The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) assesses the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States against the benchmark of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its core human rights treaties. To date, more than 100,000 recommendations have been provided to states under review (SUR) from pee...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social Sciences
Main Author: Saskia Caroline Irene Ravesloot
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2024-06-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/7/349
_version_ 1850389643213668352
author Saskia Caroline Irene Ravesloot
author_facet Saskia Caroline Irene Ravesloot
author_sort Saskia Caroline Irene Ravesloot
collection DOAJ
container_title Social Sciences
description The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) assesses the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States against the benchmark of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its core human rights treaties. To date, more than 100,000 recommendations have been provided to states under review (SUR) from peer Member States. Less than 1% address the rights of intersex persons. Western countries issue most of these cases, followed by the Latin American and Caribbean countries. African and Asian countries formulate a negligible number. This asymmetric data might mistakenly support the assumption that Western countries care more about the rights of intersex persons than non-Western countries. However, the recent groundbreaking Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Intersex Persons in Africa calls upon its states’ parties to stop nonconsensual genital normalisation practices on intersex persons and considers these practices as mutilation. Intersex genital mutilation (IGM) stands as a profound human rights infringement experienced by intersex individuals, who undergo medical interventions often performed on their healthy bodies. The primary objective of such interventions is to enforce conformity to prevailing medical and sociocultural norms pertaining to binary genders. I argue that Member States formulating recommendations advocating for the ban on IGM should consider contextualised factors, especially with regards to “informed consent”. This approach aims to enhance the persuasiveness of recommendations and increase the likelihood of their acceptance by SUR. Through the analysis of twenty-nine IGM-related UPR recommendations, this article addresses the effectiveness of the UPR in discussing intersex rights and the ban on IGM, with a focus on Africa.
format Article
id doaj-art-bb4a5219ec1e4b4b91ef012d6e2bd581
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 2076-0760
language English
publishDate 2024-06-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-bb4a5219ec1e4b4b91ef012d6e2bd5812025-08-19T22:54:18ZengMDPI AGSocial Sciences2076-07602024-06-0113734910.3390/socsci13070349The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African ContextSaskia Caroline Irene Ravesloot0International Development, Paris School of International Affairs, Sciences Po, 75337 Paris, FranceThe Universal Periodic Review (UPR) assesses the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States against the benchmark of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its core human rights treaties. To date, more than 100,000 recommendations have been provided to states under review (SUR) from peer Member States. Less than 1% address the rights of intersex persons. Western countries issue most of these cases, followed by the Latin American and Caribbean countries. African and Asian countries formulate a negligible number. This asymmetric data might mistakenly support the assumption that Western countries care more about the rights of intersex persons than non-Western countries. However, the recent groundbreaking Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Intersex Persons in Africa calls upon its states’ parties to stop nonconsensual genital normalisation practices on intersex persons and considers these practices as mutilation. Intersex genital mutilation (IGM) stands as a profound human rights infringement experienced by intersex individuals, who undergo medical interventions often performed on their healthy bodies. The primary objective of such interventions is to enforce conformity to prevailing medical and sociocultural norms pertaining to binary genders. I argue that Member States formulating recommendations advocating for the ban on IGM should consider contextualised factors, especially with regards to “informed consent”. This approach aims to enhance the persuasiveness of recommendations and increase the likelihood of their acceptance by SUR. Through the analysis of twenty-nine IGM-related UPR recommendations, this article addresses the effectiveness of the UPR in discussing intersex rights and the ban on IGM, with a focus on Africa.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/7/349human rightsinformed consentintersexintersex genital mutilation (IGM)Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
spellingShingle Saskia Caroline Irene Ravesloot
The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context
human rights
informed consent
intersex
intersex genital mutilation (IGM)
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
title The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context
title_full The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context
title_fullStr The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context
title_full_unstemmed The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context
title_short The Universal Periodic Review and the Ban on Intersex Genital Mutilation in an African Context
title_sort universal periodic review and the ban on intersex genital mutilation in an african context
topic human rights
informed consent
intersex
intersex genital mutilation (IGM)
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
url https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/7/349
work_keys_str_mv AT saskiacarolineireneravesloot theuniversalperiodicreviewandthebanonintersexgenitalmutilationinanafricancontext
AT saskiacarolineireneravesloot universalperiodicreviewandthebanonintersexgenitalmutilationinanafricancontext