Laws and sexual identities: closing or opening the circle?

This essay considers, in comparative perspective, the articles in this volume to see what lessons might be learned with respect to the effectiveness of human rights norms in the struggle for GLBT rights and how these lessons might be used for successful activism. It notes that the concept of "GLBT" is itself not uniform, so that "GLBT rights" must also be contextual. It argues that successful change has been wrought when GLBT rights, however perceived, have been built onto the earlier successes of other movements, such as those for racial and gender equality. This in turn requires, and is assisted by, throwing off parochialism which prevents or hampers the building on the successes that may have occurred in other jurisdictions. Activism needs to be fitted to context, so that a "critical mass" is achieved, allowing sufficient acceptance of change. Once this is translated into law, a "halo" effect is produced. However, this is not the end of the problem, but the beginning of a new set of problems.     

Sexuality and international human rights law

This essay considers the extent to which international human rights now protect, or might protect, GLBT communities. The counterpoint between the potential width of application of international human rights instruments and their silence on sexuality has become the leitmotif of sexuality and gender identity within the international human rights framework. In addition, there is a symbiotic relationship between the international norms and domestic legal systems which directly affects the meaning of those norms. Domestic laws are not only needed to implement international norms, but are essential in overcoming the equivocations and silences of international human rights law as it has traditionally applied to GLBT communities. A fusion of the international norms with domestic legal systems through the principle of diversity, rather than the principle of equality, is needed.