A contribution from Annika Blaschke
The program of the conference is available here.
On 12 and 13 March 2026, the Europa-Institut hosted the farewell conference of Thomas Giegerich, entitled “Sexual and Gender Minorities in International Law and European Union Law.” The conference brought together contributions from International law, European Union law, sports law and U.S. law, and offered a wide-ranging discussion of the legal protection of sexual and gender minorities from systemic and individual perspectives. Before the opening keynote, Marc Bungenberg offered brief words of thanks, praising Thomas Giegerich’s academic work and expressing his gratitude for the long-standing collegial cooperation.
Thomas Giegerich then opened the conference with an introductory presentation on sexual and gender identity, human dignity, and binary-cisgender backlash. He presented sexual and gender minority rights as an issue at the intersection of human rights, international law, EU law, and comparative constitutional law. At the same time, he insisted that self-identification must remain the guiding principle for the protection of human dignity. Giegerich emphasised that neither the classic universal nor the regional human rights instruments were originally designed to protect sexual and gender minorities. He then traced the progress that has been made, as well as the gaps that remain, in international, European Convention-based, and EU law, particularly in light of the current backlash against equality and non-binary conceptions of identity. Against that background, he argued that attacks on the rights of sexual and gender minorities should be understood not as isolated conflicts affecting only minorities, but rather as an early warning sign of the erosion of the human rights system as a whole.
The first panel, presented by Elif Askin and Ralf Alleweldt, focused on the global law perspective on hard and soft norms protecting sexual and gender identities. Elif Askin examined the protection of sexual and gender identities against the backdrop of a political climate marked by growing contestation of equality, democracy, and human rights. First, she argued that international law has considerably expanded protection through both hard and soft law instruments, particularly through privacy, equality, non-discrimination, and other general human rights guarantees. Second, however, she stated that this protection remains fragmented and embedded in a persistently binary understanding of sex and gender. Ralf Alleweldt then stated that the protection deficit is both normative and practical in nature: while many core guarantees are already reflected in existing human rights frameworks and in instruments such as the Yogyakarta Principles, their effective implementation remains deeply uneven. Human dignity as the common foundation of protection implies a right of persons to live in accordance with their sexual orientation and gender identity without discrimination or coercion.
This was followed by a panel by Julia Jungfleisch and Ivana Jelić on sexual and gender minorities in the case-law of the ECtHR. Julia Jungfleisch traced the ECtHR’s case law from its earlier, far more restrictive approach to its more recent recognition that sexual and gender minority rights fall within the Convention’s guarantees of private and family life, equality, and marriage. At the same time, she demonstrated that European consensus has both enabled and limited the Court’s case law, fostering progress in some areas while restraining it in others, especially with regard to gender registration and intersex persons. Ivana Jelić explained that the Court has progressively strengthened Convention protection for sexual and gender minorities by scrutinising domestic laws and practices that perpetuate stereotypes or censorship. Even where consensus is less clear, the Court has relied on scientific evidence and an anti-stereotyping approach to underline that, in a democratic society, the protection of children and public morals cannot justify the marginalisation of LGBTI persons.
The afternoon focused more specifically on EU law. Luigi Malferrari and Darren Harvey examined the systemic perspective: The EU values of dignity and equality in Art. 2 TEU. In his presentation, Luigi Malferrari addressed the pending case Commission v Hungary (C-769/22) as a case situated at the intersection of internal market law, fundamental rights, and the Union’s constitutional values. He demonstrated that the proceedings are significant for two reasons. Firstly, the Hungarian rules restricting content on LGBTI issues may violate free movement and non-discrimination norms. Secondly, the case raises the broader question of whether Article 2 TEU can serve as an autonomous standard in infringement proceedings. Darren Harvey then turned to the question of how the substantive content of Article 2 TEU is to be determined and enforced if its values are understood as legally binding. He argued that these abstract values must be given concrete meaning through other provisions of primary and secondary EU law. In his view, Article 2 TEU matters less because of its independent legal effects than because of its symbolic and systemic role. This is especially true when it is used to address broader patterns of rights violations that cannot be easily captured by more specific provisions alone.
Kristina Müller and Marco Evola then addressed an individual-rights perspective, discussing free movement and privacy in the context of sexual and gender minority rights. Kristina Müller examined the protection of sexual and gender minorities through Article 21 TFEU, demonstrating that although matters such as marriage, parenthood, and gender identity remain within the competence of Member States, this competence must be exercised in conformity with EU law. She explained that the Court of Justice has developed an approach based on recognition under free movement law. In certain situations, Member States must therefore recognise same-sex relationships and changes in gender identity made in another Member State if non-recognition would make it harder to exercise free movement rights. Marco Evola’s presentation highlighted that the protection of LGBTI rights in EU law is closely linked to the broader protection of the Union’s constitutional order and its fundamental rights framework. At the same time, he also stressed that the Court’s case law advances this protection primarily through Union citizenship and free movement, so that recognition remains functional and limited rather than amounting to full incorporation into domestic family law.
The first day concluded with a presentation by Sara Poli and Frank Hoffmeister on sexual and gender minorities in the EU’s external action. Sara Poli highlighted the Union’s duty of consistency between its internal and external human rights commitments. She demonstrated that, while the EU has developed a broad range of instruments, including strategic frameworks, guidelines, conditionality mechanisms, asylum law, and diplomatic practice, its credibility and effectiveness in promoting LGBTI rights abroad ultimately depend on its willingness to uphold the same standards within the Union itself. Frank Hoffmeister then explained that the EU has maintained the protection of LGBTI persons as a constant objective of its external human rights action, as reflected in successive action plans and soft-law instruments despite political resistance from some Member States. Particular attention was paid to the practical support of human rights defenders through diplomatic engagement and country-specific action plans, raising the broader question whether such sustained external practice may also contribute to the emergence of wider normative expectations in international law.
The second day of the conference opened with a panel on the special case of sexual and gender minorities in international sports, presented by Annika Blaschke and Björn Schiffbauer. Annika Blaschke examined sport as a particularly revealing field of tension between non-discrimination and categorisation, showing that while discrimination based on sexual orientation is legally difficult to justify, transgender and intersex athletes are often excluded through eligibility rules established by private sporting associations that directly affect identity, private life, and bodily autonomy. She argued that human rights provide an important framework, but their effect in sport is still limited. This is due to the autonomy of sporting associations and the structure of lex sportiva. Real progress will therefore likely require clearer evidence-based rules, better protection against stigma, and stronger external oversight. Björn Schiffbauer complemented this perspective by focusing on the procedural and constitutional dimensions of international sports law. He argued that the autonomy of sports associations is not unlimited, but derives from and remains constrained by domestic constitutional law and international human rights law. Therefore, the rights of sexual and gender minorities in sport must ultimately be subject to meaningful judicial review, particularly under the ECHR.
Gregory Fox and Russell Miller then offered a U.S. perspective on sexual and gender minority rights. Gregory Fox explored the development of sexual and gender minority rights in the United States against the background of the federal system, highlighting both its potential to enable progress and its vulnerability to renewed retrenchment. He traced the shift from the criminalisation of same-sex intimacy to the recognition of same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination protection, while showing that transgender rights in particular remain far more contested and legally unstable, especially in light of recent federal and state-level developments. Russell Miller situated these developments within the broader dynamics of American constitutional change. He emphasised that progress in this area has been shaped not only by judicial reasoning, but also by social movements, personal experience, and changing forms of public visibility. In this context, he pointed in particular to Justice Kennedy’s role in cases such as Lawrence and Obergefell, while noting both his openness to comparative perspectives and the more recent backlash against relying on foreign or international law in U.S. constitutional adjudication.
The conference concluded with a final panel discussion featuring Iris Goldner Lang, Dagmar Richter and Andreas Ziegler, which reflected on future challenges and possible ways forward in the protection of sexual and gender minorities under International and European law. Iris Goldner Lang‘s contribution on asylum law showed that EU case law recognises sexual orientation as a fundamental aspect of personal identity and therefore protects applicants against being expected to conceal it in order to avoid persecution. At the same time, it also revealed the limits of that protection, especially in the assessment of credibility, where the Court has allowed national authorities a role in evaluating claims but has subjected this to strict safeguards of human dignity and privacy. Dagmar Richter‘s example illustrated the tensions that can arise where self-identification intersects with gender-based representation rules. She demonstrated that, while self-determination in matters of gender identity is a fundamental principle, legal and institutional frameworks may nonetheless seek to set limits where last-minute declarations of gender change risk undermining the purpose of protective measures designed to secure women’s representation. Andreas Ziegler raised the question of how these issues can be more adequately integrated into legal education. He noted that discrimination against sexual and gender minorities still tends to receive too little attention within broader equality and human rights teaching, even though the existing legal framework already provides important starting points for addressing it more systematically.
Overall, the conference demonstrated both the doctrinal richness of the field and the ongoing intensity of the legal and political struggles concerning the protection of sexual and gender minorities. Contribution from across International law, EU law, sports law, and U.S. law made clear that important advances have been achieved, while significant gaps and new forms of backlash remain. Precisely for that reason, it was particularly encouraging to see this topic receive such sustained and serious scholarly attention.
The presentations of the conference will also be published by Springer Nature in a conference volume edited by Annika Blaschke and Thomas Giegerich, allowing the discussions initiated in Saarbrücken to continue beyond the event itself.
Suggested Citation: Blaschke, Annika, Sexual and Gender Minorities in International Law and European Union Law: Thomas Giegerich’s Farewell Conference, jean-monnet-saar 2026.
DOI: 10.17176/20260408-101612-0
Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project No.: 525576645
