Blog by Berthe De Vos-Neven, SI Director of Advocacy 2026-2027.
As I sat, together with many Soroptimists, in the packed, windowless Conference Room 4 during the closing meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW70), the atmosphere reflected both the intensity and complexity that have come to characterise multilateral discussions. For once, civil society was well represented, and we all witnessed first-hand a defining procedural moment that underscored not only differing national positions, but also the importance of process in international negotiations.
Key Resolutions and Procedural Developments
First was the adoption of the resolution titled “Women, the Girl Child and HIV and AIDS,” led by South Africa. Despite opposition from the United States, the resolution passed overwhelmingly, with 43 votes in favour out of 45 eligible voters, with only the United States opposing it. This stark contrast underscored the growing isolation of the United States’ position during this session.
Second was the proposed resolution led by the United States, reflecting the ongoing struggle over the interpretation of gender within international frameworks. A decisive procedural move shifted the course of the debate.
Numerous Member States outlined their concerns regarding the way of working and the misuse of power. After several interventions, the Ambassador of Belgium, speaking on behalf of 26 European Union Member States, introduced a “no-action motion” to halt a controversial draft resolution put forward by the United States. This procedural tool, which prevents a vote on a given text, was adopted by the Commission. The motion succeeded, and as a result, the United States’ resolution, aimed at clarifying the definition of the term “gender” within United Nations (UN) documents, was not brought to a vote.
The response in the room was immediate, with a mix of reactions from delegates and civil society. For many, the outcome reflected broader concerns not only about the substance of the proposal, but also about the timing and process through which it had been introduced.
The debate around the United States’ resolution centred in part on references to the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. The draft text suggested that the term “gender” should be interpreted in line with what it described as earlier understandings reflected in those documents. However, several Member States expressed concern that the resolution did not accurately reflect previously agreed language or the context in which those agreements were made.
In presenting the no-action motion, Belgium indicated that the draft raised factual and interpretive issues and warranted further consideration rather than an immediate vote. The motion was supported by several countries, including Brazil, and passed with 23 votes in favour, 3 against, and 17 abstentions.
The voting pattern itself illustrated the diversity of positions within the Commission. Some countries that abstained noted that their decision was based on procedural considerations rather than substantive disagreement. Italy, for example, expressed support for aspects of the United States’ interpretation while emphasising the importance of consultation and established negotiation practices.
Concerns about process were a recurring theme throughout the session. Several delegations noted that the draft had been circulated close to the deadline, limiting opportunities for discussion and amendment. The United States delegation, in turn, maintained that the resolution fell within the scope of previously introduced amendments and did not require additional consultation.
The resolution was one of several amendments introduced during the session, some of which also prompted votes rather than the consensus typically sought at the Commission. This departure from established practice was noted by multiple Member States, both at the beginning and the closing of CSW70.
Reflections on Process and Multilateral Dialogue
From my perspective, what stood out most was the resilience of the global advocacy community. Despite geopolitical tensions and procedural disruptions, the core theme of CSW70—access to justice for all women and girls—remained a unifying thread. Many delegations, including the United Kingdom, acknowledged the constructive contributions of civil society and technical experts, while also expressing regret over the increased reliance on contested voting processes. Furthermore, delegates repeatedly reaffirmed their commitment to advancing gender equality.
Finally, the closing moments of CSW70 highlighted both the challenges and the resilience of multilateral dialogue. The outcome of the “no-action” motion did not resolve underlying differences in interpretation, but it reinforced the importance of process, consultation, and continued engagement among Member States. The Commission continues to serve as a critical space where diverse perspectives can be expressed, negotiated, and, where possible, brought into alignment through dialogue.
It is clear that the voices of civil society, such as Soroptimist International, remain essential in international discussions, helping to shape the future of women’s rights worldwide.
Read more:
- Agreed conclusions, March 8, 2026: https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.6/2026/L.2
- Women, the girl child, and HIV and AIDS: https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.6/2026/6
- Review by SI of the Resolution, proposed by the United States.
