All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.
On 30 October 2025, Latvia’s parliament voted to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention – the Council of Europe’s treaty on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence – only a year after ratifying it. The decision, pending the President’s signature, marks a serious setback for women’s rights. It also exposes a deeper problem: when international instruments adopt vague or activist-driven terminology, the protection of women and girls becomes hostage to ideological disputes.
When the Istanbul Convention was drafted, feminist experts and women’s organisations worked to build a robust legal framework to prevent and prosecute violence against women. Yet during the negotiations, ILGA-Europe entered the process as an observer and successfully lobbied for the inclusion of “gender identity” in the Convention’s non-discrimination clause – a term without clear definition or agreed legal status. Silvan Agius, then ILGA-Europe’s Policy Director, and Nigel Warner, ILGA-Europe Council of Europe Adviser, represented the organisation in the official CAHVIO meetings that drafted the text.
This addition – seemingly technical at the time – has had lasting consequences. The concept of gender identity entered international law without definition or consensus. Fifteen years later, opponents of the Convention exploit this ambiguity to claim that it promotes “gender ideology”, obscuring its intended purpose: obliging states to prevent, protect and prosecute male violence against women. Latvia’s withdrawal is a direct consequence of that confusion, turning a life-saving convention into a political battleground.
Source: The price of neglect: Latvia’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention – Athena Forum