Appeal to Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Respectful Submission on the Legal Status of SOGI-Related International Guidelines and Ratified Treaties in Gender-Based violence Law
Appeal to Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Respectful Submission on the Legal Status of SOGI-Related International Guidelines and Ratified Treaties in Gender-Based violence Law
Your Ladyships / Lordships,
This submission seeks judicial guidance on distinguishing between legally binding treaty obligations and non-binding international policy frameworks operationalized in Sri Lanka’s gender-based violence programmes.
The purpose of this submission is not to oppose international engagement, but to seek constitutional and legal clarity on the limits of non-binding international instruments within Sri Lanka’s domestic legal framework.
This appeal is made in public interest, and with full deference to judicial independence, to respectfully request careful judicial distinction between binding legal obligations arising from Sri Lanka’s Constitution and ratified international treaties, and non-binding international policy frameworks, donor-driven guidelines, and UN agency interpretations, workshops and programs that are increasingly invoked in legal and administrative discourse.
Concepts relating to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender-diverse classifications are being introduced through development assistance frameworks, international programme documents, and soft-law instruments, often under the broader headings of gender equality or gender-based violence. While such frameworks may reflect evolving policy positions of certain international actors, they do not arise from any treaty ratified by Sri Lanka, nor have they been enacted by Sri Lanka’s Parliament.
Sri Lanka is party to several core international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CRC and CAT. None of these treaties contain provisions recognising sexual orientation or gender identity as protected legal categories, nor do they redefine the term “woman” from its sex-based meaning as understood at the time of ratification.
Under principles of international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, obligations cannot be expanded beyond the text and intent consented to by the State.
In short, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Sri Lanka cannot be legally bound by provisions or concepts that it has not expressly consented to through treaty ratification or parliamentary enactment.
As per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, treaties are binding only to the extent of State consent, as reflected in the treaty text and the original intent of the parties (Articles 26 and 31).
Soft law instruments—such as UN resolutions, UN committee guidelines, and recommendations—do not meet these criteria and therefore are not legally binding obligations.
The incorporation of non-binding interpretative materials — such as UN Human Rights Council resolutions, Special Rapporteur reports, or donor policy documents — into constitutional or statutory interpretation risks bypassing democratic consent and parliamentary authority. Such materials, while informative, do not carry the force of law and cannot impose obligations that are without domestic legislative adoption.
I respectfully submit that the judiciary’s role as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution requires particular caution where external policy frameworks seek to influence the interpretation of fundamental rights, sex-based protections, or statutory schemes such as quotas, safeguards, or affirmative measures enacted specifically under sex-based classification enshrined in Sri Lanka’s constitution & recognized in domestic law.
Policies, guidelines and recommendations issued by international agencies or donors are not laws. They do not have the force of law unless they are adopted into domestic legislation by Parliament. Thus, Sexual Orientation Gender Identity (SOGI) concepts through non-legislative entities cannot legally alter or expand the rights protected under Sri Lankan law to satisfy international concepts.
The distinction between law and policy, treaty obligation and advocacy, and binding norms and soft law is essential to maintaining constitutional coherence and public confidence in the legal system.
International frameworks and policies cannot override constitutional provisions, statutory protections, or the socio-legal context embedded within Sri Lanka’s constitutional order, including sex-based protections enacted by Parliament. Fundamental rights cannot be re-interpreted through non-binding international policy frameworks.
Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court has affirmed that non-binding international instruments do not possess the force of law unless explicitly passed as domestic legislation.
The judiciary must exercise particular caution in interpreting fundamental rights or statutory schemes when non-binding frameworks—such as UN recommendations or donor guidelines—seek to introduce concepts not adopted into law.
S. Cooray v. The Attorney General (1987), the Court emphasized that international treaties or resolutions that have not been domesticated through legislation do not alter the constitutional rights of citizens.
Accordingly, I humbly appeal to the Honourable Courts to clearly distinguish, in relevant proceedings, between:
- Ratified treaty obligations and domestic law which Sri Lanka is bound by on the one hand; and
- Non-binding international guidelines, UN Committee Level recommendations, donor conditionalities, and evolving policy interpretations on the other.
This appeal is made in good faith, in support of judicial clarity, constitutional supremacy, and the principle that legal obligations arise only through consent, law, and due process.
I respectfully, urge the Judicial pillar to re-affirm that only international treaties ratified and incorporated into domestic law can create binding obligations & that soft-law instruments remain non-binding of States.
I thank Your Ladyships and Lordships for your time and for your continued service in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
I am also attaching evidence of the manner non-binding recommendations are being presented as binding law via internationally funded programs and promoted via internationally funded programs in partnership with State & Private Sector across Sri Lanka, undermining Sri Lanka’s constitution, ratified treaty law and People’s consent given to its Government.
With highest respect,
Shenali Waduge
Documentary Evidence of Non-Binding SOGI / LGBTQIA Programmes
The programmes and policy instruments listed below are presented solely as evidence of operational practice. Their inclusion does not imply legal validity or binding force. None of the instruments listed have been ratified by Sri Lanka, enacted by Parliament, or judicially recognised as sources of enforceable law.
This annex provides documentary evidence showing that UN agencies, donor governments, and INGOs have operational programmes embedding sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender-diverse classifications (SOGI/LGBTQI+) into gender equality and gender-based violence. These programmes are non-binding, exceed Sri Lanka’s ratified treaty obligations, and operate independently of domestic law, statutory enactment, or cultural and religious frameworks.
UN & International Agencies
- UNDP “WeBelongAfrica” Programme
UNDP Africa
Description / Evidence:
Programme objectives explicitly support inclusion of LGBTI+ persons in governance and decision-making, addressing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Excerpts:
“The project supports inclusive governance by ensuring participation of LGBTI+ persons in decision-making spaces and reducing exclusion based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
https://www.undp.org/africa/projects/webelongafrica
- UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2023 Report
UNDP Global
Description / Evidence:
The report references intersectional discrimination and explicitly mentions LGBTIQ+ inclusion as part of gender equality initiatives.
Excerpts:
“Addressing inequality requires inclusion of LGBTIQ+ communities alongside women and girls in programme planning and delivery.”
UNDP operationally includes SOGI minorities in policy programmes, not mandated by treaty law.
- UN System “Pride in Action” Campaigns
UN System Development Group
Description / Evidence:
Public campaigns, advocacy, and empowerment initiatives supporting LGBTQI+ rights and participation, e.g., in Brazil.
Excerpts:
“UN teams champion LGBTQI+ rights and inclusion through empowerment and public advocacy campaigns.”
https://unsdg.un.org/latest/stories/pride-action-un-teams-champion-lgbtqi-rights
Demonstrates practical operationalisation of SOGI inclusion by UN teams globally.
- UNDP & Canadian Embassy “Inclusion Toolkit”
UNDP Thailand & Embassy of Canada
Description / Evidence:
Toolkit for promoting LGBTQI+ inclusive workplaces and practices; explicitly addresses sexual orientation and gender identity inclusion.
Excerpts:
“Organizations should adopt policies that foster inclusion of LGBTQI+ employees, ensuring equal opportunity and protection against discrimination.”
https://www.undp.org/DEI-inclusion-toolkit
Shows donor-driven policy intervention embedding SOGI inclusion, beyond treaty obligations.
- Sri Lanka Multi-Sectoral National Action Plan on SGBV 2024–2028
Issuer: Government of Sri Lanka, UNDP & UNFPA
Description / Evidence:
Plan mentions gender minorities alongside women and girls in strategies addressing sexual and gender-based violence.
Excerpts:
“Programs should ensure access to services for women, children, and gender minorities affected by SGBV.”
- https://www.undp.org/srilanka/publications/multi-sectoral-national-action-plan-address-sexual-and-gender-based-violence-sgbv-sri-lanka-ii
- https://www.undp.org/gender/gender-mainstreaming
- https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/gender-mainstreaming
UN-supported SGBV and gender frameworks in Sri Lanka operate through inter-ministerial coordination, gender focal points, and cabinet-approved action plans, extending policy language on “gender minorities” across multiple ministries without legislative enactment.
Evidence of UN participation in domestic policy planning, introducing non-binding gender identity categories.
Education / CSE & SOGIESC Programmes
- UNFPA Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) Policy
UNFPA Global
Description / Evidence:
Official DEI statement explicitly welcomes sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression inclusion.
Excerpts:
“UNFPA promotes an inclusive work environment regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.”
Internal UNFPA policies embed SOGI inclusion operationally.
Corporate DEI policies promoted through UN and donor frameworks frequently embed sexual orientation and gender identity within workplace harassment, violence prevention, and “safe workplace” obligations, despite the absence of such legal categories in Sri Lankan labour law.
References:
- ILO – Violence & Harassment Convention (policy guidance context):
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/violence-harassment
- UN Global Compact – DEI guidance:
https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/our-work/social/diversity-inclusion
- Plan International SOGIESC Inclusion Programmes
Plan International
Description / Evidence:
Programmes addressing school bullying and community education explicitly include SOGIESC (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, Sex Characteristics) language.
Excerpts:
“Activities include training and educational programmes promoting inclusion of SOGIESC individuals in schools and communities.”
https://plan-international.org/srhr/lgbtiq-inclusion/
Example of INGO implementation of SOGIESC frameworks in practice.
- UN-Promoted Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) Frameworks Integrating SOGIESC with Gender-Based Violence Prevention
UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO (UN Inter-Agency)
Internationally promoted Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) frameworks explicitly integrate gender-based violence (GBV) prevention with instruction on gender norms, sexual diversity, non-discrimination, and concepts relating to sexual orientation, gender identity and expression (SOGIESC).
These frameworks are promoted as technical guidance and best practice, not as treaty obligations, and have not been enacted into Sri Lankan law or curriculum through Parliament.
The International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education (ITGSE) positions GBV prevention, gender equality, and respect for sexual diversity as interconnected learning objectives within a single comprehensive framework.
Key Elements Relevant to SOGIESC and GBV:
- Prevention of gender-based violence and harmful practices
- Inclusion of sexual orientation and gender diversity under “gender” and “human rights” education
- In six districts, 554 teachers were trained on comprehensive sexuality education and life skills under UNFPA programmes, as documented in the UNFPA Sri Lanka Annual Report 2022, demonstrating operational implementation of internationally guided CSE content prior to any parliamentary enactment of a local curriculum
- https://srilanka.unfpa.org/en/unfpa-sri-lanka-annual-report-2022
Excerpts:
- “CSE addresses gender equality, gender-based violence, and discrimination, including based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
- “Learners should understand diversity in sexuality and gender, and how stigma and discrimination contribute to violence.”
Documentary Sources:
- UNESCO,International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education
https://www.unesco.org/en/education/sexuality-education - UNFPA,Comprehensive Sexuality Education
https://www.unfpa.org/comprehensive-sexuality-education
Relevance to Sri Lanka:
Sri Lanka’s current national curriculum does not implement the UN-defined CSE framework in full, nor does any ratified international treaty obligate the State to introduce instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The promotion of CSE incorporating SOGIESC concepts therefore represents policy advocacy and programme guidance, not binding international law.
This demonstrates how non-binding UN guidance frameworks operate as de facto normative instruments, embedding SOGIESC concepts—particularly under gender-based violence—without parliamentary enactment or constitutional mandate.
- Operationalisation of SOGIESC through Multi-Ministry Gender and SGBV Frameworks
UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, ILO
Implementing Structure:
Whole-of-Government / Inter-Ministerial Gender Mainstreaming
UN-supported gender equality and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) frameworks in Sri Lanka operate on a multi-sectoral and inter-ministerial basis, involving more than a dozen line ministries.
These frameworks frequently incorporate references to “gender minorities,” “gender-diverse persons,” or “inclusive gender identities” within policy planning, service delivery, and capacity-building initiatives.
Inclusion occurs through:
- National action plans
- Inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms
- Ministry-level gender focal points
- Technical assistance and donor-funded programming
While framed as policy coordination and development assistance, these mechanisms introduce non-legislated gender identity categories across multiple State institutions, without parliamentary enactment or judicial determination.
This demonstrates how non-binding international guidance becomes operationally embedded across the State apparatus, extending beyond ratified treaty obligations and domestic statutory law.
Non-binding soft law cannot be misinterpreted as legally binding as it would undermine the rule of law & lead to confusion & arbitrary administrative actions sans constitutional basis.
The legal protections given to women & other vulnerable groups becomes at risk.
Legal scholars like Professor James Crawford have emphasized that international soft law cannot modify domestic legal rights unless explicitly incorporated into national law, thereby reaffirming the importance of legislative sovereignty.
Corporate / Private Sector DEI Implementation
- Corporate DEI Frameworks Linking SOGIESC to Gender-Based Violence and Harassment Prevention
Issuers: UNDP, ILO, UN Global Compact, donor governments
Implementers: Private sector entities and multinational corporations
Description / Evidence:
Corporate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks promoted by UN agencies and donor partners commonly insert sexual orientation and gender identity within policies addressing workplace harassment, gender-based violence, and safe working environments.
Under these frameworks:
- “Gender” is expanded beyond sex-based categories to include “identity”
- Harassment or exclusion related to gender identity is treated as a form of gender-based violence that had been explicitly for biological females/males.
- Corporate compliance is linked to ESG standards, SDG alignment, and donor expectations
- These policies operateoutside Sri Lanka’s labour law framework, which does not recognise sexual orientation or gender identity as protected legal categories, nor redefine sex-based protections enacted for biological women.
- This illustrates the indirect influence of non-binding international policy frameworks on domestic workplaces.
Your Lordships and Ladyships are respectfully requested to consider the following:
- Courts to reaffirm thatonly ratified treaties domesticated by Parliament are legally binding.
- Non-binding guidelines, donor policies, UN recommendations, resolutionscannot alter constitutional rights or statutory protections, including sex-based protections for women.
- Courts to issueclarity on interpreting SOGI-related policies in light of domestic law under ‘gender-based violence”.
All UN/diplomatic programmes and frameworks listed above are non-binding, operate beyond ratified treaty obligations, and have not been incorporated into domestic law.
In the absence of clear judicial guidance, non-binding international programmes are being operationalised within State institutions in a manner that risks inconsistency with existing constitutional and statutory frameworks.
Their operationalisation in Sri Lanka under gender-based violence (GBV) and gender frameworks cannot create new legal obligations, and any interpretation to the contrary risks undermining the Constitution, parliamentary authority and the will of the People.
