• 関連エントリ



Adopts 10 Resolutions, including on the Role of the Family, Youth and Human Rights, Discrimination against Women and Girls, Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, and Human Rights and Climate Change, among others

22 June 2017

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted 10 resolutions in which it extended the mandates on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and on extreme poverty and human rights. Other texts concerned the role of the family; youth and human rights; child, early and forced marriage; human rights and migrants; the elimination of discrimination against women and girls; human rights and climate change; the contribution of development to the enjoyment of human rights; and the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl.


Action on Resolutions under the Agenda Item on the Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Action on Resolution on the Protection of the Family: Role of the Family in Supporting the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights of Older Persons

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.21) on the protection of the family: role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of human rights of older persons, adopted by a recorded vote of 30 in favour to 12 against with 5 abstentions, the Council urges States, in accordance with their respective obligations under international human rights law, to provide the family, as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, with effective protection, support and assistance; decides to convene, with the support of the High Commissioner, before the thirty-eighth session of the Human Rights Council, a one-day intersessional seminar on the impact of the implementation by States of their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights law with regard to the protection of the family on the role of the family in supporting the protection and promotion of the human rights of older persons, and to discuss challenges and best practices in this regard; and requests the High Commissioner to present a report on the seminar, in the form of a summary, to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-ninth session.
賛成30、反対12、棄権5の記録された投票により採択された、家族の保護に関する決議:高齢者の人権の保護と促進を支援する家族の役割(A/HRC/35/L.21)において、理事会は、締約国に対し、国際人権法に基づくそれぞれの義務に従い、効果的な保護、支援、援助を、家族の自然かつ基本的な単位として提供するよう強く促す。人権理事会の第三十八回セッションの前に、高等弁務官の支援を得て、 高齢者の人権の保護と促進を支援する上での、家族の役割に関する家族の保護に関して、締約国の国際人権法の関連条項に基づく義務により、実施の影響に関する1日の会期間セミナーを開催し、この点に関する課題とベストプラクティスについて議論するすることを決定する。そして、高等弁務官に対し、第三十九回セッションにおいて人権理事会に要約形式でセミナーに関する報告を提出するよう要請する。

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30): Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Against (12): Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (5): Brazil, Georgia, Hungary, Panama, and Republic of Korea.

Egypt, introducing draft resolution L.21, said that the family was an undisputed cultural, moral and religious value that should be celebrated and nurtured. The family was a natural and fundamental unit of the society. States were required to protect that social institution. The draft resolution focused on the rights of older persons, advancement of family members’ rights, and protection of older persons from all abuses in the family setting. It kept the same provisions as the previous year: the status of the family under international law, and the role of the family in the protection of family members, especially older persons. The current draft underscored that measures of protection were directly correlated and went hand in hand. Protection of the family in no way undermined the protection of all other human rights. The main sponsors could not accept the proposed amendments that would completely change the whole scope of the resolution. The family was a unit composed of men, women and children. The resolution represented an opportunity not to let down family members all over the world.


Introduction of Amendments L.45, L.47, L.48 and L.49

Malta, introducing amendment L.45 on behalf of the European Union, said that in different cultural settings various forms of families existed. The amendment did not deny the family and used language from UN-agreed documents. Unfortunately, States were trying to withdraw from previously agreed terminology.

Switzerland, introducing amendment L.47, L.48 and L.49, explained that it would like to replace “the role of the family” with “the role of families” in the text of the draft resolution. Each family was different and there were no identical families. It expressed hope that the proposed amendments would be adopted by the Council as their acceptance would not affect the meaning of the resolution. As for the amendment L.49, it stressed the fact that older women were more exposed to physical and psychological violence.

General Comments on L.21

El Salvador, in a general comment on behalf of the main sponsors of L.21, stated that the core sponsors fully supported the international commitments made with respect to ageing. Amendment L.49 focused on the risk factors faced by older women, and sponsors endorsed it.


China, in a general comment, stated that the draft resolution L.21 highlighted the importance of the family for the protection of the human rights of older persons. It was extremely important to accord the family its full role in development planning. China voiced support for the draft resolution.


Action on Amendments L.45, L.47, L.48
修正案L.45, L.47, L.48についての審議

Action on Amendment L.45

Saudi Arabia, in an explanation of the vote before vote, said that the amendment defeated the purpose and balance of the resolution and added no value to it. The focus of the resolution was on the role of the family in promoting and protecting the human rights of older persons and the challenges faced by them and by the family while supporting and caring for older persons. Getting into a discussion regarding the definition of a family was irrelevant to the subject. In addition, though the amendment looked innocent, its divisive significance justified its gradual disappearance from United Nations documents in the last decade.


The Council then rejected amendment L.45, by a vote of 19 in favour, 22 against and five abstentions.

Action on Amendments L.47 and L.48

Belgium, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, voiced its support for the submitted amendments. It was important to recognize in line with international standards that in different cultural, political and social contexts, different forms of families existed. That diversity would be better reflected if those amendments were accepted.

Bangladesh, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the Core Group, reminded that the group took a lot of time to grasp the meaning of the proposed amendments, which had no added value and were only meant to distort the draft resolution. The reference to the family was the language used in major United Nations documents. More than 100 national constitutions in the world used the term “family” as a legal term. The usage of that term did not prevent countries from using their own interpretations of the “family.” The main sponsors thus rejected the two amendments.


The Council then rejected the amendments L.47 and L.48 by a vote of 17 in favour, 23 against and six abstentions.

Action on L.21

United Kingdom, in an explanation of the vote before vote, stressed that the family and family lives were important to all. The United Kingdom regretted that amendments were rejected by many countries and was concerned that certain elements of the text suggested that the reference to the protection of the family could be used as a justification for human rights violations such as female genital mutilation. It was not clear from what or whom families should be protected. The United Kingdom urged the Council members to vote against the resolution.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before vote, said it was disappointed to vote against the resolution. Although the emphasis put by the resolution on the protection of older persons was appreciated, it was also important to recognize that the role of the family had adapted over time. All types of loving families should be taken into account, be it a family composed of a single mother or a same sex couple. The resolution failed to provide sufficient protection to all types of families.

Germany, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, shared the view that States should provide strong support for families. Sadly, the importance of recognizing the existence of various forms of families was not recognized. The European Union was concerned about the lack of attention in the resolution to address violence that could occur inside the family context, particularly against women and girls.

The Council then adopted resolution L.21 by a vote of 30 in favour, 12 against and five abstentions.

Action on Resolution L.22 on Youth and Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.22) on youth and human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

El Salvador, introducing draft resolution L.22, stated that young people possessed important experiences and opinions that were often not taken into account. The draft resolution reiterated the need to implement strategies to fully integrate young people’s participation in society, namely the exercise of their citizen-hood. It requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out a detailed study, including on cases of discrimination against young people. The study should be submitted before the thirty-ninth session of the Human Rights Council.


Action on Resolution L.25 on the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.25) on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted without a vote, the Council strongly condemns once again all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

Sweden, introducing draft resolution L.25, explained that the main purpose of the resolution was to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further period of three years. The mandate had been renewed several times and the resolution was always adopted by consensus in the Council. The resolution highlighted the important role that the Special Rapporteur played towards eliminating extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. It also made specific requests to the Special Rapporteur in carrying out the mandate such as to apply a gender perspective in his or her work.

Egypt, in a general comment, reiterated the importance of the role of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. However, it was unnecessary to include issues related to sexual and gender orientation in his reports, which might result in controversy. His most recent report included such issues, which had been rejected by Egypt. Egypt had already shared its concerns with the Swedish delegations but those had not been accepted. 

Action on Resolution L.26 on Child, Early and Forced Marriage in Humanitarian Settings

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.26) on child, early and forced marriage in humanitarian settings, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

Netherlands, introducing draft resolution L.26, noted that the issue of child, early and forced marriage remained one of major concern, and it continued to affect many countries all over the world. Its impact was wide ranging and often had long-lasting repercussions on the human rights of girls and women, including their right to education and to the highest attainable standard of health. There were clear indicators that the practice of child, early and forced marriage increased in humanitarian contexts, and more could be done to address the linkages and to develop a deeper understanding of the underlying drivers and exacerbating factors in order to develop targeted prevention and response interventions.

Action on Resolution L.28 on the Protection of the Human Rights of Migrants: the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.28) on the protection of the human rights of migrants: the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

Mexico, introducing draft resolution L.28, said that the resolution aimed to contribute to the process of the adoption of the Global Compact on safe, orderly and regular migration. It called on States to use the expertise of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to that end. It was absolutely vital that human beings were at the centre of that debate. The resolution aimed to highlight the tools produced by the Office and the Council in order to ensure that human rights occupied the primary place in the Global Compact. For Mexico, the increasing trend to criminalize migration was of particular concern. The text was the result of a broad consultation process.

Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, welcomed Mexico’s efforts to take into account various proposals. The 19 September 2016 summit was a landmark event as the start of the process which should lead to the Global Compact on safe, orderly and regular migration. The European Union stood firmly behind the New York Declaration. Because of the importance of the human rights of migrants, the Council should accommodate the process leading up to the adoption of the Global Compact. However, some language in the draft resolution was problematic, namely the language regarding the criminalization of regular migration. Sovereign States had the right to determine independently when such criminalization could be determined. Nevertheless, the European Union would join the consensus on the draft resolution.

United States, in an explanation of the vote before vote, joined consensus on the resolution. The United States underscored that none of the provisions contained in the resolution provided obligations for States. The United States would continue to take steps to protect its sovereignty and security, including by controlling its borders. The United States remained committed to the use of safe migratory processes and to providing decent treatment for migrant children. The United States dissociated from the language criminalizing migrants. However, each State had the right to choose who would be admitted in their territories.


Action on Resolution L.29 on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and Girls

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.29 as orally revised) on elimination of discrimination against women and girls, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

Mexico, introducing draft resolution L.29, explained that the text was the outcome of an open and transparent process of consultations. It underscored the challenges that still existed in eliminating gender discrimination, stressing the fundamental role of men and boys as agents of change. The draft resolution also referred to sexual and reproductive health rights in order to allow all persons to make autonomous decisions in all circumstances. Mexico urged Member States to adopt the draft resolution without a vote.

Russian Federation, introducing amendments L.41 and L.42, noted that ensuring the equality of men and women was a priority for the Russian Federation. Any gender discrimination was duly investigated by relevant authorities. The Russian Federation agreed with the approach of the draft resolution. Nevertheless, the amendments proposed to change the term “human rights defenders” because it was not internationally accepted. The Council did not have the authority to reinterpret the provisions of relevant international documents on that topic. The Russian Federation agreed that education was an essential tool for eliminating discrimination against women and girls. However, the term “comprehensive sexuality education” was not comprehendible and did not enjoy the support of States. Human rights education, not so-called sexuality education, should be the basic preventive mechanism to eliminate discrimination against women and girls. Thus, the Russian Federation proposed that “comprehensive sexuality education” be removed from the text of the draft resolution. It called on Member States to vote for the proposed amendments. 

Egypt, in a general comment, highlighted that international instruments prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, not gender. It was not the Council’s role to re-write international mechanisms. Egypt suggested that the word gender be replaced by the word sex.
エジプトは、一般コメントにおいて、国際文書は、ジェンダーではなく性別に基づく差別を禁じていることを強調した。国際的な仕組みを書き直すことは理事会の役割ではなかった。 エジプトは、ジェンダーという言葉を性別という言葉に置き換えることを提案した。


Netherlands, in a general comment, said that the draft resolution was the result of an open and inclusive consultation process. The proposed amendments were not acceptable to the main sponsors of the resolution. On amendment L.41 on women human rights defenders, it was important to note that they were referring to a well-established term. On the second amendment L.42, it was important to note that educators needed to be well equipped to deliver educational programmes on the importance of respectful relationships based on gender equality and human rights.

United Arab Emirates, in a general comment on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, thanked the sponsors of the draft resolution, noting that the Gulf Cooperation Council countries attached great importance to the rights of women and girls. They reiterated their commitment to fighting violence against women. Islam advocated peace, which was why the Gulf countries welcomed the draft resolution. Nevertheless, the countries could not accept paragraphs 7, 9, 16 and 17 of the preamble, and several operative paragraphs. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries did not consider themselves bound by those paragraphs.

Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union in a general comment, welcomed all efforts to eliminate violence against women. The draft document was a balanced text. The elimination of all forms of violence was essential for the achievement of gender equality. Every individual should be able to decide freely about their sexual and reproductive health issues. The European Union stressed the need for universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including to comprehensive sexuality education. It noted the role of civil society in that domain. It would vote against any amendments to the draft resolution.


Egypt, in a general comment, said that the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sex guided the implementation of public policies by the Government. Egypt regretted that the sponsors of the resolution did not solidify the consensus on the text. The insistence on using the term “human rights defenders”, while aware of the differences among members of the Council for the acceptance of this term, was rejected. Egypt also regretted the use of language that was disrespectful of cultural specificities such as the right to inheritance. Egypt was concerned about the obsession on sexual and reproductive rights in the resolution. Egypt would continue to refuse to recognize the term “comprehensive sexual education”, which was used to promote abortion and same-sex relationships.


Action on Amendment L.41


Japan, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, opposed the proposed amendment because it undermined the important role of all women human rights defenders. That term was well established and it referred to all persons working to defend women’s rights. Japan would thus vote against the amendment.

Latvia, in an explanation of the vote, opposed the proposed amendment because it sought to replace the term women human rights defenders with language that had never enjoyed the Council’s support. It encouraged Member States to vote against it.
ラトヴィアは、投票説明において、女性人権擁護者という用語を、理事会の支持を一度も受けたことのない文言に置き換えることを求めたため修正案に反対した。 メンバー国に反対を投じるよう促した。

The Council rejected amendment L.41 by a vote of 14 in favour, 26 against and six abstentions.

Action on L.42

Belgium, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it could not support amendment L.42. Belgium stressed the importance of recognizing comprehensive sexual education programmes as a way to promote a holistic comprehension of sexuality. Such programmes played a crucial role in empowering all persons, particularly women and girls, in their sexual and reproductive life.
ベルギーは、投票前の投票説明において、修正案L.42を支持できないと述べた。 ベルギーは包括的性教育プログラムを性別の包括的理解を促進する方法として認めることの重要性を強調した。そのようなプログラムは、すべての人、特に女性と女子の性と生殖生活に権限を与える際に重要な役割を果たした。


Action on Oral Amendment

Latvia, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said it did not consider last minute amendments during the day of the vote because this did not allow time for consultation with capitals. For that reason the oral amendment proposed by Egypt was not supported.

Switzerland, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the draft resolution was the result of a very open and inclusive process. The oral amendment, which wanted to replace the concept of “gender” with “sex”, could not be supported. The former described concepts described by a culture as feminine or masculine. Discrimination against women was also because of gender norms ascribed to people in society. States parties had an obligation to do away with sexist stereotypes.

The oral amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 10 in favour to 24 against with 11 abstentions.

Action on L.21

Bangladesh, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stated that the goal of the elimination of discrimination against women was not the subject of cultural and religious particularities. Bangladesh would disassociate itself from several paragraphs.


United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, underlined that its key policy goal was the elimination of discrimination against women, which was why it strongly supported it. However, the United States had to disassociate itself from paragraphs on reproductive health. Each country had to determine for itself whether such measures were appropriate. The United States valued the role of women human rights defenders. International humanitarian law was inclusive of gender.


Action on Resolution L.31 on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.31) on extreme poverty and human rights, adopted without a vote, the Council

France introducing the draft resolution L.31 on behalf of a transregional group of countries, said that the transregional group sought to renew, for a period of three years, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, and hoped that the draft text would be adopted by consensus. The transregional group reiterated its full support for this particularly important mandate which would advance the cause of those deprived of their most basic rights only because they lived in extreme poverty. Now, more than ever, combatting this scourge should be the priority for the Human Rights Council.

South Africa reiterated in a general comment its concern about the misleading assertion in the draft resolution purporting that extreme poverty persisted in all countries of the world, regardless of their level of development. This statement was not only misleading but also negated the well-established categorization of United Nations Member States to developed, developing, heavy-indebted poor countries, the least developed countries and small island developing states. The draft text also confused between poverty on one hand and extreme poverty on another, and it negated the issues of underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion and economic disparities, and their relationship with poverty.


Action on Resolution L.32 on Human Rights and Climate Change

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.32, as orally revised) on human rights and climate change, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

Philippines, introducing draft resolution L.32 on human rights and climate change as orally revised, said that the co-sponsors had endeavoured to accommodate all concerns of delegations without compromising the objectives and principles enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Climate change continued and would continue to negatively impact all, without exception, and it needed common but differentiated responsibilities of all States. The resolution aimed to ensure that the effects of climate change on human rights, particularly of migrants and people displaced across international borders, were further examined by carrying out an inter-sessional panel discussion and a research study, with focus on the full and effective enjoyment of rights of migrants and cross border displaced persons.


Germany, in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, expressed appreciation to the main sponsors. Climate change was a common concern of humankind. The draft resolution brought attention to the impact of climate change on displacement, particularly of children. It was necessary to empower those most vulnerable ones in the face of climate change. However, the European Union regretted that the text had departed from the previously agreed language, such as the Paris Agreement. The European Union would implement the Paris Agreement because it was a common interest and a common responsibility.


United States, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the effects of climate change had a range of implications on the enjoyment of human rights. The United States would join the consensus. However, the resolution raised a number of concerns, and recalling that the President of the United States had said that the United States would renegotiate the Paris Agreement, said that the unnecessary quotations in the draft resolution could not pre-judge negotiations in other fora and it detrimentally ignored diversity in drivers of migration. The research requested by the draft resolution would address human rights protection in the context of migration and climate change, but it was not the place for the Council to address issues of adaptation and mitigation.

Action on Resolution L.33 as orally revised on the Contribution of Development to the Enjoyment of All Human Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.33/Rev.1, as orally revised) on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, adopted by a recorded vote of 30 in favour to 13 against with 3 abstentions, the Council calls upon all countries to realize people-centred development of the people, by the people and for the people, and also calls upon all States to spare no effort in promoting sustainable development, in particular while implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as it is conducive to the overall enjoyment of human rights. The Council requests the Advisory Committee to conduct a study on the ways in which development contributes to the enjoyment of all human rights by all, in particular on best experiences and practices, and to submit the report to the Human Rights Council before its forty-first session.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30): Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan Mongolia, Nigeria, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Against (13): Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America.

Abstentions (3): Georgia, Panama, and Republic of Korea.

China, introducing draft resolution L.33, stated that the right to development was the only way to guarantee the other rights of all people. Today, world inequalities were enormous. Poverty and hunger had not been eliminated and there was a need to enable sustainable development to benefit all mankind? The resolution aimed at recognizing the importance of the right to development and to enable development to benefit people. The text also stressed that all human rights were interdependent, interrelated, and mutually reinforcing. China had worked in an open manner to elaborate the resolution, bearing in mind that its content should not be altered. The result draft was comprehensive, balanced and reflected the positions of all sides.

Venezuela in a general comment on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement expressed full support for the draft resolution as it was fully in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda meant that the international community must step up international cooperation and remove barriers to the development of countries. More effort was needed to bring about sustainable development and ensure enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to development, which would establish societies in which the rule of law prevailed. Without the full enjoyment of the right to development, there could be no full enjoyment of any other right and the Council should consider this right on an equal footing with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms.


United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, stated that development, including sustainable development, contributed to a better respect of human rights. However, all States should be encouraged to achieve their international obligations regardless of their level of development. The resolution omitted key language elements such as the crucial term of democracy which had not been included. Other distortions of consensus language had been included, making development a prerequisite to the completion of human rights.

Germany, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, stressed that development and human rights were interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Documents such as the Vienna Declaration and the Agenda 2030 were key to establish this relation. However, the resolution placed development above human rights. The lack of development could not be invoked to infringe basic human rights obligations. The universality of human rights and interrelatedness were central to the European Union development cooperation. Meetings with China had been launched to reach consensus.


Action on Resolution L.35 on Realizing the Equal Enjoyment of the Right to Education by Every Girl

In a resolution (A/HRC/35/L.35) on realizing the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl, adopted without a vote, the Council[…]

United Arab Emirates, introducing draft resolution L.35, drew attention to the extreme differences in access to education between boys and girls: of the 57 million children out of school, 38 million were girls, while two-thirds of illiterate adults were women. The draft resolution tried to inject the dynamism of the 2030 Agenda in the implementation of the right to education and to ensure equal access of girls and boys to quality education, and to alleviate obstacles that deprived girls from accessing education, including forced marriages and early pregnancies. The draft resolution also called upon rich countries to support poor ones in their efforts to increase the level of access by girls to quality education.
アラブ首長国連邦は、決議草案L.35を提出し、少年少女間の教育へのアクセスの極端な違いに注意を喚起した。非就学児童5,700万人のうち、3,800万人が女子であり、文盲の大人の3分の2が女性だった。 決議草案は、教育権利の実施に2030年アジェンダの活力を注ぎ込み、質の高い教育への男女の平等なアクセスを確保し、強制的な結婚や早期妊娠など、女子が教育にアクセスすることを妨げた障害を緩和しようとした 。決議案はまた、豊かな国々に、少女の質の高い教育へのアクセス水準を高める努力において、貧しい人々を支援するよう求めた。

United States, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that while it condemned attacks on schools, it did not recognize an obligation under international law to provide a safe environment for schools.