Editor's note

• Author: JIANG Dong
• Pages: 405-406

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 11 SEPTEMBER 2016 NO. 3

DOI 10.3868/s050-005-016-0022-9

FOCUS ONE

LGBTI RIGHTS AND LEGAL REFORM: A COMPARATIVE APPROACH

EDITOR’S NOTE

JIANG Dong*

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declares that “[a]ll

human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” The lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people deserve to be treated equally, as United Nations

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated, “[a]s men and women of conscience, we reject

discrimination in general, and in particular discrimination based on sexual orientation and

gender identity. Where there is a tension between cultural attitudes and universal human

rights, rights must carry the day.”1 In recent years, there have been significant advances

for LGBTI rights worldwide. China is also making great contributions to the momentum.

To further enhance the awareness of LGBTI rights, from April 27 to 28, 2015, Renmin

University of China Law School hosted the international conference themed, “LGBTI

Rights and Legal Reform: A Comparative Approach,” the first international academic

event of its kind in China. The Focus of this issue selects two articles from the conference

to probe the legal realm of LGBTI rights.

Prof. David Bilchitz from the Faculty of Law of University of Johannesburg, in his

article “Equality, Dignity and Social Harmony: Exploring the Rationales and Models for

Recognizing Same-Sex Relationships in Law,” expounds on the “why” and “how” of

building up a legal framework to protect same-sex relationships. As for the justification

for the state to positively recognize same-sex relationships in law, he articulates three of

the main rationales, namely, (1) the Equality Argument, (2) Dignity, Family Life and

Freedom, and (3) Social Benefits. To materialize the legal protection of the same-sex

relationship, he outlines four different models: The “Partial Rights” Model, The “Civil

Partnerships” Model, The “Marriage Equality” Model, and The “Diversity of

Relationships” Model, laying his fingers on some of the reasons that have been provided

for and against each of them. Prof. Bilchitz argues in his conclusion that only the

* (󰓠) Ph.D and Associate Professor, School of Law, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872,

China. Contact: djiang@ruc.edu.cn

1 See Secretary-General’s remarks at event on ending violence and criminal sanctions based on sexual

orientation and gender identity [as delivered], New York, Dec. 10, 2010, available at http://www.un.org/sg/

statements/?nid=4992 (last visited May 10, 2016).