Updated Realities on Gender Justice and Digital Justice: Why International Multilateral Processes and Spaces Must Align

The recent revitalisation and reform of the UN multilateral agenda have created momentum to converge and reflect: After 30 years of feminist engagement in the intersection of international women’s rights and digital rights spaces, where are we standing on the advancement of gender justice in our digital age?

2025 marks 30 years since the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA), 20 years since the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and just one year since the adoption of the Pact for the Future. The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA80) and its renewed global commitment to multilateralism will become and opportunity to present how the Pact provides an overarching frame for multilateral action.

It is worth examining whether key elements from these processes have brought us closer to a just and feminist digital future. To begin with, it is important that we learn from past mistakes and make sure that the shaping of global commitments, firstly and most importantly, place human rights at the centre. Success requires careful and meaningful attention to how these processes interact and influence each other, along with sustained engagement and commitment from all actors, especially governments and private sector, to ensure that commitments translate into effective actions, that accountability is enforced, that civil society is at the table and that gender equality remains a priority.

Geopolitical context is relevant as it influences how multilateral spaces operate and respond to reality. Past measures have failed to address structural inequalities such as the consequences of western-hegemony, colonialism, racism and discrimination. They are coupled with the insufficient commitment and response of multilateral spaces to ongoing crises, conflicts and genocides — fundamental issues in the discussion of gender justice, affecting trust in and legitimacy of these spaces. Moreover, geopolitical context is changing the rules of the game. The rise of anti-gender movements, who are against the legitimacy of human rights and often co-opt the language of rights and justice to hide their true agendas, has impacted negotiations in multiple spaces and processes are facing setbacks in previously agreed upon commitments towards gender justice.

It is worth examining whether the key elements amongst these processes have brought us closer to a just and feminist digital future.

Women’s rights and the internet revolution

Back in 1995, after the adoption of the BfPA, the presence of digital rights activism in women's rights spaces was defined by the implementation of Section J: Women in the media, and how activists were accessing the internet and connecting for the first time. In the early 2000s the participation of digital rights activists in women’s rights spaces increased and it was in 2012, when the UN Human Rights Council adopted the groundbreaking Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8 stating that human rights apply both offline and online. Decisions and policies on women's rights were finally extended to include our participation in the digital realm. The UN recognition of human rights online and how ICT’s impact on our lives along with worldwide adoption of the internet deeply influenced the way feminist movements started to organise and engage across regions. For decades, APC has been a witness and participant in the continuous efforts of the women’s rights groups to open spaces and engage voices that are silenced and/or lack representation.

In 2024, the Beijing+30 Review Process led by UN Women, began to evaluate three decades of progress since the landmark 1995 Beijing Declaration and BPfA. The Review’s main objective was to engage governments, women’s rights groups, feminist civil society and young people, as well as the UN agencies in mobilisation to deliver the promises of the Beijing PfA 30 years after its creation. Governments have shared comprehensive national-level reports and there have been regional consultations taking place where APC participated and influenced the digital rights agenda. Throughout 2025, the process has advanced: UN Women presented the Beijing+30 Action Agenda, which commits to “ensure women and girls can reap the economic benefits of the digital revolution (...)”. At the same time, the political declaration on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women officially acknowledged technology-facilitated gender based violence as violence that occurs through, or is amplified by, the use of technology, as well as recognised the use of artificial intelligence for harassment and abuse.

As Hija Kamran shared at UN Women’s Expert Group Meeting, recognition of these issues is just the first step. We must look beyond and challenge the traditional approach of “access and digital skills, for women and girls”, which is necessary but not enough. The sole focus on women and girls makes the needs of people of diverse genders and sexualities invisible and does not challenge or address societal norms that lead to discrimination and fuel the online – offline continuum of violence. “Access, unveils and exacerbates deeply rooted societal issues that stem into the digital realm.”[1] Thus, it is in our hands as feminist advocates to push for an intersectional framework towards gender justice that prioritises the recognition of structural gender inequalities that fuel a recurrent systemic gender-based discrimination, and to push for policies and recommendations to integrate realities, contexts and specificities, including age, disabilities, sexualities, gender identities and expressions, socioeconomic locations, political and religious beliefs, ethnic origins and racial markers.[2]

Acknowledging that the High Level Meeting on the 30th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women is happening this week in New York, we call attention to the Women’s Rights Caucus’ revitalisation priorities that were collectively drafted these past months and that have included: higher accountability, increased civil society participation and leadership as well as response to urgent and emerging issues, crises and genocides, including and not limited to what is happening in Sudan, Myanmar, Congo and Palestine. It is the responsibility of UN Agencies and Member States as well to listen what we have to say and do better.

It is in our hands as feminist advocates to push for an intersectional framework towards gender justice that prioritises the recognition of structural gender inequalities that fuel a recurrent systemic gender-based discrimination.

WSIS and the challenge of breaking technocratic frameworks

Meaningful engagement of women’s rights groups at digital rights spaces has been ongoing for decades. The promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women was part of the Geneva Declaration of Principles in 2003 and, a year after the second WSIS meeting in Tunis, there were several digital rights and women’s rights groups already campaigning for policy change that took into account violence and hate speech against women and other groups online.[3] In order to push a gender agenda more firmly as part of the WSIS Framework, since 2011 the Dynamic Coalition on Gender Equality has aimed to ensure gender perspective is included in the key debates around internet governance issues, such as content regulation, privacy, access, freedom of expression among others.

From 2011 to 2023, APC and Point of View compiled Gender Report Cards to monitor and assess the level of gender parity and inclusion in workshops at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) which have been instrumental in monitoring the level of gender parity and inclusion at the IGF, a space highly dominated by men. Nonetheless, as Namita Aavriti points out, multistakeholderism as presented by WSIS hasn’t been perfect either, “it is not just civil society and international organisations that must be included in multistakeholder discussions and processes. Inclusion means the participation of communities and people who are most affected and vulnerable on account of gender, race, sexuality, caste, their location in cities or rural and remote areas, and Indigenous groups, among others.”

As for the inclusion of gender in the framework of the WSIS+10 Review, the 2015 WSIS+10 Resolution was a small failure for gender inclusion. It only appeared in the section on ICTs for development, under a subsection on bridging the digital divides. In order to challenge the approach of including “women and girls” only through addressing digital divides, APC’s statement on the Resolution emphasized: "... we must also remember that gender justice cannot be achieved on the internet alone. Social values and practices that harm and marginalise women exist everywhere, even in developed countries. For women to feel safe and empowered on the internet they need more than access, they need respect, access to justice and equality online and offline."

In order to push a gender agenda more firmly as part of the WSIS Framework, since 2011 the Dynamic Coalition on Gender Equality has aimed to ensure gender perspective is included in the key debates around internet governance issues, such as content regulation, privacy, access, freedom of expression among others.

Therefore, as carefully analysed by Paula Martins, there has been a slow but steady process of including gender at internet governance spaces. WSIS processes have missed an intersectional approach and have failed to recognise the reinforcing layers of discrimination and inequality that affect women and gender-diverse people’s relationship with digital technologies. The current WSIS+20 Review revealed similar challenges and others that have been present for a while: digital divides continue to exist (including the gender digital divide), the implementation of the outcomes has often been fragmented and inconsistent, and the changing technological landscape has introduced new, not fully anticipated, challenges: artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity threats, surveillance technologies and the concentration of corporate power. 

This year, in addition to APC’s advocacy to place gender at the core of the WSIS+20 review, the Global Digital Justice Forum and the Gender in Digital Coalition have allowed civil society to push for equitable participation of all women, LGBTQIA+ persons and other structurally marginalised communities in shaping the future of the global digital economy and knowledge society. Through the written inputs submitted by both coalitions to the WSIS+20 Elements Paper, the WSIS+20 zero draft included reaffirmation that gender equality and the empowerment of all women, girls as well as people of diverse genders sexualities, and their full, equal and meaningful participation in the digital space, are essential to close the gender digital divide and advance sustainable development, as well as recognised the “urgency to counter and address all forms of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, which occurs through or is amplified by the use of technology, all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation, cyberbullying and child sexual exploitation and abuse.”

We could consider, as Martins mentions, that slow but steady advancements have been made, although the push to mainstream gender continues. In order for the WSIS+20 process to adequately adopt a gender transformative approach, it needs to break with technocratic frameworks and solutions, if it truly wishes to influence and meaningfully impact human beings and lived realities, from all contexts and diversities. As Valeria Betancourt expresses, “the WSIS Framework cannot be strengthened without effectively integrating a gender approach and gender equality into all WSIS Actions Lines with specific goals, targets and indications."

The Global Digital Compact and the future we expect

The implementation phase of the recently adopted Pact for the Future is beginning its journey towards establishing multilateral frameworks for "an inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, safe and secure digital future for all." For the past two years, we have similarly worked to influence the process of the Global Digital Compact negotiations to adequately adopt gender perspectives, both in language and in contents.

The Feminist Principles for Including Gender in the Global Digital Compact were drafted by a coalition of civil society organisations, including APC, to raise gender concerns as a central element of the GDC. Negotiations were challenging, with the final GDC text falling short of fully addressing civil society concerns, recommendations, and demands. Through the advocacy work carried out, the Coalition brought attention to technology-facilitated gender-based violence as a relevant issue as well as how harmful surveillance applications and high-risk AI systems affect women and people of diverse genders and sexualities’ safety and privacy. Equality and Safety by-Design principles, as well as a human-rights based approach throughout all phases of tech development were some of the recommendations proposed to address a gender transformative approach for the Pact to implement.

In order for the WSIS+20 process to adequately adopt a gender transformative approach, it needs to break with technocratic frameworks and solutions, if it truly wishes to influence and meaningfully impact human beings and lived realities, from all contexts and diversities. 

Converging to an aligned agenda: What is missing?

Getting to the bottom of the issue, what we see in these processes that are highly interconnected is that, while all of them are responding to technological advancements, they are taking similar approaches, without speaking to each other. A further complication lies in that frameworks, while they may acknowledge digital challenges, often lack concrete mechanisms for addressing them effectively. In all processes the issue remains: the distinction between endorsing processes and actively participating in implementation becomes crucial, so that they don’t become empty promises and commitments. As their design currently sits, the processes are also likely to have implementation gaps. All processes lack concrete accountability mechanisms for tech companies, have limited enforcement power for commitments made, and rely on voluntary state compliance.

Moreover, the UN structure as it is now, is set to fail in terms of equal participation and representation. There is a power dynamic in the UN multilateral system that results in uneven participation of Member States. The Western-centric nature of UN headquarters gives rise to absence of favourable conditions to enable inclusive, equitable, and effective participation of all governments, particularly those from the Global South, in transparent and accountable decision-making on internet-related public policy issues. Also touching on challenges, some governments around the world have shown limited capacity or political will to address how digital spaces often amplify existing disparities, creating new forms of exclusion and discrimination. 

Similarly, the increasing fusion of military and civil tech and data threatens the balance of powers, negatively impacting on human rights and internet governance. With prevalence of corporate interests and internet governance without capacity to react the increased militarisation of tech. Traditional patriarchal and protectionist state-centric power dynamics in gender equality discussions and the neoliberal agenda of media market and control have made the perfect combination for the weaponisation of online gender-based violence. This can be seen in arguments in favour of surveillance technology or censorship online, which contradicts the understanding that internet is a tool and catalyser for expression, bodily autonomy, access to information and right to self-determination.

For all processes that require participation at UN headquarters or Global North countries, the traditional barriers to CSO participation persist, including Western-centric meeting locations, visa issues, digital divides and resource constraints, all of which have been called out by activists, NGOs, and civil society actors. Even within CSO participation, there’s disparity among Global North activism and Global South activism. It is crucial to acknowledge that for Global South participants, places of origin, language, lack of support systems, including care-support and economic support, seriously limit or deny participation on something as vital as discussing our fundamental rights, which translates to an urgent call that something needs to change.

Still, our collective work is not in vain nor isolated. Aligned knowledge exchange and communication amongst movements for all processes, at all levels, can allow for digital rights expertise to inform gender equality work, gender justice frameworks to strengthen digital governance, and to shared learning about effective advocacy strategies for the implementation of agreements and plans. Coalition building for integrated topics across the Beijing+30 Review and WSIS+20 (including the integration of GDC to the WSIS framework) can bring together different civil society sectors and integrate Global Majority perspectives more strongly.

The Western-centric nature of UN headquarters gives rise to absence of favourable conditions to enable inclusive, equitable, and effective participation of all governments, particularly those from the Global South, in transparent and accountable decision-making on Internet-related public policy issues.

Mechanisms, frameworks, compacts, agreements, and action platforms for both Women’s Rights and Digital Governance before the international community are faced with two distinct development paths: one in which they advance separately and fail to build into each other, furthering inequalities and socioeconomic gaps, and one in which they harness the opportunity to become inextricably linked and solidify into a cornerstone of global progress based on human rights, and sustainable, resilient development. We are facing a moment when ideally these crucial and critical spaces should work together for the advancement of social justice. 

But for this we have work to do, to best to take advantage of the link between them to ensure digital rights and gender equality frameworks complement and reinforce each other, rather than develop in isolation. Acknowledging that the Pact for the Future is an overarching frame for multilateral action for all future UN processes, the priority for UNGA80 would be: to recognise that technological advancements amongst Beijing+30 and WSIS+20 are not isolated and that both Reviews must jointly develop "contextualised and rooted" responses to digital challenges, particularly regarding access, connectivity, TFGBV and the impact of artificial intelligence from a gender transformative perspective. In that sense, the integrated implementation of the Global Digital Compact within the WSIS framework becomes relevant and necessary, in order to avoid a third siloed effort. This integration would provide us with the establishment of clear feedback loops between the WSIS architecture and initiatives evolving from the GDC, including the AI governance and data governance.

It will also be paramount to recognise how digital technologies can both benefit and harm. A feminist perspective on access allows us to think about "access" intersectionally and holistically, and "access" as a domain of power in any society.[4] The use of internet is gendered and there is a differentiated impact on how all of us connect online. Technology-facilitated gender-based violence exists in different forms and impacts differently women human rights defenders, women in public life, sex workers, lesbian, bisexual and queer women, trans and gender-diverse people, indigenous women, as well as outspoken feminist activists. Creating mechanisms for diverse voices to meaningfully influence the implementations and feedback of processes, especially from communities that are structurally oppressed must also be a key objective in this endeavor. Finally, we must encourage and facilitate actors around the globe and at all levels to open the conversation and carefully listen to what people that are facing the issues have to say. To move beyond endorsement to active participation in implementation, while recognising potential disruption from political, religious and corporate interests.

While UN mechanisms have shown deficiencies in design and implementation, they provide important frameworks for progress when combined with strong national-level work and both global and local advocacy. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring these processes are not duplicated and siloed, and that they work together to create meaningful change for everyone, particularly those most affected by digital exclusion and technology-facilitated gender based violence. Along with UNGA80 taking place this month and as we approach the culmination of the Reviews the focus must remain on a just digital future, which encompasses every human being and their lived realities, and acknowledges the historical exclusion of women and girls, people of diverse genders and sexualities and recognises everyone’s right to safety, dignity and freedom, offline and online.