Yogyakarta Principles
The complete set of principles.
This PDF includes the original principles (1-29) and the plus 10 update (30-38)
Impact report
I commissioned this report three years after the Principles were issued. Many researchers have used this report to illustrates the immediate impact of the Principles.
An article about how and why the Principles were created.
Park, A. (Spring, 2019). Yogyakarta Plus Ten: A Demand for Recognition of SOGIESC. N.C. J. Int. Law. 44(2), 223-272.
Activist Guide to the Principles
I managed the process of putting together this guide to the original principles.
Defining ‘sexual orientation’: A flaw in the Principles
An article I wrote about this issue will be published in the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law, vol. 29.1. I will post a link to that article when it is published.
A major flaw in the Principles is the definition of sexual orientation. The Principles contain relatively detailed definitions of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC). These definitions describe how each of these characteristics is manifested in a person’s life.
Definitions of protected characteristics can expand or shrink protections. Definitions of women, sex, and gender in civil rights laws and international mechanisms such as the Rome Statute (ICC) and CEDAW are contested for this very reason. Under disability protections, for example, not all medical impairments are considered disabilities. Courts have also held that a person’s skin color is considered an aspect of their race, but having afro-textured hair is not. Thus, firing a worker of African descent because they wear their hair naturally is not considered discrimination based on race. With regard to sexual orientation, the definition determines which acts, behaviors and identities are part of sexual orientation, on the one hand, and which are part of a person’s general sexuality and social identities but not necessarily part of their sexual orientation.
The definition of sexual orientation in the Principles explicitly mirrors an MSM-style definition in that it only considers sexual behavior and attraction to be part of one’s sexual orientation. Identity is not included in the concept of sexual orientation. Thus, an institution that requires LGBT people to hide their identity (i.e. don’t ask don’t tell) might defend themselves by arguing that discrimination based on identity should not be considered discrimination based on sexual orientation.
My proposal to revise the definitions. PDF.
In addition, the definition describes what types of sexual attraction and behavior are considered a part of a person’s sexual orientation. Specifically, it says sexual orientation is reflected in sexual relations and attractions that are profound, emotional, sexual, and affectional in order to be considered part of sexual orientation. As the upcoming article shows, this narrow interpretation is supported by using the most commonly accepted principles of statutory and treaty interpretation, including the text of the provisions, the text of other provisions in the same document, the drafting history, and external commentary of principle drafters. Fleeting sexual attractions, and superficial sexual encounters such as hook-ups, are not considered manifestations of sexual orientation.
This narrow focus is concerning because it potentially excludes people with certain attractions and behaviors from human rights protections. Generally, it privileges hetero-normative relationships where sex is only acceptable if it is in the service of emotional intimacy. Additionally, people who experience sexual attraction, even if not profound and affectional, can still be a target for human rights abuses such as forced conversion therapy. Furthermore, all types of same-sex sexual interaction can result in human rights abuses, not just those that are profound and intimate. The emphasis on understanding sexual orientation through relationships also means that bisexuality becomes erased. A bisexual’s sexual orientation becomes merged into homosexuality or heterosexuality depending on who they are in a relationship with.
Ten years after the original 29 principles were issued, the principles, along with the definition of sexual orientation, were reviewed and updated, resulting in the “plus 10” set of supplementary principles. However, proposals to revise the definition of sexual orientation were rejected. The PDF document here is my submission to the drafting committee proposing a revised definition, along with confirmation that the submission was considered. I am posting it here because I cite the proposal (which was already publicly distributed when it was submitted) and the response in an upcoming article on this issue.