Transnational Advocacy Networks and Human Rights Law This book asks the fundamental question of how new human rights issues emerge in the human rights debate To answer this, the book focuses on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and on the case study of LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) rights The work argues that the way in which NGOs decide their advocacy, conceptualise human rights violations and strategically present legal analysis to advance LGBTI human rights shapes the human rights debate To demonstrate this, the book analyses three data sets: NGO written statements submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council, NGO oral statements delivered during the Universal Periodic Review and 36 semi-structured interviews with NGO staff Data are analysed with a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to discover what issues are most important for LGBTI networks (issue emergence) and how these issues are framed (issue framing) Along with NGO efficiency in lobbying for the emergence of new human rights standards, the book inevitably discusses important questions related to NGOs’ accountability and democratic legitimacy The book thus asks whether the right to marry is important for LGBTI advocates working transnationally, because this right is particularly controversial among activists and LGBTI communities, especially in non-Western contexts Giulia Dondoli obtained her PhD in Human Rights Law from Te Piringa, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, New Zealand Transnational Advocacy Networks and Human Rights Law Emergence and Framing of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Giulia Dondoli First published 2019 by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Giulia Dondoli The right of Giulia Dondoli to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dondoli, Giulia, author Title: Transnational Advocacy Networks and Human Rights Law: Emergence and Framing of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation/By Giulia Dondoli Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2019 | Includes bibliographical references and index Identifiers: LCCN 2018044937 | ISBN 9781138387508 (hbk) Subjects: LCSH: Gender identity—Law and legislation | Human rights—International cooperation | Non-Governmental Organizations | Sexual minorities—Civil rights Classification: LCC K3243 D66 2019 | DDC 342.08/7—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018044937 ISBN: 978-1-138-38750-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-42623-0 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Apex CoVantage, LLC Contents List of documentsxiv List of figuresxxix Acknowledgementsxxx List of abbreviationsxxxi 1 Introduction Introduction: Joslin v New Zealand 1 Context, definitions and caveat Research questions 21 Central arguments of the book 23 Overview of the book 24 Conclusion 25 Between friends and foes: transnational advocacy networks, issue emergence and issue framing Introduction 26 Transnational advocacy networks 28 Issue emergence and issue framing: a general overview 29 Reasons for tensions in internetwork relations: specific challenges to the development of LGBTI transnational advocacy 32 Criticism: lack of democratic legitimacy in the NGOs’ networks 37 How LGBTI gatekeeper NGOs respond to the imbalance of power? 41 Framing LGBTI issues as human rights claims 45 Power relations and marriage equality: the collaborative decision-making process 50 Conclusion 52 LGBTI transnational advocacy networks: internetwork relations and horizontal networking Introduction 55 Internetwork relations 56 26 55 vi Contents How LGBTI gatekeeper NGOs build the network in practice 60 An early example of how the LGBTI network works in practice 64 Brazilian resolution 66 LGBTI activism targets the Human Rights Council 76 Conclusion 82 The broader political context: how states and other NGOs influence LGBTI NGOs’ issue framing Introduction 85 LGBTI organization and access: the Economic and Social Council’s consultative status 87 Political alignment and United Nations member states 94 International organizations’ agencies act as allies of LGBTI transnational advocacy networks 98 Marriage and family arguments used against LGBTI people’s rights 100 Conclusion 107 “With great power comes great responsibility”: the advocacy agenda of LGBTI transnational advocacy networks Introduction 110 NGOs’ written statements 112 Universal Periodic Review: NGOs’ oral statements 123 Horizontal networking: consultations and needs-based approach 134 Issue framing: prohibition of discrimination and marriage (in)equality 139 Marriage, couple recognition and family rights as national concerns: the flexibility of the advocacy for the right to marry 145 Conclusion 150 85 110 6 Conclusion Introduction 153 Summary 154 Differences with other studies 156 Recommendations for LGBTI activists and human rights practitioners 158 Conclusion 163 153 Appendices Appendix Methodology 166 165 Contents vii Appendix NGOs’ written statements submitted to the Human Rights Council 176 Appendix Interviewees 186 Appendix United Nations vote results 188 Index197 Detailed Contents List of documentsxiv List of figuresxxix Acknowledgementsxxx List of abbreviationsxxxi Introduction Introduction: Joslin v New Zealand 1 Context, definitions and caveat Intersex status and a note on the use of acronyms Human rights: between hard- and soft-law Prohibition of discrimination Marriage equality debate: pro, against and neither Marriage rights and the anti-discrimination principle 11 International law protections for LGBTI couples 12 Transnational advocacy networks and gatekeeper NGOs 14 Nongovernmental organizations 16 Sexually and gender diverse people’s movements: a history 17 The roots of homosexual pressure groups 17 A new wave of homophile and gay liberation pressure groups after the Second World War 19 Research questions 21 Central arguments of the book 23 Overview of the book 24 Conclusion 25 Between friends and foes: transnational advocacy networks, issue emergence and issue framing Introduction 26 Transnational advocacy networks 28 Issue emergence and issue framing: a general overview 29 Characteristics for issue emergence and issue framing 31 26 Appendix Interviewees Organization Consultative status Country UN Regional Groups Stop AIDS Liberia ALMA No Yes Liberia Australia Arcigay No Italy Bilitis Resource Centre Bisdak Pride Bisexual Alliance Victoria Blue Diamond Society Campaign Against Homophobia ARCD No Bulgaria No No Philippines Australia No Nepal African Group Western European and Other Groups Western European and Other Groups Eastern European Group Asia-Pacific Group Western European and Other Groups Asia-Pacific Group No Poland No Italy FELGTB Yes Spain GALANG Philippines Hungarian Rainbow Alliance ILGA-Europe No Philippines No Hungary Yes Belgium New Zealand ILGA World Yes (as a branch of ILGA) Yes Switzerland J4S JOH No No Malaysia Israel LGBT Centre (Mongolia) LGBT Denmark No Mongolia Yes Denmark ILGA-Oceania Eastern European Group Western European and Other Groups Western European and Other Groups Asia-Pacific Group Eastern European Group Western European and Other Groups Western European and Other Groups Western European and Other Groups Asia-Pacific Group Western European and Other Groups Asia-Pacific Group Western European and Other Groups Organization Consultative status Country UN Regional Groups Malta Gay Rights Movement Pink Armenia No Malta No Armenia Pink Cross No Switzerland Rainbow Sunrise Mapambazuko Rete Lenford No Congo Western European and Other Groups Eastern European Group Western European and Other Groups African Group No Italy RFSL Yes Sweden UUA Yes United States YIFoS Pink Cross No No Thailand Switzerland Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous No No No Nigeria Sri Lanka Saint Lucia No current NGO N/A New Zealand No current NGO N/A Singapore Western European and Other Groups Western European and Other Groups Western European and Other Groups Asia-Pacific Group Western European and Other Groups African Group Asia-Pacific Group Latin America and Caribbean Group Western European and Other Groups Asia-Pacific Group Appendix United Nations vote results The table indicates votes in favour (f), against (a) and abstained (ab) Some states could not vote at the HR Council (or Commission on HR before 2006) because the HR Council is composed of 47 members at a time; therefore, some slots are left blank For the 2008 Argentina Statement and Syrian Counterstatement, I indicate favour (f) for the states signatories of the Argentinian statement, and against (a) for the states signatories of the Syrian counterstatement Moreover, for the 2010 General Assembly Resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, I signal favour (f) for states that supported LGBTI rights, i.e those states that voted to include explicit reference to ‘sexual orientation’ in the text of the resolution I signal against (a) for states that voted to bar such reference Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria f Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium f Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil f Brunei Darussalam Brazilian Resolution (2003) E/CN.4/2003/L.92 f f f f f f f f f f f f New Norway Zealand Statement Statement (2006) (2005) f a f f a f a a f f f f a f a f f a f a a f a ab f f f f a a a a ab ab f a a f a ab f f f ab f f f f f f f ab ab f f f f ab f f f ab f ab Nov vote Dec vote Argentina Res on ESA Statement/ Syrian Executions Counterstatement (GA/2010) (GA/2008) f f a a f a 2011 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/17/19 a f f f a 2014 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/27/32 (Continued) ab f f a f a 2016 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/32/2 Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f New Norway Zealand Statement Statement (2006) (2005) f f Brazilian Resolution (2003) E/CN.4/2003/L.92 f a a f f f f a f a a f f a f f f f ab ab a f a f f f f ab f ab f ab ab f f ab ab f f f f f a ab a a f a f a f f a f a a ab ab a f Nov vote Dec vote Argentina Res on ESA Statement/ Syrian Executions Counterstatement (GA/2010) (GA/2008) a f f ab a ab 2011 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/17/19 f f ab f a f ab ab 2014 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/27/32 f a a a a 2016 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/32/2 Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Equatorial Guinea Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f a a f f f f a f a a f f f a f f f a f f f a a a a f f a f a f a f a ab f f f f a f f f f f ab f f ab f f f ab ab f f f f f f ab ab f f f f f ab f f f a f a f ab a f f a f a (Continued) ab a f f ab f a f f Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia f f f f Brazilian Resolution (2003) E/CN.4/2003/L.92 f f f f f f f f New Norway Zealand Statement Statement (2006) (2005) a a a a a a f f f f a a a a f f f a a a f a a a f a a a f a a f f f a f f f f ab ab ab ab f f f ab f ab ab f f ab f ab f f f ab f f Nov vote Dec vote Argentina Res on ESA Statement/ Syrian Executions Counterstatement (GA/2010) (GA/2008) a f a 2011 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/17/19 a ab a f f f 2014 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/27/32 f a a 2016 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/32/2 Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f a a f a a f a a f f a a f f ab f f ab f f a a f a a f f f ab f f f ab f a a a a a a f f ab f ab ab f f f f f f ab f f ab ab f f f f f ab f ab ab ab f f f f f f f f a a f a f f a f f a ab ab (Continued) f ab f f a f a f f a f a f a Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Navy Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Island Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain f f f f f f f f f f f f f New Norway Zealand Statement Statement (2006) (2005) f Brazilian Resolution (2003) E/CN.4/2003/L.92 f f f a a a f f a a f a a f a f a a a ab f f f ab f f f f f f f f f a ab f f f a a f ab f f f ab f f ab f a f f f a a a a a Nov vote Dec vote Argentina Res on ESA Statement/ Syrian Executions Counterstatement (GA/2010) (GA/2008) f f a a a a f a 2011 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/17/19 f ab a f a f 2014 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/27/32 ab f a a a f 2016 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/32/2 Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Tajikistan Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela f f f f f f f f f f f f f a f f f a a f a a a a f a f f a a f f f a f a ab f f ab a f a f a ab a f ab a a a f f a a ab f f f f f ab f f f f ab ab f ab ab f ab f ab ab ab f ab f f ab ab f f f f a f f f f f a f f (Continued) f a f a f f Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Brazilian Resolution (2003) E/CN.4/2003/L.92 New Norway Zealand Statement Statement (2006) (2005) a a a a a a f ab ab ab Nov vote Dec vote Argentina Res on ESA Statement/ Syrian Executions Counterstatement (GA/2010) (GA/2008) ab 2011 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/17/19 f 2014 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/27/32 f 2016 HR Council Res A/HRC/ RES/32/2 Index acronyms advocacy agenda 110 – 52; horizontal development strategy 110; low priority of marriage equality 144 – 5 advocacy for right to marry 139 – 43, 157 – 8; Universal Periodic Review 141 – 3 agenda priority of advocates 26 Allied Rainbow Communities International: Brazilian resolution, and 69 Argentinian statement 74 – 6; opposition to 75 Australian Lesbian Medical Association 59 Beijing World Conference on Women: draft Platform of Action 65 – 6 Blue Diamond Society 60 Brazilian resolution 66 – 70; ARC, and 69; blocking, aims for 68; mobilisation effect 69 – 70; opposition to 66 – 7, 68; political pressure, and 68; raising awareness 67; support for 66 – 7; three–point strategy following 70; written statements on human rights, and 69 broader political context 85 – 109 Campaign Against Homophobia 58 China: LGBTI activists 51 Coalition of African Lesbians 81 – 2 conservative non–governmental organizations: influence of 108 – 9 couple recognition: national concern as 145 – 50 Cultural and Recreational Centre (COC) 19; hegemony effect of centrality 51 – 2 Declaration of Montreal 72 discrimination, prohibition of 7 – 9; margin of appreciation 159; sexual orientation 8 – 9; SOGII 7 – 8 European regional organizations 56 – 7 family: definition family rights: national concern, as 145 – 50 funding: gatekeeper NGOs 61 future research: recommendations for 160 – 3 gatekeeper non–governmental organizations 14 – 15; building network in practice 60 – 4; centrality 40 – 1; democratic legitimacy 37 – 41, 54; democratic network 52; domestic political opportunities for peripheral NGOs 43 – 5; exclusiveness of ties 41; funding 61; horizontal relations 42 – 3; identity 63 – 4; imbalance of power, and 41 – 5; intensity 41; legal status 62; low profile 53; network analysis on social power 53; right to marry, and 27; role 26 – 7; social power 40 – 1, 64; strategic choices 55; training 60 – 1; vertical relations 42 GALANG 59 Gay Liberation Front 20 – 1 High Level LGBT Core Group Event 99 Holocaust 19 homosexual pressure groups: roots 17 – 19 homosexuality: D’Emilio on 17; Foucault on 17 horizontal networking 55 – 84, 134 – 9 198 Index human rights: evolution 6; framing LGBTI issues as 45 – 50; hard and soft law 4 – 6 Human Rights Council: lobbying for resolutions on traditional values 102 – 3, 104; resolutions on the protection of the family 105 – 7; resolutions on traditional values 101 – 5 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee: draft report on traditional values 105 human rights in practice: interviewees’ opinions 135 – 8; tactics 137 human rights networks: challenges 33 human rights practitioner: recommendations for 158 – 63 ILGA–Europe 56 – 7; needs–based approach 134; priorities 145 – 6 ILGA–Oceania: NGO partners, and 135; priorities 146 International Congress on Sexual Equality 19 – 20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 2(1) 7; Article 26 7 – 9 international human rights agreements: external symbols as 45 – 6 international human rights conferences 64 – 5 international human rights debate: influence of TANs 107 – 8 International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) 20 – 1 international organizations: agencies as allies of TANs 98 – 100 internetwork relations 32 – 7, 55 – 84; horizontal networking, and 55 – 84; reasons for tensions 32 – 7 intersex status interviewees 186 – 7 issue emergence 26 – 54; broader political context 31 – 2; characteristics 31 – 2; general overview 29 – 32; internetwork relations 32; phases 30 issue framing 22, 26 – 54; access 46 – 7; alliance 46 – 7; broader political context 31 – 2; 46 – 7; characteristics 31 – 2; general overview 29 – 32; influence of states and NGOs 85 – 109; phases 30; political alignment 46 – 7; prohibition of discrimination and marriage (in) equality 139; strategic framing 31 Joslin and Others v New Zealand 1 – 3; arguments 2; background 1 – 2 Justice for Sisters 59 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex status (LGBTI) LGBTI activism: nature of 52; recommendations for 158 – 63 LGBT Centre Mongolia 61,62 LGBTI couples: European Court 12; Inter–American Court 12; international law protections 12 – 14; OHCHR, and 13; United Nations jurisprudence 12 – 13 LGBTI network: building stronger and more democratic 57 – 9; work in practice 64 – 6 LGBTI/religious non–governmental organizations: strategic position 163 limitations of the study 160 – 3 marriage: definition 9; national concern, as 150 – 5 marriage and family arguments 9 – 10, 100 – 7; advocacy agenda, and 100; use against LGBTII rights 100 – 7 marriage equality 11; collaborative decision–making process 50 – 2; low priority in advocacy agenda 144 – 5; power relations, and 50 – 2; strategy 148 – 50; support for 147 – 8 marriage equality debate 9 – 11 marriage inequality 49 – 50; mobilisation of supporters 49 – 50 marriage rights: anti–discrimination principle, and 11 methodology 166 – 75; description of interviewees 173 – 4; focus on non–governmental organizations: advantages and limitations 168 – 9; interactive approach to study collective actions 166 – 7; interview questions 172 – 3; interviews 172; LGBTI gatekeeper NGOs 174 – 5; online materials 174; triangulation 169; United Nations: focus on Human Rights Council 169 – 72 Millennium Development Goals 98 Index 199 Nigeria: Same–Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 34 non–governmental organizations (NGOs) 16 – 17; accountability 38; actions 16; choice of advocacy issues 3; human rights evolution, and 6; internal accountability 38 – 9; origin of term 16 non–governmental organizations’ oral statements 123 – 33; advocated issues 126; Amnesty 124 – 5; commending states’ behaviours 127 – 8; Human Rights Watch 124 – 5; list of non– governmental organizations that delivered 124; record of 123 – 4; similarities and differences from written statements 138 – 9; social movement theories 129; states refusing to accept recommendations 128 – 9; summary 126; written comments, and 129 – 33 non–governmental organizations’ written statements 112 – 23, 176 – 85; advocacy for right to marry 139 – 41; centrality of anti–discrimination framework 115 – 16; decriminalisation of same–sex sexual conduct 115; focus on LGBTI rights 114 – 15; framing of LGBTI issues 113 – 14; freedom of association, assembly and expression 118; full enjoyment of human rights for all 117 – 18; misuse of power 39 – 40; oral comments, and 129 – 33; political opportunities 121; political participation 118 – 19; prohibition of discrimination principle 114; protection from violence 119 – 20; similarities and differences from written statements 138 – 9; SOGIE discrimination discussed in combination with other matters 116 – 18; summary 114; visibility 118 non–Western states: ownership of LGBTI issues, and 74 – 6 North American Man/Boy Love Association 89 Organization of the Eastern Caribbean States 59 Pacific populations 63 peripheral non–governmental organizations 15; horizontal links 57 – 9; legal status 157; resources 35 – 6; tactics 35 – 6; weakness at domestic level 35 – 7 Pink Armenia 58 power relations: marriage equality, and 50 – 2 prohibition of discrimination framework: significance 110; slippery slope argument 158 prohibition of discrimination principle 47 – 8; NGO’s written statements, in 114 protection of the family 105 – 7 research questions 21 – 3 RFSL 60 right to marry: flexibility of advocacy for 145 – 50; interviewees’ opinions on 143 – 4; gatekeeper non–governmental organizations, and 27 right to peaceful assembly 29 Scientific Humanitarian Committee 18 sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status (SOGII) sexual orientation: prohibition of discrimination, and 8 – 9 Shakespeare Club 19 social movement theories: transnational advocacy network theories, and 156 soft law 4 – 6 SOGI SOGIE Caucus 59 Special Rapporteur 80 – 2; opposition to 81 – 2; Society of Geography Students mandate 80 summary of interview findings 136 Sustainable Development Goals 98 transnational advocacy networks 14 – 15, 28 – 9; advocacy agenda 23; boomerang pattern of action 28 – 9; democratic legitimacy 37 – 41; development 28; domestic political constraints 36 – 7; dynamic set of relations 107; functions 28 – 9; international organization agencies as allies 98 – 100; not elected 39 – 40; United Nations agencies as allies 100 transnational advocacy networks theories: social movement theories, and 156 theoretical framework 154 200 Index traditional values: meaning 103 training: gatekeeper NGOs 60 – 1 United Nations: attempts to bring SOGII issues before 70 – 2; Human Rights Council, role of 71; need of NGOs to have access to 108 United Nations agencies: allies of TANs, as 100 United Nations Development Programme 99 – 100 United Nations Economic and Social Council 87 – 94; arrangements for consultation with NGOs 87 – 8; Committee on Non–Governmental Organizations 90 – 1; consultative status 87 – 94; functions 87; LGBTI NGOs consultative status 89 – 94; meetings 88; value of status 88 United Nations General Assembly 75 – 6; resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions 95 – 8 United Nations Human Rights Council see also Human Rights Council: first resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity 77 – 9; LGBTI activism, and 76 – 82; second resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity 79 – 80; Special Rapporteur 80 – 2 Third Human Rights Resolution 80 – 2 United Nations member states 94 – 8; divided support for LGBTI rights 94 – 5; non–aligned states 95; political alignment, and 94 – 8; political alignment, effect 97 – 8; resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution 95 – 8 United Nations vote results 188 – 96 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 153 Universal Periodic Review 123 – 33; advocacy agenda 125 – 7; advocacy for right to marry 139 – 4; aim 123; domestic political opportunities 125 – 7; process 44; prohibition of discrimination 125 – 7; ricochet effect between NGOs’ and states’ human rights framings 127 – 9 western and non–Western LGBTI advocacy 33 – 4 World League for Sexual Reform 18 Yogyakarta Principles: acceptance of 73; global response 72 – 4; right to found a family; success of 72 ... Federation for Human Rights Finnish League for Human Rights Latin America and Caribbean Group Human Rights United Nations Human Rights Committee United Nations Human Rights Council Human Rights Watch... from Te Piringa, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, New Zealand Transnational Advocacy Networks and Human Rights Law Emergence and Framing of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Giulia... targets the Human Rights Council 76 The first Human Rights Council Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 77 The second Human Rights Council Resolution on Human Rights,