A Brave New World is Rising

The global institutional architecture is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Following unprecedented electoral shifts in recent years, multilateral bodies face political capture, resource collapse, and systematic challenges to their legitimacy.

A Brave New World, the second working paper of the Global LGBTI+ Rights Commission, examines how the institutions that enabled decades of progress are being reshaped by rising authoritarianism, coordinated anti-rights movements, and the withdrawal of traditional government champions.

This landmark consultation paper traces the evolution from bilateral to multilateral human rights frameworks, documents how far-right movements weaponise LGBTI+ issues within electoral cycles, and explores how civil society organisations are adapting their strategies in an increasingly hostile environment.

This report is underpinned by a global consultation inviting activists, civil society organisations, academics, international institutions, and those with lived experience of LGBTI+ rights rollbacks to contribute evidence and insights. Your input will inform the refinement of this analysis and contribute to future advocacy strategies developed by the Commission’s Advisory Council.

Read the report and respond to the consultation questions throughout each section
Learn more about the Global LGBTI+ Rights Commission

 Read the report and respond to the consultation questions below
 Learn more about the Global LGBTI+ Rights Commission

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

– Step 1 of 9

Respondent Information

Please note that all questions in this section are optional.

Name

First

Last

Job Title

Organisation

Country

Email

Consent

You have the right to decide how your identity is handled in this research.

Please indicate how you would like your information and responses to be used. If you choose public attribution, we will always double-check with you prior to final publication.

Anonymity preferences: *

• Attribution Requested | Please attribute my responses to me wherever possible.
• Attribution Permitted | My responses may be attributed to me in publications or other materials related to this research.
• Partial Anonymity | Details about me (e.g., age range, profession, nationality) may be included, but nothing that can directly identify me.
• Full Anonymity | Quotes or data from my responses may be used without any identifying information.

Can we keep in touch? *

• I would like to sign up to the Kaleidoscope Trust newsletter for organisational and commission updates
• I would like to hear about open programmatic opportunities
• I am happy to receive follow-up communications about this consultation response
• I prefer to not be contacted at all

I confirm that I am legally able to provide consent. *

• Yes

This consultation is only open to participants aged 18 or above. Please confirm your eligibility.

Signature *

Clear Signature

I have read and understood the consultation information and agree to participate.

NextSave and Resume Later

Demographic Questions

We want to understand who is participating in this consultation to help ensure diverse representation and inform future outreach. Please note that all questions in this section are completely optional.

Age18-2526-3536-5051-6565+Would rather not say

Gender

• Female
• Male
• Non-Binary
• Agender
• Other
• Prefer not to say

Sexual Orientation

• Lesbian
• Gay
• Bisexual / bi
• Pansexual / pan
• Asexual
• Heterosexual/straight
• Prefer not to say

If you prefer to use another term you can provide it here:

If you prefer to use another term you can provide it here):

Gender Identity: Do you identity as trans?

• Yes
• No
• Prefer not to say

Disability: Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

• Yes
• No
• Prefer not to say

Ethnicity:

• African / of African descent
• Arab / Middle Eastern / North African
• Asian (South Asian) – e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan
• Asian (East Asian) – e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean
• Asian (Southeast Asian) – e.g., Filipino, Thai, Vietnamese, Indonesian, Malaysian
• Pacific Islander / Native Hawaiian / Polynesian / Micronesian / Melanesian
• White / European / Caucasian
• Latino / Latin American / Hispanic
• Indigenous / First Nations / Aboriginal – e.g., Native American, Adivasi, Māori, Sami, etc.
• Mixed or Multiple ethnic backgrounds
• Prefer not to say

Religion or belief:

• Buddhism
• Christianity
• Hinduism
• Islam
• Judaism
• Sikhism
• Baháʼí Faith
• Jainism
• Shinto
• Taoism
• Traditional / Indigenous spiritual belief system
• Atheist
• Agnostic
• Humanist / Secular / No religion
• Other religion or belief system
• Prefer not to say

Prefer to self-describe:

If you prefer to use another term you can provide it here):

NextSave and Resume Later

Section 1: Executive Summary & Introduction

This section invites your perspectives on the role of global institutions in addressing state-level challenges and their relevance to LGBTI+ rights advocacy. We welcome feedback on how the report frames states’ motivations for engaging with international organisations, donor agencies, and multilateral mechanisms, and whether this framing aligns with your experience of their practical function.

Do these theoretical framings align with your experience of how global institutions function in practice? Are they useful for analysing challenges to LGBTI+ rights advocacy?

Are there specific institutional innovations, theoretical approaches or histor- ical examples that have shaped your understanding of global governance that are missing here?

Which multilateral mechanisms (UN treaty bodies, regional human rights courts, independent experts) have proven most effective in your advocacy, and why?

What are the key risks and opportunities for LGBTI+ advocacy in the next five years, given current institutional and geopolitical trends?

Useful Links

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Add


Remove

Additional supporting evidence

Click or drag files to this area to upload.

You can upload up to 15 files.

NextSave and Resume Later

Section 2: Legislative Approaches and Phases of Rollbacks

This section invites your perspectives on the evolution of human rights approaches from bilateral to multilateral frameworks and their relevance to LGBTI+ advocacy. We welcome feedback on how the report frames this shift and whether it reflects your experience of multilateral mechanisms in practice.

Which aspects of the shift from bilateral to multilateral human rights frame- works have been most significant for LGBTI+ advocacy in your context?ntext.

Which multilateral mechanisms (UN treaty bodies, regional human rights courts, independent experts) have proven most effective in your advocacy work, and why?

How has the erosion of technocratic consensus and declining trust in ex- pert-driven institutions affected your advocacy strategies?

How has your organisation adapted to the weaponisation of cultural and religious arguments against LGBTI+ rights?

What strategies have been effective in countering narratives that frame LGB- TI+ rights as "Western imperialism" or elite impositions?

How have power imbalances between Global North and South affected your engagement with multilateral institutions?

What changes to multilateral governance structures would make them more responsive to communities most affected by rights violations?

Useful Links

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Add


Remove

Additional supporting evidence:

Click or drag files to this area to upload.

You can upload up to 15 files.

Please feel free to submit additional documents to support your response.

NextSave and Resume Later

of have Useful

Section 3: Legal Rollbacks Over Time and Regions

This section invites your perspectives on the recent retreat of multilateral support and shifts in policy affecting LGBTI+ advocacy. We welcome feedback on how the report frames these changes and whether it reflects your experience of evolving institutional dynamics since 2024.

In your experience, how have election cycles impacted institutional support for LGBTI+ rights, and what early warning indicators helped you anticipate shifts?

Which international or regional institutions have become more hostile or inaccessible to LGBTI+ advocacy since 2024, and how has this affected your work?

Have you observed coordination between domestic anti-rights actors and their counterparts in international forums? If so, what patterns emerged?

Has the absence of Western diplomatic support emboldened anti-rights governments in your region? If so, how?

Which countries or actors have stepped into leadership vacuums, and what implications does this have for LGBTI+ advocacy?

This section invites your perspectives on evolving engagement with UN mechanisms and alternative multilateral frameworks in the context of increasing hostility toward LGBTI+ rights. We welcome feedback on whether the report’s framing reflects your experience and practical advocacy strategies since 2024. *

This section invites your perspectives on evolving engagement with UN mechanisms and alternative multilateral frameworks in the context of increasing hostility toward LGBTI+ rights. We welcome feedback on whether the report’s framing reflects your experience and practical advocacy strategies since 2024.

Useful Links

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Add


Remove

Additional supporting evidence:

Click or drag files to this area to upload.

You can upload up to 15 files.

Please feel free to submit additional documents to support your response.

NextSave and Resume Later

Section 4: Trends in Legal & Political Justifications

This section invites your perspectives on evolving engagement with UN mechanisms and alternative multilateral frameworks in the context of increasing hostility toward LGBTI+ rights. We welcome feedback on whether the report’s framing reflects your experience and practical advocacy strategies since 2024.

Have you observed changes in how UN mechanisms (UNHRC, UPR, treaty bodies) engage with LGBTI+ issues since 2024?

Which UN mechanisms remain most accessible and effective for advocacy despite the hostile environment?

How have states in your region responded to treaty body recommendations on LGBTI+ rights?

How are anti-rights actors in your context framing attacks on multilateral institutions and international human rights frameworks?

How have attacks on "gender ideology" affected your ability to build coali- tions with feminist, women's rights, or reproductive justice movements?

Given the hostility in traditional multilateral spaces, which alternative institutions or frameworks show promise for advocacy?

Useful Links

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Add


Remove

Additional supporting evidence:

Click or drag files to this area to upload.

You can upload up to 15 files.

Please feel free to submit additional documents to support your response.

NextSave and Resume Later

Section 5: The Playbook (Advocacy Strategies of Opponents)

This section invites your perspectives on sector-specific impacts and how anti-rights movements target global institutions. We welcome feedback on whether the report’s framing reflects your experience and advocacy priorities.

Which institutions present the greatest opportunities for the LGBTI+ movement in today's context?

Are there any case studies missing from the report you would like to draw attention to?

Is framing LGBTI+ issues through sector-specific rationales (health, economic development, security) more effective than human rights arguments in your context?

What are the risks of relying on technocratic framings (economic growth, public health) rather than rights-based approaches?

Have you observed "mission creep" accusations used to delegitimise LGBTI+ programming in institutions with non-human rights mandates?

Useful Links

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Add


Remove

Additional supporting evidence:

Click or drag files to this area to upload.

You can upload up to 15 files.

Please feel free to submit additional documents to support your response.

NextSave and Resume Later

Section 6: Conclusion

This section invites your perspectives on civil society engagement with global institutions and strategies for adapting to increasingly hostile and complex multilateral environments. We welcome feedback on whether the report’s framing reflects your experience and practical approaches to advocacy.

How can movements most effectively balance local, community-led advocacy with engagement in regional and global institutional spaces? When does association with international frameworks become a liability rather than an asset?

What concrete strategies can effectively expose and counter the professionalisation and institutional credibility-building of anti-rights movements without inadvertently amplifying their platforms?

How can LGBTI+ civil society overcome systematic barriers to ECOSOC and other institutional access when anti-rights organizations maintain their status? What alternative mechanisms exist when formal access is blocked?

In an era of institutional retreat and coordinated opposition, how should the movement redefine "success" and "progress"? What does sustainable advocacy look like under these conditions?

Useful Links

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Single Line Text

Add


Remove

Additional supporting evidence:

Click or drag files to this area to upload.

You can upload up to 15 files.

Please feel free to submit additional documents to support your response.

NextSave and Resume Later

Thank You for Your Contribution

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and experiences. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us understand and respond to global rollbacks of LGBTI+ rights.

Please note:

Individual contributions will not be identified without your consent.

Partial responses are welcome, and all input will help inform future updates and reports of the Global LGBTI+ Rights Commission.

If you have provided contact details, we may follow up for clarification or to share the outcomes of this consultation.

When you are ready, click Submit to send your responses.

Updating preview…

This is a preview of your submission. It has not been submitted yet!
Please take a moment to verify your information. You can also go back to make changes.

Paragraph Text

Previous

SubmitSave and Resume Later