The positions of individual states on women’s rights varied greatly. Through intensive hearings and working groups, reservations, misunderstandings, and cultural narratives could be openly discussed. It was crucial to present discrimination against women not as a Western concern, but as a universal problem – a change in perspective that was only possible through active listening and respect for other points of view.

By separating maximal political demands from the underlying interests, the delegates opened up new scope for maneuver: protection from violence, access to education, and self-determination were concerns shared by many. This made it possible to agree on overarching values and future developments in contentious areas, rather than insisting on immediate detailed regulations.

Instead of imposing rigid formulas (“this way or no way”), the negotiators developed flexible implementation models, room for interpretation, and transition periods. The open discussion about different implementation paths made it possible for many countries to join despite their reservations. This creative phase was crucial for the broad international response.

The monitoring of progress was not based on the lowest political common denominator, but on internationally accepted standards: human rights norms, scientific findings, and the UN’s experience in gender equality policy formed the basis. A new feature was the establishment of an independent monitoring mechanism (CEDAW Committee, shadow reports by civil society) that enabled accountability on an objective basis.

Despite international pressure, the circle of signatories remained open, and national reservations were explicitly permitted. This allowed states to weigh up their “best alternative” (individual measures or non-accession) against accession. This flexibility respected the scope for action of individual states without jeopardizing the overall goal.