International Human Rights - International Legal Developments Year in Review: 2023

I. Introduction

This article highlights developments in 2023 that the International Human Rights Committee (IHRC) has focused on in its programming and advocacy work.

II. Climate Change Litigation and Human Rights

A. United States

Climate change-related lawsuits, including those asserting rights’ violations, have burgeoned in the United States and globally. In Held v. Montana, sixteen Montana youth filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in 2020 against the State of Montana, that state’s governor, and many of its agencies challenging the constitutionality of the state’s fossil fuel-based state energy system, which they alleged causes and contributes to climate change in violation of their rights guaranteed under Montana’s Constitution and its Public Trust Doctrine.

A provision of Montana’s Constitution states that “[t]he state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” A provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) forbids the state and its agents from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change in their environmental reviews and in the state’s permitting for coal and gas exploitation. After the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the Montana legislature amended MEPA to bar courts from being able to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority” for reasons related to climate change.” On August 14, 2023, after a two-week trial, a Montana judge ruled that both MEPA provisions violated Montana’s constitutional obligation to provide its residents a clean and healthy environment and enjoined the State from acting in accordance with those provisions. The ruling is the first in which a court in the United States has interpreted a state right to a healthy environment to also include a healthy climate. Montana has appealed the decision. If the ruling stands however, it could inspire similar lawsuits, strengthen climate-related cases in other states, encourage efforts to amend other state constitutions to provide for a right to a healthy environment, and set new legal precedent regarding whether governments have a duty to protect citizens from the consequences of climate change and global warming.

Montana, New York, and Pennsylvania give their residents a constitutional right to a healthy environment; and Hawaii, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Rhode Island have similar provisions in their constitutions. According to its website, Our Children’s Trust, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in Held v. Montana, have developed youth-led climate lawsuits and legal actions in all 50 states. Our Children’s Trust also represents plaintiff youth in Juliana v. U.S., a pending federal case alleging that the government has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the U.S Constitution and has breached constitutional public trust obligations by promoting the production and use of fossil fuels that destabilize the climate.

On a global level, the movement toward recognition of the human right to a healthy environment is growing and may produce further climate change-related litigation. As of 2019, 110 countries provide a right to a healthy environment explicitly stated in their constitutions; and in 2022 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a universal human right.

B. Colombia

In July 2023, a trial court in Colombia found in favor of indigenous plaintiffs who had challenged a carbon credits agreement associated with a project impacting their Indigenous community’s territory. The projects in question were developed under the United Nations REDD+ framework, focused on avoiding deforestation and forest degradation in the municipality of Cumbal, home to four “resguardos indígenas” including the Gran Cumbal community. However, plaintiffs from the Gran Cumbal community filed a complaint, arguing that no information on the project was shared with the community and that the project had violated the Indigenous community’s rights. Although a contract existed between the resguardo’s governing authority and the project developer, plaintiffs argued that the authority had exceeded its legal function and that failure to consult the community was a violation of their rights, including the rights to free, prior, and informed consent and consultation.

The trial court enjoined the project as well as the associated purchase agreements for the carbon credits, ordering the defendants to engage in a consultation for free, prior, and informed consent, in accordance with relevant legal instruments, including ILO Convention 169 and the Cancun Safeguards. The appellate court affirmed this ruling, while modifying it slightly to require defendants to file a consultation request before the Ministry of the Interior instead of engaging immediately and directly with the indigenous community.

Although not discussed in the decision, this case highlights the potential risks not just to communities, but also to companies, of climate action occurring without a reference to human rights standards. Many of the now-enjoined credits had already been retired in that they were used to offset other emissions, creating a potential carbon accounting concern to the extent the credits are ultimately fully invalidated.

C. Europe

In relation to rights-based climate change litigation in Europe, it is worth mentioning some developments at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), concerning certain hearings, cases adjourned, and cases declared inadmissible.

1. Pending Cases Where Hearings Have Been Held

Hearings have been held in 2023 in three relevant cases, although rulings have not yet been issued.

a. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (no. 53600/20)

The ECtHR held a Grand Chamber hearing on March 29, 2023, on the application filed on November 26, 2020. The applicants are KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, a group of more than 2,000 older women concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health, and “four women aged over eighty who complain[ed] of health problems exacerbated during heatwaves.” The defendant is the Swiss government.

On November 25, 2016, “the applicants submitted a request to the Swiss Federal Council and other authorities, pointing to various failings in the area of climate protection and seeking a decision on actions to be taken.” “They also called on the authorities to take the necessary measures to meet the 2030 goal set by the 2015 Paris Agreement.” They complained that Switzerland “has failed to introduce suitable legislation and to put appropriate and sufficient measures in place to attain the targets for combating climate change.”

The applicants claimed that Switzerland has failed to do its duty under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) “to protect life effectively (Article 2) and to ensure respect for their private and family life, including their home (Article 8).” They allege that its duties under the ECHR provisions “should be considered in the light of the principles of precaution and intergenerational fairness contained in international environmental law.” They also cite the right to a fair trial (Article 6) and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13).

b. Carême v. France (no. 7189/21)

The ECtHR held a Grand Chamber hearing on March 29, 2023, on the application filed on January 28, 2021. The applicant is a French national and a resident and former mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe. The defendant is the French government. The applicant claimed “that France has taken insufficient steps to prevent climate change and that this failure entails a violation of the right to life” in Article 2 of the ECHR “and the right to respect for private and family life” in Article 8 of the ECHR.

“On November 19, 2018, the applicant, in his own name and in his capacity as mayor of the municipality of Grande-Synthe, sent various requests to the French" Government to take several measures on climate change. When he received no response, the applicant lodged an application with the French Conseil d’État to annul the Government’s tacit refusal of the applicants’ requests. The Conseil d’État held that Mr. Carême did not have legal standing by himself, but the municipality of Grande-Synthe did, annulled the Government’s tacit refusal, and “ordered the [French] government to take additional measures by March 31, 2022 to attain the target – pursuant to the [2015] Paris Agreement - of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.” In his appeal before the ECtHR, the applicant claimed that by dismissing his action, the Conseil d’État disregarded his “‘right to a normal private and family life.’” He claimed that “he is directly affected by the government’s failure to take sufficient steps to combat against climate change” and that such failure violates his rights under the ECHR.

c. Duarte Agostinho v. Portugal (no. 39371/20)

The ECtHR held a Grand Chamber hearing on September 27, 2023 on the application filed on September 7, 2020. “The applicants are Portuguese nationals aged between 11 and 24.” The defendants are Portugal and 32 other States. The case concerns the greenhouse gas emissions from the defendants, which in the applicants’ view contribute to the phenomenon of global warming resulting, among other things, in heatwaves affecting the applicants’ living conditions and health, including “disrupted sleep patterns, allergies and respiratory problems,” plus “anxiety caused by these natural disasters and by the prospect of spending their whole lives in an increasingly warm environment, affecting them and any future families they might have.”

The applicants complained that the defendants are “failing to comply with their positive obligations under” Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR, read in the light of the 2015 Paris Agreement. They also cited the prohibitions of ill-treatment (Article 3) and of discrimination (Article 14), “arguing that global warming affects their generation particularly and that, given their age, the interference with their rights is greater than in the case of older generations.” They contended such ECHR provisions should be read in light of Article 3 (1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and “the principle of intergenerational equity referred to in a number of international instruments.”

2. Cases Adjourned

ECtHR decided to adjourn its examination in the following seven cases until such time as the Grand Chamber has ruled in the climate change cases before it:

a. Uricchio v. Italy (no. 14615/21) and De Conto v. Italy (no. 14620/21)

“These cases were brought by two young adults who complain…that the greenhouse gas emissions from 33 member States have caused global warming, resulting, among other things, in extreme weather events such as heatwaves and storms, affecting the applicants’ living conditions and mental health.” They referred to Articles 2, 8, 13, and 14 of the ECHR.

b. Müllner v. Austria (no. 18859/21)

“This case was brought by a person suffering from a medical condition that makes him wheelchair-bound when subjected to temperatures of 30 degrees Celsius and above. The applicant complain[ed]…that Austria has not put in place an adequate legislative and administrative framework to achieve the Paris Agreement temperature target of limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and that it has consistently failed to meet its national targets in terms of effective greenhouse gas reduction.” He referred to Articles 2, 6 (right to a fair trial), 8, and 13 of the ECHR.

c. Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (no. 34068/21) and Norwegian Grandparents’ Climate Campaign and Others v. Norway (no. 19026/21)

These cases were brought by certain non-governmental organizations and some affiliated individuals. “The applicants complain[ed]…about the judicial review-proceedings in which the applicant NGOs did not succeed in obtaining a judgment declaring invalid a decision made by the Norwegian Government to grant petroleum exploration licenses for the Norwegian continental shelf.” They referred to Articles 2, 8, 13, and 14 of the ECHR.

d. Soubeste v. Austria (nos. 31925/22, 31932/22, 31938/22, 31943/22, and 31974/22)

These cases were brought by five individuals from Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, and Switzerland. “The applicants complain[ed]…that the Energy Charter Treaty inhibits the respondent States from taking immediate measures against climate change, making it impossible for them to attain the [2015] Paris Agreement temperature goals.” They referred to Articles 2, 3, 8, and 14 of the ECHR.

e. Engels v. Germany (no. 46906/22)

Nine teenagers and young adults brought this application. “The applicants complain[ed]…that the new goals of the German Climate Protection Act in its amended version which entered into force on August 31, 2021, are insufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level necessary for meeting the [2015] Paris Agreement temperature goals.“ They referred to Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.

3. Cases declared inadmissible

The ECtHR declared two applications inadmissible on the grounds that the applicants were not sufficiently affected by the alleged breach of the ECHR or its Protocols to claim to be victims of a violation under ECHR Article 34 (right of individual petition). These cases are Humane Being and Others v. the United Kingdom (36959/22), where the applicants “complained…that the United Kingdom had failed to regulate and take all reasonable steps to safeguard against the risks of factory farming”; and Plan B. Earth and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 35057/22), where the applicants “complained…that the United Kingdom had failed to take practical and effective measures to tackle the extreme threat from man-made climate change.”

III. European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

The European Union (EU) economy is linked “to millions of workers worldwide through global supply chains.” This imposes both a responsibility and an opportunity for EU companies to positively impact workers’ rights and environmental standards. The EU has proven to be aware of that responsibility and to do justice to it through the adoption of a panoply of ESG and human rights protection legislation. They can be distinguished in two principal categories, supply chain due diligence legislation on the one hand and corporate sustainable reporting obligations on the other. The focus of this Section III will be on the first category of ESG and human rights protection legislation and the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in particular. The CSDDD is aimed at harmonizing companies’ due diligence obligations regarding human rights and environmental standards across the EU. EU Member States will be required to transpose the CSDDD into national law.

The proposal for the CSDDD was first published by the European Commission on February 23, 2022. Since then, the European Council adopted its own negotiating position or “General Approach” to the proposal. On June 1, 2023, the European Parliament adopted the CSDDD as a negotiating text with amendments. Thus, currently, there are three distinct CSDDD proposals. The most recent draft of the European Parliament from June 1, 2023 (CSDDD draft directive) serves as the foundation for the ongoing trilateral discussions among the European Commission, European Council, and European Parliament, intending to reconcile differences among the legislative proposals. This CSDDD draft directive calls for a significant expansion of the scope of application of the CSDDD, including certain companies from third countries. The scope of the directive is one controversial topic in the ongoing trilateral negotiations in addition to the questions of civil liability and the inclusion of climate-related due diligence. Among the positions of the three EU institutions, the amendments of the European Parliament come closest to the requirements of international human rights standards even though non-binding, namely the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Given the active legislative process, the current CSDDD draft could undergo further changes. Nonetheless, the CSDDD’s formal adoption is only a matter of time and anticipated before 2023 concludes. Once ratified, EU Member States will have two years to transpose the directive into national law. As one example, in Germany, this will likely necessitate amendments to and an expansion of obligations under the Act on Supply Chain Due Diligence (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz or LkSG), which has been in force since January 1, 2023, and which has also served as a source for the drafting of the CSDDD.

The CSDDD draft directive sets out a wide scope of applicability to many businesses in Article 2. It encompasses both EU-based companies and companies from third countries, provided certain thresholds of employees and turnover are met. According to the explanatory memorandum of the initial proposal by the European Commission, approximately 13,000 companies inside the EU and approximately an additional 4,000 companies incorporated outside the EU will be covered. These numbers will be even larger if the amendments proposed by the European Parliament will be adopted.

Based on the EU Parliament’s draft, companies constituted organized under the law of an EU Member State would be covered by the CSDDD draft directive if they meet the thresholds of Group 1 or Group 2, as outlined in the table below:

**********IMAGE**********

In contrast, the German LkSG has no turnover threshold and applies to companies with 3,000 or more employees, which will be lowered to 1,000 or more employees as of 2024.

The CSDDD may also cover non-EU companies, including U.S. companies. The CSDDD draft directive provides for obligations for EU companies even without an EU presence, provided they meet the relevant turnover thresholds within the EU outlined in the table below.

**********IMAGE**********

The scope of due diligence obligations under the CSDDD extends to the entire value chain. This means due diligence requirements will cover a company’s own business activities, as well as those of its subsidiaries, extending to both the upstream and downstream sections of value chains. The upstream value chain includes all activities of a company related to product manufacturing, such as raw material extraction, and provision of services. The downstream value chain includes all activities conducted by business partners regarding distribution, transportation, storage, and disposal.

According to the CSDDD draft directive, companies will be required to undertake due diligence to identify, to prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts where necessary, and to end actual negative impacts of their activities on human rights and the environment. Such adverse activities include “slavery, child labor, labor exploitation, bidodiversity loss, pollution, and environmental degradation.” Covered “companies will also have to monitor and assess the impact of their value-chain partners including…suppliers,” as well as partners involved in “sales, transport, distribution, storage, and waste-management” activities.

The CSDDD draft directive includes the possibility of civil liability, which is intended to ensure effective enforcement of due diligence obligations. The CSDDD draft directive enables affected parties to directly file claims against companies for damages stemming from human rights violations or environmental harm within the value chain. However, it is questionable whether the concept of liability as a tool to implement policy will be effective. “Realizing liability claims will require long and complex legal proceedings.” An example regarding environmental adverse impacts is the Shell/Nigeria case, in which only a few farmers who had suffered damages resulting from oil spills from pipelines ultimately received a compensation for their damages after over ten years of litigation.

Another tool to enforce the CSDDD requirements will be sanctions in case of violations of due diligence obligations. Sanctions may include fines of up to five percent of the annual group turnover, public disclosure of the violation naming the company, banning the sale or export of products, and more.

The CSDDD adopts a comprehensive approach with regard to climate protection due diligence. The European Commissions’ draft required companies to develop plans aligning their business strategies with sustainability and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius under the 2015 Paris Agreement. In the European Parliament’s CSDDD draft directive, the obligations go further, demanding a detailed business model and strategy aligning with the EU’s goal of climate neutrality by 2050 and a fifty-five percent emission reduction by 2030.

One of the focal points of discussion in the ongoing trilateral meetings concerns the responsibility of company management for sustainability. While the European Commission advocates for stricter accountability, including direct and personal responsibility for putting in place and overseeing the due diligence actions, the European Parliament’s CSDDD draft weakens these responsibilities.

Another point of discussion revolves around management compensation. A company’s action plan to align its business strategy and model with the 1.5-degree target will also include variable compensation for the company’s management to provide appropriate financial incentives.

The outcome remains uncertain at this stage, but management is expected to have some oversight role in CSDDD-mandated due diligence. This may be similar to the German LkSG obligations for staying informed about the results of risk analyses.

The CSDDD will likely introduce tight standards for supply chain due diligence. Once implemented into national law, the CSDDD will have broad applicability, comprehensive due diligence obligations and will introduce civil liability and heightened environmental obligations.

IV. Support for Afghan Women Judges

Efforts to support the Afghan Women Judges, whose lives were placed in danger when the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021 and the Taliban resumed control, continued in 2023. While the U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice had supported the development of women judges throughout Afghanistan during the U.S. engagement in the country, evidence of support for these women judges during the U.S. withdrawal were non-existent.

Responding to calls for help from the Afghan women judges who had become friends with their U.S. colleagues, the International Association of Women Judges, along with national chapters of the organization around the world, called upon their networks to raise funds and relocate the judges. To date, of the 254 women judges who requested assistance in relocating, only forty-six remain in Afghanistan. Of that group, thirty-seven judges have been relocated to the United States. Another twenty or twenty-one judges are expected to arrive in the United States once their immigration documents are cleared by the U.S. Department of State.

Forty of the judges who were successfully relocated out of Afghanistan remain in a transitional relocation status. Many of the judges, with their families, were initially staged in “lily-pad” locations as the available mechanisms to get visas for the judges and their family members were not compatible with the demand on such short notice.

Meanwhile the judges and their families were under direct threat of death or serious bodily injury. As reported in The Guardian, one fifty-three-year-old woman judge who had been in hiding in Pakistan for two years, recently won an appeal of her visa denial and has been allowed to enter the United Kingdom under that country’s Afghan citizen resettlement program. She described the situation just before she and her son were able to relocate to the United Kingdom:

Two days before we flew to the UK, our apartment block got raided by police to arrest Afghan refugees. Luckily, we were out at the doctors at the time. Now that we are finally safe in the UK, we so much enjoy being able to walk around safely and freely now, sitting in our family’s garden and feeling just peace around us, and sleeping quietly and comfortably, knowing next day we will wake up in our safe new home.

Relocation, however, is only the start of the challenges these women judge face. With the relocation into temporary lodging in a new country, there are language lessons, job searches, and the challenge of arriving with very little and no credit rating, making the opportunity to lease an apartment or make other purchases of essential goods particularly challenging.

Despite the challenges faced in the relocation process, the judges who have been successfully relocated recognize that they are far better off than the women and girls who remain in Afghanistan. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued its report in March 2023, noting that Afghanistan is the only country in the world that forbids girls and women from attending secondary education and higher education. Among the matters addressed in this release, the United Nations notes: “There are no longer safe spaces for girls to meet, learn and just be children. If the ban on education continues, life outcomes for girls in particular, but also for all children, will continue on a negative trajectory and recovery will take decades. This cannot let this happen.”

During 2023, the American Bar Association’s Afghan Legal Professionals Scholarship and Mentoring Pilot Project has successfully negotiated the commitment from sixteen law schools throughout the United States to provide full tuition scholarships for qualified Afghan legal professionals, including women judges, to obtain LL.M.s. The long-term goal is to have those individuals who complete the LL.M. program sit for a bar exam in the United States and continue to contribute their skills and talents in the legal community in the United States.

In all the efforts to assist the Afghan women judges and the legal professionals who have been relocated from Afghanistan, there are mentoring programs aligned with the newly settled refugees. This is considered to be an important element of the formula for success as these legal professionals attempt to reconstruct their lives.

V. Developments in Women’s Human Rights

The backsliding in women’s human rights continued in 2023. While progress in human rights is typically slow and hard-fought, women’s human rights are particularly fragile and subject to repeated controversies and sudden reversals. The year 2023 saw continued regression in that area, which was correlated with the increase in populist, totalitarian, and autocratic movements around the world.

The modern human rights architecture of the United Nations, including the United Nations Charter, the International Bill of Human Rights (consisting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), grants all people, including women, certain fundamental human rights. However, many countries continue to refuse to grant women the equal rights guaranteed under international law.

The most recent data demonstrates that progress toward legal equality of women’s human rights has slowed or, in many cases, reversed. Only fourteen countries, all developed high-income economies, currently have laws guaranteeing women the same rights as men. In contrast, the remaining 2.4 billion women have only partial or no rights. According to the World Bank, the pace of reforms toward equal treatment of women under the law has slumped to a twenty-year low in 2022, creating not only hardship for women and children but also impeding economic growth. In addition, additional restrictions on the rights of women were newly adopted in many countries with devastating impacts on women, including the continued crackdown on the most basic rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, the ongoing brutal suppression of women’s rights in Iran, and the partisan decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning long-standing precedent and denying to women their bodily integrity and agency by removing the right to abortion, with continuing impacts in 2023 as states enact ever-tougher restrictions on women’s healthcare.

A. Afghanistan

The Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan has had a devastating impact on Afghan women and girls. There is no country in the world where the fundamental human rights of women and girls are more restricted than in Afghanistan, with the almost total denial of all fundamental liberties and a near-total subversion of human autonomy for women and girls. In the opinion of U.N. experts, the Taliban is practicing “gender apartheid.” Girls have been banned from middle school and high school, meaning that 2.5 million girls are deprived of getting an education. In addition, women are barred from attending universities or working for non-government organizations. As a result, sixth grade is the highest level of education available for women and girls in Afghanistan. Before this latest round of restrictions, women had been allowed to continue some university studies, but in gender-segregated classrooms. Even that is no longer possible.

In addition, women are restricted from most employment; women working in government jobs have been fired and told to stay home. All women must wear head-to-toe clothing in public and are banned from visiting parks, sporting events, and sports arenas. Women cannot even attend gender-segregated gyms. All-women beauty salons, the last remaining semi-public spaces where women could gather and exchange ideas outside their homes, were banned in 2023. Over 60,000 women who run those beauty salons lost their livelihoods as well.

All women now have legal guardians and cannot make independent decisions affecting their lives, and women cannot travel or even enter the Kabul airport without a male chaperone. Under newly propagated laws, girls as young as thirteen can now be married off while the girl’s male guardians are making these decisions. Just between December 2022 and February 2023, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) received 578 reports of forced marriage, of which 361 were child marriages. Some such marriages are result of dire economic situationwhere some families feel it is necessary to sell a girl child into marriage to receive mahr (dowry) price, others are forced by Taliban. While such mahr payments happen in all marriages in Afghanistan, more families are forced to seek these payments to help them survive. Moreover, young girls are also being sold into marriage or servitude as a form of debt payment. Between December and February 2023 alone, IOM received 118 reports of children being sold to service family debt.

While Afghan women tried various forms of public protest, they have not been successful in lowering the Taliban’s restrictions. Their protests were violently stopped, and public advocacy and international pressure had no results. So far, all efforts to make the Taliban uphold women’s rights under the International Bill of Human Rights or the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325, which calls for women’s “equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security,” have had no results. Calls by many human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, which condemned the continued detention of women’s rights activists in Afghanistan and continued restrictions against girls and women, have been disregarded. The Taliban closed the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They reinstated the Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which monitors women’s behavior and is known for using violence and intimidation against any non-conforming women. In short, almost thirty years of modest gains for women’s rights in Afghanistan have been eradicated seemingly overnight.

B. Poland, China, and Certain Other Countries

Several other countries took action in 2023 to diminish women’s rights. Poland, whose conservative government introduced one of the most severe anti-abortion laws in Europe, continued to prosecute women rights activists. Massive strikes by Polish women throughout the entire country provided no relief. Multiple women who died of sepsis because doctors refused to perform medically necessary abortions needed to save the life of the mother also not did not affect the laws. At the same time, the government continued to target women activists.

In China, the Chinese government traditionally promoted equality of the sexes, but that has been changing. Facing several high-profile cases involving sexual harassment of women by government officials, the Chinese government began to silence some women activists by imposing new censorship rules banning “feminist” terms and any content they see as “harmful speech” that is “inciting conflict between the genders.” Moreover, in his recent speech, President Xi urged the “All-China Women’s Federation” to “actively cultivate a new marriage and childbirth culture, strengthen the guidance of young people’s views on marriage, parenthood, and family, as well as promote policies to support childbirth.” After years of advocating one-child policies and punishing women for having more children, the Chinese government wants women to give up their careers, stay home, and produce babies, which can be viewed as a step backward for women’s rights.

In many countries, women continued to live in poverty, under constant danger of violence, and without legal recourse. The year 2023 was no exception. The Women, Peace, and Security Index (published by Georgetown University and Oslo’s Peace Research Institute) measures women’s rights through levels of inclusion in society, representation in the justice system, and feelings of security (at home, in their community, and within conflict settings). The United Nations’ Gender Inequality Index touches on similar data points, such as the number of years of education a woman receives and women’s representation at the political level, as well as areas like maternal mortality, early marriage, and teen pregnancy. Combining these two data sets, the ten worst countries for women’s rights include Pakistan, CAR, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, South Sudan, Chad, DRC, Syria, and Afghanistan.

C. United States

The United States is an outlier in the modern developed world due to its continued refusal to protect women’s rights. In 2023, following the U.S. Supreme Court 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned women’s right to abortion, new abortion bans took place in fourteen states. As a result, women are facing a lack of access to sexual and reproductive healthcare in many states. These bans have made abortion services largely inaccessible and denied women and girls their fundamental human rights to comprehensive healthcare, including sexual and reproductive health. The threat of criminalization in many states has discouraged women and girls from engaging with the healthcare system and seeking prenatal care. A group of Texas women who were denied medically necessary abortions are suing Texas, seeking to clarify when the procedure is permissible under state law.

In response to these restrictions, thousands of protesters gathered across the United States to protest the end of the federal right to abortion. Despite over 200 public protests including women’s marches in forty-six states, there was little progress in protecting women’s healthcare access. One bright spot was the recent 2023 referendum in Ohio, in which voters overwhelmingly decided to enshrine the protection of women’s reproductive choices in their state constitution.

In its Concluding Observations on the Fifth Universal Periodic Review of the United States issued in November 2023, the U.N. Human Rights Committee called for the U.S. to “redouble its efforts to guarantee protection against sex and gender-based discrimination in its constitution, including through initiatives such as the Equal Rights Amendment.” Unlike most countries, namely eighty-five percent of the 194 U.N. member states, which have a provision in their constitutions that guarantees gender equality, the U.S. has none. In addition, 115 countries have a provision that prohibits discrimination based on sex. The U.S. is not among these countries. In addition, unlike 187 nations that have ratified CEDAW, the United States has not. Among U.N. members, only the United States, Iran, Niue, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga have not ratified CEDAW.

D. Countries with Progress on Women’s Human Rights

The year 2023 also had a few bright spots for women’s human rights. Colombia decriminalized abortion during the first twenty-four weeks of pregnancy following similar 2021 rulings in Mexico and Argentina that improved access to abortion in Latin America. India made a landmark move and ruled that a woman’s lack of marital status cannot deny her the choice to abort a pregnancy at any time up to twenty-four weeks. Finland passed reforms that eased the strictest abortion laws in the Nordic region. Spain passed a pioneering sexual and reproductive health law that allows girls aged sixteen and seventeen to undergo abortions without parental consent. Spain also became the first European country to offer state-funded paid leave for women who suffer from painful periods.

VI. Human Rights Violations in Iran

Remarkably, the massive, women and youth-led uprising in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IR) continued throughout 2023, challenging actions by the ruling theocracy, many of which involve human rights violations. The uprising erupted following the September 2022 death of Mahsa “Jina” Amini, a twenty-two-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman gravely injured while in the custody of Iranian “morality police” for allegedly improperly wearing her hijab.

As hundreds of thousands of Iranians swarmed streets nationwide, Iranian forces targeted the unarmed protesters, leaving hundreds dead, including dozens of children, some just seven years old. Tens of thousands of protesters sustained severe injuries. At least 22,000 have been imprisoned. Charges include moharebeh (“waging war against God”) and efsad-e fel-arz (“corruption on earth”), punishable by death. Sham, closed-door trials often last mere minutes. Protesters are denied counsel. Sometimes the only evidence is a purported “confession,” exacted by torture. Verdicts are largely preordained. Sentencing is onerous— long prison terms and lashes, or even worse. Some already have been executed.

More than seventy lawyers are being prosecuted for counseling protestors—merely for doing their job. Similarly, Iran’s Parliament is investigating the Bar Association, targeting lawyers for what lawyers do. Iranian lawyers will be the focus of the International Day of the Endangered Lawyer for 2024.

The tactics of protesters and the IR have evolved over time. Although demonstrations continue, they are no longer the primary form of protest. Instead, women are simply going unveiled—brazenly defying Iran’s hijab law, exercising civil disobedience.

Authorities have responded by denying unveiled women public services, and beatings and arrests continue. On October 1, morality police confronted 16-year-old Armita Geravand as she boarded the subway, sans hijab. Moments later, Geravand was lying on the platform, unconscious. Officials held her under heavy guard until her death.

Surveillance is ubiquitous, and shopkeepers are being forced to police compliance with the hijab law. New legislation provides for draconian fines and up to ten years in prison for unveiled women, harsh penalties for celebrities who flout the law, and use of artificial intelligence to identify women who refuse to comply.

Now the protesters’ goal is regime change. And a growing movement seeks recognition of “gender apartheid” as a crime against humanity. Like Afghan women, Iranian women suffer systemic oppression. Beyond mandatory hijab, they cannot divorce their husbands or get child custody, and require male guardians’ approval to obtain a passport or travel abroad. Entire fields of study are closed to women. Similarly, in court, a woman’s testimony, and her life, are worth half of a man’s.

As 2023 drew to a close, protesters welcomed the presentation of the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize to renowned rights activist Narges Mohammadi, currently serving over ten years. The Nobel Committee noted that Mohammadi’s prize also recognizes the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who are also protesting the IR’s repression of women, echoing the protesters’ rallying cry—“Zan. Zendegi. Azadi.—Women. Life. Freedom.”

The International Fact-Finding Mission established by the United Nations to investigate the IR’s protest-related human rights violations will deliver its final report in March 2024.

The Committee Editor is Constance Z. Wagner. Daniel L. Appelman, wrote Section II.A. Austin J. Pierce and Carlos de Miguel Perales wrote Sections II.B and II.C. Alexander Ehrle wrote Section III. Linda S. Murnane and Wendy Taube wrote Section IV. Elizabeth M. Zechenter wrote Section V. Delissa A. Ridgway wrote Section VI.