Explanation: The UN's Gender Equality Doctrine is primarily based on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), not the ICCPR.

Explanation: Article 4, paragraph 1 of CEDAW explicitly states that temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality shall *not* be considered discriminatory.

Explanation: General Recommendation No. 25 was adopted by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), not the UN General Assembly, to clarify the application of temporary special measures.

Explanation: General Recommendation No. 25 lists quota systems as one example of temporary special measures that can be employed to accelerate de facto equality.

Explanation: Article 8 of the UN Charter has been interpreted by UNAT jurisprudence as supporting reasonable affirmative action measures to improve the status of women, rather than prohibiting them.

Explanation: While UN Women promotes gender equality, the monitoring of the CEDAW treaty and issuance of related recommendations are primarily functions of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee).

Explanation: General Recommendation No. 25 clarifies that temporary special measures are a necessary strategy to achieve substantive equality and are not exceptions to non-discrimination principles.

Explanation: The UN's Gender Equality Doctrine and 'Special Measures' are fundamentally rooted in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Explanation: Article 4, paragraph 1 of CEDAW states that temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women shall not be considered discriminatory.

Explanation: General Recommendation No. 25 was adopted by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) to clarify the application of Article 4, paragraph 1 of CEDAW.

Explanation: General Recommendation No. 25 lists numerical goals connected with specific time frames, alongside quota systems and targeted recruitment, as examples of temporary special measures.

Explanation: The 'international Bill of Rights for Women' is another name for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Explanation: The Administrative Instruction (AI) ST/AI/1999/9 aimed to accelerate the achievement of gender equality primarily in Professional category posts, not lower-level administrative support roles.

Explanation: The Gender Equality Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1999/9 became effective on October 1, 1999, superseding the earlier instruction dated January 5, 1996.

Explanation: ST/AI/1999/9 applies to all vacant posts in the Professional category and above, including temporary posts, within the UN Secretariat.

Explanation: UN Women states that the Gender Equality A/I will remain in effect until substantial progress towards gender balance is achieved and sustained, not indefinitely.

Explanation: ST/AI/1999/9 continues to be legally binding and applicable law unless it is formally amended or revoked by the UN Secretariat.

Explanation: The 'Professional category' encompasses grades P-1 through P-5 and extends to higher director levels (D-1, D-2) and senior leadership positions.

Explanation: The primary objective of ST/AI/1999/9 was to strengthen and expedite measures aimed at achieving gender equality, with a particular focus on Professional category posts within the UN Secretariat.

Explanation: The Gender Equality Administrative Instruction ST/AI/1999/9 became effective on October 1, 1999.

Explanation: UN Women asserts that the Gender Parity Administrative Instruction (ST/AI/1999/9) will remain in effect until substantial progress towards gender balance is achieved.

Explanation: Ban Ki-moon defined 'Special Measures' as procedures designed to accelerate the achievement of gender parity at Professional levels and above, not to maintain the status quo.

Explanation: Special Measures for Gender Equality are intended to remain in effect until the goal of gender parity is achieved and sustained, not as permanent fixtures.

Explanation: Section 1.8 of ST/AI/1999/9 mandates that vacancies be filled by a female candidate if her qualifications are substantially equal to or superior to those of competing male candidates, provided women are under-represented.

Explanation: While OHRM monitors implementation, the primary responsibility and accountability for implementing special measures lie with the Heads of Departments (HODs).

Explanation: Section 1.8(d) requires a written justification particularly when a woman candidate is not selected despite prevailing gender imbalance, not solely when a male candidate is not selected.

Explanation: Cumulative seniority under ST/AI/1999/9 is defined as the average of years accrued in the current and immediately preceding Professional grade.

Explanation: The term 'substantially equal' implies that a female candidate's qualifications must meet job requirements and be equal to or better than male candidates, not necessarily significantly more qualified.

Explanation: While the Steering Committee monitors and implements gender equality policies, the direct responsibility for appointing staff under special measures lies with the Heads of Departments.

Explanation: ST/AI/1999/9 explicitly mandates specific procedures, including the application of special measures, for the selection of staff in posts where women are under-represented.

Explanation: Ban Ki-moon defined Special Measures as procedures designed to accelerate the achievement of gender parity at Professional levels and above, aiming to ensure gender balance in recruitment and promotion.

Explanation: Section 1.8 of ST/AI/1999/9 specifically outlines the conditions and procedures for appointing a woman candidate to a vacancy, particularly when women are under-represented.

Explanation: The Heads of Departments (HODs) are primarily responsible and accountable for implementing the special measures for gender equality within their respective departments.

Explanation: For a female candidate, 'substantially equal' qualifications means meeting the job requirements and possessing qualifications that are equal to or better than those of competing male candidates.

Explanation: Cumulative seniority in ST/AI/1999/9 is defined as the average of years accrued in the current and immediately preceding Professional grade.

Explanation: The UN General Assembly's goal is to achieve a 50/50 gender distribution across the organization, not a 75/25 representation favoring men.

Explanation: Gender equality in senior UN positions has been a stated goal of the UN General Assembly since 1970, not 1945.

Explanation: The initial target set in 1990 was 25 percent for women's participation at the D-1 level and above by 1995, not 50 percent by 2000.

Explanation: The UN General Assembly revised the target year for achieving 50/50 representation in D-1 and above posts from 2000 to 2015 due to insufficient progress.

Explanation: Data indicates that women's representation at the D-1 level in the UN Secretariat decreased from 30.3% in 2000 to 26.7% in 2009.

Explanation: Based on 2012 progress rates, gender parity at the D-1 level and higher was projected to take approximately 102 years, not 25 years.

Explanation: A primary reason for failing to meet gender equality targets was the *failure* and tardy implementation of five-year Action Plans, not their successful execution.

Explanation: The 'Goal' of the Special Measures is indeed to achieve a 50/50 gender distribution across the entire UN organization, at all levels and in all departments.

Explanation: In 2011, the Secretary-General's Policy Committee decided to improve the implementation of Special Measures, not discontinue them, to accelerate gender parity.

Explanation: The 50/50 gender distribution goal applies to all levels within the UN Secretariat, including Professional categories and above, not solely entry-level positions.

Explanation: The ultimate goal set by the UN General Assembly is to achieve a 50/50 gender distribution across all levels and departments of the UN organization.

Explanation: Gender equality in senior UN managerial and decision-making positions has been a stated goal of the UN General Assembly since 1970.

Explanation: In 1990, the UN General Assembly urged the Secretary-General to increase women's participation at the D-1 level and above to 25 percent by 1995.

Explanation: The target year was revised from 2000 to 2015 because progress in achieving gender parity in senior roles (D-1 and above) was too slow.

Explanation: Women's representation at the D-1 level in the UN Secretariat decreased from 30.3% in 2000 to 26.7% in 2009.

Explanation: According to the 2012 report, if progress continued at the observed rate, gender parity at D-1 and higher levels was projected to be achieved in 102 years.

Explanation: Tribunal jurisprudence (UNAT and UNDT) has consistently upheld the legality of special measures for gender equality, deeming them lawful and consistent with the UN Charter.

Explanation: The Grinblat judgement interpreted Article 8 of the UN Charter as a basis for adopting reasonable affirmative action measures to improve the status of women, rather than prohibiting them.

Explanation: The Grinblat judgement cautioned that affirmative action measures, while permissible, cannot override Article 101(3) of the UN Charter, which mandates the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity.

Explanation: Judgement No. 765 reaffirmed the principle of preferential treatment for women candidates whose qualifications are substantially equal to those of competing male candidates.

Explanation: The Katz judgement clarified that the Secretary-General's appointment discretion is not absolute but is governed by the UN Charter and relevant resolutions, including those concerning special measures.

Explanation: Judgement No. 1302 stipulated that a female candidate should be appointed if her qualifications are substantially equal or superior to a male candidate's, unless the male candidate's qualifications are demonstrably superior.

Explanation: In the Appleton case, the UN Organization acknowledged ST/AI/1999/9 as applicable law for gender balance, confirming its mandatory nature.

Explanation: The Farrimond (2014) case concluded that the Administration failed to provide the required written analysis under section 1.8(d) of ST/AI/1999/9, leading to the rescission of the selection decision.

Explanation: UNAT jurisprudence suggests the burden of proof may be neutral, especially when evidence is held exclusively by the Administration, rather than always resting solely on the applicant.

Explanation: The Katz judgement supports the promotion of a substantially equally qualified female candidate under special measures, clarifying that the Secretary-General's discretion allows for this.

Explanation: Tribunal jurisprudence indicates that the Secretary-General has generally not contested, and has sometimes accepted, the applicability of the Gender AI (ST/AI/1999/9) in tribunal cases.

Explanation: The Farrimond judgement implies a strict obligation for the Administration to provide adequate written analysis under ST/AI/1999/9, not a minimal one.

Explanation: The phrase 'demonstrable and measurable' requires objective evidence to support claims of superior qualifications, countering subjective assessments.

Explanation: The Katz ruling clarified that the Secretary-General's discretion is not absolute and must consider gender equality goals, as it is governed by the UN Charter and relevant resolutions.

Explanation: UNAT jurisprudence indicates a right to preferential treatment exists for women candidates whose qualifications are substantially equal to those of male candidates, not necessarily significantly more qualified.

Explanation: Article 101(3) of the UN Charter mandates the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity, a requirement that special measures cannot override.

Explanation: The UNAT jurisprudence, notably in Judgement No. 671 (Grinblat), interprets Article 8 of the UN Charter as supporting affirmative action measures to improve the status of women.

Explanation: The UNAT cautioned in the Grinblat judgement that affirmative action measures cannot override Article 101(3) of the UN Charter, which mandates the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity for staff.

Explanation: The Farrimond (2014) case highlighted that the Administration failed to provide the required written analysis under section 1.8(d) of ST/AI/1999/9, which was a critical finding.

Explanation: The Katz (2002) judgement clarified that the Secretary-General's appointment discretion is not absolute but is limited by the UN Charter and relevant resolutions, including those pertaining to special measures for gender equality.

Explanation: ST/AI 2010/3 states its provisions prevail over inconsistent ones, leading the Secretariat to sometimes argue it supersedes ST/AI/1999/9, but this interpretation is contested and not an explicit superseding of *all* previous instructions on gender equality.

Explanation: The UN Secretariat sometimes argues that ST/AI 2010/3 supersedes provisions of ST/AI 1999/9 due to perceived inconsistencies, a position contested by UN Women.

Explanation: A contested interpretation is that ST/AI 2010/3, due to its prevailing provisions, supersedes ST/AI/1999/9, a stance often argued by the UN Secretariat but not universally accepted.