TY - JOUR
T1 - The criminalization of sexual minorities in international human rights law
T2 - an appraisal
AU - Winkler, Matteo M.
AU - Bantekas, Ilias
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) [2025]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
PY - 2024/5/19
Y1 - 2024/5/19
N2 - Through the lens of international human rights law (IHRL), this article critically examines the domestic statutes that criminalize sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions, and sexual characteristics that deviate from the heteronormative model (SOGIESC). These statutes, which have been traditionally justified through the enforcement of religious and moral standards, the protection of children, and the defence of local culture against foreign influence, have dramatically expanded in the last two decades. This article assesses their compatibility with IHRL, ultimately finding that they do not comply. The analysis demonstrates that domestic and supranational courts and bodies have interpreted the relevant treaty provisions in an evolutive manner by recognizing SOGIESC as a discursive category within IHRL. This interpretation commands decriminalization. The authors conclude that the limitation clauses in these treaties do not permit states from opting out of their obligations concerning SOGIESC, not even when local culture is allegedly at stake. Against the cultural sovereignty claims that certain states have recently raised to justify an escalation in the criminalization of SOGIESC, this article explains that these claims have failed their test against the standards set by IHRL.
AB - Through the lens of international human rights law (IHRL), this article critically examines the domestic statutes that criminalize sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions, and sexual characteristics that deviate from the heteronormative model (SOGIESC). These statutes, which have been traditionally justified through the enforcement of religious and moral standards, the protection of children, and the defence of local culture against foreign influence, have dramatically expanded in the last two decades. This article assesses their compatibility with IHRL, ultimately finding that they do not comply. The analysis demonstrates that domestic and supranational courts and bodies have interpreted the relevant treaty provisions in an evolutive manner by recognizing SOGIESC as a discursive category within IHRL. This interpretation commands decriminalization. The authors conclude that the limitation clauses in these treaties do not permit states from opting out of their obligations concerning SOGIESC, not even when local culture is allegedly at stake. Against the cultural sovereignty claims that certain states have recently raised to justify an escalation in the criminalization of SOGIESC, this article explains that these claims have failed their test against the standards set by IHRL.
KW - Decriminalization
KW - Freedom of expression
KW - Gender identity and expression
KW - Non-discrimination
KW - Privacy
KW - Sexual orientation
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105005746408
U2 - 10.1093/hrlr/ngaf017
DO - 10.1093/hrlr/ngaf017
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105005746408
SN - 1461-7781
VL - 25
JO - Human Rights Law Review
JF - Human Rights Law Review
IS - 2
M1 - ngaf017
ER -