When is language key?

This Com­pendium’s focus lan­guage com­prises the con­stel­la­tion of terms and con­cepts that under­pin evi­dence-based and rights-affirm­ing responses to the global HIV epi­demic and related sex­ual and repro­duc­tive health chal­lenges. From among these terms and con­cepts, we have defined the key lan­guage which has been and is sub­ject to con­tes­ta­tion in the nego­ti­a­tion, inter­pre­ta­tion and imple­men­ta­tion of inter­na­tional agree­ments. By sub­stan­ti­at­ing key lan­guage, this Com­pendium intends to (1) pro­vide a bul­wark against efforts to reverse the tide of progress by weak­en­ing lan­guage in future mul­ti­lat­eral nego­ti­a­tions and agree­ments, and (2) sup­port efforts to trans­late related com­mit­ments into norms into national law and pol­icy.

This Com­pendium will be extended iter­a­tively to encom­pass more key lan­guage. Sadly, the oppo­si­tion to evi­dence-based and rights-affirm­ing responses is such that the list of cru­cial lan­guage under dis­pute is long and grow­ing. If you have sug­ges­tions on terms and con­cepts we should include, please reach out to us at pol­i­cy­lab@george­town.edu.

What substantiates key language?

We are seek­ing to sub­stan­ti­ate the use, proper inter­pre­ta­tion, and sig­nif­i­cance of the con­cepts and terms that com­pose our key lan­guage. Sub­stan­ti­a­tion needs to be broadly per­sua­sive and, in par­tic­u­lar, cred­i­ble within inter­na­tional nego­ti­a­tions. As such, this Com­pendium first and fore­most sub­stan­ti­ates key lan­guage with prece­dents of prior use in exist­ing inter­na­tional agree­ments. Put sim­ply, our author­i­ties for high level prece­dents show what mem­ber states of one gov­ern­ing body have agreed to in the past on the pre­sump­tion that this will be highly per­sua­sive in nego­ti­a­tions at both the same gov­ern­ing body and dif­fer­ent gov­ern­ing bod­ies com­pris­ing the same or sim­i­lar Mem­ber States. Those using this Com­pendium will, accord­ingly, be able to ref­er­ence a par­tic­u­lar coun­try’s prior assent to the inclu­sion of key lan­guage. This record of prece­dents is also rel­e­vant for estab­lish­ing that the use and sig­nif­i­cance of key lan­guage is set­tled both for a par­tic­u­lar gov­ern­ing body and across the United Nations sys­tem. Other agree­ments between smaller sub­sets of the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity will be sim­i­larly per­sua­sive and are con­sid­ered author­i­ties for inter­gov­ern­men­tal prece­dent.As noted by the Geneva Grad­u­ate Insti­tute’s Global Health Cen­tre “the impor­tance of agreed lan­guage should not be under­es­ti­mated. … Lan­guage on sex­ual and repro­duc­tive rights and vul­ner­a­ble pop­u­la­tions at high risk of HIV infec­tion has been adopted, for exam­ple in the UN Gen­eral Assem­bly res­o­lu­tions on HIV/AIDS and can be used as a prece­dent to sup­port such lan­guage in other res­o­lu­tions in other orga­ni­za­tions.”

In short: Prece­dents of prior use in inter­na­tional agree­ments and evi­dence of sig­nif­i­cance

We also iden­ti­fied reports, rec­om­men­da­tions and deci­sions of United Nations appointed inde­pen­dent experts man­dated with inter­pret­ing and eval­u­at­ing com­pli­ance with legally bind­ing treaties as author­i­ties for expert prece­dent that sub­stan­ti­ate the mean­ing and sig­nif­i­cance of key lan­guage. The only bod­ies iden­ti­fied so far under this head­ing are the treaty bod­ies and the spe­cial pro­ce­dures of the United Nations human rights sys­tem. In inter­pret­ing and elab­o­rat­ing on the human rights com­mit­ments of States, these expert bod­ies also estab­lish prece­dents for the use, mean­ing and sig­nif­i­cance of key lan­guage within and beyond the human rights sys­tem. For­mal doc­u­ments pro­duced and pub­lished by inter­gov­ern­men­tal organ­i­sa­tions, in par­tic­u­lar the sec­re­tari­ats of the UN and its spe­cialised agen­cies, con­sti­tutes evi­dence on the mean­ing, sig­nif­i­cance and con­tin­ued rel­e­vance of key lan­guage. This inter­gov­ern­men­tal evi­dence is author­i­ta­tive due to the char­ac­ter of the organ­i­sa­tions that pro­duce it as well as the processes by which the doc­u­ments are pro­duced. On the for­mer, the sec­re­tari­ats of the UN and its spe­cialised agen­cies derive nor­ma­tive author­ity from their polit­i­cal neu­tral­ity and by virtue of their tech­ni­cal exper­tise. On the lat­ter, the pub­li­ca­tions are gen­er­ally pro­duced with tech­ni­cal rigour and pur­suant to a man­date pro­vided by rel­e­vant Mem­ber States tech­ni­cal rigour. Pro­duc­tion and pub­li­ca­tion of doc­u­ments is also often accom­pa­nied and pre­ceded by con­sul­ta­tion with rel­e­vant Mem­ber States.

Where is substantiation found?

Authorities for high-level precedent

High-level prece­dent for key lan­guage is derived from texts that have received high-level inter­na­tional approval by one of the sig­nif­i­cant gov­ern­ing bod­ies of the United Nations (UN) sys­tem. These bod­ies com­prise a uni­ver­sal or near-uni­ver­sal pro­por­tion of the UN Mem­ber States. They must arrive at an agree­ment with one another to approve poli­cies, polit­i­cal state­ments and other instru­ments. The agree­ments arrived at will form part of the bind­ing man­date of their respec­tive sec­re­tari­ats, be per­sua­sive across the UN sys­tem and in cer­tain cases be bind­ing in inter­na­tional law. Put simply, this is because many of the same Member States that approved certain language in one agency’s governing body will also be part of the next agency’s governing body.

The Com­pendium offers prece­dents from the agree­ments of the Mem­ber States of the fol­low­ing UN gov­ern­ing bod­ies.

• UN Gen­eral Assem­bly (UNGA) is the pre­em­i­nent gov­ern­ing body of the UN sys­tem and con­sists of all 193 UN Mem­ber States. The scope of the Gen­eral Assem­bly’s func­tions are, to put it sim­ply, gen­eral and encom­pass both human rights and global health. Rel­e­vant high-level prece­dent can be drawn from Gen­eral Assem­bly doc­u­ments includ­ing polit­i­cal dec­la­ra­tions, out­come doc­u­ments, and other res­o­lu­tions. In the process of draft­ing, nego­ti­at­ing, and revis­ing doc­u­ments, new rights-based lan­guage may be pro­posed and struck down; in those cases, UNGA mem­bers usu­ally draw from pre­vi­ously accepted key lan­guage.
• World Health Assem­bly (WHA) is the deci­sion-mak­ing body of the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion. It includes del­e­ga­tions from every UN Mem­ber State, which gather annu­ally to address ques­tions about WHO’s gov­er­nance, bud­get, and progress. Although WHA res­o­lu­tions are cen­tred on health, they engage top­ics rang­ing from mil­i­tary aggres­sion to migrant rights.

Authorities for intergovernmental precedent

Inter­gov­ern­men­tal prece­dent for key lan­guage is derived from texts that have received inter­na­tional approval from mul­ti­lat­eral inter­gov­ern­men­tal organ­i­sa­tions or bod­ies that are sig­nif­i­cant yet not uni­ver­sal. The rel­e­vant bod­ies in the United Nations (UN) sys­tem fre­quently con­tain a sub­set of the broader UN mem­ber­ship elected on a region­ally equi­table basis to rep­re­sent the whole. The agree­ments arrived at may form part of the bind­ing man­date of their respec­tive sec­re­tari­ats and will be per­sua­sive across the UN sys­tem and to other Mem­ber States. This holds even when not all Mem­ber States approve the inclu­sion of the lan­guage in ques­tion because the body that approved it is legit­i­mate as a result of its pro­ce­dure and the rep­re­sen­ta­tive nature of its mem­ber­ship.

Future edi­tions of the Com­pendium may be extended to include regional mul­ti­lat­eral organ­i­sa­tions as a source of inter­gov­ern­men­tal prece­dent.

The Com­pendium offers prece­dents from the agree­ments of the Mem­ber States of the fol­low­ing UN gov­ern­ing bod­ies.

• The United Nations United Nations Eco­nomic and Social Coun­cil (ECOSOC) serves as the UN’s cen­tral forum for advanc­ing sus­tain­able devel­op­ment’s eco­nomic, social and envi­ron­men­tal dimen­sions. It is com­posed of 54 Mem­ber States elected reg­u­larly by the UN Gen­eral Assem­bly.
• The United Nations Com­mis­sion on Nar­cotic Drugs (CND) sets poli­cies for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which in turn is respon­si­ble for mon­i­tor­ing inter­na­tional drug treaties. CND is also over­seen by and works closely with the Eco­nomic and Social Coun­cil and the Gen­eral Assem­bly. It is com­posed of rep­re­sen­ta­tives from 53 geo­graph­i­cally diverse Mem­ber States elected by the Eco­nomic and Social Coun­cil.
• The United Nations Com­mis­sion on the Sta­tus of Women (CSW) is a func­tional com­mis­sion of the Eco­nomic and Social Coun­cil (ECOSOC). It is the most impor­tant global inter­gov­ern­men­tal body exclu­sively ded­i­cated to the pro­mo­tion of gen­der equal­ity and the empow­er­ment of women. Although its dec­la­ra­tions are non-bind­ing, it plays an instru­men­tal role in shap­ing global stan­dards on gen­der equal­ity, that is, women’s enjoy­ment of their rights in polit­i­cal, eco­nomic, and social fields.
• The United Nations Human Rights Coun­cil (HRC) is com­posed of elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives from 47 Mem­ber States; together, they are respon­si­ble for coor­di­nat­ing inves­ti­ga­tions of and responses to human rights vio­la­tions.

Authorities for expert precedent

Expert prece­dent for key lan­guage is derived from the reports and rec­om­men­da­tions of United Nations (UN) appointed inde­pen­dent experts. Their work often con­cerns the imple­men­ta­tion of human rights treaties by eval­u­at­ing progress, clar­i­fy­ing pro­vi­sions, and iden­ti­fy­ing vio­la­tions. In inter­pret­ing and elab­o­rat­ing on the human rights com­mit­ments made by UN mem­bers, these expert bod­ies also estab­lish prece­dents for the use, mean­ing and sig­nif­i­cance of key lan­guage within and beyond the human rights sys­tem.

The Com­pendium offers prece­dents from the reports and rec­om­men­da­tions of the fol­low­ing UN man­dated inde­pen­dent experts.

• The 10 treaty bod­ies that mon­i­tor the imple­men­ta­tion of spe­cific human rights treaties. They are com­mit­tees of inde­pen­dent experts with recog­nised com­pe­tence in human rights nom­i­nated and elected for fixed renew­able terms of four years by State par­ties to the rel­e­vant human rights treaty. Cru­cially, treaty bod­ies are respon­si­ble for releas­ing guide­lines and gen­eral com­ments that clar­ify treaty pro­vi­sions; as such, their expert prece­dent con­sti­tutes inter­na­tion­ally author­i­ta­tive def­i­n­i­tions for key lan­guage con­cern­ing health and human rights.
• Indi­vid­ual Spe­cial Pro­ce­dures of the UN Human Rights Coun­cil—also known as Spe­cial Rap­por­teurs and Inde­pen­dent Experts—are human rights experts with man­dates to report and advise on human rights from a the­matic or coun­try-spe­cific per­spec­tive. To ensure their objec­tiv­ity, they are nei­ther paid nor for­mal UN staff mem­bers. They are also required to meet with gov­ern­ment actors, non­profit organ­i­sa­tions, and civil soci­ety organ­i­sa­tions when mak­ing state-spe­cific rec­om­men­da­tions, allow­ing for high lev­els of detail and nuance in the prece­dents they set. They can pro­vide author­i­ta­tive expert prece­dent for the appli­ca­tion of key lan­guage to fight health and human rights vio­la­tions.

Authorities for intergovernmental evidence

Inter­gov­ern­men­tal evi­dence is derived from the tech­ni­cal doc­u­ments pro­duced by the United Nations (UN) Sec­re­tariat and the sec­re­tari­ats of its spe­cialised agen­cies. The work of these bod­ies is car­ried out pur­suant to man­dates pro­vided by the Mem­ber States that gov­ern them. Mem­ber States are also often con­sulted on the con­tent of these doc­u­ments prior to their pub­li­ca­tion by the rel­e­vant sec­re­tariat. Because of this, the lan­guage used as well as the mean­ing and sig­nif­i­cance given and accorded this lan­guage, in these pub­li­ca­tions is usu­ally the prod­uct of direct con­sul­ta­tion with Mem­ber States as well as exten­sive research and review by lead­ing experts.

Tech­ni­cal doc­u­ments vary in their for­mal­ity and we intend to pro­vide guid­ance on the extent to which par­tic­u­lar sources of inter­gov­ern­men­tal evi­dence should be treated as an author­ity for a par­tic­u­lar topic on a case by case basis.

The Com­pendium includes evi­dence drawn from the tech­ni­cal doc­u­ments of the fol­low­ing sec­re­tari­ats.

• The UN Secretariat, made up of numerous UN departments and offices specializing in areas such as women’s and children’s human rights, humanitarian affairs, policy and advocacy, and law enforcement, supports the other main organs of the United Nations and manages the programs and policies they establish. The Sec­re­tary Gen­eral of the UN heads the Sec­re­tariat and is also entrusted with unique polit­i­cal pre­rog­a­tives, such as bring­ing mat­ters to the atten­tion of the Secu­rity Coun­cil under Arti­cle 99 of Chap­ter XV of the Char­ter of the United Nations.
• The World Health Orga­ni­za­tion (WHO) which is the UN’s direct­ing and coor­di­nat­ing author­ity for health. WHO’s Sec­re­tariat serves the organ­i­sa­tion’s 194 Mem­ber States by imple­ment­ing the res­o­lu­tions and deci­sions of the World Health Assem­bly through its global and regional head­quar­ters as well as its 150 coun­try offices. Its Direc­tor-Gen­eral is accorded cer­tain polit­i­cal pre­rog­a­tives under the Inter­na­tional Health Reg­u­la­tions 2005. WHO Sec­re­tariat derives nor­ma­tive author­ity from its exper­tise and polit­i­cal neu­tral­ity. It is a widely respected pub­lic health author­ity in the UN sys­tem and beyond. Its guide­lines and tech­ni­cal reports are author­i­ta­tive sources of evi­dence.
• The Joint United Nations Pro­gramme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) which is a coali­tion of 11 UN agen­cies and the World Bank help­ing to coor­di­nate the global AIDS response by engag­ing with gov­ern­ments, civil soci­ety and peo­ple liv­ing with HIV. UNAIDS is over­seen by a Pro­gramme Coor­di­nat­ing Board com­posed of rep­re­sen­ta­tives from 22 geo­graph­i­cally diverse coun­tries; the 11 UN agen­cies, includ­ing the World Health Orga­ni­za­tion, UN Women, and the United Nations Pop­u­la­tion Fund; and five non­gov­ern­men­tal organ­i­sa­tions. UNAIDS is the only UN entity that has rep­re­sen­ta­tives of civil soci­ety on its board.
• United Nations Pop­u­la­tion Fund (UNFPA) which is the United Nations sex­ual and repro­duc­tive health agency, oper­at­ing in over 150 coun­tries. It is one of four spe­cialised agen­cies over­seen by the UN Sec­re­tary-Gen­eral, head of the UN sys­tem, and its board is com­posed of rep­re­sen­ta­tives of 36 Mem­ber States. The agency also has strate­gic part­ner­ships with 138 uni­ver­si­ties around the world. UNFPA’s reports often take a human rights approach; among the recip­i­ents of its reports is the Office of the High Com­mis­sioner for Human Rights.

What is opposition language?

Oppo­si­tion lan­guage com­prises the terms and con­cepts pro­posed by those seek­ing to under­mine evi­dence-based and rights-affirm­ing responses to HIV and related sex­ual repro­duc­tive health chal­lenges. These oppo­si­tion terms and con­cepts are pro­posed in nego­ti­a­tions as alter­na­tives that are intended to dis­place, negate and weaken key lan­guage. Later edi­tions of the Com­pendium will have a ded­i­cated sec­tion on oppo­si­tion lan­guage. This sec­tion will pro­vide exam­ples of the often euphemistic, seem­ingly agree­able and even banal lan­guage that is pro­posed as a means of under­min­ing and dis­plac­ing key lan­guage. These exam­ples will help ensure those involved in nego­ti­a­tions are fore­warned of these oppo­si­tion alter­na­tives and, there­fore, pre­pared to dis­pute their inclu­sion. They will also pro­vide exam­ples of when this lan­guage has been pro­posed and rejected in past nego­ti­a­tions and, in this way, pro­vide prece­dents for rejec­tion that can be used in dis­put­ing the inclu­sion of lan­guage that denies rights and fails to fol­low the evi­dence.

Exam­ples of oppo­si­tion lan­guage include:

• Lan­guage empha­sis­ing national sov­er­eignty at the expense of uni­ver­sal rights such as “sov­er­eign rights” and “national con­texts”.
• Lan­guage claim­ing a par­tic­u­lar moral stance as sta­tus quo and tra­di­tional such as “fam­ily val­ues” and “respon­si­ble and healthy rela­tion­ships”.
• Lan­guage that stig­ma­tises key pop­u­la­tions and other mar­gin­alised com­mu­ni­ties such as “a healthy way of life” and “risk-tak­ing”.

If you have sug­ges­tions on oppo­si­tion lan­guage we should include in the next edi­tion of the Com­pendium, please reach out to us at pol­i­cy­lab@george­town.edu.