Legal Update: In a nutshell - UN adopts resolution on family protection

What is the resolution?

The resolution calls on the Human Rights Council to convene a panel discussion on "the issue of the protection of the family" at its 27th session in September of this year.

The parameters of the panel discussion, as established by the resolution, are quite broad; the purpose of the discussion will be to address the implementation of member states' obligations regarding protection of the family under relevant provisions of international human rights law. However, several states and non-governmental organisations have expressed concern about the implications of the resolution.

How did the resolution come about?

The resolution was tabled by a group of 13 states - Bangladesh, China, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Uganda. The timing of the resolution was proposed in order to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the year of the family.

A similar draft text was introduced at a Human Rights Council session in March of 2013, but was withdrawn due to lack of support.

What are the arguments against its adoption?

Many member states and civil society groups have expressed concern that the resolution establishes a dangerously narrow and restrictive definition of "family", which fails to acknowledge that various forms of families exist. There is also concern that the resolution will erode the rights of individual members within the family, particularly women and children, to protection against and remedy for violations committed within the family, by promoting the "rights" of the family as a single unit. In particular, there is concern that as a result of this initiative, individuals within families may be placed at an increased risk of harm from other family members (ie, domestic violence, early and forced marriage, marital rape, and sexual abuse and exploitation against children and women).

In response to these concerns, a group of member states proposed the insertion of text stating that "in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist" into the resolution. Despite the fact that this is previously agreed UN language, the co-sponsoring states rejected the recommendation.

According to the International Service for Human Rights, "this approach is a step towards cementing the patriarchal and heteronormative family and is part of a broader, long-term strategy of some states, also advanced within several UN fora, which has the potential to cause regress in advances made in women's rights, children's rights and LGBTI rights". Indeed, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan proposed an amendment to the text that sought to restrict the definition of marriage to "a union between a man and a woman". However, this amendment was subsequently withdrawn.

Twenty-six states voted in favour of the resolution and 14 voted against, while six states abstained. Cuba did not vote.