Japan’s recent decision to halt funding for the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has drawn significant attention. The move comes in response to CEDAW’s recommendation that Japan amend its male-only imperial succession law to “guarantee the equality of women and men in the succession to the throne” and address the underlying issue of discrimination against women.
Japan’s decision to exclude CEDAW from the list of recipients of its voluntary funding isn’t just about imperial succession. It reflects how gender and history continue to shape the country’s engagement with global institutions.
Between Tradition and Global Trends
The debate over imperial succession has resurfaced intermittently for decades in Japan. Since 1947, the Imperial Household Law has stipulated that only men from the patrilineal line can ascend the Chrysanthemum Throne, the Japanese monarchy. This rule has led to concerns over the future of the imperial family, given the shrinking number of male heirs. Public opinion polls show that 85 percent of respondents support allowing female emperors, yet the conservative camp and political leadership remain steadfast in resisting change, with some citing the eternal and unbroken imperial lineage.
Internationally, several countries have female monarchs, including the well-known example of the late Queen Elizabeth II in the United Kingdom. Some countries have transitioned from male to female sovereigns. Sweden’s shift toward gender-equal succession serves as an excellent example. Until 1979, only male heirs could inherit the throne. That year, the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) passed a reform granting female heirs equal succession rights, allowing them to become head of state. Under this change, all direct descendants of King Carl XVI Gustaf, regardless of gender, have the right to ascend the throne. As a result, Crown Princess Victoria is now heir to her father and will eventually be the queen of Sweden.
This reform made Sweden the first European monarchy to adopt gender-equal succession, reflecting a monarchy that, while rooted in over a thousand years of tradition, has evolved with contemporary values. This stands in contrast to Japan, where the imperial lineage remains strictly patrilineal. Some even explicitly claim that the same imperial Y chromosome has been passed down for over a millennium and must therefore be preserved.
CEDAW’s recommendation that Japan reconsider its imperial succession system was thus not an isolated critique. The committee has consistently called on Japan to improve gender equality in multiple spheres, including workplace discrimination, representation in politics, and legal protections against gender-based violence.
CEDAW’s recommendations aren’t legally binding, and Japan argued that the imperial succession is not even “within the purview of the Committee’s competence.” But CEDAW itself argued that “allowing only male offspring from the male line of the imperial lineage to succeed to the throne is incompatible with articles 1 and 2 and the object and purpose of the Convention.” It further expressed “concern that several of its previous recommendations regarding existing discriminatory provisions have not been addressed.”
The government’s response – cutting funding to CEDAW – not only signals an unwillingness to listen to the recommendation on imperial succession but raises concerns about Japan’s commitment to gender equality more broadly, both domestically and in its global engagement.
An Uneasy Relationship With Global Gender Norms
Japan’s protest against CEDAW’s recommendations extends beyond succession laws. The government has long been at odds with the committee over a range of issues, including repeated calls over the past decades to change its law to allow married couples to retain separate surnames. Historical accountability is another recurring issue, particularly regarding the “comfort women” – Japan’s system of military sexual slavery before and during World War II. CEDAW has made numerous recommendations urging the Japanese government to take responsibility, ensure victims and survivors’ right to reparations, and strengthen education on the issue.
Japan has frequently been accused of downplaying the “comfort women” issue or seeking to move beyond the controversy. While official apologies have been issued, they have frequently been coupled with denials or diplomatic efforts to dilute past statements. In its last report in 2016, the committee called on Japan to ensure its leaders and public officials ”desist from making disparaging statements regarding responsibility, which have the effect of retraumatizing victims.”
Japan’s relationship with international organizations addressing gender issues has been uneasy for years. While Japan is a signatory to CEDAW, its domestic policies frequently lag behind international expectations. Reports from the committee have criticized Japan’s inadequate legal definitions of discrimination against women, limited access to justice for women, and the persistence of deep-seated gender stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes.
Japan’s response has often been to push back against external recommendations rather than implement systemic changes. This latest move to halt funding to CEDAW follows a pattern of selective engagement, where Japan aligns with international frameworks when convenient but resists pressure on sensitive domestic and historical matters.
Japan’s withdrawal of CEDAW funding thus reflects a broader discomfort with international scrutiny on gender equality issues. The move may embolden conservative factions in Japan that oppose progressive gender reforms. More troubling, it suggests an attempt to pressure an international organization through financial leverage, casting doubt on Japan’s commitment to global gender justice and human rights norms.
Two Global Anniversaries and Japan’s Funding Halt
The year 2025 holds special significance for gender equality as it marks two major anniversaries: the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, which produced the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action – the most widely endorsed global agenda for women’s rights – and the 25th anniversary of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Agenda, now recognized as a key pillar of international peace and security.
Over the past three decades, the Beijing Declaration has advanced progress in areas such as combating violence against women and girls, strengthening women’s rights, and expanding legal protections, while the WPS Agenda has reshaped global peace and security by pressing for women’s participation and leadership in peace processes and addressing gendered impacts of conflict. These milestones reflect the power of international cooperation and feminist advocacy in driving meaningful progress toward gender equality and lasting peace.
Amid this increasing global support for girl- and women-led initiatives – such as the EU’s 22 million euro investment in the U.N. Women ACT program and the Generation Equality Action Coalition’s push to raise $500 million for women’s rights organizations by 2026 – Japan instead opted to halt funding for CEDAW in 2025. This decision risks damaging its status as a responsible and respected nation on the world stage. It also risks alienating allies that prioritize gender equality in diplomacy.
Japan’s approach – whether engaging constructively or resisting scrutiny – will shape its role in global discussions on human rights and gender justice. One thing is certain, however: Japan’s 2025 funding cut could hardly come at a worse time, both diplomatically and symbolically.
