Eric N.

Richardson

Chapter 6: Creating the First International Monitor on LGBTI Rights

Abstract

The chapter, titled "Creating the First International Monitor on LGBTI Rights: Asking Too
Much or Too Little?" from Eric N. Richardson's book, Author examines the United Nations
Human Rights Council negotiations in 2014 and examines the LGBTI+ rights issues in these
negotiations. In the section focusing on the creation of a permanent and stable international
organization, "Could a faster result have been achieved when we examined the strategic
decisions made by negotiators and political figures?" he's trying to answer your question. The
structure of the UNHCR in the process provides a very important outline for the investigation
of this assessment and explores in depth the subheadings that need to be considered in the
process. At the meeting held in 2016, the UN supported a detailed study of the possible
effects of creating a Special Procedure mechanism. In this part of the book, he examines the
intense processes of debate and highlights the difficulties faced by LGBTI+ rights defenders,
activists, and the public, explaining how to demand and follow a permanent process, allowing
us to understand the balance between ideologically utilitarian thoughts of possible opposition.
Dec. A comprehensive study of the 2014 negotiations, one of the most important negotiations
of the United Nations, and taking advantage of their reflections in 2016, creates awareness for
the advancement of LGBTI+ rights on the international stage by providing important insights
into effective negotiation strategies, diplomatic processes, and possible prospects.

Introduction

When we examine the process of continuous Deceleration of human rights worldwide, the
year 2014 was marked as a turning point when negotiators and political figures came together
at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to discuss the details of LGBTI+
rights in detail. Eric N. Richardson's book "Creating the First International Monitor on
LGBTI Rights: Asking Too Much or Too Little? This section is titled ", he examines the
outlines of the negotiations and discussions in detail and conducts a nuanced screening of the
important decisions and challenges faced by the main stakeholders. At its most basic; it
discusses the possibility of creating a strong-willed UN mechanism by addressing
discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. He delves
into the details of the negotiations behind the processes of the UNHRC, questions the rhetoric
made by negotiators and political figures, and whether a more reasonable result can be
reached in UN bodies. It tries to present the challenges faced by LGBTI rights defenders,
activists, and the public through comprehensive research, emphasizing efforts to balance the
necessity of demanding a permanent mechanism against injustices with real-life opposing
thoughts. In addition, in the relevant section of the book, he analyzes the situation over time
of the establishment of the UN Special Procedure mechanism, which took place in 2016, and
the effects of the negotiation techniques and tactics used in 2014 in an insightful retrospective
manner. When examined in detail, the relevant section not only contributes to the historical
process of LGBTI+ rights within the UNHRC, but also provides comprehensive information
on the consequences of developing LGBTI+ rights in the international arena by providing an
important awareness of successful negotiation strategies.

Context and Objectives of the Research

To understand the discussions that are as complicated as the labyrinth, so to speak, during the
negotiations in 2014, it is necessary to first explain how these discussions were responded to
in the process of the UNHRC. This research does not only talk about the chronological
history of events; it provides us with information about the consequences of maneuvers in the
decision-making process and crisis moments, allowing us to better understand their basic
motivations. In this process, where there are regularly recurring discussions on LGBTI+
rights by the UNHRC, it evaluates situations where problems are repeated in terms of both
difficulties and opportunities for readjustment, taking into account the in-depth examination.
The main goal of this research goes beyond the proof of historical documents. It aims to
become a viable template for the negotiation landscape in the coming years. By examining
the nuanced tactics and techniques used in 2014, it is to distinguish whether there are
alternative approaches to LGBTI+ rights that a possible negotiation will take place.
Therefore, this research appears as an effort that contributes to a comprehensive discussion
on LGBTI+ rights, which is an important area that resonates in the international relations
landscape and enriches the understanding of diplomatic details within the UNHRC.

Keywords

LGBTI+ Rights, United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Negotiation, UN

Discussion

The complexity of international negotiations was shown in 2014 when the United Nations
Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was used as a testing ground for debates on LGBTI rights.
To fully understand these discussions, it is necessary to carefully consider the numerous
difficulties, calculated choices, and general environment that characterized this pivotal
moment in the history of the international human rights debate. To address violence and
discrimination rooted in sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI), negotiators had to
negotiate skillfully through the UNHRC's cyclical nature. To provide a thorough grasp of the
complexities that defined the 2014 UNHRC talks on LGBTI rights, the investigation attempts
to peel back the layers of diplomacy and the pragmatic factors that impacted negotiators. An
essential component of this investigation explores the possibility of establishing a Special
Procedure mechanism within the United Nations, which was eventually accomplished in
2016, and if other strategies may have expedited its creation in 2014. The analysis aims to
reveal if different approaches may have contributed to the earlier implementation of this
mechanism by closely examining the decisions taken by the negotiators during the 2014 talks.
The review of the past influences the negotiating environment by critically evaluating how
political, diplomatic, and strategic factors interacted. This investigation goes beyond
historical records in an attempt to condense learnings into practical bargaining techniques and
assesses how they could advance LGBTI rights at the UNHRC. The investigation evolves as
a nuanced investigation, providing unique insights into the complexities of international
diplomacy and the broader ramifications for the trajectory of LGBTI rights in the world
arena.

The 2011 resolution passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was a
watershed moment in global LGBTI rights advocacy, representing the first international
effort to address the pervasive issues of discrimination and violence based on sexual
orientation or gender identity (SOGI). The passing of this historic resolution, with a small
majority, marked a significant acknowledgment at the international level of the obligation to
safeguard and promote the LGBTI community's rights internationally. Following the
decision, campaigners for LGBTI rights found themselves at a crossroads, wrestling with the
difficult task of maintaining attention and relevance within the UNHRC's expanding agenda.
Advocates' strategic conversations were fuelled by the desire to overcome the obstacles posed
by yearly renewals and to successfully manage the possible ups and downs in political
dynamics inside the UNHRC. The debate revolved around a careful analysis of the conflict
between calling for a recurrent report and institutionalizing the problem by creating a Special
Procedure. The strategic decision-making process highlighted the fine balance that advocates
needed to maintain between navigating the complex and occasionally unpredictable political
terrain within the UNHRC and searching for long-lasting mechanisms to systematically
address discrimination and violence against the LGBTI community. An important aspect of
this continuous advocacy work has been the yearly negotiating rituals, which have shown the
complexity of the desire for permanency in resolving the many issues that the LGBTI
community faces. This story highlights the complex relationship between the need for
ongoing attention on the UNHRC's agenda and the practical factors required by the cyclical
structure of talks in this global forum. The obstacles and victories present in this dynamic
process highlight the tenacity and will of campaigners working to achieve long-term
safeguards and improvements for LGBTI rights internationally.

This in-depth examination of the 2014 LGBTI rights talks at the UN Human Rights Council
(UNHRC) is a sophisticated investigation of the political nuances that influenced this
important conversation. This analysis focuses on the decision-making process of the
Brazilian-led "core group," which faced strategic quandaries even as it promoted LGBTI
rights. A crucial change in course occurred when the core group, led by Brazil, decided to
seek a resolution that was content with producing a report rather than a long-lasting process.
The strong demands from Brazil's BRICS allies—Russia, China, and India—were the
decisive considerations behind this decision. Brazil changed obviously and proposed a draft
resolution that called for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
to publish an annual report on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity (SOGI) after these powerful nations dissuaded Brazil from pushing for a
permanent mechanism.

The processes of decision-making show how the core group, especially Brazil, managed to
strike a careful balance in the face of geopolitical pressures and concerns. The resolution that
was toned down was the result of worries about possible resistance from the BRICS
countries, particularly China and Russia. This raises important questions about the
effectiveness of these kinds of strategic compromises.

Brazil's choice to compromise on the resolution's text raises important issues about the trade-
offs between pursuing quick success and the goal of a more durable framework for furthering
LGBTI rights, even if the resolution eventually passed with a comfortable majority. The
careful examination of the 2014 negotiations' complexities in this chapter reveals the
complex interactions between geopolitical pressures, diplomatic maneuvers, and strategic
decision-making within the UNHRC, illuminating the opportunities and challenges associated
with the search for a comprehensive framework to address violence and discrimination based
on SOGI. Analyzing whether the actions taken in 2014 had a significant impact on the 2016
settlement requires a thorough examination of Brazil's complex diplomatic maneuvers at this
pivotal point in time. The chapter carefully analyzes Brazil's strategic decisions to identify
any mistakes that could have a long-term effect on the final results. Through a thorough
comparison analysis between the two eras, the research explores the intricate dynamics of
Brazil's bargaining strategy. It aims to disentangle the complex relationship between the 2014
concessions—accepting a resolution that was watered down rather than pushing for a more
durable mechanism—and the United Nations Special Procedure that was subsequently
established in 2016. This thorough analysis goes beyond a cursory comparison of results to
explore the complex variables that influenced Brazil's diplomatic decision-making. To
provide nuanced insights into the strategic considerations that define the pursuit of
comprehensive frameworks for combating violence and discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender identity on a global scale, it seeks to untangle the possible ramifications
of perceived missteps on the advancement of LGBTI rights within the UNHRC.

The 2019 review of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) mandate by the
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a turning point that calls for a careful
analysis of the complex processes involved. This chapter carefully breaks down the many
facets of the 2019 ruling, offering a thorough analysis of the dynamic international context of
LGBTI rights. Beyond the obvious, thorough research explores the subtle contextual factors
that have influenced the global conversation on SOGI. The study reveals the subtle changes
in global views, legal frameworks, and geopolitical factors that have impacted the resolutions
over time by carefully comparing the circumstances in 2014 and 2016. The goal is to present
a thorough account that fully encapsulates the nuance and complexity of the 2019 judgment
concerning the larger history of SOGI deliberations in the UNHRC. This thorough analysis
aims to provide significant insights into the complex factors that influence global viewpoints
on preventing violence and discrimination against people based on their gender identity or
sexual orientation within the delicate field of human rights.

As outlined in the chapter, Brazil's involvement in the negotiating process is a complex tale
of strategic errors, diplomatic complexities, and ensuing failures. Examining Brazil's
involvement highlights the complicated difficulties that come with foreign diplomacy by
exposing a rich tapestry of mistakes. The 2014 ruling had a profound effect on following
developments in the LGBTI rights environment, with Brazil playing a crucial role in
choosing a compromised settlement over adamantly lobbying for a more durable framework.
The chapter provides a detailed explanation of the far-reaching consequences of strategic
concessions by carefully analyzing the precise processes via which Brazil's decisions
impacted the course of talks inside the UN Human Rights Council.

This examination goes beyond a simple evaluation of results and explores the complex
lessons that Brazil's diplomatic outreach has taught us. It highlights the fine line that
negotiators have to walk between pursuing quick wins and building a comprehensive
framework for the advancement of LGBTI rights. This chapter turns out to be a rich source of
information on how the dynamics of international negotiations are changing, with lessons that
apply outside of this particular example. Brazil's experience serves as a microcosm that helps
identify more general guidelines for successful negotiation and human rights advocacy. This
gives readers a thorough grasp of the opportunities and difficulties involved in influencing
international debates about ending violence and discrimination against people based on their
sexual orientation or gender identity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this chapter highlights Brazil's major contribution to the UN Human Rights
Council's LGBTI rights discussions. Specifically, the choices taken in 2014 had an impact on
what happened later on, especially the agreement to have a one-time report instead of a
longer-term system. It is unclear what effect various bargaining strategies could have based
on the comparison of 2014 and 2016. Even if there have been good improvements in the
world, such as the 2019 review of the SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity)
mandate, obstacles still need to be overcome for LGBTI rights debates to continue taking
shape. This chapter presents an insightful examination of the finely balanced endeavor to
counteract discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation while also navigating
the difficulties of international agreements and the human rights environment.

Eylul Eminoglu
20034006