The Global Struggle for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights

Politicising SRHR

The controversies surrounding SRHR have led to greater politicisation of the topic, that is, to an approach from a primarily political perspective, and to its instrumentalisation as an election campaign issue. In this context, particular emphasis is often placed on the individual elements of SRHR, such as safe abortions. Discourses in various European countries, the end of Roe v. Wade in the United States and debates in inter­national forums testify to the numerous efforts by conservative, fundamentalist and authoritarian forces to undermine SRHR. The issue of abortion in particular stands out in the controversial debates on SRHR. Due to the special attention paid to this question worldwide, it is suitable for exem­plifying the process of undermining indi­vidual aspects of SRHR in international forums.

Norm-spoiling with SRHR

In 1994, the Cairo Programme of Action recognised the importance of reproductive rights by explicitly including reproductive health and sexual freedoms in an international document for the first time. Regard­ing abortion, states were to address unsafe abortions by ensuring access to safe abor­tion care and post-abortion care, where it was consistent with national law. One year after the Cairo Conference, the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, further contributed to the perception of safe abortion as a public health issue. Moreover, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action calls upon states to review their laws that impose penalties for illegal abortions.

In addition to these specific documents, SRHR are mentioned in several international agreements and conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the International Covenant on Eco­nomic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). As early as 2000, the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cul­tural Rights (CESCR) stated in its General Comment No. 14 that SRHR are a core ele­ment of the international right to health. It also reaffirmed this in General Comment No. 22, with reference to the Cairo Pro­gramme of Action. This sets the framework for the obligations of the states party to the ICESCR towards their inhabitants in the area of reproductive health.

Through “general comments”, “recommendations” or “concluding observations”, various UN treaty bodies repeatedly point out the need to comply with standards. Both CEDAW and the ICESCR require the states parties to submit regular reports to the UN Secretary-General on how they are implementing their obligations at the national level. In addition, various treaty bodies have repeatedly called for the decriminalisation of abortion under certain circumstances, such as in cases of health risks to mothers or rape. In a landmark decision, the CEDAW Committee, referring to a specific sexual offence (L.C. v. Peru), explicitly called on the government of Peru to decriminalise abortion in cases of rape or sexual abuse.

From the outset, the achievements of the SRHR approach at the global level have also been met with criticism. Although the con­troversies surrounding SRHR and abortion are not a new phenomenon, they seem to be taking on a new quality at the national and international levels, particularly due to the strengthening of ultra-conservative and, in some cases, right-wing extremist and religious fundamentalist voices. It is note­worthy that such actors usually do not reject SRHR per se, probably because of the degree of linguistic integration and codi­fication achieved in several international treaties. Instead, they weaken SRHR norms by questioning their content and scope.

The targeted undermining of norms is often referred to as “norm spoiling”. The term describes the attack on agreements, norms and rights with the aim of weakening or abolishing them sooner or later. A number of actors engage in deliberate norm spoiling, from individuals and civil society organisations such as C-Fam, to states and groups of states. All of these forces are thus characterised by their joint efforts to under­mine international SRHR norms. However, they differ in their motivations. In Russia and Hungary, for example, pro-natalist arguments predominate, that is, the desire to create conditions for as many births and children as possible, while states such as Nicaragua base their positions on Christian values. Other actors, such as Poland under PiS leadership and Brazil under the Bolso­naro administration, also resorted to anti-immigrant rhetoric to criminalise abortions. Furthermore, the various arguments often overlap. Pro-natalist goals can also be pursued from a religious perspective, for example; however, they can also be found in Viktor Orbán’s xenophobic rhetoric when he calls for restrictions to abortion rights while at the same time propagating the narrative of the “Great Replacement” theory.

The German position on SRHR

The German government regularly uses various strategies and action programmes to position itself on international law in general, and on the defence of SRHR in particular. In their concept for a feminist foreign and development policy (see SWP-Studie 7/2024), the Federal Foreign Office (AA) and the BMZ are committed to con­sistently strengthening SRHR worldwide, stating that the criminalisation of abortions leads to a higher prevalence of maternal mortality. In the guidelines for feminist foreign policy, the AA describes how the increasing tensions and the “split in the in­ter­national community” are creating dif­ficulties for the maintenance of established rights of women and LGBTIQ+ persons, and specifically of SRHR. In this context, the AA promises to vigorously defend the protection of these rights in the international sys­tem. Although the German government thus recognises and rejects the attempts of some actors to weaken existing law, it also wants to work to establish new norms.

One example of this is Germany’s efforts in 2019 to pass a resolution in the UN Secu­rity Council on sexual violence in armed conflicts. Some of the wording in the text proposed by Germany led to heated discus­sions and protests by other actors. The Trump administration in the United States threatened to veto the resolution and even pushed for the deletion of any mention of sexual and reproductive health and rights. In the end, a version of the resolution that made no mention of SRHR was adopted, with Russia and China abstaining.

Similar disputes have also arisen between various member states of the European Union (EU), most recently during the hear­ing of the designated Hungarian health commissioner, Olivér Várhelyi, who also took the position that regulations regarding access to safe abortion are not part of SRHR, but rather a purely national matter that does not fall within his area of responsibility as commissioner.

In international forums such as the WHO Executive Board and the UN Security Council, the Federal Republic of Germany adopts a cautious approach for diplomatic reasons and seeks consensus, whereas oppo­nents present their positions with maximum demands and threats. Meanwhile, the failure of relevant resolutions, the increasing attempts to undermine the SRHR and the numerous national regressions regard­ing access to safe abortions reveal that the German government’s conciliatory approach is currently not very successful. A confrontational approach could be more effective. Such an approach could be modelled, for example, on Canada’s strategy, which regu­larly counters attempts at norm spoiling by explicitly speaking out against them.

Counter-norm-spoiling

An important factor that needs to be given more consideration in any future German and European policy efforts regarding SRHR and general women’s and human rights is the potential fragility of existing norms. In the future, norm spoilers could have an even greater impact on the linguistic re­interpretation of international norms. The liberal-democratic interpretation of these norms is not automatic and is vulnerable to morally ultra-conservative rhetoric, which is currently gaining strength at the inter­national level. A heightened awareness of the tactics and capabilities of these actors is a prerequisite for finding effective and sus­tainable responses to their approaches. One possible reaction to the shift in discourse would be to become just as explicit and not allow the norm spoilers to control it. How­ever, if the defenders of reproductive health and rights focus solely on issues of abortion law, there is a risk that other aspects of the topic, such as contraception, preventing or combating sexually transmitted diseases, and education measures, will fall by the wayside. Nevertheless, questions about abor­tion law are at the centre of inter­national debates, and therefore clear lan­guage should be used in this matter if a human rights-based policy is desired.

One example of how sexual and reproductive health projects and measures can be incorporated into foreign policy strat­egies is France’s international policy on SRHR for the period 2023–2027. In its foreign policy guidelines, France takes an explicit position, for example, on access to safe abortions. Specifically, France provides financial support for access to SRHR ser­vices from the Muskoka Fund. The fund was set up following the 2010 G8 summit in Muskoka, Canada, and has since been financing the measures of various UN agencies to achieve the Sustainable Devel­opment Goals in the area of SRHR, and to reduce maternal and infant mortality rates in 10 French-speaking African countries.

In 2018, Denmark also joined the financing of the fund. France would certainly be an appropriate partner for Germany if it were to set itself the goal of promoting similar measures, and thus contribute towards “counter-norm-spoiling” at the international level. Instead of working towards new norms under the umbrella of SRHR, as Germany attempted to do with the UN Security Council resolution, for example, the German government could work with these partners in international forums to focus primarily on defending existing norms and implementing them, including through foreign and development policy strategies. On this basis, the follow­ing specific recommendations can be made for German and European policy:

• If the goal of German policy is to dis­cursively strengthen SRHR, its representatives in international forums should also advocate more strongly for the reten­tion of existing norms through decisive action and unambiguous formulations. This would help to ensure that norm spoilers fail in their efforts to con­trol the definitions of SRHR concepts.

• In addition, Germany should clearly articulate what it understands by relevant rights, such as access to safe abortion, in the discussion about the scope and implications of SRHR. This does not mean unrestricted legalisation, as opponents often claim, but rather the decriminalisation of abortions with time limits or under certain circumstances, such as rape or health risks due to pregnancy.

• With regard to the EU, it is advisable to first decide whether a common position can be adopted in international fora in view of the often divergent positions on SRHR in different member states. If no common position can be found at the EU level, the German government should seek out suitable, like-minded partners, such as France, for the debates in international forums, even at the risk of then no longer speaking with a common EU voice.

• Strengthening SRHR at the global level requires stable structures that partners can rely on, regardless of changes in gov­ernment policy. One way to achieve this would be to provide flexible multi-year budgets, as in the development policy context, for new and established programmes, especially for civil society orga­nisations that work independently of governments and must be positioned to counter norm spoiling.