The Emergence of Queer Diplomacy: Navigating Homophobia and LGBT Human Rights in International Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2010, governments from Europe and the Americas have embraced LGBT rights more assertively as a foreign policy objective, leading to "significant policy change" as well as "cultural resistance and policy pushbacks" (Picq and Thiel 2015, pp.1-2).At least seventy mainly African and Asian states continue to criminalize same-sex conduct: many of these states oppose LGBT rights in multilateral fora such as the UN Human Rights Council, generating conflict with Western and Western-allied states.The student, drawing upon his work as a foreign policy officer -and his experience as an activist and researcher in the LGBT community -argues that no single theoretical perspective can explicate this phenomenon.An interdisciplinary approach is required, bridging key concepts from sociology and cultural studies on queer identity, global sexualities, andLGBT movements with current scholarship in political science, international relations, and human rights.The dissertation's underlying assertion -that a new queer diplomacy has emerged from the triadic interaction between intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), states and civil society organizations (CSOs) -aims to demonstrate how diplomats work to both strengthen and subvert LGBT rights.The research project employed a reflexive, multidimensional standpoint methodology and involved participant observation at UN meetings in Geneva and New York, and 29 in-depth interviews with diplomats, human rights experts, and IGO and CSO representatives.The data findings suggest Western concepts of sexual and gender identity underlie many approaches used by diplomats and advocates in their international work.To a considerable extent, Western governments, in concert with IGO and CSO iii representatives -have succeeded in mainstreaming LGBT issues into UN human rights policy and programming, as well as areas such as development programming, health, women's rights, and the criminal justice system: however, many gaps remain.The data reveals the close relationships between CSOs and "like-minded" diplomats, as well as the systemic challenges that impede their progress.However, a more inclusive and coordinated diplomatic and civil society strategy is urgently needed to prevent or at least minimize ongoing human rights violations against LGBT people.Possible avenues include streamlining current initiatives, more clearly defining priority areas, identifying policy and research gaps, and pooling resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".