Eliza’s CSW70 Blogs

Justice Is Not a Luxury  

Eritrea’s commitment to empowering women and girls through legal reforms, awareness campaigns, and targeted initiatives. 

09 Mar, 11:30 AM – 12:45 PM 

Conference Room E (max. capacity: 52), General Assembly Building  

I attended this session to deepen my understanding of the intersection of legal systems, gender equity, and women’s access to justice globally. I was particularly interested in hearing from practitioners who work directly with women navigating justice systems, including survivors of gender-based violence and torture. My goal was to identify strategies and best practices that could be adapted to support the women I serve, many of whom face similar challenges with economic barriers, social stigma, and institutional inefficiencies when seeking justice. I also wanted to connect with global advocates working on these issues to expand my network and learn from their experiences. 

The session covered a range of themes that reinforced each other throughout the discussion. Democracy discontent is a global phenomenon. Young people and women increasingly feel unrepresented in political decisions, and that distrust has a direct effect on how women engage with justice systems. Socio-cultural barriers, economic constraints, and institutional inefficiencies compound the problem. Even when legal protections exist, structural barriers, including geographic distance, social stigma, and fear of retaliation, prevent women from accessing them. The panelists were consistent on this point: legal frameworks alone are not enough. Effective justice systems require legal recognition of rights, supportive institutional systems, and the capacity to enforce those rights. 

The story of the Eritrean woman who was arrested after being recorded by a female spy on a plane, then raped at gunpoint by an army major, stood out. Her experience of torture was compounded by the fact that she had undergone female genital mutilation, making the assault more severe. Despite having no access to justice in Eritrea, she was ultimately granted asylum in the United States through international advocacy. That outcome is meaningful, but it also illustrates how irregular the path to justice can be for women living under authoritarian regimes. 

The session connected directly to CSW70 and UNA-USA Women’s Affinity Group priorities. The panelists were clear that democracy cannot survive without the full participation of women, and that gender equality is not a standalone goal but a condition for sustainable development. Democratic backsliding and institutional distrust fall hardest on marginalized women, including indigenous communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, persons with disabilities, and migrant populations. The discussion linked to SDG 5 on gender equality and SDG 16 on access to justice, with panelists arguing that gender-responsive legal systems advance both simultaneously. Professor Kobia made the point that gender equality is not an end in itself but serves a larger purpose, and that the work requires collaboration between men and women rather than adversarial positioning. The case of women in Turkey falsely accused of terrorism for studying science, reading the Quran, or attending social gatherings illustrates how governments misuse counter-terrorism laws to silence educated women who ask questions and challenge power. 

The session challenged some of my assumptions. I had not fully considered how democratic discontent and institutional distrust directly shape women’s access to justice, or how the erosion of checks and balances under authoritarian governments generates structural barriers inside judicial systems. Professor Kobia’s observation that women who experience a rights violation and choose to do nothing don’t just lose that case. They lose confidence, disengage, and become less likely to advocate for themselves going forward. Her framing of patriarchy as constructed and therefore deconstructible through access to justice was valuable. It reframes the work as having traction rather than as fixed. 

The stories Andrea Baron shared were difficult but necessary. The fact that 100% of the torture survivors Task International works with are granted asylum reflects both the severity of what they endured and the failure of the systems that allowed it. Evelyn Delmacy’s three-pillar framework: legal recognition, institutional capacity, and accessible justice, helps us evaluate what exists versus what’s assumed to exist in any given system. Her point about women in the Caribbean weighing whether losing a day’s wages is worth filing a complaint was specific and grounded in a reality that is not unique to that region. 

A commitment I left with to explore how digital justice initiatives with a gender perspective could be applied to reach women who face geographic and economic barriers to traditional court systems. The concept of itinerant justice, which brings access to women rather than requiring them to navigate toward it, is worth researching further. I’ll look at existing models with that in mind. 

Quotes 

Access to justice is not a luxury. It is a fundamental condition for gender equality and democracy to function. When women cannot access justice, they lose confidence and agency, which perpetuates cycles of discrimination and violence. 

Legal frameworks alone are insufficient. Effective justice systems require three interconnected elements: laws that recognize and protect rights, supportive institutional systems including legal aid and survivor support structures, and the capacity to enforce those rights through courts, law enforcement, and accountability mechanisms. 

Education equips women with the skills and confidence to challenge power relations, argue with evidence and data, and pursue legal remedies. Investing in women’s education directly strengthens their ability to access justice. 

Collective action amplifies women’s voices and increases their ability to attract support and resources. Women are stronger when they collaborate and stand for one another rather than working alone. 

The strength of a legal system is measured not by rights written in law but by whether those rights translate into real, accessible, and equitable protection for the people who depend on them. Promises must become deadlines. Delivery must be visible before applause is given. 

Families Thrive When Equality is Policy 

Nordic Council of Ministers: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden 

Nordic Ministers’ Panel: Gender Equality Makes Families Thrive! 

09 Mar, 01:15 PM – 02:30 PM 

ECOSOC Chamber  

I attended this session to understand how progressive family and gender-equality policies lay strong foundations for families to thrive. As someone working with women impacted by incarceration, I wanted to explore how rights-based policies like shared parental leave, access to childcare, and bodily autonomy strengthen families in all forms. I was particularly drawn to learning how Nordic countries have built systems that support both parents in balancing career and family, and how their ministers address the growing politicization of gender equality on the global stage. 

The session made clear that gender equality benefits entire families, not just women. When both parents can participate in caregiving and the workforce, families are stronger. Shared parental leave enables fathers to stay home with young children, and the data backs this up: the pay gap widens with each additional child, which makes shared leave policies not just a matter of equity but of economic necessity. The Nordic ministers were unified in rejecting the false dichotomy that reproductive rights and gender equality somehow undermine family values. Their counter-narrative was sharp and evidence-based. Progressive family policies produce the strongest families. 

The most needed reminder, and often the most forgotten: progress is not accidental. It is the result of daily, intentional work. Rights that feel settled are being challenged across regions right now, and the ministers were clear-eyed about that. Their collective refusal to accept the politicization of gender equality and their insistence that rainbow families, reproductive rights, and shared caregiving are not threats to the family but expressions of it were both galvanizing and instructive for advocates in any context. 

This session connects directly to CSW70’s agenda and to the UNA-USA Women’s Affinity Group’s commitments around economic empowerment and gender equity. The link between parental leave policy and the pay gap is a concrete example of how structural inequality compounds over time and why targeted policy intervention matters. The ministers’ framing of bodily autonomy as a fundamental right belonging to the person who holds the body is exactly the kind of clear, values-rooted language that can cut through politicized noise. 

The Nordic model also offers something practical: proof of concept. These are implemented systems producing measurable outcomes in family well-being and labor market equity. The lesson for advocates is that intersectional, rights-based approaches to family policy are not a compromise. They are the strongest path forward. 

I left this session with a sharper appreciation for how gender equality policy and family stability are inseparable, and a renewed commitment to carrying that framing into my own advocacy work. The women I serve face compounded barriers to workforce re-entry and family stability. Seeing what becomes possible with the right policy infrastructure in place makes the stakes of this work even clearer, and the path forward more defined. 

Quotes 

Gender equality is not just good for women; it strengthens families and societies as a whole. The Nordic ministers demonstrated that when both parents have access to shared parental leave, childcare, and equal participation in the labor market, families thrive in all their diverse forms.

Progress is never accidental. The rights and policies we often take for granted were achieved through sustained, daily effort by advocates and policymakers. Maintaining these gains requires ongoing vigilance and commitment, especially as gender equality and family policies become increasingly politicized.

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right that belongs to every person who holds a body. This principle should underpin all policies affecting women, families, and reproductive health. When individuals have control over their own bodies, families and societies are stronger.

The pay gap increases when families have additional children, but shared parental leave policies can help address this disparity. By enabling both parents to take time off for caregiving, these policies create more equitable workplaces and stronger family bonds.

The Nordic countries reject the false dichotomy that reproductive rights and gender equality undermine families. Instead, they demonstrate that rights-based family policies create the strongest foundations for families to thrive in all shapes and forms. This is a model worth learning from and adapting to our own contexts. 

The Cost of Underfunding: Women-Led Organizations on the Front Lines 

Shift Financing. Support Women. Secure Justice:  Localizing Finance to Advance Justice for Women & Girls in Conflict & Displacement Settings 

United Nations Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund (WPHF), the Governments of Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom, UN Women, UNHCR, UNFPA, African Development Bank, Action Network on Forced Displacement, and Women for Women International (WfWI) 

10 Mar, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 

UN Women HQ – Daily News Building, 220 East 42nd Street – 19th Floor 

I attended this session to gain a deeper understanding of how flexible and innovative funding models can support local women’s organizations in conflict and displacement settings. The parallels between the barriers faced by grassroots organizations globally and those working with marginalized populations domestically are striking, and I came hoping to learn practical solutions to localize financing and remove structural barriers that prevent direct access to resources. I was particularly interested in hearing from local actors about their experiences navigating complex funding landscapes while providing essential services, and in understanding how multilateral development banks and international donors are adapting their approaches to reach grassroots organizations more effectively. 

The session opened with a powerful and sobering moment that set the tone for everything that followed. The moderator shared that Yanar Mohammed, a prominent Iraqi feminist who had spoken at the same event the previous year, was assassinated outside her home in Baghdad just days before. That reminder of what is genuinely at stake for women human rights defenders made clear why this conversation cannot remain abstract. When women’s rights leaders make requests for protection and funding, they come from a place of genuine peril, and allies must recognize the weight of that reality. 

Several themes emerged that emphasized the existing funding gap. Local women’s rights organizations serve as first responders in crisis settings, providing protection, referrals, legal support, and community accountability, yet receive only 0.01 percent of funding. Flexible, direct funding is not a preference; it is a prerequisite for organizations adapting to rapidly changing contexts. Multi-year commitments, realistic support costs, and risk-sharing models that shift compliance burdens away from local partners are all essential. So is meaningful participation, which means involving local actors in funding decisions, not simply as recipients but as architects of the systems meant to serve them. 

Hearing Pascal Solage describe how feminist organizations in Haiti are essentially performing the state’s work with minimal resources was both inspiring and sobering. The statistic that the Haitian Ministry of Women’s Rights receives only 0.001 percent of the national budget speaks clearly about where gender equality falls in governmental priorities. Many of the women leading these organizations are survivors themselves, and that lived experience drives their advocacy in ways that no outside actor can replicate. 

The discussion about compliance barriers was particularly insightful. UNFPA’s risk-sharing pilot in Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan offered an example of large institutions beginning to recognize how traditional funding mechanisms disadvantage grassroots organizations. Victoria Carpa’s description of survivor-centered justice in Ukraine, specifically a peer network of female advocates trained to provide basic legal advice to other survivors, demonstrated how trust and lived experience can overcome barriers to formal justice systems in ways that formal programming often cannot. 

This session connects directly to the CSW70 priority theme of financing for gender equality, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected settings. The Action Network on Forced Displacement, supported by the German government and administered through WPHF, exemplifies how refugee women can be given a genuine voice in global decision-making. That model of localization with participation reflects the UNA-USA Women’s Affinity Group’s commitment to centering the leadership of those most affected by systemic inequities. 

The moderator also noted that one panelist was unable to attend due to a visa denial and that Haiti currently faces a United States visa ban. These are part of a broader pattern of shrinking civil society space and the weaponization of access to exclude the very voices this work depends on. The call to protect funding for women, peace, and security programming, increasingly threatened as resources shift toward military spending, is a call the Affinity Group must continue to amplify. 

A commitment I am taking from this session is to examine whether current funding models allow for the adaptability and survivor-centered approaches highlighted as essential in conflict settings. The question of how to create mechanisms that give women with lived experience meaningful input into funding decisions and program design is one reflecting on beyond this session. 

Quotes 

First, recognize that women-led organizations in conflict and displacement settings are the experts and first responders, yet receive only a fraction of one percent of humanitarian funding. Supporting these organizations is not charity but a strategic investment in peace and stability.

Second, flexible funding is not a luxury but a necessity. Local organizations need resources that allow them to adapt to rapidly changing contexts, pay staff, replace equipment, and respond to emergencies without bureaucratic delays.

Third, meaningful participation means involving local actors in funding decisions, not just as implementers. The Action Network on Forced Displacement demonstrates how refugee women can shape where and how resources are allocated.

Fourth, economic empowerment is inseparable from justice. Survivors cannot pursue justice if their basic needs for food, shelter, and income are not met. Holistic approaches that combine legal support with livelihood programs are essential.

Fifth, apply a gender lens and conflict lens to all funding decisions. Cutting programs that support women’s leadership and GBV response under the guise of security spending weakens protections and undermines peacebuilding efforts.