finding her. Prosecutors say the man had “a violent plan to kidnap Nancy Pelosi, to hold her hostage, to break her kneecaps, to teach her a lesson.”[vi] Paul Pelosi survived the attack, after surgery and a long recovery, but the incident highlighted the hostile level that political rhetoric has reached and the vulnerability of lawmakers and their families. Shortly afterwards Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi stepped down from her role as Speaker of the House and Democratic Leader, after serving over 40 years in politics with the honour of being the first and only female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The law

None of this is justifiable. And all of it is designed to silence and drive women, including younger generations, out of the politics and the public sphere. Political participation is a human right. And domestic law must conform to international law. To that effect Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 175 States by the end of 2025[vii], provides that:

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

In addition to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), women’s political participation is also provided for under the Action for Equality, Development and Peace – Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of 1995. Strategic objectives include Women in Power and Decision Making.[xxv]

Strategic objective G.1. –

Take measures to ensure women’s equal access to and full participation in power structures and decision-making. Actions to be taken.

Strategic objective G.2. –

Increase women’s capacity to participate in decision-making and leadership. Actions to be taken.

“Actions to be taken” refers to taking positive action, also known as affirmative action, to account for a history of structural inequality and systemic discrimination until substantial equality is achieved.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), globally women occupy only 27.2% of parliamentarian seats. And while there was a significant increase between 2000 – 2015, that progress has slowed, rising by a mere 0.3% between 2024 and 2025, which was a landmark year for elections.[viii] The intimidation, harassment and violence perpetrated against female parliamentarians has been a pressing issue for the (IPU) since 2016. The IPU has created various counter-measure initiatives aimed at achieving gender parity in parliaments, hosting an annual Summit of Women Speakers of Parliament, advocating best practices and publishing Guidelines for the elimination of sexism, harassment and violence against women in parliament[ix].

Threats against women parliamentarians arise from both the public and from their political parties, driving them out of politics and undermining political participation. This negatively impacts women’s representation and diminishes democracy itself.

De-democratization and the autocratization of the USA

International human rights law emphasizes the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. They work together to strengthen one another, but in contrast, the loss of one right can lead to the loss of others.

The Varieties of Democracy Institute developed theVarieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Research Project using data collection and 600+ indicators to measure and conceptualize democracy into core principles and components, applying them to every country in the world. Components include gender equality, credible elections, and freedom of expression, as indicated below in infographic 1. “In 2019 autocracies outnumbered democracies for the first time since 2001”[x] sparking concerns over a “third wave of autocratization”.

Infographic 1: V-Dem Global State of Democracy Indices

The V-Dem 2024 Democracy Report listed the United States as an “autocratizing” country on the Liberal Democracy Index, registering substantial and significant deterioration compared to its 2014 level.[xi] Analysis from the Global State of Democracy Initiative, an inter-governmental organization, also reports backsliding of democracy in the United States.[xii] Furthermore, the United Nations Human Rights Council recently adopted a resolution citing a lack of cooperation from the United States, who was due for their Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2025. The UPR is an interactive peer-review process of a States’ human rights performance that every Member State of the UN is required to participate in every 5 years. However, the Trump administration announced that it would be boycotting the UPR.[xiii] This is clearly an affront to international human rights law.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a U.S. based nonpartisan law and policy organization, “America’s longstanding and abysmal record on myriad gender equity markers has been the true harbinger for our downgraded status.”[xiv]

De-democratization and regression of women’s rights in the United States have impacted their rights to privacy (Art. 17 ICCPR), health (Art. 12 ICESCR), and life (Art. 6 ICCPR), especially regarding maternal mortality. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 reversed Roe v. Wade, which set abortion rights back almost 50 years. In 2026, women in South Carolina could face up to 30 years in prison for having an abortion if Bill S. 323 – the Unborn Child Protection Act – is passed. Additionally, Montana’s Bill HB 609 would make traveling out of state for an abortion a crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. This breaches the right to movement, protected under Article 12 of the ICCPR, and discriminates since men do not face similar penalties. These challenges to women’s rights emphasize the need for stronger progressive female representation in parliament.

Additionally, some Republican leaders have even suggested that women be denied the right to vote, contrary to international law. Article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), for example, guarantees equal political participation. But U.S. Pentagon Chief, Republican Pete Hegseth, supports a law to end women’s voting rights. The ‘one household, one vote’ system aims to disempower women and regress to a patriarchal order. Likewise, the SAVE ACT (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.R. 8281), tabled in 2025, imposes unreasonable obstacles to voting for anyone who has undergone a name change, including married women, trans people and adoptees. Political participation, including the right to vote, is a human right and must be free from discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), Article 7:

States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right:

(a) To vote in all elections and public referenda and to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies;

(b) To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government;

(c) To participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country.

The growing threat against women’s equal access to human rights and fundamental freedoms is of concern to all women, as ideologies rapidly spread across the internet. Of further concern is the U.S. Trump Administration’s expressed desire to “make Canada the fifty-first state”, thereby potentially subjecting Canadian women to the same misogynistic and systemic overhauling of the U.S. legal order.

Denying women political agency is a form of patriarchal protectionism that in effect subordinates women while strengthening the control of male State and non-State actors alike. But a robust democracy depends on the inclusion of a diversity of voices. Women’s rights are regarded as the canary in the coal mine of democracy because of their inextricable link.

The interconnectedness of human rights

Human rights experts recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of human rights. Oppressors strategically take aim at women’s political rights, such as the right to public participation which is closely connected to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, precisely because without those rights women are unable to promote or protect other rights. This is particularly true of freedom of expression, our most valuable right – it is a cornerstone of democracy integral to the protection and promotion of other rights. Consequently, not only are female parliamentarians at high risk of intimidation, harassment and violence, but so are female journalists and women’s human rights defenders, both from state and non-state actors alike. This violates the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

According to the International Knowledge Network of Women in Politics “(t)hese challenges discourage women from actively participating in politics and can lead to self-censorship.”[xix] The women that we depend on to inform us in the media and to represent our interests in policy-making at various levels of governance are silenced and driven out of office. Furthermore, freedom of expression includes both the right to impart and the right to receive information. Therefore, the rights of all women are indirectly violated by attacks on female journalists, parliamentarians, and human rights defenders.

A group of (Afghan) women in blue burqas standing outside; 2023; source – Faruk Tokluoğlu, Pexels

Illegitimate restrictions to political rights threaten social rights, such as equal access to education or healthcare, which are proscribed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights (1966). This is exactly what the women and girls of Afghanistan have been facing since the Taliban regained control in 2021 – no education past grade 6, they cannot be examined by a male doctor, nor are females permitted to study or practice medicine, including midwifery and nursing; thus, their rights to education, work, healthcare, and right to life are all threatened. Widows are reduced to begging on the streets to feed their children and themselves. As intended by the Taliban, women and girls are condemned to a life of economic dependence and poverty. These extreme forms of patriarchal protectionism deny women both political and personal agency. Furthermore, they are only permitted to leave their homes ‘out of necessity’ as proscribed by law. Afghan women are facing a severe mental health crisis due to the denial of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Experts “said that their plight was among the worst in the world.”[xx]

First invisible, and now silent, Afghan women have been erased from public life. The latest backlash to women’s rights in Afghanistan attacked the right to public participation and freedom of expression in the most extreme manner – denying women the right to have their voices heard in public. Under Article 13 of The Law on the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice[xxi] women are forbidden even from merely speaking aloud with each other and from singing in public.

(3) “A woman’s voice is considered intimate and should not be heard singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public”; and (8) If an adult woman leaves her house out of necessity, she must cover her voice, face, and body”.

Fighting against these draconian measures, though confined to the home, women and girls took to online education. Consequently, the Afghan government cut off fibre optic internet in September 2025[xxii], denying access to information, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, thus severing the last means of communication that women and girls had with the outside world. Women’s human rights defenders are calling the sum of these human rights violations ‘gender apartheid’.

It hasn’t always been that way. Afghan women were given the right to vote in 1919.[xxiii] And in 2020, Afghan women held over 25 per cent of seats in Parliament and could run for president.”[xxiv] Women are now banned even from working in civil society organizations, national and international NGOs including the UN, despite the country’s major humanitarian crisis. Now the Taliban, acting as the de facto authority in Afghanistan, are erasing women completely from public life – policies consistent with patriarchal autocracies that chip away at women’s rights, forcing them back into the home and to a life of servitude as mothers and caregivers. Without women in public life, the rate of child marriage has skyrocketed, and consequently, so have maternal mortality rates. Disturbingly, Afghanistan is just one of the many States where women are experiencing a systemic backlash – a stark reminder of the fragility of women’s and girls’ rights.

Afghan women in 1927; source: Commons

Collective compliance

It is natural to feel helpless in the face of such situations. When human rights violations occur on a massive scale at the hands of the State there is a diffusion of responsibility and unwillingness to challenge the State. No single individual feels compelled to take on the responsibility or costs of litigation to challenge the wrongful conduct in court. Conversely, an individual who is the sole victim of a human rights violation would likely pursue justice on their own volition. Thus, human rights violations of a broad scope are often the most challenging to reverse. Individual responsibility may be out of reach for mass human rights violations, but collectively they are not. Solidarity is imperative. Furthermore, when a human rights violation is facilitated by law, we tend to trust that it is compliant with international law, especially in democratic States.

Why international law matters

Knowledge is power. Understanding international law allows for holding State authorities accountable to their legal obligations arising from treaties with other States and, specific to human rights treaties, to all individuals under their jurisdiction. When these provisions are violated through acts or omissions it’s crucial to know how to enforce accountability through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms at domestic, regional, and international levels.

States must protect and promote the right to political participation, ensuring it is meaningful, effective, and inclusive with a real impact on decision-making. Additionally, domestic laws that lead to the loss of rights contradict the international legal principle of non-retrogression of human rights.

Women must defend their rights to public life and participate in policy making at all levels of governance from civil society organizations to the highest diplomatic posts of international organizations. This is imperative both to protect and to promote women’s human rights and democracy itself, especially in the face of increasing autocratization.

Returning to the UN Secretary-General’s warning at the 69^th Session of the Commission of Women – “the poison of the patriarchy is back – and it is back with a vengeance” (…), “but there is an antidote”, he continued, (and) “that antidote is action”. We all have an important role to play in 2026 and beyond.

[i] Bergsten, S., and Lee, S. A. 2023.“The Global Backlash against Women’s Rights: A Stark Reminder on International Women’s Day.” Human Rights Watch Dispatches [blog], 7 March. https://www.hrw.org/news /2023/03/07/global-backlash-against-womens-rights. Accessed 4 April 2023.

[ii] A ‘formidable public servant.’ Who was Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota state representative assassinated in her home?; Boyetter, Chris; CNN US; June 14, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/14/us/melissa-hortman-minnesota-assassination

[iii] Mexico president to seek charges after being groped on the street; Grant, Will; 5 November 2025; https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9pgev02pno

[iv] Ocasio-Cortez, Lee, Durbin, Graham Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Combat Non-Consensual, Sexually Explicit Deepfake Imagery; May 21, 2025; press release: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-lee-durbin-graham-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation Accessed Nov. 21, 2025.

[v] Introduced in Senate (01/16/2025) Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act or the TAKE IT DOWN Act; 119^th Congress (2025-2026); Accessed December 19, 2025 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146

[vi] Paul Pelosi details attack and arduous recovery while on stand in DePape federal trial; Kop, Jeffrey, CNN Politics; Nov. 13, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/13/politics/paul-pelosi-david-depape-trial

[vii] Ratification Status for CCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CCPR&Lang=en

[viii] Page 2, paragraphs 1 and 5; https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2025-03/women-in-parliament-1995-2025

[ix] Guidelines for the elimination of sexism, harassment and violence against women in parliament; 2019; Inter-Parliamentary Union. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reference/2019-11/guidelines-elimination-sexism-harassment-and-violence-against-women-in-parliament

[x] Abstract; Inexorable Force or Dying Wave? The long term trends of democratization and the third wave of Autocratization; David Randahl University of Gothenburg, Varieties of Democracy Institute: Working Paper No. 152. March 2025. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/WP_152.pdf

[xi] Figure A7. Countries by score on V-Dem’s Liberal Democracy Index (LDI), page 60; Democracy Report 2025, V-Dem Institute.

[xii] Global State of Democracy Initiative: International IDEA; https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/ Visited November 2025.

[xiii] Human Rights Council reschedules human rights review of the United States of America; regrets “non-cooperation” with UPR mechanism; 07 November 20205, United Nations Human Rights Council; Geneva;

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/human-rights-council-reschedules-human-rights-review-united-states-america?sub-site=HRC

[xiv] Women’s Rights and Democracy are Inextricably Linked; Jennifer Weiss-Wolf; March 16, 2022l https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/womens-rights-and-democracy-are-inextricably-linked

[xv] DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL; CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

[xvi] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Argued December 13, 1971; Reargued October 11, 1972; Decided January 22, 1973; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

[xvii] Establish criminal offense of abortion trafficking; House Bill No. 609; Montana Legislative Services; HB:609: February 2025 https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC3410?open_tab=bill

[xviii] Who’s questioning women’s right to vote?; Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta and Mel Leonor Barclay; AZ Mirror; The 19^th, August 12, 2025. https://19thnews.org/2025/08/pete-hegseth-doug-wilson-women-voting/

[xix] Report on Webinar: Women’s Political Participation in the Digital Age; March 4, 2025.

https://iknowpolitics.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20Webinar%20Women%20in%20Politics%20-%20Digital%20Age.pdf

[xx] Afghanistan: Taliban ‘may be responsible for gender apartheid’ says rights expert; UN News; 19 June 2023; https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1137847

[xxi] The Propagation of Virtue and Vice Law; Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan; Ministry of Justice, Official Gazette; August 2024. https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/Law-on-Virtue-and-Vice-Basic.pdf

[xxii] Internet Shutdown In Afghanistan Threatens Women’s Education And Human Rights; Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab , Forbes Magazine; September 21, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2025/09/21/internet-shutdown-in-afghanistan-threatens-womens-education-and-human-rights/

[xxiii] Unveiled: A History of Afghan Women’s Rights; UN Photo; https://media.un.org/photo/en/photo-essays/unveiled-history-afghan-womens-rights

[xxiv] FAQs: What it’s like to be a woman in Afghanistan in 2025; UN Women; 7 August 2025; https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/faqs/faqs-afghanistan Accessed December 25, 2025.

[xxv] Action for Equality, Development and Peace – Platform for Action; Women in Power and Decision Making https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/decision.htm

2026-01-01
How the SAVE Act could affect Millions of US women

“Today is a dark day in politics.”[1] The League of Women Voters denounced the passage of the SAVE Act in the US House of Representatives on April 10th as a dangerous step backwards for democracy, possibly disenfranchising millions of women. And ultimately what happens in the United States does not affect only the United States. However, the Act could still be rejected by the Senate.

On January 3, 2025, U.S. Republicans introduced an act to the 119th Congress which could prevent millions of American citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.R. 8281) will adversely affect the integrity of the upcoming midterm elections and will decide which party controls the US House of Representatives and Senate. But among the voters potentially affected by the SAVE Act would be approximately 69 million women, according to the Center for American Progress[2] because their birth certificates could not be used as proof of citizenship. The proposed Act creates barriers for anyone who has undergone a name change since birth, thus affecting married women who have taken their husband’s name, among others.

The Trump Administration’s stated objective of the SAVE Act is, ironically, election integrity, aimed to keep non-citizens from voting in US elections. It would, however, potentially keep millions of citizens from exercising their right to vote. “Kansas briefly experimented with a SAVE-like documentary proof of citizenship requirement, and it was an expensive disaster. The law blocked over 30,000 potential registrants in just two years — approximately 12% of all voter registrations during the period — and Kansas officials conceded in court that over 99% of affected voters were U.S. citizens.”[3]

To achieve this, the Administration is having voting registries routinely purge their electoral databases “to prevent election fraud”, thus requiring citizens to re-register in person to provide proof of US citizenship. The SAVE Act does not specifically state what documents would be required as proof of citizenship[4], thereby creating ambiguity for those that the law would affect. To trace this out – a birth certificate, while affirming the place of its holders’ birth, for obvious reasons, does not have a photo of the holder; the birth certificate could, hypothetically, be a stolen document presented by anyone of a vaguely similar description and is therefore insufficient on its own. Logically, additional government issued identification, must be provided; however, a driver’s license is not acceptable as non-citizens have them too, and only approximately 50% of Americans have passports. Valid identification would have to include a current photo and description of its holder, to provide a means of visual confirmation for the electoral registries when presented in person. However, and this is the tricky part, that photo ID would have to match the name of the birth certificate. This would prove difficult for anyone who has changed their name, thereby capturing the demographic of married women. A Pew Research Center 2023 survey estimates that 80 % of married women have taken their husband’s last name[5].

“Married women make up over a quarter of the electorate, so impeding them from registering to vote has a potentially significant impact on election outcomes.”[6]

In consideration of the proposed SAVE act women should prepare themselves accordingly by gathering or obtaining all relevant government issued documents and proof of citizenship available including birth certificates, marriage certificates, change of name certificates, passports, driver’s licenses, and any other government issued identification. Secure them in a safe and accessible location. Stay informed of all notifications of upcoming elections (AP news provides a calendar), which begin in April of 2025, and verify that you are registered. Be prepared to provide proof of citizenship again when voting. Finally, vote!

The political motivation of the SAVE Act is undeniable. According to the Brennan Center for Justice approximately 34% of women could be turned away from the polls[7]. This means a significant number of women will not have any control over who they choose to represent their rights and interests, including on core women’s issues like safe and accessible abortions and other forms of health care.

What’s at stake?

One of the general principles of a democracy is that one citizen is entitled to one vote. Therefore, putting laws in place that are not of adequate quality (clear and unambiguous) and are proportionate (to the reality that there were only 30 cases of non-citizen voting found[8], according to the Brennan Center for Justice nationwide study), creates an unreasonable obstacle to the political rights of American citizens.

For advocates of women’s rights ensuring that every woman who is an American citizen can vote is integral not only to her rights, but also to maintaining the ability for the exercise women’s collective rights. As women’s rights are in sharp decline across the globe our political involvement is more crucial than ever. The truth is that we often don’t know what threat might be next, especially following the overturning of Roe v Wade. We see women and those who help women, such as doctors, being criminalized for maintaining autonomy over our own bodies and our own lives. We see the rise of “menism” and blatant sexism affecting younger generations of boys and men, while older generations of men seek to push our progress back by decades. This is not the time to be complacent and to trust the system. This is the time for vigilance and the anticipation of threats ahead of their implementation. To that effect, some women are already politically active, fighting for all women.

The best option to the challenges of facing voter suppression is to stop the SAVE Act from passing in the Senate. Every American citizen can write to their Senator and express their opinion on any proposed Act of legislation. Let’s ensure that they are aware of the United States’ international legal obligations and vote accordingly. And with criminal penalization, including up to five years of prison time, those who work the polls are dissuaded from allowing those with name changes to vote.

The United States is just one Member State of a larger context designed to protect all of humanity – the United Nations – to which the State may answer to if it violates its international legal commitments. Therefore, women and others engaging in political activism may rely on the above international obligations of the United States in writing to their congressional representatives or senators. To avoid harm to the international reputation of the United States, to its standing as a democracy, and to avoid UN sanctions, the executive ought to adhere to the binding obligations of the nation State.

Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.

[1] https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/dangerous-step-backward-our-democracy-league-women-voters-responds-passage (Accessed April 10th, 2025)

[2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/. (Accessed March 20, 2025)

[3] https://responsivegov.org/research/the-save-act-how-a-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-would-impact-elections/. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

[4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/save-act-voter-registration-citizenship-married-women-name-change/ (March 21, 2025)

[5] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/07/about-eight-in-ten-women-in-opposite-sex-marriages-say-they-took-their-husbands-last-name/. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

[6] https://responsivegov.org/research/the-save-act-how-a-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-would-impact-elections/ (Accessed March 24, 2025)

[7] https://newrepublic.com/article/186160/republican-war-women-extends-voting-rights. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

[8] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

2025-09-25
The SAVE Act in the context of international law

It is an axiomatic principle of international law that a State may not invoke its domestic laws as justification for failure to respect international law, otherwise international law would be rendered meaningless. The United States Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or “SAVE Act” has been widely condemned by American justice organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the League of Women Voters, as an instrument of voter suppression. With midterm elections having begun, which could secure Republicans a more effective majority in the House of Representatives, perhaps it’s time to stop relying on Constitutional law and start relying on international law. Democracy hangs in the balance.

The United States of America is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), having ratified and acceded to the Covenant in 1992.

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to vote to all citizens, without unreasonable restrictions.

Article 25

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors

On the point of Article 25 guaranteeing those rights and opportunities “without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2”, Article 2 states the following:

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

It follows that a State may not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to vote with distinction according to “sex” or “other status”, which applies to marital status. This is further supported by Article 3 of the ICCPR.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 28 on Article 3, the equality of rights between men and women, adopted on 29 March 2000:

29. The right to participate in the conduct of public affairs is not fully implemented everywhere on an equal basis. States parties must ensure that the law guarantees to women the rights contained in article 25 on equal terms with men and take effective and positive measures to promote and ensure women’s participation in the conduct of public affairs and in public office, including appropriate affirmative action. Effective measures taken by States parties to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right should not be discriminatory on the grounds of sex. The Committee requires States parties to provide statistical information on the percentage of women in publicly elected office, including the legislature, as well as in high-ranking civil service positions and the judiciary.

(CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10)

The Human Rights Committee distributed General Comment No. 25 in 1996; under Article 40, paragraph 4 of the ICCPR (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7). It states that:

1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the rights of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in force the Covenant requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant.

3. In contrast with other rights and freedoms recognized by the Covenant (which are ensured to all individuals within the territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the State) article 25 protects the rights of “every citizen”. State reports should outline the legal provisions which define citizenship in the context of the rights protected by article 25. No distinctions are permitted between citizens in the enjoyment of these rights on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (…)

4. Any conditions which apply to the exercise of the rights protected by article 25 should be based on objective and reasonable criteria. (…)

5. The conduct of public affairs, referred to in paragraph (a), is a broad concept which relates to the exercise of political power, in particular the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers. It covers all aspects of public administration, and the formulation and implementation of policy at international, national, regional and local levels. The allocation of powers and the means by which individual citizens exercise the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs protected by article 25 should be established by the constitution and other laws.

(CCPR_C_21_Rev.1_Add.7-EN.pdf)

Finally, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which has been ratified by the United States and reflects customary international law, Article 27, internal law and observance of treaties, states:

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

Before the U.S. Senate votes on the SAVE Act, they ought to be reminded of the larger context of international legal obligations that the United States not only consented to, but played an important role in establishing.

(Originally published April 16, 2025)

Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.
“H.R.8281 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): SAVE Act.” Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 23 July 2024, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8281. : The SAVE Act in the context of international law

2025-09-24
Canadian sovereignty and the United States’ threat to human rights

United States’ President Donald Trump has been espousing aspirations of territorial acquisition, including of Canada. If the United States succeeds Canada , whether through economic coercion or annexation by use of force, Canada would effectively be withdrawing from all of its own treaty obligations. This poses a grave threat to the human rights of all Canadians.

If Canada loses its status as a sovereign subject under international law the legal effect would be withdrawal from human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This would additionally entail withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR and the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and from the Second Additional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which abolishes the death penalty in member States.

Furthermore, the U.S. has formally submitted intent to withdraw from the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement, both of which indirectly affect human rights, specifically the right to health, and will take effect one year from January 2025.

Regardless of one’s status, if you are living in Canada, you are benefiting from these international human rights and obligations. Perhaps the most important of them is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ECOSOC). This ensures that our government provides such essentials as the right to adequate health care, the right to food, the right to water, the right to adequate housing , the right to safe, healthy, just and favourable work conditions, the right to join trade unions, the right to social security, the right to a reasonable period of paid leave before and after childbirth, the right to child protection against economic and social exploitation, the right to work and earn a living, the right to education, the right to benefit from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which you are the author, and much more.

Canada must remain sovereign!

Although most human rights treaties do not contain termination or withdrawal clauses, the logic is simple – if Canada is succeeded by the United States, Canada ceases to exist as a separate sovereign legal entity under international law, becoming a de facto part of the United States and ipso facto, acceding to the U.S.’s treaty rights and obligations. And because consent is a general principle of international law, the U.S. cannot be legally bound by multilateral treaties of the predecessor State, which it never ratified.

Article 15 of the 2005 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (VCST), which codified customary international law in this matter, provides for the scenario of State succession:

Article 15 – Succession in respect of part of territory

When part of the territory of a State, or when any territory for the international relations of which a State is responsible, not being part of the territory of that State, becomes part of the territory of another State:

(a) treaties of the predecessor State cease to be in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States; and

(b) treaties of the successor State are in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States, unless it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty to that territory would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation.

The real threat of annexation, which implies an illegal situation, inherently evokes dialogue around State security and sovereignty over natural resources – water, oil and gas being among those that the Trump administration has alluded to. Unfortunately President Trump has routinely flouted U.S. constitutional law and will undoubtedly demonstrate the same blatant disregard for compliance with international law, as has already been indicated by unilaterally renaming the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, and with suggesting “acquiring” Greenland, Canada and Gaza, all despite territorial sovereignty. Whether through economic coercion or by use of force President Trump aims to extend his power and legacy through territorial expansion. However, if Canada consistently refuses to recognize the U.S. as sovereign over our territory then we at least have some hope through international legal procedures. For the respect of our fundamental human rights and freedoms, this is a scenario that hopefully Canadians will never face.

(Originally published on LinkedIn, February 2025)

2025-09-24
States of Emergency and Habeus Corpus

The balance of power between the Executive, the Legislative and Judiciary is a crucial element of a functioning democracy. However, this balance is no longer certain in the United States in the face of an Executive branch that disrespects Constitutional rights and has proven itself willing to defy Supreme Court orders[i]. Recent political developments in the United States have concerned Americans desperately invoking Constitutional rights and freedoms in acts of resistance. But when domestic law fails to protect human rights, may certain rights and freedoms – guaranteed under international human rights law – be invoked by American citizens and other persons within its jurisdiction? This article will attempt to illuminate this question by examining two interrelated issues – State obligations pertaining to states of emergency and habeus corpus.

Deployment of the National Guard:

Since the Trump administration took Office in January of 2025, the President has exercised the right of the Executive to deploy the National Guard first in L.A., then Washington D.C, followed by Chicago, and then Memphis. Deployment of a National Guard is interrelated, though not synonymous with, invoking a state of emergency; the former is typically used as a supporting mechanism to the latter, generally used in emergency domestic crisis situations such as natural disasters, insurrections or civil unrest. Legal experts fear that normalizing the deployment of the National Guard in U.S. cities is testing the limits of presidential power and the use of military force, thereby also testing the resilience of democracy. Declaring a “crime crisis” in cities like Washington D.C. has allowed the President to instate the National Guard there for up to 30 days. Recognizing the temporal limitation, President Trump stated that “if I have a national emergency, I can keep the troops here as long as I want”[ii]. Declaring a national emergency would unlock a set of 120 exceptional statutory powers to the Executive branch, including the authority for the freezing of assets and restricting of telecommunications.[iii]

States of Emergency:

Because the invocation of a State of Emergency authorizes such exceptional powers and is ideally used only under threat from foreign powers, it is governed under international law to protect human rights. But invoking a state of national emergency or public emergency is frequently also used by authoritarian Heads of State under false pretexts as justification for breaches of human rights, which is why there are strict requirements – where there is a right of the State there are also obligations. According to international law these derogations are permissible only to the extent that they are “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for such obligations.

ICCPR – Article 4

1.     In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2.     No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

[For reference, in brief: art. 6 – the right to life; art. 7 – the prohibition of torture; art. 8 para. 1 & 2 – the prohibition of slavery and servitude; art. 11 – prohibition of imprisonment on the grounds of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation; art. 15 – non-retroactivity of criminal laws; art. 16 – recognition as a legal person; art. 18 – freedom of thought, conscience, and religion]

3.     Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

The principle of proportionality is common to derogations and their limitations during States of Emergency and is contingent on the exigencies of the situation.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee, the UN organ responsible for monitoring the ICCPR issued General Comment No. 29 – States of Emergency (2001)[iv], which interprets and clarifies the scope of Art. 4 in depth. Paragraph 16 states that “In order to protect non-derogable rights, the right to take proceedings before a court to enable the court to decide without delay on the lawfulness of detention, must not be diminished by a State party’s decision to derogate from the Covenant”.

Habeus Corpus:

_{AI generated image}

The right to a fair trial, which includes the concept of habeus corpus in the ICCPR (Art. 9 para. 4), is among the most important procedural safeguards in the limitations of derogations as it protects against arbitrary detention.

Article 9 – ICCPR

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

The Common Law of States of Emergency and Habeus Corpus:

Given the increasing acceptance of the usage of common law by judicial bodies in the area of human rights, consider the Advisory Opinion on Habeus Corpus in States of Emergency[v] by the American Court of Human Rights in 1987, in which they opined that “… in serious emergency situations it is lawful to temporarily suspend certain rights and freedoms whose free exercise must, under normal circumstances, be respected and guaranteed by the State. However, since not all these rights and freedoms may be suspended even temporarily, it is imperative that ‘the judicial guarantees essential for (their) protection’ remain in force.” (ACHR OC-8/87) (my emphasis) In other words, to ensure that non-derogable rights are not restricted, the right to an effective judicial remedy, the right to a fair trial, is imperative.

The application of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of jus commune is particularly complex in the context of the United States for various reasons, however no State is completely immune from the jus commune of human rights law.

Ratification of and reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

The United States of America ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, although acceded to with several reservations and declarations of understandings. It is notable though that the decision on the validity of a reservation is determined by the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), and not by the State itself. Upon examining the reservations of various States Parties and in response to excessively broad reservations, such as those by the United States, the Human Rights Committee issued General Comment No. 24 (1994)[vi] to clarify the scope of State’s obligations. Paragraph 7 notes that:

In an instrument which articulates very many civil and political rights, each of the many articles, and indeed their interplay, secures the objectives of the Covenant. The object and purpose of the Covenant is to create legally binding standards for human rights by defining certain civil and political rights and placing them in a framework of obligations which are legally binding for those States which ratify; and to provide an efficacious supervisory machinery for the obligations undertaken.

In other terms, reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant will be considered invalid. Additionally, certain rights and freedoms are non-derogable. In the situation of states of emergency, paragraph 10 states that “…some provisions are non-derogable exactly because without them there would be no rule of law. A reservation to the provisions of article 4 itself, which precisely stipulates the balance to be struck between the interests of the State and the rights of the individual in times of emergency, would fall in this category.” And of course, derogations which violate peremptory norms, such as the prohibitions of torture, or arbitrary deprivations of life, would be incompatible with the Convention as well. (Further contributions were made by the International Law Commission’s Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties[vii] in 2011)

Self-executing provisions of the ICCPR:

Although the U.S. has ratified the ICCPR it has not ratified its Optional Protocol, some of its provisions are self-executing. Article 2 of the ICCPR requires that States give effect to its provisions; failure to do so can invoke the responsibility of the State, specifically provided for in paragraph 2:

Article 2 – ICCPR

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. (“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | OHCHR”)

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

The Dualist State:

It is also notable that the United States is a dualist State, in which international law isn’t directly implemented into a State’s legal system, but instead requires explicit legislation for the adoption and incorporation into the domestic legal order. In contrast, a monist State views domestic and international law as two parts of a unified legal system, allowing for direct applicability of international legal instruments in force for that State. However, failure to implement a legally binding obligation can invoke the responsibility of the State, if successfully challenged.

Fear of judicial overreach and loss of sovereignty are the two main arguments for maintaining a dualist approach. However, judicial over-reach hardly seems an issue when the balance of power between the executive, the government and the judiciary is undermined as the executive refuses to comply with court orders, and the impartiality of the judiciary is questioned. As for the argument of loss of sovereignty, if ever there was a time to cede a modicum of control to the international legal order, with the benefits potentially far outweighing the risks – this is it.

Conclusion:

To answer the question of whether American citizens can invoke international law in response to potential breaches – the obligations and scope of law are typically clarified only when disputes arise and interpreted by a judicial body, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, international law does provide for other non-judicial mechanisms, and they ought to be explored.

Autocrats rely on lack of knowledge by its citizens on the rules of international law in order to abuse their power. Therefore, familiarity with the laws of international human rights is imperative to the protection of the rights of both citizens and others within the jurisdiction of the State. Regardless of one’s individual opinions on immigration, homelessness or crime, if an administration can ‘legalize’ the right to deprive other people of their right to liberty, then they can deprive you of yours also. And given the statements made by the current United States Executive regarding “invalid” border treaties and “invisible lines” separating Canada and the United States, we should all take this abuse of power very seriously.

(originally posted August 26, 2025)

_{[i] March 15 2025 deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members despite a temporary restraining order by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg blocking AEA deportations and for any planes already left to return; https://www.aclu.org/trumps-deportation-flights-under-the-alien-enemies-act [accessed August 26, 2025]; Kilmar Abrego Garcia deported on March 15 from the U.S. in breach of a protected legal status; on April 10th the Supreme Court confirmed an earlier order from a Maryland federal court judge and signed an order that “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador”. https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hearing-arguments-deportation-maryland-man-el-salvador/story?id=120491918 [accessed August 26, 2025]}

_{[ii] At 1:05; NBC News; August 22, 2025 news conference; https://youtu.be/yubwAW8xnuo?si=M-mHKprQWxXHYqqW .}

_{Sanchez, Ray; As Trump administration unleashes federal show of force in DC, other US cities on president’s radar push back; August 23, 2025; CNN News; https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/23/us/us-cities-trump-dc-police}

_{Trump floats circumventing Congress to maintain control of DC police; Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing; 08/13/2025 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/13/trump-dc-police-congress-00507359}

_{[iii] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emergency_powers Accessed Sept. 18, 2025}

_{[iv] General comment no. 29, States of emergency (article 4): International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; UN Human Rights Committee; CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11; Geneva: UN, 31 Aug. 2001; https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/451555?ln=en&v=pdf}

_{[v] Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights), OC-8/87, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 30 January 1987, https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/iacrthr/1987/en/19320https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/iacrthr/1987/en/19320 [accessed 21 August 2025]}

_{[vi] UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 24: Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in Relation to Declarations under Article 41 of the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6, 4 November 1994, https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/1994/en/10945 [accessed 21 August 2025]}

_{[vii]Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties; Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two; https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_8_2011.pdf [accessed Aug. 20, 2025]}

2025-09-23