Lesson 7: Specific Rights (continued)
The two sessions in this Lesson shall deal with the matter of gender rights, considering the surrounding issues and the manner in which gender rights have been protected in the international human rights system.
Session 7.1 – Gender Rights (I)
The overall problem with the rights of women or gender rights is that these rights are not accorded the same status or consideration as other international human rights. For example, recognizing that legal norms solidify the current social order, even if some change occurs like the passing of a treaty, it is difficult to allow for any form of enforcement of such rights within the domestic framework. As a result, many groups are prevented from advancing or having their interests adequately considered. Additionally, property or economic rights tend to entrench patterns of authority (i.e. male patterns) and impose severe costs on women. Hence, even if the right to a family is stated in the UDHR, it is in very general terms, such that the existence of the family might be protected as such but at the expense of the women who might be discriminated against within that family structure. Such an approach also is inherent in the state reports to the various human rights committees. While attempting to demonstrate a fair approach towards women, many times the reports veer towards instilling discriminatory practices or ignore issues pertaining to sex discrimination whilst reporting on other issues.
The point is that there is an inherent gender bias within international organizations and state systems that is quite difficult to overcome in any practical sense. In general, it has been demonstrated by a variety of key studies that women worldwide receive less education and health care, and are routinely discriminated against in the employment sector (specifically lower wage and lower rank). Even with the notion of privatization and developing economies, employers prefer men due to fewer problems of child and health care.
With this in mind, the international human rights system saw fit to focus a particular treaty on the rights of women. Hence the creation of the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women (CDEAW).
The important aspect of the treaty is that unlike other human rights treaties, the goal is to respect, protect and prevent, provide and promote the role and rights of women. It is suggested that you refer to your documents book and look at the preamble to the treaty that reflects the overall goals of the document. We also shall consider a number of articles therein.
Article 1 calls for the removal of discrimination in effect and purpose. This article applies to all individuals within the state.
Article 2 calls for no delay in implementing the treaty, a typical tactic adopted by states. Placing this requirement in the treaty itself puts a burden on the state to properly uphold the treaty.
Article 3 is a rather broad provision calling on states to ensure the full development of women.
Article 4 upholds the idea of affirmative action while
Article 5 calls for the adoption by states of broad appropriate measures.
Articles 6-16 essentially delineate a number of such measures with the idea being to end discrimination.
In particular, note that Article 6 applies to private actors as well, a rather bold move within a human rights system that generally dealt with the state as a key actor. Article 10 focuses on proper education and article 12 attempts to integrate civil and political with social and economic rights, thereby incorporating all forms of approaches to human rights.
The key measure under CEDAW is state reporting and constructive dialogue. The committee attempts to broaden problems and issues, but similar to other instruments, it is beset by tardiness, inadequate coverage of reports, and hesitancy specifically with national implementation Another central problem that is probably unique to CEDAW is the reservations. Reservations essentially are the possibility for a state to “reserve” on a particular article where it would allegedly conflict with an internal law or social more (for example). In many instances, states reserve on various articles in CEDAW, claiming that it conflicts with internal structure of culture or religious principles that prevent full implementation of the treaty. Article 28 provides for no reservations that are contrary to the object and purpose of the treaty, yet reservations are tolerated to allow for state participation, since otherwise fewer states would sign on to the treaty.
The downside to that logic is that it weakened universality and seems to instill the discriminatory approach towards women rights that the Convention was trying to remove.
A recent move has been the provision of individual applications to CEDAW in much the same manner as found within for example the ICCPR. It remains to be seen how effective this aspect of the treaty will be in the long run but it certainly assists in moving the rights of women forward.
