Key Takeaways from the Symposium by GQUAL on CEDAW’s GR40: Charting the Path to Women’s Equal Representation

[María Noel Leoni is Deputy Executive Director of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and Director and Founding Member of GQUAL’s Secretariat 

Alejandra Vicente is Head of Law at REDRESS and Founding Member of GQUAL’s Secretariat]

This symposium has brought together experts from key international fields to foster reflections on the transformative potential of CEDAW’s General Recommendation 40, which calls for the equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. The relevance of this topic is undeniable, as most contributors agree that securing women’s equal participation in decision-making, including at the international level, is one of the most vital steps in addressing today’s global challenges. 

As former CEDAW member and Chair of GR40’s drafting group, Nicole Ameline, aptly stated,

[i]n a world facing existential challenges—conflicts, crises, migration, digital transformation, climate change, and poverty—the stagnation of women’s representation in decision-making is both unacceptable and unsuited to these global challenges. […] GR 40 underscores the need for global momentum to drive the paradigm shift required to rectify this systemic injustice and build fair and inclusive governance. 

For GQUAL, it has been an honor to co-organize this symposium with Opinio Juris, guided by our belief that open dialogue and collective reflection are vital to advancing women’s equal leadership. In this concluding post, we aim to highlight key insights from the rich contributions and chart a hopeful path for action. 

Despite Progress, Gender Equality in International Leadership is Still Several Glass Ceilings Away

The symposium makes it undeniable that the underrepresentation of women in international spaces remains a systemic issue across key fields such as international justice, peace and security, climate negotiations, diplomacy, arbitration, trade, and multilateralism. It is deeply flawed that, for over 80 years, some of the world’s most influential multilateral institutions—like the Organization of American States and the United Nations—have never been led by a woman. Equally concerning is the contradiction of countries that advocate for gender equality in their foreign policies yet consistently nominate only men to international courts and institutions, as reflected in the GQUAL Rankings. 

Moreover, we continue to hear arguments suggesting that measures like gender parity undermine merit. This rhetoric falsely assumes that the only valid approach is to “select the best,” subtly questioning women’s qualifications while ignoring the structural discrimination that skews the playing field. These narratives often scapegoat gender quotas and diversity measures for institutional failures, overlooking the deeper systemic issues that truly hinder effectiveness and legitimacy. As Laura Nyirinkindi noted in her post, “persistent gender stereotypes that treat women’s participation as nominal rather than symbolic continue to disempower women in decision-making, sometimes rendering their presence inconsequential.” Breaking these stereotypes is not just about fairness, but ensuring that international institutions benefit from the full range of talent, perspectives, and leadership that diverse representation brings. 

While many contributions highlight critical progress in certain areas, they also underscore that these gains often feel fragile and vulnerable to setbacks. Achieving true and lasting gender parity requires more than just sustained commitment from political leaders—it demands bold institutional reforms to dismantle the barriers that have long hindered women’s full and equal participation on the global stage. 

Change is Not Only About Numbers, It’s About Reforming Institutions and Leadership. 

Contributions agree that gender inequality in international decision-making is more than a representation issue—it weakens the legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness of institutions in tackling global challenges. This is not just a missed opportunity; it is a direct violation of States’ international obligations to uphold equality and non-discrimination. 

Addressing this challenge goes beyond simply increasing the number of women in international institutions—it requires a fundamental shift in how these institutions operate, embedding equality into their processes, structures, and culture. It is about rethinking leadership models and transforming the way power is exercised. As Nilufer Oral and Rashmi Raman emphasize,

it is not simply a question of the numerical presence of women […], but one of their inclusion in the process and in having women take on leadership roles in the progressive development of international law and its codification.

Likewise, Hélène Tigroudja underscores the need for a deeper transformation, asserting that, true progress means “transforming the mindset of the human rights system and shifting from an elitist “only-men club” decision-making process to a much more diverse, and inclusive paradigm largely based on the recognition of intersectionality.” Leticia Born adds that, beyond representation,  

women in decision-making roles can also serve as role models, inspiring other women and girls to strategize ways in overcoming the barriers and creating a more inclusive and equitable environment where women can thrive and contribute to decision-making processes. Their actions also tend to bring a more balanced, nuanced and inclusive perspective to policies and strategies that address the needs of diverse populations.

This transformation demands concrete institutional measures that translate into real policies and reforms. In international decision-making spaces, these changes must be championed by both States—the architects and members of international organizations—and the institutions themselves. States must actively promote gender parity in their nominations, appointments, and policies, while international institutions must institutionalize equality through transparent selection processes, gender-balanced leadership, and inclusive decision-making cultures (for example by addressing sexual harassment and abuse) amongst other measures. Without sustained and deliberate action from both, the exclusion of women will persist, weakening the legitimacy, effectiveness, and representativeness of global governance. 

A General Recommendation with Transformative Power

A key takeaway from the symposium is the transformative power of international human rights law. It not only defines the standards for equality but also holds States and international institutions accountable for making them a reality. In this context, contributors agree that CEDAW’s GR40 has the potential to be a game-changer. By providing a clear and binding legal framework, it directly challenges entrenched inequalities and lays the foundation for meaningful, systemic change across international decision-making spaces. 

Some of the key developments and opportunities for progress highlighted by experts include: 

• Equality means parity 50/50 and equal power. GR40 establishes a clear legal standard of parity as a critical measure of equality. As emphasized by Alejandra Mora and Marta Martinez, “GR40 goes beyond gender quotas […] and instead strengthens an equal distribution of power and influence. Full parity is defined as a 50/50 balance, and as the equal inclusion of both women’s and men’s interests. It is no longer just about occupying spaces in candidacies, but also about ensuring effective participation of women throughout the decision-making system, which includes political, economic, public, and digital spheres, from the international to the local level.” 

• Equal participation in all international decision-making spaces is a right protected by the CEDAW Convention. As clearly stated by Claudia Martin, “GR 40 acknowledges that Article 8 [of CEDAW] establishes a twofold obligation: States parties must take all appropriate measures to ensure that women have the opportunity, on equal terms with men, to represent their governments at the international level and to participate in the work of international organizations. This obligation is nearly universal, given that 189 States have ratified the Convention to date.” The explicit inclusion of international decision-making spaces within States’ international obligations provides a powerful tool to tackle the systemic underrepresentation of women in key global sectors that have long resisted genuine gender equality. As Mamta Borgoyary aptly states, “CEDAW has long been a cornerstone for gender equity, but the adoption of GR40 expands its scope into critical global challenges, including climate change”. This sentiment is echoed by Anne Marie Goetz, Sudarsana Kundu, and Foteini Papagioti in highlighting the importance of GR40 in the context of women’s equal participation in peace and security, and Anoush der Boghossian in emphasizing the need for gender parity in international trade.  

• States must include gender parity as a mandatory rule for appointments. GR40 calls on States to develop clear and transparent appointment procedures that explicitly incorporate gender parity as a core criterion and non-negotiable standard. This could involve nominating and electing women to bodies and positions that have long suffered from underrepresentation, implementing alternating nomination rules, and exploring other mechanisms to guarantee a fairer, more inclusive process. In that regard, Natali Samarasinghe argues that the UN General Assembly should leverage GR40 to urge States to adopt a parity strategy for the nomination of candidates for UN Secretary General and ensure that national processes are transparent, inclusive, and merit-based. Nilufer Oral and Rashmi Raman emphasize the need for States and National Groups at the Permanent Court of Arbitration to commit to nominating more women for the 2026 election of ICJ judges, particularly in light of the lack of transparency in the current procedures. Maireé Uran discusses how, based on GR40, arbitral institutions whose governance bodies include States, must “adopt, publicize and enforce diversity criteria in selection frameworks to ensure women’s inclusion in tribunals and annulment committees”, and require many three-member tribunals to appoint at least two women, “rather than defaulting to a single female arbitrator”.   

• GR40 outlines essential accountability measures that hold States and international institutions responsible for ensuring gender equality in decision-making processes. Data, in particular, plays a critical role in identifying barriers, tracking progress, informing effective policies, and ensuring institutions are held accountable. As Natália Mazoni and Aylén Rodríguez Ferrari highlight in their article, “with the right tools and reliable data at their disposal, stakeholders can identify legal gaps, inform reforms, and track progress toward gender equality”. To truly advance gender parity, States and international organizations must improve their efforts in collecting, tracking, and publishing data on women’s participation in international bodies. Moreover, this data must be integrated into the policies and frameworks that govern nomination and election procedures, ensuring that they are not only transparent but also rooted in evidence that drives real change. 

• GR40 acknowledges that achieving true equality and parity in decision-making requires an intersectional approach, ensuring that all women have the necessary conditions to access and fully participate in decision-making spaces. GR40 calls on States to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by different groups of women and to take targeted, responsive measures to address these challenges. Experts agree that this is a crucial area where immediate action is needed. As Priya Pillai observes, “traditionally, international law-making has been the domain of a select few, with voices viewed as different and excluded from the space to speak and engage.” This call to action emphasizes that achieving gender parity is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor but requires an understanding of the diverse barriers that women from various backgrounds, regions, identities, and experiences encounter in accessing power and influence in global governance. 

What’s Next?  

In today’s increasingly difficult context—where multilateralism and human rights are under threat—it has become more pressing than ever to work collectively to ensure that women’s equal participation is a central part of the global response to the challenges we face.  

GR40 should be seen as the starting point for a renewed collective strategy that brings together diverse stakeholders to advance and achieve gender equality. This strategy requires further discussions focused on the practical implementation of GR40 across various decision-making spaces—both at the national and international levels. It is also key to identify short- and medium-term opportunities for advocacy and institutional change, which are relevant to specific contexts and institutions, leveraging the standards and recommendations outlined in GR40 as powerful tools for driving change. 

In this context, upcoming key elections, such as for the OAS and UN Secretary-General—positions that have never been held by women—present significant opportunities for collective advocacy. Similarly, elections like that of the International Court of Justice in 2026 should serve as catalysts for robust, strategic efforts aimed at achieving gender parity. 

The implementation of GR40 calls for broad engagement, bringing additional key stakeholders, including youth, into the fold. Furthermore, it will require the development of tools to support ongoing advocacy efforts and to track progress over time. These tools must be adaptable, engaging a wide range of stakeholders and focusing on geographic regions and specific areas of international decision-making where women’s participation has historically been limited. Finally, supporting CEDAW’s monitoring role is essential to ensure that States meet their obligations.  

Only through sustained commitment, collective action, and accountability can we turn the aspiration of gender equality in decision-making into reality. This collective effort is critical, since, as Nicole Ameline powerfully states, only a radical paradigm shift can prevent a historical regression on women’s rights.