International Law for Women

a resource for women's human rights advocates

Tag: international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights

Canada’s Fight Against Gender-Based Violence: Proposed Legislation Bill C-16
A young woman in a dark ambiguous setting, illuminated by a blue light, expresses fear and distress. (AI-generated)

Despite Canada’s strict equality-based anti-discrimination laws, in effect women and girls still face significant structural barriers, particularly in achieving protection from gender-based violence and in achieving justice when safeguards fail. Recently however, the Minister of Justice has tabled significant legislation that will amend the Criminal Code of Canada to better protect victims. Additionally, a Bill has been tabled in the Senate that will protect victims of intimate partner violence by extending support for national action. This article examines the international legal framework that support the major proposed amendments and examines their necessity within the Canadian context.

Protection from violence is a human right. That right extends to both public and private spheres. Yet the United Nations reports that “violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world.”[i] Femicide is its most extreme manifestations. The Canadian Femicide Observatory reports that 189 Canadian women and girls were killed by violence in 2023[ii], 187 in 2024, and another 137 in 2025[iii].

Legislative Acts:

Recent legislation introduced in Canada, pertinent to violence against women, includes bills S-242 and C-16.

S-242: Georgina’s Law

An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence

Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Fabian Manning

First reading: December 2, 2025;

Second reading December 11, 2025

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-242/first-reading

In 2014 Georgina McGrath nearly lost her life to intimate partner violence due to the severity of her injuries; she has been fighting alongside Senator Fabian Manning since 2017 to change the laws to protect others from such violence. Bill S-242 provides for the continuation of support for national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence and femicide, to be led by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality. But that alone is not enough.

C-16: Protecting Victims Act

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures);

Introduced in the House of Commons and sponsored by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Sean Fraser

First reading: December 9, 2025

Debate: January 26, 2026 –

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-16

Bill C-16 is an expansive piece of legislation spanning 166 pages of amendments to existing Acts. It would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Justice Act, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the National Defense Act, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child sexual abuse and exploitation material by persons who provide an Internet service, the Firearms Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Bill C-16 rightfully uses the gender-neutral term “victims” and covers harms that affect Canadians of all genders and ages. However, the content of the bill is reflective of issues that predominantly and adversely affect women, girls, and gender-diverse persons, thus constituting gender-based violence. (see Infographic 1)

Infographic 1: Statistics Canada; Government of Canada; Accessed January 31, 2026.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/cg-a001-png-eng.htm

Non-Discrimination:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 26[iv], provides for equal protection of the law, subject to the principle of non-discrimination.

Article 26 (ICCPR)

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The general principle[v] of non-discrimination is also found in other core legal human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) [vi].

Article 2

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… (e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise.

Violence against women is discrimination

In 1992 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted General Recommendation No. 19, which stated that “Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.”[vii] It further clarified that gender-based violence “includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.”[viii]

The Committee defined gender-based violence as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”[ix] Additionally, “the underlying consequences of these forms of gender-based violence help to maintain women in subordinate roles and contribute to their low level of political participation and to their lower level of education, skills and work opportunities.”[x] This in turn undermines women and girls’ rights to education (Article 13) and to work (Article 6), which are protected under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, the poverty that women are kept in contributes to the increase of sex trafficking and other forms of exploitation, putting women and girls at further risk of violence and abuse.

Criminal Code additions: coercive control and femicide

The two most significant amendments to the Criminal Code that Bill C-16 provides for are to “create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner”. Bill C-16 also recognizes the murder of a female person as femicide, and as first degree murder, under certain circumstances, including:

(i) the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,

(ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence,

(iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking,

or

(iv) the murder is motivated by hate

Crucially, by recognizing coercive control as a criminal offence, femicide may be averted before it is committed. This is not just a matter of crime prevention – it is a matter of life and death.

There is a growing movement among democratic nation States to criminalize coercive control, which moves beyond an incident-based model of intimate partner violence and instead recognizes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that extends over a period. This also looks beyond acts of physical violence and considers non-physical violence.

“Coercive control may involve behaving in ways that create or intensify power imbalances in the relationship, making an intimate partner dependent on and subordinate to the perpetrator. Coercively controlling actions could include creating economic dependency, reputational dependency, and dependency in social relations.”[xi]

Research by Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Crystal Giesbrecht, reveals that “intimate partner femicide often emerges from abusive relationships marked by coercive control and intimate partner violence.”[xii] “In some cases, perpetrators completely dominate all aspects of the victim’s life. Coercive control often results in a constant state of fear, reinforced by threats as well as past experiences of violence. Dutton and Goodman (2005) explain ways that perpetrators control victims, including ‘creating the expectation of negative consequences, creating or exploiting the victim’s vulnerabilities, wearing down the victim’s resistance, and facilitating—and then exploiting—emotional dependency’ (pp. 748–749). The very nature of this form of abuse creates significant barriers to ending the relationship.”[xiii]

Furthermore, “technological advancements have allowed perpetrators to increase their level of control even when they are not physically together, as well as continue their surveillance and harassment post-separation.”[xiv] Bill C-16 adds the usage of ‘deepfakes’ and the threat of their usage, to the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

A man with headphones on watches his ex-girlfriend on multiple screens through the use of spy software. (AI-generated)

Research into coercive control reveals that “these behaviours also heighten the risk of lethality. In Australia, a study published in 2020 by the Domestic Violence Death Review Team in the state of New South Wales found all but one of the 112 cases of intimate-partner homicides analyzed were preceded by instances of coercive and controlling behaviour. In Canada, researchers who looked at femicides from 2015 to 2019 found behaviours such as stalking, intimidation, isolation and threats were frequent.[xv]

“Several studies show that coercive control in a relationship increases the risk of serious or fatal violence, especially when the victim is trying to leave or has just separated from her partner. For almost 1 in 3 victims, murder or attempted murder was the first act of physical violence.”[xvi]

Another adverse impact of gender-based violence is the psychological harm it perpetuates. According to a 2022 article by the Globe and Mail “Though coercive control is one of the least understood forms of violence, the psychological consequences of this kind of controlling behaviour can be long-lasting.”[xvii]

A tragic and often over-looked adverse impact of abuse is the suicide rate of its victims. The Canadian non-profit organization Battered Women’s Support Services reports that “victims of domestic violence are up to three times more likely to attempt suicide”[xviii].

Psychological harm manifests into physical harm. Therefore, the prevention of gender-based violence is simultaneously suicide prevention. Again, Bill C-16 is literally a matter of life and death.

A crime against liberty

Evan Stark, preeminent researcher and author of Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life (Oxford Press; 2007) suggests that coercive control is a liberty crime.

I think we need a law that punishes offenders at the same level that we would punish people that take hostages, or kidnap people, because what we’re really dealing with, although the analogy’s by no means perfect, is a kind of domestic terrorism. A kind of domestic hostage taking in which the victim has no outside to escape to, because the supposed safe place, the relationship, the home, the family network, has been identified as the point of imprisonment and entrapment.”

(“Power and Control – Domestic Violence in America”; 2010; Peter Cohn – Director, Producer)

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) proscribes that

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.[xix]

Although Article 9 of the ICCPR is commonly used in reference to restrictions on liberty by State authorities, the Covenant is to be considered in its entirety. The preamble proscribes an obligation to individuals.

“Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant”.[xx]

The State has obligations to uphold the commitments of the Covenant, as stated in Article 2, paragraph 2.

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.

Bill C-16 would support this obligation in the context of coercive control.

Ironically, one criticism of Bill C-16 argues that the right to liberty of perpetrators will be violated by the mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of crimes under the Protecting Victims Act. Deprivations of liberty by the State must be proscribed by law, proportional to the crimes, and necessary to protect the rights of others. That includes the protection of the rights of victims.

Femicide is protected against under the right to life

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, declared that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[xxi]

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) a legally binding instrument, reiterates that right in Article 6, paragraph 1 – “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

The right to life entails obligations on the State that are both negative – not to arbitrarily deprive individuals of life – and positive – the duty to protect individuals from other individuals, also known as the duty to ‘protect’. Criminal law and justice arise out of this positive obligation.

The United Nations Human Rights Council published General Comment No. 36 (2019), which clarifies the obligations of the State and the duty to protect life.

18. The second sentence of article 6 (1) provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals as may be necessary to give effect to the right to life. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to adopt any appropriate laws or other measures in order to protect life from all reasonably foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities. (…)[xxii]

Those positive obligations are further articulated in paragraph 23:

“The duty to protect the right to life requires States parties to take special measures of protection towards persons in vulnerable situations whose lives that been placed at particular risk because of specific threats or pre-existing patterns of violence. Such persons include human rights defenders (…) and victims of domestic violence and gender-based violence and human trafficking.”[xxiii]

When unlawful deprivations of life occur, the right to life also entails an obligation to conduct an impartial investigation and to prosecute the perpetrators.

“Any deprivation of life based on discrimination in law or in fact is, ipso facto, arbitrary in nature. Femicide, which constitutes an extreme form of gender-based violence that is directed against girls and women, is a particularly grave form of assault on the right to life.”[xxiv]

A woman expresses extreme psychological distress as she screams while holding her hands to her temples.
(AI-generated)

The right to health:

Violence against women is also a violation of the right to health. Health must be thought of as extending to both physical and psychological states. Recalling the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which proscribes the right to health[xxv].

Article 12 (ICESCR)

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.

A woman who is perpetually unsafe or in a state of fear is at risk of compromised health, beyond physical injury resulting directly from violence. There has been extensive research finding links between chronic stress and increased morbidity and mortality. Stress is a reaction to a perceived threat; “chronic stress has a significant effect on the immune system that ultimately manifest an illness”[xxvi]. Ongoing threats impact the immune system and increase inflammation in the body, leading to illness and even autoimmune disorder.

Furthermore, the effects of violence against women continue to create barriers preventing women from achieving substantial equality by affecting their fundamental social and economic rights, beyond the right to health. It also extends to the right to education and the right to work.

If a woman is not safe, she cannot thrive.

A woman tries to push someone’s hands away from her throat. A much larger ambiguous figure looms in front of her, with arms extended towards her throat. (AI-generated)

The privacy argument

Protection from violence is a human right that extends to both public and private spheres.

The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, confirms this in a framework of global norms and standards for national and international action. Article 1 defines violence against women as ‘any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life’[xxvii].

Additionally, the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, aims to achieve gender equality through various targets to be achieved by 2030. SDG Target 5.2 seeks to “eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”.[xxviii]

The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime also provides a suitable response to the issue of the private sphere.

“To effectively prevent femicides, targeted policies are needed that address the specific forms of gender-based violence perpetrated in the private sphere, as there are key differences in how intimate partner and other family member femicides occur.

Although countries have made efforts to prevent femicides, such killings persist at worryingly high levels. In many cases, femicides are the tragic end to a pattern of ongoing violence, meaning that with the timely and appropriate intervention, they could be prevented.”

Research shows that female intimate partner homicides are often linked to certain risk factors related to the person committing the crime or the situation surrounding the intentional killing. Common risk factors for intimate partner violence that could lead to femicide include: access to firearms, coercive control, previous history of violence and non-fatal strangulation, stalking, relationship separation and substance use, such as alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, combined with other underlying factors such as lack of social support and accumulation of stressful events.”[xxix]

Critics of Bill C-16 rely on the right to privacy as one argument against government interference in private and intimate relationships. But the right to life is the ‘supreme right’, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, and therefore arguably more valuable than the right to privacy.

International human rights law is moving towards a victim centered approach to criminal justice, which, as a global leader in human rights, Canada should implement.

A young woman confidently looks into the camera; she is standing in a city street with a blurred Canada flag in the background.
(AI-generated)

Conclusion:

Whether or not the injustices that these bills seek to address affect you personally, they almost certainly affect some woman or girl that you know. Intimate partner violence is often kept secret due to the danger it poses and the attached stigma; its impact often only comes to light once it is too late.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus “Violence against women is one of humanity’s oldest and most pervasive injustices, yet still one of the least acted upon.” (…) “No society can call itself fair, safe or healthy while half its population lives in fear. Ending this violence is not only a matter of policy; it is a matter of dignity, equality and human rights. Behind every statistic is a woman or girl whose life has been forever altered. Empowering women and girls is not optional, it’s a prerequisite for peace, development and health. A safer world for women is a better world for everyone.”[xxx]

While bills S-242 and C-16 and demonstrate encouraging initiatives, they are meaningless unless passed, implemented, monitored and adapted as necessary. Furthermore, in criminal law, they become dead letter unless adequately enforced. Impunity for violence against women and children has an enabling effect that if not resolved, will escalate in incidence. Progress is possible but is contingent on political will. At the time this article is published Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act has only completed the first state in the legislative process; it must move forwards before another life is lost. That life could be your own.

Call to Action:

Here’s how you can help. After reviewing the text of a bill, there are two options to participate in the process of supporting it.

Write a letter to your Member of Parliament (recommended for everyone):
- Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
- Find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search
- Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication
Write a letter to a Senator that represents your province:
- Find your provincial Senator here: https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/
Submit a brief (recommended for organizations and knowledgeable individuals):

1. Submit a brief to the House of Commons:

“A brief is a written submission that provides opinions, comments and recommendations on a subject being studied by a parliamentary committee. Any individual or organization may submit a brief to a committee of the House of Commons.”

https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/guides/brief-e.html

2. Submit a brief to a Senate Committee:

“Senate committees regularly invite individuals, experts, groups and organizations, lobbyists, public servants and ministers of the Crown to appear before them as witnesses to receive information relevant to a bill they are considering or a special study they are undertaking. There are two ways to participate in a committee’s study: by giving oral evidence (testimony) or by submitting a brief (written evidence).”

Click to access cmtes_how-to-participate-in-a-senate-study_final_2021oct_en.pdf

[i] Digital violence is real violence. There is #NoExcuse for online abuse; International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; United Nations online publication; November 25,2025.

[ii] Call it Femicide 2024 Report; infographic report; Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability; https://femicideincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2024Infographic-ENG-1.pdf

[iii] Canadian Observatory for Justice and Accountability; https://femicideincanada.ca/

[iv] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[v] ‘General principles’ (of international law) are legally recognized as legitimate sources of international law.

[vi] Para. 1; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[vii] Para. 1; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Para. 6; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[x] Para. 11; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

[xi] https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/mapafvc-cbapcvf/review-analyse.html

[xii] Flying under and through the radar: Tactics used by intimate partner femicide perpetrators to evade interventions; Martín Hernán Di Marco and Dabney P. Evans; International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Volume 82, September 2025, 100767. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061625000436?via%3Dihub

[xiii] Giesbrecht, Crystal J. 2024. “The Need for a Canadian Criminal Code Offence of Coercive Control”. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 9 (1):pages 33-39. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.362.

[xiv] Carmen Gill, Ph.D. and Mary Aspinall, Ph.D. RESEARCH PAPER

Understanding coercive control in the context of intimate partner violence in Canada: How to address the issue through the criminal justice system? Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice Canada; 20 April 2020 https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/publications/research-recherche/ucc-ccc.html#TOC-5-2

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] https://coercive-control.ca/content-library/coercive-control-danger

[xvii] Molly Hayes, Elizabeth Renzetti, and Tavia Grant; March 13, 2026. Coercive control can be a life or death issue in relationships. But few people even know how to recognize it, Globe and Mail.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-coercive-control-can-be-a-life-or-death-issue-in-relationships-but-few/

[xviii] 4 Facts About Intimate Partner Violence and Suicide (World Suicide Prevention Day); September 10, 2024. https://www.bwss.org/4-facts-about-intimate-partner-violence-and-suicide-world-suicide-prevention-day/

[xix] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 1966; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1948; UN General Assembly https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

[xxii] United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[xxiii] I United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[xxiv] Para. 61; United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. (from A/HRC/20/16, para. 21.) https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

[xxv] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights

[xxvi] Salleh MR. Life event, stress and illness. Malays J Med Sci. 2008 Oct;15(4):9-18. PMID: 22589633; PMCID: PMC3341916. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3341916/

[xxvii] UNGA Res 48/104. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993). https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/48/104

[xxviii] https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5#targets_and_indicators

[xxix] Preventing femicide, page 19, UNODC and UN Women, Femicides in 2024: Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides (United Nations publication, 2025) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/femicides-in-2024-global-estimates-of-intimate-partner-family-member-femicides-en.pdf

[xxx] https://www.who.int/news/item/19-11-2025-lifetime-toll–840-million-women-faced-partner-or-sexual-violence
2026-03-08
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
When abortion is legal but inaccessible: an analysis under international law

Women’s reproductive freedoms are rapidly regressing and facing increasing restrictions around the globe. Women in the United States, Poland and Malta are dying due to restrictive laws and lack of accessibility. And according to the European Citizens’ Initiative, My Voice, My Choice: For Safe and Accessible Abortion more than 20 million women in the EU do not have access to safe, affordable abortion. Conversely, in Canada abortion is legal and covered by primary healthcare. However, on July 25th, 2025, women’s advocacy organizations across the nation sounded the alarm in a Joint Statement to the new Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney warning of the regressive impact that proposed austerity measures will have on women’s rights and gender equality. The budget for the Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) Department proposed 80%^[i]less funding over each of the next four years as compared with the 2025-26 budget. The impact will be felt not just in the WAGE Department, but in local feminist organizations, women’s shelters, sexual assault services and more, including abortion facilitation services. Canadian women living in rural and remote areas often lack the means of access to safe, legal abortions due to the unavailability of the necessary healthcare services in their regions; the scope of this impact will likely be extended given the circumstances. In the context of reduced accessibility and austerity measures, what legal arguments might women’s rights advocates depend upon? The following is a legal analysis of the international human rights obligations pertinent to the situation in Canada, which may also apply to other States with the same obligations.

The Right to Health – Art. 12 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

The ICESCR provides for the right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”^[ii].

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.

While the fundamental right to health is subject to progressive development, States should nevertheless ensure that it is moving towards its full realization, as stated in Article 2 of the Covenant.

Non- Discrimination

Article 2 paragraph 2 of the ICESCR provides for non-discrimination in the implementation of the Covenant – “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

Non-discrimination is not subject to progressive development – it must be respected immediately upon accession to the Covenant. However, according to the World Economic Forum “we still face wide gaps in research and treatment ability for areas that are unique to women”^[iii], which is in contravention of Art. 2, para. 2 ICESCR. Maternal health, and abortion are just two of many areas of treatment that pertain exclusively to the health of persons of female sex (females). Even if a law doesn’t single out females in fact, if there is no equivalent adverse effect on males, then the law may be found to be discriminatory.^[iv] Health inequality is a result of systemic discrimination against women and gender diverse persons, and it must be compliant with international law.

In 2000, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), according to which:

“To eliminate discrimination against women, there is a need to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for promoting women’s right to health throughout their life span. Such a strategy should include interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of diseases affecting women, as well as policies to provide access to a full range of high quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive services. A major goal should be reducing women’s health risks, particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality and protecting women from domestic violence. The realization of women’s right to health requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services, education and information, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. It is also important to undertake preventive, promotive and remedial action to shield women from the impact of harmful traditional cultural practices and norms that deny them their full reproductive rights.” (author’s emphasis)

Pregnancy can be both a direct and indirect cause of harm to women. Maternal morbidity and mortality are direct consequences of pregnancy, especially for adolescents. Indirectly, lack of access to safe abortion services can result in the administration of unregulated and unsafe abortions that can cost a woman or girl her life. Furthermore, sex or gender-based violence and femicide can be tragic indirect consequences of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy by an intimate partner or family members.

As a State party to the Convention of Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Canada submitted its tenth periodic report as proscribed by Article 18 of the Convention. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in their 2024 Concluding Observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada^[v]recommended that Canada “ensure access to legal abortion services in all provinces and territories, including for women from disadvantaged groups”. Furthermore, the Committee cited “the persistent barriers in the public health system hindering access to abortion care, disproportionately affecting women from disadvantaged groups, women in remote and rural areas and undocumented migrants”^[vi].

Canada’s counterargument

Canada argues that it has one of the world’s lowest populations densities with just 4.6 people per km^{2 [vii]} per km², second only to Russia. Extending all aspects of healthcare across a territory of almost 10,000,000 km^{2 [viii]} is challenging and expensive. Consequently, the Canada Health Act (1985), section 3, provides that “it is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”^[ix] (author’s emphasis) But constitutional law must be in alignment with international law.

Positive obligations of the State

The right to health requires positive obligations from the State including the duty to fulfil and the duty to promote.

The duty to fulfil the right to health requires due attention to the four A’s: availability, accessibility, adequacy and acceptability. The acceptability of healthcare, which is also known as quality, is explained by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO “considers several aspects of quality, including whether Universal Health Care (UHC) is timely – reducing wait times and harmful delays – and equitable – providing care that does not vary in quality on account of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic location, and socio-economic status”^[x]. Reducing harmful delays for abortion is essential.

The duty to promote, in the case of reproductive healthcare, means ensuring availability of education and information on access to necessary services including contraception, family planning, adoption, emergency contraception and medical abortion options.

Territorial scope

Although Canada is a federal State which is divided into provinces and territories with a decentralized administration of healthcare under each, any obligations on the State apply to its entire territory. This rule of law is affirmed in several sources of international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), Art. 29 on the territorial scope of treaties[xi].

In its General Comment No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) addresses the devolution of powers.

“…The decentralization of power, through devolution and delegation of Government powers in both unitary and federal States, does not in any way negate of reduce the direct responsibility of the State party’s national or federal Government to fulfil its obligations to all women within its jurisdiction. (…) 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. (…) 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.”

Essentially, the State (Canada) may be found responsible for acts or omissions by provincial authorities that violate human rights.

Key Human Rights Inquiries and case law

Inaccessibility of healthcare provisions can be a cause of indirect discrimination and of de facto or substantive inequality. This has been affirmed through UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies and case law alike.

According to the CEDAW Committee’s General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, paragraph 18“Violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as forced sterilization, forced abortion, forced pregnancy, criminalization of abortion, denial or delay of safe abortion and/or post-abortion care, forced continuation of pregnancy, and abuse and mistreatment of women and girls seeking sexual and reproductive health information, goods and services, are forms of gender-based violence that, depending on the circumstances, may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”^[xii]

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) considered a communication^[xiii] submitted Amanda Jane Mellet against Ireland in 2013. She was a married women who found out in the twenty-first week of pregnancy that her foetus had congenital heart defects that would be fatal, either in utero or shortly after birth. Mellet was deeply concerned over the potential suffering of her baby and considered abortion to be the best option. However, abortion was illegal in Ireland even if the impairment would be fatal.

“2.4 On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December, she received further medication to induce labour. She was in labour for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford to stay any longer in the United Kingdom.⁽¹⁾There is no financial assistance from the State or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad.”^[xiv]

(…)

“3.3 (…) The travel abroad was also a significant source of added anxiety and exposed her to obstacles which impinged on her physical and mental integrity and dignity. She had to make preparations for the travel; was deprived of the support of her family; had to stay in a foreign and uncomfortable environment while in Liverpool; and had to spend a sum of money which was difficult for her to raise. While waiting at the airport to fly home, only 12 hours after the termination, she was bleeding, weak and light-headed.”^[xv]

The HRC found Ireland in violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides a non-derogable right which states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”^[xvi].

The Committee also found that Ireland violated article 17 of the ICCPR, which prohibits interference with private life, and article 26 which guarantees equality before the law.

In the context of Mellet v Ireland, the State of Ireland prohibited and criminalized abortion expect in cases where the mother’s life was at risk and furthermore declined to provide information on resources where an abortion could legally be performed given the extenuating circumstances. The Irish law provided no access to remedy and denied Mellet post-abortion care, including grievance counselling, which they only provided to mothers who had delivered a stillborn foetus.

The circumstance of travelling 218 km to access a legal abortion, as did Mrs. Mellet, is entirely conceivable given Canada’s vast territorial expanse. Additionally, how far along in pregnancy a woman is can limit the number of healthcare facilities available to perform the medical abortion. According to Abortion Access Tracker “because of limitations to residents of certain regions, as well as overwhelming demand while being severely under-resourced, there is low availability of abortion care after 20 weeks in Canada.” Therefore hypothetically, in cases that are sufficiently analogous, Canada may too be found in violation of the Convention Against Torture, of which it ratified in 1987. (The U.S. is even more likely given the current circumstances; even though the U.S. hasn’t ratifed the treaty, the prohibition of torture has a jus cogens status, a status of non-derogability, and has become a part of customary international law. )

This obstacle to the right to health in Canada adversely affects women and girls from rural and remote regions. And without any funding for travel expenses, including meals, accommodation, potential airfare or ferry costs, lost time from work, and childcare costs, lack of financial support will significantly and adversely affect women and girls from lower socio-economic statuses.

Canadian non-profit organizations like Abortion Care Canada and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights have been providing support to help women facing barriers to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. But the Liberals have released a draft budget for the next few years in Canada, with a notable 80% decrease in funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) due to the expiration of time-limited spending, without renewal. If abortion access is already an issue in 2025, what will it be like in 2026 or 2027? Abortion Care Canada states that the change in funding not only impacts the ability to provide services but may result in full organizational closure.^[xvii]

Consequences to abortion inaccessibility

The United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has expressed concern over the potentially life-threatening consequences of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and preventable maternal deaths^[xviii]. And, according to a study by Doctors without Borders/Medicins sans Frontieres on unsafe abortions “the life-threatening consequences include severe hemorrhage, sepsis (severe general infection), poisoning, uterine perforation, or damage to other internal organs. A woman may require urgent hospital care for a blood transfusion, major reparative surgery, or a hysterectomy—the complete, and irreversible, removal of the uterus.”^[xix]

In October of 2025 the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that addresses Preventable maternal mortality and human rights^[^xx]. The Council noted with concern that “the risk of maternal mortality is higher for adolescents and highest for girls under 15 years of age and that complications in pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death and severe morbidity among adolescent girls in low- and middle-income countries, acknowledging that the issue also persists in high-income countries.”^[xxi]

The obstacles to obtaining a legal abortion can result in the some of the same adverse outcomes as it does in States where abortion is illegal, including attempts at unsafe abortion, maternal death, susceptibility to remaining in an abusive relationship, increased vulnerability to lack of education and/or lack of employment, loss of financial independence and stability, suicide and infanticide. If they survive, the cost of an unwanted pregnancy may be a lifetime of hardship for mother and child alike.

In addition to the cost of an unwanted pregnancy on an individual and child, the community and ultimately the State pay a price too. Support may start with a pre-natal shelter^[xxii], natal supplement^[xxiii], infant formula^[xxiv], and other supplemental support. Then there is the standard Canada child benefit (CCB) at up to $7,997 per year for each child under 6 and $6748 per year for each child aged 6-17, as well as provincial income assistance (in B.C. $1405 per month for a single parent with one child^[xxv]), totalling approximately $25,000 annually for a single parent with a young child. This cost to Canadian taxpayers is significantly higher than the cost of accommodating access to abortion services or preventative measures including education and contraception.

Recommendations by International Human Rights Treaty Bodies

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) conducted a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Canada’s human rights performance in 2023. The issue of inaccessibility of abortion services was cited in both the Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Canada^[xxvi] and in the Report of the Working Group^[xxvii], with concerns expressed by Iceland and Norway. Canada responded to the recommendations of the Working Group as “noted”^[xxviii] – a vague acknowledgement that makes no promises.

Additionally, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), a core human rights legal instrument which Canada ratified and acceded to in 1976, expressed the same concerns. In the Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada^[xxix] the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provided these recommendations to Canada:

51. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the delegation on measures taken to facilitate access to legal abortion services. It remains concerned, however, at disparities in access to such services and to affordable contraceptives (art. 12)

52. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure access to legal abortion services in all provinces and territories. The Committee also recommends that the State party ensure that physicians’ conscientious objection does not impede women’s access to legal abortion services. The Committee also recommends that affordable contraceptives be made accessible and available to all, and in particular those living in remote areas and those living in poverty. The Committee refers to its General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health.

Furthermore, Canada has been urged to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the interest of enabling the political participation of citizens and NGOs alike. Women’s rights advocacy groups should also continue to encourage ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR as it would enable individuals and groups to file complaints to the Committee in cases of State non-compliance with the Covenant, following exhaustion of local remedies.

Conclusion:

Could Canada be found in violation of Article 12 (the right to health) of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights? Or worse?

When the UN treaty monitoring bodies, such as the CEDAW Committee or the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights find that a States’ actions or omission are not in conformity with their treaty obligations, they will consider the circumstances of each specific case. Whether or not a States’ actions or omissions were the result of extraordinary circumstances that are considered permissible or not, would be up to the Committee to decide. Hence, it is only if the State’s treaty performance is challenged that the ruling would emerge.

[i] Table 7: Planned three-year spending on core responsibilities and internal services; Planned Spending and human resources; Women and Gender Equality Canada’s 2025-26 Departmental Plan; Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/transparency/departmental-plans/2025-2026.html#toc4 Accessed Sept. 14, 2025

[ii] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; 1966; adopted by the General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)

[iii] Women’s health: Why is the health of at least half the global population so often overlooked? Deeptha Khanna; January 2, 2023; https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/women-health-gap-davos-2023/ (Accessed August 27, 2025)

[iv] See for example Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28, [2020] 3 S.C.R. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18510/index.do

[v] Pg. 15; paragraph 38 (e); CEDAW Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada; UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10; October 30, 2024.

[vi] Pg. 14; paragraph 37 (e); CEDAW Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada; UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10; October 30, 2024.

[vii] Hannah Ritchie and Edouard Mathieu (2019) – “Which countries are most densely populated?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/most-densely-populated-countries’ [Online Resource] Accessed October 24, 2025.

[viii] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-regions.html Accessed October 24, 2025.

[ix] Section 3; https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/page-1.html#h-151484 Accessed October 30, 2025.

[x] Core components of the right to health; Key facts; Human Rights; WHO; December 1, 2023; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20health%20includes,goods%20and%20services%20for%20all (Accessed Aug 21, 2025)

[xi] Article 29, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969); Entered into force on 27 January 1980.

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

[xii] Para. 18, page 7; General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19; UN CEDAW Committee; CEDAW/C/GC/35; 26 July 2017.

[xiii] Human Rights Committee; Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2324/2013;CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013; distributed 17 Nov. 2016; https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013

[xiv] Ibid, para. 2.2 and 2.4; page. 2.

[xv] Ibid, para. 3.3, page 3.

¹The author states that they spent €3,000 in total, including the €2,000 fee they paid for the procedure.

[xvi] Art. 7,Part II, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; adopted by UN General Assembly res. 2200A (XXI) 1966; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

[xvii] https://abortioncarecanada.ca/the-autonomy-fund/ Accessed October 25, 2025.

[xviii] Para. 2; CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1; https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2015/06/un-womens-committee-makes-inquiry-sexual-and-reproductive-health-rights-philippines (accessed August 29, 2025)

[xix] Unsafe abortion: A preventable danger; Unsafe abortion is one of the five leading causes of maternal mortality, and the only one that is preventable. Medicins sans Frontieres; March 7, 2019; https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/unsafe-abortion-preventable-danger#:~:text=For%20women%20who%20use%20these%20unsafe%20methods%2C,complete%2C%20and%20irreversible%2C%20removal%20of%20the%20uterus. Accessed Sept. 28, 2025

[xx] Resolution A/HRC/60/L.20/Rev.1 https://docs.un.org/en/a/hrc/60/l.20/rev.1 Adopted by the Human Rights Council; 60th Session, October 2025.

[xxi] Ibid. Preamble, page 4, paragraph 7.

[xxii] “If you are pregnant, you may be able to get money to secure or maintain stable housing before your child is born. You must have no spouse and have no other dependent children.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/on-assistance/supplements Accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

[xxiii] “If you are pregnant or have an infant less than thirteen months old, you may be able to get an extra $80 per month.” Ibid.

[xxiv] For your child’s first 12 months, you could get money for: Regular infant formula. This is when the child has a medical need for regular infant formula; Specialized infant formula. This is only if your child has a medical condition that requires special formula. You may be able to get this longer than 12 months if it’s medically required; Ibid.

[xxv] https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/on-assistance Accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

[xxvi] Pg. 7; point 66 sub-heading “Right to health”; Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Canada – Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; UN document A/HRC/WG.6/44/CAN/3; September 4, 2023.

[66. JS3 stated that, although abortion was a decriminalized health-care service, many people lacked access to the public health system entirely and others faced prohibitive barriers to abortion care, including travel costs, long wait times, immigration status and intimate partner violence.119 (Joint submission 3 submitted by: The Sexual Rights Initiative, Ottawa (Canada); Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights; Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic; Justice for Migrant Workers; J4MW-YWCA Hamilton – The Community Research Platform at McMaster University, Sexual Rights Initiative)]

[xxvii] Pg. 16, points 37.186 (by Iceland) and 37.187 (by Norway); Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Canada; UN document A/HRC/55/12; December 19, 2023.

[xxviii] Pg. 2 (Recommendations and Canadian Position); Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Canada – Addendum – Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review; UN Doc. A/HRC/55/12/Add.1; March 15, 2024.

[xxix] Pg. 9; paragraphs 51 and 52; Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada; E/C.12/CAN/CO/6; March 23, 2016.

2025-11-05
Does Canada’s Online News Act interfere with freedom of expression under international law?
During a time of radical political transformation of the global landscape, knowledge is power – yet for Canadians, freedom of expression has been impaired since Bill C-18, the Online News Act, reached royal assent on June 22, 2023^[i]. Freedom of expression is a core value of democracy and therefore must be carefully guarded.

The Act proposed a regime whereby digital intermediaries, including search engines and social media platforms, would be regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and must bargain with eligible Canadian news businesses to provide compensation when their news content is shared via links on these intermediaries. The intention is for tech giants to contribute to the sustainability of the Canadian news market. However, in an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and U.S. based non-State actor Meta Platforms Inc., Meta has argued that they already provide significant value through referral traffic for those news publishers and therefore refuse to pay compensation. In protest Meta has been blocking content from legacy Canadian news agencies from being seen or shared by platform users for over two years now, as many Canadians have noticed. Google intended to take similar measures but reached an agreement with the Government of Canada in November 2023^[ii]. Regardless of which entity is at fault, State or non-State actor, the implementation of Bill C-18 and its resulting dispute is in effect breaching international human rights standards, specifically freedom of expression.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose department is responsible for Bill C-18, is aware, Canada acceded to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Optional Protocol in 1976. Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Covenant provides that

“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.”

Article 19 makes clear that freedom of expression extends to everyone, not just the press, and that it concerns both imparting and receiving information. But Canadians are currently unable to receive news from reliable sources while using popular social media platforms. Therefore, our right to receive information is impaired. We are also unable to comment on news articles, therefore impairing our right to impart information. Additionally, our right to political participation is impaired, all of which are essential to both democracy and women’s rights.

While there are certain permissible restrictions on freedom of expression, according to Art. 19 para. 3^[iii] of the ICCPR, this situation does not meet the criteria. These restrictions are not necessary for the respect or reputation of others, for the protection of national security, of ordre public, or for public health or morals. And although the restrictions Canadians face resulting from Bill C-18 are not restrictions de jure, they are restrictions de facto.

Would a court consider the same criteria for restrictions in fact, as it does for restrictions in law? According to the Government of Canada’s analysis on Section 2 (b), “3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?”^[iv]:

ii) Effect:

Even if a purpose is compatible with section 2(b), an individual may be able to demonstrate that the effect of the government action infringes their section 2(b) right. In this situation, the individual must show that their expression advances one or more of the values underlying section 2(b), e.g., participation in social and political decision making, the search for truth and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Ramsden, supra). While more recent Supreme Court decisions still refer to this principle of showing the effect of government action, the Court does not appear to apply with a great deal of vigor the requirement that an individual show an advancement of values, tending instead to easily find a restriction of section 2(b).

If a court concludes that the government action, in either purpose or effect, infringes section 2(b), it will then consider whether the limit on free expression is justifiable under section 1.

Therefore, regardless of the purpose of the government action, a court may find the effect of a government action to infringe upon our freedom of expression.

What is the effect of this restriction on freedom of expression?

In an era rife with misinformation and disinformation, citizens are urged to fact-check information through well-respected news agencies with high journalistic standards before sharing content online. However, fact-checking through trusted news agencies Instagram or Facebook accounts is attempted in vain. Visits to news accounts read “People in Canada can’t see this content – In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can’t be viewed in Canada”.

The impairment of our ability to fact-check runs contrary to Canada’s commitment to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation. In a fast-paced world it is not always convenient nor efficient to fact-check information through a Google search, which is why so many people rely on “instant” information through platforms like Instagram. Furthermore, direct site visits to news publishers can often be blocked by pay walls, making it more difficult to discern the facts from a credible source.

Countering the spread of misinformation was particularly crucial during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic, however, alternative news agencies were more accessible than highly credible sources. Unfortunately this same effect has taken place throughout wars and major elections.

In that respect, “…as part of a series of reports on coordinated inauthentic behaviour, Meta reported that, in 2021, it had removed 52 networks found in 34 countries that had ‘engaged in coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal, while relying centrally on fake accounts to mislead people about who’s behind them’.”^[v] The 2022 Report of the UN Secretary General – Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms – concluded that “States bear the primary responsibility to counter disinformation by respecting, protecting and fulfilling the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to privacy and to public participation.”^[vi]

The right to political participation

According to research on Trust in Media published in July 2024 by Pollara Strategic Insights, 33% of Canadians and 57% of Gen Zs use social media as their primary news source^[vii]. One important difference between receiving information on a dedicated news app from receiving it on a social media app is the ability of the reader to directly engage in democratic dialogue in a social media feed. This direct access to democratic engagement is particularly important to women and others from marginalized groups.

The impairment of the right to impart information undermines the enjoyment of the right to political participation. Arguably, sharing opinions on social media that are pertinent to political issues, regardless of the content of one’s opinions, is an exercise not only of the freedom of expression but also of the right to political participation and democratic engagement. This assertion is affirmed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

“Expressing political opinions or sharing political content on social media is a form of political expression and is protected by the Charter”^[viii].

The 2024 article Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement in Science Direct says, “The act of citizens being both politically and civically engaged is a known benefit to society, which is collectively known as ‘democratic engagement.’”^[ix]

Social media has become one of the most powerful political tools of the 21^st century. Therefore, without the ability to access, read, share, and participate in political dialogue on issues that concern us and shape our lives, Canada could be found in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)for failing to reach an agreement with social media giant Meta Platforms Inc.

In June of 2023 up to 5% of Canadians social media users were included in a test for whom Meta blocked news content; they continue to experience this block, which has been extended in application to 100% of Canadians since August 2023. This block has impaired Canadians’ right to freedom of expression and the right to meaningful political engagement at the time of a generational crisis. We cannot defend our civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without the guarantee of freedom of expression aligned with international standards.

The international responsibilities of trans-national corporations

Although Meta is directly responsible for the infringement on Canadians’ human rights, the State is indirectly responsible. Human rights must be respected, protected and fulfilled through the regulation of non-State actors. And although Meta its headquartered in the United States, the U.S. is also a party to the ICCPR, whereby an affected member State may file a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee.

Transnational corporations (TNCs), including Meta, have an obligation to respect human rights in the countries where they conduct business. This obligation is outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). In a statement released by Meta on March 16, 2021, a corporate human rights policy was launched stating that it “sets out the human rights standards we will strive to respect as defined in international law including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)”^[x]. Meta stated that “(w)e will report our most critical human rights issues, like risks to freedom of expression, to our Board of Directors.”^[xi]

According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Article 13:
The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:

(a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur;

(b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.
Meta’s Corporate Human Rights Policy also states that they commit to implementation of the Global Network Initiative (GNI) Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy. The GNI Principles in turn recognize the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and therefore that “the deprivation of one right adversely affects others”^[xii]. The Principles further state that “freedom of opinion and expression supports an informed citizenry and is vital to ensuring public and private sector accountability. Broad public access to information and the freedom to create and communicate ideas are critical to the advancement of knowledge, economic opportunity and human potential.”^[xiii]This supports the assertion that adverse impacts on the right of freedom to receive and impart information may also adversely affect the right to political participation.

“Not only does Meta control a huge chunk of the internet’s physical infrastructure, it also controls who can see what, when and where. That gives it enormous power, even as the contours of the legal obligations to its users remain unclear.”^[xiv] It is notable that compliance of TNCs with human rights norms is an evolving area of international law, but in the interest of public perception and accountability, they ought to put human rights above profits by paying their fair share to Canadian news agencies. Conversely, Canada ought to put human rights above profits, despite the 2025 tariff crisis. At a time when the world is experiencing a decline in democracy, with Canada having slid down from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy on the V-Dem Index in recent years^[xv], and women’s rights facing a fierce backlash worldwide, including in Canada, perhaps profit loss is not the most meaningful cost.

Ironically, the Online News Act is said to be “An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada”^[xvi], but it has done just the opposite, and it must be addressed. Can the Liberals, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, take action to foster an effective remedy to the benefit of all Canadians impacted by this ongoing human rights violation?

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

[i] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18 Accessed October 3, 2025.

[ii] Thibeault, Cochran, Major; Federal government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act; November 29, 2023; CBC News; https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.7043330

[iii] Article 19, para. 3: The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

[iv] Analysis; 3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?; Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Charterpedia; Canada’s System of Justice; Government of Canada; https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html; website accessed October 7, 2025

[v] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 15/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022; footnote 92: See www.theverge.com/2020/3/16/21182726/coronavirus-covid-19-facebook-google-twitter–youtube-joint-effort-misinformation-fraud

[vi] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 17/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022

[vii] Page 6 (infographic); (2024) Trust in Media: How Canadians feel about news outlets. Pollara Strategic Insights. https://www.pollara.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Trust-in-Media-July-2024-final.pdf
(Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[viii] Your rights on social media during an election; Sept. 1, 2021; Public Service Alliance of Canada. https://psacunion.ca/your-rights-social-media-during-election (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[ix] Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement; Sherice Gearhart, Bingbing Zhang, and Oluseyi Adegbola; Telematics and Informatics Report, Vol. 16, December 2024, 1000167; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503024000537 (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[x] https://about.fb.com/news/2021/03/our-commitment-to-human-rights/ (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

[xi] https://about.fb.com/news/2021/03/our-commitment-to-human-rights/ (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

[xii] Page 1; Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy; Global Network Initiative; last updated May 2017; https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GNI-Principles-on-Freedom-of-Expression-and-Privacy.pdf (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

[xiii] Ibid, page 3.

[xiv] Facebook, Meta and the power of tech; Piper, Arthur; International Bar Association; Nov. 24. 2021; https://www.ibanet.org/Facebook-Meta-and-the-power-of-tech (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

[xv] Pages 52, 60, 62; Nord, Marina, David Altman, Fabio Angiolillo, Tiago Fernandes, Ana Good God, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2025. Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped? University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/61/v-dem-dr__2025_lowres_v2.pdf

[xvi] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18 Accessed October 3, 2025.
2025-10-07
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
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