COMMUNITY

CSW70: From Commitments to Power — Harnessing CEDAW as a Roadmap for Parity

On March 11, on the sidelines of #CSW70, GQUAL, UN Women, the CEDAW Committee, OHCHR, and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), with the support of Colombia, Spain, and the Republic of Liberia, convened an important discussion on global leadership and CEDAW Article 8 and General Recommendation No. 40. The event also served as a celebration of the 45th Anniversary of the CEDAW Convention. 

This was not simply a discussion about numbers. It was a conversation about power, access, and the structural rules that determine who represents States, who shapes global governance, and who interprets and develops international law.

At a moment when multilateralism and international law are attacked, when key leadership changes are taking place – including the selection of a new Secretary General of the UN in 2026-, and when backlash against gender equality intensifies, reaffirming gender parity is a matter of global legitimacy and strategy.

WHO HOLDS POWER IN INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE – AND WHY IT MATTERS

International governance shapes the world we live in. From diplomacy to multilateral leadership, to international courts and human rights bodies, these institutions make decisions that affect peace, justice, climate action, development, and human rights for billions of people. Yet, the persistent underrepresentation of women in these spaces continues to raise a fundamental question – not only of equality, but of the legitimacy and credibility of global decision-making.

In setting the tone for the conversation, Maria Noel Leoni, Deputy Executive Director, CEJIL; Founding Member, GQUAL, underscored this central tension: these institutions cannot claim legitimacy if they do not reflect the diversity of the societies they serve.

The data shared throughout the event illustrates the depth of the gap:

• 72 countries have never had a single woman represent them at the United Nations General Assembly (GWL Voices)
• Globally, only 22.5% of ambassadors are women (UN Women)
• Women represent 57.85% in self-nomination processes, but this falls to 38.03% when access depends on State nomination (GQUAL Ranking)
• Across the entire history of the International Court of Justice, only 6 of its 115 members have been women (GQUAL)

“This lack of representation does not happen by accident — and it certainly does not reflect a shortage of qualified women” emphasized Maria Noel Leoni.

Rather, it reflects structural barriers and institutional biases that favor the status quo: informal norms of constant mobility, masculinized performance standards, unequal care burdens, opaque and politicized nomination systems, and unequal access to political and professional networks.

But as the discussion made clear, this is not only a question of removing barriers – it is also about redefining what representation means and why it matters. As Naima Ben Yahia, Minister of Solidarity, Social Integration, and Family of Morocco, highlighted, strengthening women’s representation in diplomacy is not simply a matter of formal equality or protocol. “It is about embodying the values of justice and equal opportunity, and recognizing the essential contribution women make to international decision-making.”

This reframing is critical. It moves the conversation beyond access, toward the substantive role that women play in shaping institutions and outcomes.

As several speakers emphasized, this is why parity cannot be reduced to presence alone. It must be understood as a question of who gets to wield authority, shape agendas, and remain in power once they arrive.

As Susana Malcorra, President and Co-Founder, GWL Voices put it: “This is not only about representation, which it is. This is about power, and that is exactly what we need to challenge.” 

Laura Dupuy, Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations in New York, also emphasized: “We cannot leave half of the population out.” Representation and diversity are not only matters of fairness – they are essential for public trust and for the effectiveness of international institutions.

As Arlene B. Tickner, the Ambassador-at-Large for Gender Affairs and Feminist Global Policy for Colombia further noted, what is ultimately at stake is democracy itself—what it means to ensure rights, representation, and legitimacy in international life. Building on that point, Darja Bavdaž Kuret Special Envoy and Ambassador at Large for Women, Peace and Security of Slovenia reminded participants that gender equality and parity are not only questions of power, but also of social justice.

Parity as International Law: CEDAW, Article 8, and General Recommendation No. 40

International decision-making roles are shaped by States. Governments nominate, appoint, and elect diplomats, multilateral leaders, international judges, and experts, and influence the international agreements and multilateral rules that shape membership and leadership in international organizations. These decisions are therefore subject to international law and must be aligned with States’ legal obligations.

For 45 years, the CEDAW Convention has been one of the most powerful instruments for advancing women’s rights. Importantly, it remains the only international treaty that explicitly guarantees women’s equal participation at the international level through Article 8.

General Recommendation No. 40 (GR40) builds on this foundation by clarifying that gender parity is not a temporary measure or a political aspiration. It is the permanent standard for substantive equality—requiring 50/50 representation across all decision-making spaces, including international governance.

In other words: equal participation in international representation is not only strategic – it is a legal obligation. As Nahlah Haidar, Chair of the CEDAW Committee, stated clearly: “Article 8 is unequivocal. Women must have the opportunity to represent their governments at the international level and participate in the work of international organizations on equal terms with men.”

As the discussion made clear, this is not simply a matter of representation, but of full participation and being “at the helm,” as Jay Dharmadhikari, Deputy Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations in New York underscored. His intervention sharpened one of the event’s central arguments: legal standards matter, but they must be translated into institutional reality. General Recommendation No. 40, he stressed, “needs to be known. Everyone needs to be aware of it. It is a matter of awareness. Otherwise, it does not work.”

The connection between legal standards and political practice also surfaced briefly in the remarks of Spogmay Ahmed — Deputy Director of Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative, who noted that “diversity in decision-making and the elevation of women’s roles transform the ways in which foreign policies are designed and understood.”

And yet, nearly five decades after CEDAW’s adoption, implementation remains deeply uneven.

This was one of the strongest through-lines of the discussion: the multilateral system does not suffer from a lack of normative standards—it suffers from a lack of implementation.

Jan Beagle, Director General of the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), captured this tension well: equality before the law is essential, but insufficient. Women must also have equal power to shape the law, apply it, and represent their countries in international arenas. And that process begins at the national level – in diplomatic services, public administration, and judicial systems.

From Legal Standards to Institutional Change

Across the conversation, speakers converged on a clear and practical agenda for operationalizing Article 8 and GR40. This includes transparent nomination procedures, parity targets in diplomatic services and international leadership, gender-responsive recruitment and promotion systems, mentorship and leadership pathways for women, safe and enabling professional environments, inclusive civil society participation, and strong monitoring frameworks backed by reliable, disaggregated data.

These are not abstract recommendations. They are concrete tools already identified in CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 40, and the policy frameworks discussed throughout the event.

As Ana María Alonso, Ambassador-at Large for Feminist Foreign Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation of Spain emphasized: “It is necessary for words to be turned into actions. We cannot have policies that are not implemented on the ground and that are not funded.”

This emphasis on implementation was echoed by  Sarah Hendriks, Director, Policy, Program and Intergovernmental Division at UN Women, who noted that progress follows when political leadership aligns with institutional reform – but warned that this is neither automatic nor inevitable. “It requires sustained political will, resources, and accountability.”

Rwanda offered a powerful reminder that implementation is possible. As Nadine Umutoni Gatsinzi, Chief Gender Monitor (Vice-Minister), Office of the Prime Minister of Rwanda put it, the country has worked to make its CEDAW commitments “constitutionally binding and operationally real,” translating legal obligations into concrete institutional change through gender quotas, monitoring mechanisms, and sustained investment in women’s public leadership. Its experience showed that progress in international representation does not happen in isolation, but is built through national structures that deliberately open space for women to lead.

But even when implementation begins to take shape, the conversation cannot stop at access alone. It also requires challenging the comfort of symbolic parity. Parity cannot be reduced to counting how many women are in the room. As Marta Ferreyra Beltrán, CEDAW Candidate from Mexico stressed, it is equally about substance: what women leaders think, what inequalities they are prepared to confront, and how committed they are to transforming the structures that have historically excluded women and girls.

In that sense, operationalizing Article 8 is an institutional and political project.

It also requires sustained investment in the pipeline. As Shradha Shrestha, Minister for women, children and senior citizens of Nepal, emphasized, long-term mentorship and leadership development pathways are essential to strengthening women’s advancement within public administration and international representation.

And critically, these efforts cannot be disconnected from the broader women’s rights movement. Esther Mwaura-Muiru, Global Advocacy Director, Stand for Her Land Campaign at Landesa, highlighted, the relationship between women in leadership and feminist movements has been central to driving change—bridging advocacy, policy, and institutional reform.

This movement dimension was also reflected in the remarks of Ms. Nene Goita, Program Coordinator, of The African Women’s Development and Communications Network (FEMNET), who emphasized that parity in international representation will remain out of reach unless States confront the structural barriers that continue to exclude African women from diplomatic and global decision-making spaces, and treat Article 8 as a binding obligation in practice.

The Next Secretary-General: A Test of Credibility

The conversation repeatedly returned to one immediate and highly visible test case: the selection of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. As Ambassador Ana María Alonso put it clearly, “the next Secretary-General of this organization needs to be a woman.”

This is not incidental. It is precisely the kind of institutional moment that reveals whether States are prepared to translate the principles they endorse into reality.

If the UN continues to advocate for women’s equal participation worldwide while never having appointed a woman to its highest office in nearly eighty years, the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

Nahlah Haidar also emphasized that credibility matters. If we call for equality in decision-making everywhere, the leadership of the United Nations must reflect that principle.

This moment also connects to broader structural struggles across the multilateral system. As Susana Malcorra highlighted, debates around parity – whether in the selection of the Secretary-General or in proposals such as gender rotation in the presidency of the General Assembly – are not symbolic exercises. “These battles are not just institutional niceties. They are about confronting entrenched power and refusing yet another missed opportunity.”

Ultimately, this is not only about one appointment. It is about whether the international system is willing -and able- to align its leadership with the values it claims to uphold.

From Norms to Power

The event made one thing clear: the frameworks exist, the standards are established, and the pathways are known. What remains is implementation.

“Without equal and inclusive representation of women, systems do not work. They lack legitimacy, they fall short in effectiveness, and they fail to reflect the realities of the people they serve”, concluded María Noel Leoni.

Gender parity is not an add-on to international governance – it is a condition for its credibility and impact.

And as the process to appoint the next Secretary-General moves forward, this is a defining opportunity to turn commitments into reality.