In an era when civil society is under attack worldwide, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council’s 59th session offered a crucial test of whether international institutions can act to protect the space for advocacy and dissent. By the time proceedings concluded on 8 July, civil society had secured several victories. Now efforts will turn to trying to ensure they make a difference in practice, in an international system under heavy strain.

Civil society’s key achievement was the adoption of a resolution on civil society space. The resolution highlights mounting global restrictions and explicitly recognises civil society’s legitimate role in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The session also brought progress on gender rights and climate action, all secured through intensive civil society advocacy.

The foundations: protecting civic space

The civic space resolution confronted sobering realities facing civil society worldwide, which include repressive laws, online restrictions, crackdowns on protest, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and transnational repression.

The resolution recognised civil society’s legitimate roles, directly challenging authoritarian narratives that portray civil society activists as destabilising political agitators. It highlighted the risks faced by grassroots organisations and women human rights defenders, acknowledging how civic space restrictions disproportionately affect people working on issues those in power deem sensitive.

The text acknowledged civil society’s Declaration +25 initiative, aimed at supplementing the breakthrough 1998 UN Declaration on human rights defenders – a recognition that existing protections must be strengthened in the face of evolving threats.

However, the resolution had significant gaps. It failed to address the UNMute Recommendations, supported by over 50 states, which call for steps to improve civil society access to global decision-making spaces. These include appointment of a UN civil society special envoy, improvements to visa processes for people from global south civil society, better resourcing for UN support offices and increased funding for participation in UN events. The resolution also ignored how the UN’s current financial crisis and the cuts the Council has made in response – including shortening sessions and limiting side events – have reduced opportunities for civil society participation.

The session also saw the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association for another three years, providing much-needed continuity in defending fundamental civic freedoms. A resolution on journalists’ safety further strengthened civic space protections by addressing freedom of expression. Adopted with strong support from over 70 co-sponsoring states, the resolution introduced references to transnational repression, surveillance and armed conflict, a reflection of the worsening threats journalists and media workers face.

A resolution on new and emerging digital technologies called on states to refrain from AI applications incompatible with international human rights law, while mandating expanded work on UN system-wide promotion of human rights in digital technologies.

Gender rights under siege

Civil society activists secured victories for some of the groups facing the most intense backlash – but largely found themselves fighting to maintain existing protections.

An impressive coalition of 1,259 organisations from 157 countries and territories campaigned for the renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which passed in a contested vote among the Council’s 47 members, with 29 in favour, 15 against and three abstaining.

The resolution was presented by six Latin American states and co-sponsored by 50 states from all regions, disproving the spurious argument that LGBTQI+ rights are a global north imposition. Crucially, for the first time a Council resolution explicitly condemned laws that criminalise consensual same-sex conduct and diverse gender identities, calling on states to change discriminatory legislation. This was a significant shift from diplomatic language that used to merely encourage states to consider reform.

The Council adopted six gender-related resolutions, but only after fierce battles over their content. The resolution on accelerating efforts to eliminate violence against women and girls was passed with attempts at hostile amendments rejected, which showed how gender equality is now contested territory in international forums. Those opposed attempted to weaken language on women’s autonomy and reproductive rights, reflecting broader efforts to roll back feminist gains.

The renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls and a resolution on eliminating female genital mutilation demonstrated continued commitment to addressing gender-based violence. However, even some seemingly progressive language carried troubling undertones: for instance, a resolution on women’s economic empowerment used terminology about families and motherhood that could be used to reinforce gender stereotypes rather than challenge them.

Climate action and environmental defenders

A resolution on human rights and climate change signalled progress by including, for the first time, recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. It also called on international financial institutions to respect human rights in relation to climate. The resolution aligned with the growing number of successful court actions that recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and environmental degradation.

However, progress was constrained by political compromises: the resolution failed to explicitly recognise the need for an equitable transition from fossil fuels and protections for environmental human rights defenders, despite recognising they’re among those most at risk. In this respect, it didn’t go as far as the recent Inter-American Court on Human Rights ruling that environmental defenders play a fundamental role in addressing the climate crisis.

Funding troubles

Despite the victories, a troubling reality cast shadows over proceedings. The UN faces its worst-ever funding crisis. The USA, its biggest contributor, is pursuing policies of withdrawal from and defunding of multilateral institutions under Donald Trump, making it one of 76 states that have failed to pay their dues.

The impacts are happening now. The High Commissioner for Human Rights announced that 18 mandated activities wouldn’t be implemented due to funding constraints, including the Commission of Inquiry on grave abuses in Eastern Congo established just months ago. Investigations on Palestine, Sudan and Ukraine now operate at 30 to 60 per cent capacity, undermining efforts to document violations and support accountability processes amid devastating conflicts.

Without funding, international human rights accountability will recede and repressive states will take advantage. Eritrea, one of the world’s most authoritarian states, attempted to exploit the funding crisis to end the mandate of the special rapporteur charged with scrutinising its dismal rights record. While the attempt failed, others are sure to follow as rights-abusing governments seek to capitalise on institutional weaknesses.

While civil society is mobilising globally to secure human rights protections from the UN, the institutions set up to provide protections are being defunded. As civil society groups noted in a joint statement, UN member states were sending a clear message that human rights and their implementation are optional at best.

The path ahead: sustaining victories amid crises

As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary, the latest Council session offered hope but also frustrations. Civil society demonstrated its ability to secure human rights protections in turbulent times, working in coordination across regions and movements and in collaboration with supportive states.

But the session also highlighted how persistent double standards undermine the Council’s credibility. While finding consensus over Myanmar’s treatment of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities, the Council maintained conspicuous silence on other grave violations. China’s systematic oppression of human rights continued unchallenged despite the High Commissioner’s concerns. Similarly, Egypt’s dire human rights situation received insufficient attention despite the fact that it rejected 134 recommendations made by other states during the Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record.

It remains the case that powerful states can act with impunity while smaller nations face deeper scrutiny, threatening the legitimacy of processes to advance and scrutinise rights. The controversy over Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory, whose recent report called for states to end relationships with Israel’s ‘economy of occupation’ but led to US sanctions, illustrates the perverse dynamics at play.

Institutional crisis makes civil society’s gains fragile. The UN80 Initiative – a drive to focus on efficiency and impact, pegged to the 80^th anniversary – could create fresh opportunities for change, but also risks further limiting civil society access and influence in the name of efficiency. With a revised UN budget for 2026 expected to include significant cuts in human rights funding, civil society is calling for the initiative to take a human rights-centred approach and enhance participation.

Rather than working to advance progressive interpretations of rights, civil society increasingly finds itself striving to maintain existing protections. The fact that resolutions emphasising fundamental principles such as freedom from violence and discrimination weren’t adopted by consensus but through split votes showed the extent to which human rights are being contested on the global stage.

The session however proved that despite mounting pressures, civil society’s greatest strength – its ability to mobilise people from the grassroots to global levels, across borders and movements – remains intact. Now the future of international human rights protection depends on whether the organised advocacy that achieved these victories can evolve to address further imminent challenges.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org