A new call for input has been advertised on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Issued by Reem Alsalem, the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, the call invites input to her report to the 62nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council due in June 2026 on the theme of violence against mothers. This first sentence says: ‘In international human rights law, a mother is defined as a woman, understood in its ordinary meaning to be a female of childbearing ability, who gives birth to a child’. The problem is, there is no definition of a mother in international human rights law. Let alone one that excludes mothers who have not given birth to their children.

Definitions in international human rights law

To establish any definition in international human rights law, we would first go to treaty texts. And, indeed, some important human rights concepts are defined in these. For example, Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines a child. Any reference to this definition would say, ‘Under the CRC, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 18’.

UN human rights treaty bodies in their general comments or case law can also provide definitions, so can UN General Assembly declarations. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women defined ‘violence against women’ in its General Recommendation 19 and ‘gender-based violence against women’ in its General Recommendation 35. The definitions provided by the UN human rights treaty bodies are not expressly binding, but they are generally treated as authoritative interpretations of terms found in the treaties because they are provided by organs that have the mandate to interpret and apply these treaties. Even then, international human rights lawyers would say, ‘The CEDAW Committee in its General Comment 35 defines gender-based violence against women as…’.

Others can, of course, also come up with definitions. These definitions, however, can only be attributed to the authors.  For example, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants provided a helpful definition of ‘pushbacks‘. This has been subsequently cited and used by many others, see here, here and here – but as his definition.

There is no definition of a ‘mother’ in international human rights law

Not one international human rights treaty defines a mother.

The “Women’s Constitution”, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), does not even mention the word ‘mother’. Neither does the latest thematic treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Article 16 of the CEDAW explicitly protects women’s equal right to the guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, clearly showing that it does not tie motherhood to giving birth to a child.

The only UN human rights treaty that mentions mothers is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) under Article 10(2). This provision states that ‘special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits.’

The provision obviously does not define a mother. Nor does it exclude mothers who have not given birth to their children.

So, where, in international human rights law, does this definition on the UN website come from?

One document offers the identical definition. This was provided by the same UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women herself in her own report to the UN Human Rights Council from July 2025.  This report then makes a reference to another report issued by the same rapporteur, already the subject of criticism on this Blog, as well as to Article 10(2) of the ICESCR.

Gender-based violence against women has been a burning issue across time and space. Its recognition has been a generational fight under international human rights law. Violence against mothers, and how harmful gender stereotypes about ‘real’ ‘or ‘good mothers’, exacerbate such violence and is fully worthy of a UN study.

None of this work, however, can take place by allowing a glaringly legally incorrect definition of a mother on the UN human rights website. This definition from nowhere serves only to exclude some mothers from its scope.