Rights at Risk: Time for Action

Opponents of expanding rights need not openly reject the word rights; they can use it to establish another system of exclusions. Rights at Risk: Time for Action makes this a central clue to transnational politics. Published by AWID, this 2021 Trends Report of the Observatory on the Universality of Rights has Naureen Shameem as lead author and separately credited contributors. It examines discourses, organizations, funding and strategies in international and regional institutions, alongside movement experiences and collective reflection exercises.

Its value lies in returning apparently isolated disputes to processes of organization: how a term turns different issues into a common enemy, how a declaration acquires an institutional appearance and how recognized principles are rewritten. It is not a live directory of organizations in 2026 or a standardized survey of every country. Historical material needs its dates and chapter authors; relationships identified in the report cannot automatically be treated as unchanged today.

Making “gender ideology” a common enemy

Fernando D’Elio and María Luisa Peralta’s section in chapter 3 examines how the label “gender ideology” gathers sexuality education, feminism and LGBTQI rights into a threat to family, children or social order. Its function goes beyond an inaccurate definition: actors who do not otherwise agree can cooperate around the same enemy image. The object of analysis is the political use of discourse, rather than an assumption that everyone using religious language has one intention.

This helps explain why correcting vocabulary alone may be insufficient. When sexuality education is framed as harm to children, discussion moves from actual curricula and public health to who may protect the family. Women’s and sexual minorities’ claims can then be represented as oppression of someone else’s freedom. A useful question is who defines the threatened subject, and whose body and life disappear within the narrative of protection.

Institutional language can manufacture exceptions

Shameem’s discussion of co-optation in chapter 5 examines entering human rights spaces and changing their vocabulary, beyond blocking them from outside. It discusses family protection, parental rights and declarative texts. An international institutional appearance, signatures and extensive citation are not the same as being a UN treaty. Institutions, documents and legal authority cannot be treated as interchangeable because they employ similar terms.

The discussion on pages 130–133 asks how universality can be hollowed out while retaining the name of rights. If a particular family model becomes a condition for its members’ claims, women and children may receive protection only through obedience to that collective. The holder of rights has been rearranged. This is the report’s argument, not a shortcut for labeling organizations without examining the particular documents.

The report also includes work within religious contexts and across movements. Alex McCarthy and Hyshyama Hamin’s Musawah account describes activists using CEDAW Article 16, country reviews and differences in family law to advance reform. It challenges the representation of Muslim family laws as a single, unchanging rule. Religion and anti-rights politics cannot simply be equated: women develop egalitarian interpretations, legal comparisons and organized action within religious contexts as well.

Réjane Sénac’s talk about “gender theory” offers another specific analysis of an enemy label. CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35 provides a comparison about substantive responsibility, protection and remedies, rather than treating every declaration as equally authoritative. The report’s organizing perspective supports action but also requires care: a shared transnational framework must not flatten local differences. Following original documents, actors and institutional powers is more useful than substituting an umbrella label for investigation.