The global and regional policy and legislative context of FGM/C
The agitation for laws against FGM/C was preceded by a series of international campaigns calling for an end to the practice after evidence emerged about its negative health consequences. Initially, FGM/C was seen principally as a threat to women’s and girls’ health. (This chapter will not repeat the description in Chapter 1 of how the various international protocols and resolutions developed over time, and the shift in focus from health to human rights concerns.)
The earliest recorded campaigns started in Egypt in the 1920s, when the Ministry of Health, the media, and religious experts backed the Egyptian Society of Physicians’ declaration detailing the harmful health repercussions of FGM/C (UNICEF 2013). As early as the 1960s, some countries in Africa already had legislative provisions prohibiting FGM/C: Guinea (1965) and, in 1966, the Central African Republic (UNICEF 2013; UNFPA n.d.). Following the first International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994, more countries followed suit (Katzive 2003). The issue was also starting to be addressed as an international human rights concern, referred to as discriminatory and an act of violence against women and girls.
While international human rights instruments before 1990 do not explicitly mention the practice of FGM/C, it fits the definition of violence and discrimination against women and has been subsequently affirmed under the same instruments. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the 1976 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights all provide a broad foundation for the protection of girls and women against FGM/C. More specifically, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) focus on the rights of women and children, and have subsequently, through General Recommendations, denounced FGM/C as a harmful practice. (See Chapter 1 for more information about CEDAW General Recommendations, and United Nations protocols. Note that all African states are members of the UN.) At a regional level, the African continent, through the African Union, has been proactive in adopting conventions that address FGM/C and reflect standards in international legal instruments. These are notably the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Banjul Charter 1981); the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990); the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol 2003); and the 2003 Cairo Declaration for the Elimination of FGM/C. They all explicitly prohibit FGM/C, and require states to adopt legislative measures to prohibit the practice.
Beyond Africa, the European Parliament and Council of Europe have passed several resolutions and adopted the Istanbul Convention,
1 The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (also known as the Istanbul Convention) was regionally drafted but allows for any country to become a signatory. condemning FGM/C as ‘a violation of fundamental human rights’.
2 EU Parliament Resolution A5-0285/2001. They have also urged member states to recognise FGM/C as a legitimate basis for granting asylum.
3 EU Parliamentary Report on gender-related asylum claims, 12350/2010. For a comprehensive discussion of the provisions of the different instruments see: https://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/645-sources-of-international-human-rights-law-on-female-genital-mutilation.html [Accessed 16 August 2025].What the widespread enactment of international and regional instruments mandating legislative measures for addressing FGM/C demonstrates is the fact that the use of law as a strategy is well established, based on the consensus among governments and other stakeholders on the numerous human rights violations that the practice represents to women and girls. What is in question is the appropriateness and efficacy of using the law in preventing and responding to the practice.