Human Rights and Gender Violence - Essay Example

?Of the several blind spots in the early development of the human rights regime, none is as striking as the failure to give violations of women's (human) rights the attention, and in some respect the priority that they require...it is instructive to contrast the vigour of the regime in trying to 'eliminate' racial discrimination with its relative apathy...in responding to gender discrimination-and to explore why this is so" (Alston/Goodman: 166) DISCUSS. Introduction Traditionally, women have often been viewed as subservient to men. This subservience has mostly been attributed to physical qualities, with men often developing as stronger individuals, more dominant towards their female counterparts. The fact that the women have been presented as helpless and individuals who are dependent on others for support has not made the position of women in society better. As such, only several centuries past now have women been able to enjoy equal rights as men. In most countries, these women are now able to go to school alongside their male counterparts, to go to work, to support themselves, and to vote. For a long while however, women have been subjected to physical, emotional, sexual, and mental abuse from their male counterparts, including family members as well as strangers. In the past few decades however, more serious commitments on the protection of their civil and human rights have been observed1. These commitments come in the form of laws in the international and national level, ultimately affording equal right to these women and imposing punishment and penalties to those who abuse the rights of women. One of these laws is the CEDAW or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It is also known as the Treaty for the Rights of Women2. It was adopted by the UN in 1979, and ratified by different countries. This treaty is however not a sufficient policy in the complete protection of women’s civil and human rights. In fact, “of the several blind spots in the early development of the human rights regime, none is as striking as the failure to give violation of women's (human) rights the attention, and in some respects the priority that they require3”. The system is still failing these women, and as a result, numerous human rights violations for these women are still being reported. This article shall evaluate the statement above, highlighting instances of human rights violations for these women, gaps in the protection of their rights, including possible remedies which can be implemented in order to address the issue. Body The CEDAW is considered an encompassing international treaty covering the basic rights of women. It indicates a form of Bill of Rights for these women and is the only international instrument which completely covers specific provisions on women’s rights, including their political, economic, social, cultural, and civil life4. There are 185 ratifying countries for this treaty, with the US being a major hold out for its ratification5. The CEDAW indicates a very broad definition for discrimination against women, supporting the fact that international usually provides broad definitions when compared to local or national laws. Nevertheless, CEDAW defines the idea of equality for women beyond what is currently set by many national provisions. Under the CEDAW, discrimination against women also refers to any act which excludes, distinguishes, or restricts individuals based on sex with such discrimination often made in order to impair the enjoyment or exercise by women of their human and fundamental freedoms and rights6. The treaty secures women’s rights in different realms, including government and political life, employment, education, healthcare, as well as other elements of social and economic life. It also indicates special policies for women including special measures to support the causes of women and protect their maternity7. Aside from the CEDAW, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has also set forth provisions seeking to protect the rights of women. The CEDAW has specifically focused its provisions on women, while the ICCPR has included the human rights of both men and women in its provisions8. Moreover, the focus of the ICCPR has mostly been the protection of civil and political rights which may not always necessarily include the human rights of women. Nevertheless, the ICCPR has been able to gain efficacy in naming and shaming governments whenever reports of civil and political rights violations have been detected9. The advantages of this approach relates to the ability to use powerful words which often place women in the place of agents for their civil and political goals. The ICCPR has secured policies also in terms of decreasing gender gaps in the living standards of both men and women. Gender inequality has been managed by both conventions through its enforcement committees, mostly with sanctions passed for violating countries and entities10. The role of name shaming has also been an important tool with indices for women’s rights protection being used to pressure countries into complying. The primary entity seeking to protect women’s rights however is the CEDAW. The major problem faced by the CEDAW is its implementation. In general however, ratifying and signatory countries to the treaty are bound to comply with its provisions. Before the Optional Protocol was signed, two possible options were presented for the convention to be able to detect the country compliance with the policies set by the treaty11. These two options included the interstate procedure and the reporting procedure which both were considered the major options for imposing obligations on the member countries. The interstate option which is indicated in Article 29 covers the varying interpretation and imposition of the treaty for member parties. Issues which are borne out of these varying assessments are first placed under arbitration in order to secure a solution for the conflicting interpretation12. Without any resolution for about six months, the conflict can eventually be forwarded to the International Court of Justice for a more final adjudication. This option is considered substantial with the determination of the ICJ being binding upon the parties. However, there are different issues in effectively securing this option in relation to actual enforcement13. Most parties often do not have much motivation to consider the interstate procedure. The general concept relating to non-intervention for the internal activities of states is the norm which is largely supported by different countries. Under these conditions, countries usually are more concerned about the impact of the intervention or imposition on their jurisdiction, especially as more states are likely to have one or more issues on their treatment of women14. The efficacy of the interstate policies is very much affected by the fact that some states may refuse to be affected by the provisions of the convention. Article 29(2) of the Convention ensures that ratifying states would indicate that they are not hampered by interstate policies. Moreover, the practical application of the interstate policy has not actually been applied, especially as not state party has ever sought to impose the interstate policy15. Reporting policies for the state as indicated in Article 18 has been considered the only possible remedy in detecting the adherence of states. The reporting mechanism functions in similar ways as other human rights conventions16. It calls for state parties to submit their first report a year following their ratification of the convention. Such reports must also cover the remedies which the state party would have to use to manage the obligations of the convention for domestic laws, and also determine difficulties the state has encountered in supporting the policies of the Convention. Such reports are sent to the CEDAW which then evaluates the report. In general, there seems to be no specific plan to implement the terms of the Convention in most parts of the world. Some initiatives which have been seen from governments mostly relate to legal reforms17. Although such reforms are a major step in protecting women’s rights, not all of these laws are necessarily beneficial for women and there seems to be no proof that government officials are wanting to evaluate the efficacy of their policies to the impose enforcement tools as well as ensure that all necessary actions would support the rights of women18. Sufficient reforms and databases have to be indicated to ensure this goal, as well as detecting the necessary mechanisms as well as procedures being implemented. Another crucial area relates to the requirement of managing the private sector in order to push this sector to support and ensure the quality of rights for women. This is important under conditions of speedy privatisation which has been observed in the region. The elements needed for women to protect their rights under the treaty have to be secured19. As such, the treaty must be secured within the domestic courts. Judges and lawyers must be very much conscious about the requisites of the state under the Convention and their own functions to secure equality of women. Supportive laws including equal opportunity policies which will prevent discrimination and secure remedies for violations, as well as ensure institutions for seeking redress for grievances against human rights violation must be provided20. A major barrier in implementing equality for women relates to the dominance of certain cultures and traditions, which affect the values and often make some laws ineffective. A strong effort has to be implemented by the government to resist such conditions. The obligations of the convention have not been clearly established21. For as long as these policies are not laid out properly, there would be no national machineries available to protect women’s rights. Discrimination and human rights violations against women are still however very much persistent in most parts of the world. Only in some countries have the Convention been directly used and cited by the courts as part of their jurisprudence. Moreover, not many judges and legislators are actually aware of the treaty and as a result, the general adjudication falls back to the usual practice of discrimination against women22. Although the treaty has been ratified by 187 countries, the US is still not a signatory to this treaty. Its failure to ratify it is a significant variable in its efficacy and widespread application considering the power which the US has in the international setting as well as the territory and people which the US covers. Issues in gender equality relate to major challenges for most territories. Many women go through daily challenges in their advancement and sometimes also limits to their liberties23. These limits refer to educational access, economic participation, political representation, and socialization. The ingrained and traditional discriminatory practices by women in law enforcement and judicial adjudications have also become apparent throughout the years24. Various religious and cultural practices supporting discrimination against women and girls are also a major challenge in protecting the rights of women. Issues in the implementation of the CEDAW mostly relate to its poor enforcement resources and the usual application of the phrase: all appropriate measures. This is a vague policy and can encompass extreme applications for countries who claim they have carried out “all appropriate measures.” The reporting process for the CEDAW is very much important in order to ensure that states are complying with their obligations under the convention; however, commitment is actually limited in relation to the effective implementation of its provisions25. Such reality is unfortunate especially as many states have reservations about the treaty. This reality has also negatively affected the lobbying process for the convention and in eliminating barriers to its application. The CEDAW committee assesses the implementation of the provisions of the treaty via state reports. In case a state would not file a report, the committee is only required to mention such failure to the General Assembly26. Numerous states have failed to report on the application of the treaty which implies how the treaty is not generally considered a priority or a significant policy by the states. Where states are not due to report to the committee, but have incidents of concern relating to women’s rights violations, the committee does not have the power to demand a report from the state addressing the issues of women’s right abuse in their territory. The CEDAW in this case can only emphasize on the importance of state action27. Still, such state action has mostly been considered deficient in the light of numerous incidents of human rights abuses against women in different countries. Failures in the protection of women’s rights have been seen in different territories including the Hungarian case of AT who claimed that she was abused by her partner for more than four years28. Even with reported death threats, she was never taken to a shelter because there were no women’s shelters in Hungary. No protection orders were also made available to women in Hungary. She later filed lawsuits against her partner for battery and assault. After passing through the Hungarian courts, their Supreme Court eventually dismissed her complaint. She then took the matter up with the CEDAW, averring how Hungary violated different provisions of the CEDAW. The actions of the CEDAW however were still made in coordination with the local authorities of Hungary. The CEDAW determined that Hungary failed to protect the rights of AT against domestic violence29. It further emphasized that gender-based violence is tantamount also to sex discrimination which all ratifying states are called for to eliminate. As an international entity and committee however, the committee’s decisions relating to the incident only serve recommendatory functions. In the end, the decision to punish AT’s partner would still go through their civil courts and processes30. Until the proper laws in Hungary against the violations of women’s rights are in place, AT’s plight would not amount to any significant improvement in her condition. Rosenblum also points out the CEDAW have not been able to establish gender equality because its provisions cover women only31. As such, it supports a concept of sex or gender being dualistic appreciation of men and women in a perpetrator and victim relationship. Instead of considering women as part of a binary, the CEDAW must instead avoid the gender label. Its title alone is its downfall because it already sets apart men and women as different, accorded specific roles but seeking similar responsibilities and shares in society32. The binary concept of men and women impacts on the reality of gender identity and defines an inaccurate vision of sex discrimination. Applying a categorization of discrimination, not the identitarian concept of women seems to be important in ensuring success for the CEDAW33. Equality based on the broader concepts of the CEDAW is needed in order to eliminate discrimination against women. Using equality and equity under the same context can water down the essence of the CEDAW and mislead the goals and elements of the convention. It would be difficult to determine the full effect of the CEDAW provisions and, including the application of substantive equality seen in countries which have not ratified it34. Still, the CEDAW’s support of substantive equality as well as special measures has had a crucial impact on the constitutional and legal changes and the fair decision which may follow in countries which have ratified the treaty. The committee’s efforts to indicate what is equity and equality is very much laudable35. The use of the GC 25 which specifies what temporary special measures are secures an important resource in relation to gender advocates in signatory countries, but has also the power to improve the supportive discourses in other non-signatory countries. Equality is therefore what is needed most by women in all countries, not so much equity. Despite the lapses of the committee in protecting women’s rights, it is still important to note that the CEDAW has still done enough in order to secure the rights of women against discrimination, passing landmark decisions for issues brought before its committee. What is needed now is the efficient implementation of the decisions36. In evaluating the decisions of the CEDAW committee, it can be determined that at present there is insufficient communication between the committee and the vulnerable women, especially those in Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Asian regions where violations of women’s rights have often been noted. Most of the communication processes indicated by the committee have also been considered inadmissible due to issues relating to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as procedural errors37. The complaints filed before the committee also need to indicate their complaint within the national level in order to ensure success. Most of the issues evaluated and decided by the Committee mostly relate to employment, healthcare services, marital life, trafficking for women, and domestic violence. Various recommendations in order to improve the service to women’s rights have been made. It is firstly important for ratifying states must secure the necessary resources as well as muster political will to set forth remedies which would eliminate discrimination against women in their country38. For territories which have yet to implement or pass the necessary laws to secure women’s rights, it is important for them to pass the laws which would support equality in wages and in the choice of one’s profession for both men and women. It is also important for health services to be provided to these women, especially those in rural areas and especially in services relating to reproductive health39. In terms of education, these countries must also acknowledge the rights of women to enrol in school and to pursue any career they want, as well as secure scholarship programs available to students. Early marriages, especially teen and arranged marriages must also be eliminated from the system of ratifying countries40. Women’s participation in politics, as well as social interactions and discussions also needs to be protected. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it is clear to note that the protection of women’s rights is still a major struggle for most countries. Inasmuch as many changes and improvements to women’s rights have been made throughout the years, there are still major gaps in its protection. The CEDAW is a law passed in the international scene in order to protect the rights of women. So far, it has been ratified by most countries. Basically, this treaty calls for its members to protect the rights of women and to eliminate discrimination against women. In general, the CEDAW has been able to meet its purpose in rendering decisions over cases brought before its committee. Implementing such decisions is however the greater challenge. As such, even among signatory countries, incidents of human rights violations still abound. The remedies needed to fill in the gaps relate to better implementation of its provisions, compliance by the members, and adoption of CEDAW policies into the domestic and national setting for each ratifying country. These remedies can help ensure the equality of women within society and the law’s eyes. Bibliography Alston, Philip and Goodman, Ryan. International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals: Text and Materials. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 32 Baldez, Lisa. The UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): A New Way to Measure Women's Interests. Politics & Gender (2011) 7(3), p. 420. Bunch, Charlotte. Women's rights as human rights: Toward a re-vision of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly (1990) 12(4), p. 487. Cho, Seo-Young. International human rights treaty to change social patterns: The convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. No. 93. Discussion papers//CeGE, 2010. Cole, Wade. Government Respect for Gendered Rights: The Effect of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on Women’s Rights Outcomes, 1981–2004. International Studies Quarterly (2012). Coomaraswamy, Rhadika. Reinventing international law: Women's rights as human rights in the international community. Commonwealth Law Bulletin (1997), 2, p. 1249. Cook, Rebecca. State Responsibility for Violations of Women's Human Rights. Harv. Hum. Rts. J. (1994) 7, p. 125. Cusack, Simeon and Pusey, Lisa. CEDAW and the rights to non-discrimination and equality. Melbourne J. of Int'l Law (2013) 14, p. 55. Elson, D. and Gideon, J. Organising for women’s economic and social rights: how useful is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?’. Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies (2004) 8(1-2), p. 135. Facio, Alda and Morgan, Martha. Equity or Equality for Women-Understanding CEDAW's Equality Principles. Ala. L. Rev. (2008), 60 p. 1133. Hathaway, Oona, Why Do Countries Commit to Human Rights Treaties? Journal of Conflict Resolution (2007) 51, p. 590. Hill, Daniel Estimating the effects of human rights treaties on state behavior. Journal of Politics (2010) 72(4), p. 1162. Htun, Mala and Weldon, Laurel. When do governments promote women's rights? A framework for the comparative analysis of sex equality policy. Perspectives on Politics (2010) 8, no. 01, p. 208. Ibadin, S. A critical evaluation of CEDAW Committee jurisprudence and its relevance to African women. PhD diss., University of Pretoria, 2011. Landman, Todd. Measuring human rights: principle, practice and policy. Human Rights Quarterly (2004) 26(4), p. 907. Merry, Sally. Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. (University of Chicago Press, 2009), p. 43. Merry, Sally, Constructing a Global Law?Violence against Women and the Human Rights System. Law & Social Inquiry (2003) 28(4), p. 942. Rosenblum, Darren. Unsex CEDAW, or What's Wrong With Women's Rights. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law (2011) 20. Sokhi-Bulley, Bal. The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: First Steps. Human Rights Law Review (2006) 6(1), p. 144. Thomas, Dorothy. Advancing Rights Protection in the United States: An Internationalized Advocacy Strategy. Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 9 (1996), p. 15. Weiss, Anita. Interpreting Islam and women's rights implementing CEDAW in Pakistan. International Sociology (2003) 18(3), p. 581. Read More