Table Of Content

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS PROFESSOR REBECCA J. COOK FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 2005 These materials have been prepared exclusively for the use of students of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS PROFESSOR REBECCA J. COOK FACULTY OF LAW UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 2005 These materials have been prepared exclusively for the use of students of the , Faculty of Law University of Toronto Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/internationalpro00cook_0 International Protection of Women’s Human Rights Professor Rebecca J. Cook 2005 ' 1. Overview Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin, Women and the International Legal System in The Boundaries of International Law, Manchester University Press, 2000, 1-22. 1 See also: United Nations Millennium Project Task Force on Education and Gender Equality, Taking Action: Achieving Gender Equality and Empowering Women, www.unmilleniumproiect.org/report/ last visited 2 Apr 05 2. Feminist Theories and Explanations of Women’s Oppression & Liberation Charlesworth and Chinkin, Feminist Theories and International Law in The Boundaries of the Law, supra, 23-61. 12 3. The CEDAW Convention Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.Annex 1 Andrew Byrnes, The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in W. Benedek, E. Kisaakye & G. Oberleitner, eds. Human Rights of Women: International Instruments and African Experiences, Zed Books, 2002, 119-172.25 CEDAW General Recommendations on Reporting: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations.htm.Annex 8 4. The Principles of Treaty Interpretation, Feminist Methods and the Object and Purpose of the CEDAW Convention Rebecca Cook, Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Virginia J. of Int’l Law 30: 643, 660-663 (1990).53 Feminist Methods Susanne Baer, Citizenship in Europe and the Construction of Gender by Law in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in K. Knop ed., Gender and Human Rights, Oxford U. Press, 2003,97-106 .57 Phyllis Goldfarb, “A Theory-Practice Spiral: The Ethics of Feminism and Clinical Education” (1990-1991) 75 Minn. L. Rev. 1599, 1625-1646.63 Hillary Charlesworth, “Feminist Methods in International Law” (1999) 93 The American Journal of International Law 379, 381-385 .85 1 The Object and Purpose of the CEDAW Convention CEDAW, General Recommendation 25, Temporary Special Measures, 2004, CEDAW/C/2004/I/WP.l/Rev.l, 30 Jan 2004 (Advance Unedited Version) paras 1- 14...Annex 10 Sandra Fredman, Beyond the Dichotomy of Formal and Substantive Equality: Towards a New Definition of Equal Rights in I. Boerefijn et al eds.. Temporary Special Measures, Intersentia, 2003, 111-118.88 reread Byrnes, supra 123-126...27 See also: Human Rights Committee, Equality of Rights between Men and Women, General Comment 28, 2001: www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc.htm 5. Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Art. 1) Kerry Rittich et al, The Gender of International Law, ASIL Proceedings, 1999, 206-209.93 See also: Thlimmenos v. Greece (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 15, paras: 1-3, 34-49, http://www.echr.coe.int/ All Forms: Sex and Gender Petrovic v. Austria (1998) 33 EHRR 307 (excerpt).95 See also: Broeks v. The Netherlands (1987) HRC Communication No. 172/1984 , UN Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 196 (1990). http://www.unhchr.ch7h tml/menu2/6/crc.htm Advisory Opinion on the Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica (1984) 5 Hum. Rts. L.J. 161. http://www.corteidh.or.cr/stars.html All Forms: ethnic and race discrimination Yilmaz-Dogan v. The Netherlands (1988) CERD Communication No. 001/1984, Annual Report cite: A/43/18 (1988), Annex IV, pp. 59-64; CERD/C/36/D/1/1984.104 CERD, General Recommendation 25: Gender Related Dimensions of Racial Discrimination, UN GAOR, 2000, Doc. No. A/55/18...Annex 20 See also: 2 Abdulaziz, Cabales & Balkandali v. U.K. (1985) 94 E.C.H.R. (ser. A), www.echr.coe.int All Forms: age discrimination Rebecca Cook, Bernard Dickens and Mahmoud Fathalla, Age Discrimination, 203-205, Obstetric Fistula, 182-3 in Reproductive Health and Human Rights, Oxford U. Press, 2003.111 See also: Strategic Objective L on the girl child, Beijing Platform for Action, 1995 http://www. un.org. womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ AH Forms: discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation Marta Lucia Alvarez Giraldo v. Colombia, Admissibility Decision. Rep No. 71/99, Case 11.810, 4 April 1999 (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) 5pp.114 See also: Joslin v. New Zealand, Comm. 902/1999, 30 July 2002, UN Doc. ICPR/C/75/D/902/1999 (Human Rights Committee), http://wwwmnhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc.htm Loveday Hodson, Family Values: The Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in International Law, Netherlands Q. of Human Rights 22: 33-57 (2004) All Forms: Violence CEDAW, General Recommendation 19, Violence against women (Eleventh session, 1992), U.N. Doc. A/47/38 at 1 (1993).Annex 21 6. State Responsibility (Article 2) Cognizability: Legal Recognition of Harms Rebecca Cook, State Responsibility for Violations of Women’s Rights, Harvard Human Rights J. 7: 125, 130-137 (1994).119 Rape as torture: Raquel Martin de Mejia v. Peru, Case 10.970, Report No. 5/96, Inter- Am.C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91 Doc. 7 at 157 (1996), (excerpts).123 Focus on facts : 123-128 Focus on rape as torture: 130 - 134 The Nature of State Responsibility ICESCR, Article 2.Annex 26 CESCR, General Comment 3, The nature of States parties' obligations (Fifth session, 1990), U.N. Doc. E/1991/23, annex III at 86 (1990).Annex 27 3 ICCPR, Article 2 Annex 30 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 3, Article 2 Implementation at the national level (Thirteenth session, 1981), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/l/Rev.6 at 125 (2003) .Annex 31 Andrew Byrnes and Jane Connors, Enforcing the Human Rights of Women: A Complaints Procedure for the Women’s Convention? Brooklyn J. of Int’l L. XXI: 679, 707-32 (1996).145 Limitations on State Responsibility Cook, State Responsibility for Violations of Women’s Rights, supra, 147-152 (issues); 172-174 (limitations).159 See also: Act of State Doctrine, Fogarty v. U.K., ECHR, 2001 (Application no. 37112/97), 21/11/2001, www.echr.coe.int Margin of Appreciation Doctrine, Lindsay v. United Kingdom, 9 Eur. H.R. Rep. 555 (1986), www.echr.coe.int 7. Understanding Why Women Lack Access to Justice Generally - Ayesha Imam, Gender Issues in the Challenge of Access to Human Rights, International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2003, Enhancing Access to Human Rights, Versoix, Switz (2004), full text available at: www.ichrp.org, 1 lpp.165 Patriarchy - Ato del Avellanal v. Peru, 1986, Communication No. 202/1986, U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/44/40) at 196 (1988) Equality before the Law (Art. 15) esp. para 2.1.176 Janet Rifkin, “Toward a Theory of Law and Patriarchy” (1980) 3 Harv. Women’s L.J. 83, 83-95 .180 Albie Sachs, Protecting Human Rights in a New South Africa, (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1990), 53-60 .193 Discourse of Rights - Radhika Coomarswamy, To Bellow Like a Cow: Women, Ethnicity and the Discourse of Rights in R. Cook ed. Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives, U Penn Press, 1994, 39-57.199 4 Experience of Rights - Sally Engle Merry, Rights Talk and the Experience of Law: Implementing Women’s Eluman Rights to Protection from Violence, Human Rights Quarterly 25: 343, 343-348, 378-381 (2003).209 8. The CEDAW Optional Protocol CEDAW Optional Protocol and its Rules of Procedure.Annex 38 Laboni Hoq, The Women’s Convention and Its Optional Protocol, Columbia Human Rights L. R. 32: 677, 693-694 (2001).215 Communication Procedure - Articles 1-7 A. T. v. Hungary, Communication No. 1/2003, 14pp.222 Model Form for submission of Communications to the CEDAW Committee under the CEDAW Optional Protocol.Annex 54 Hoq, The Women’s Convention and Its Optional Protocol, supra, 694-97, 709-715.215 See also: B. -J. v. Germany, Communication No. 1/2003, 14pp, http://www.un.org. womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ Admissibility Requirements: CEDAW Committee, Issues arising under the CEDAW Optional Protocol, CEDAW/C/2004/IWP.2, 19 Nov 2003 (the Boerefijn Report) 1-19 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ Inquiry Procedure - Articles 8-9 Hoq, The Women’s Convention and Its Optional Protocol, supra 697-699.236 See also: CED AW/C/2005/OP. 8/Mexico, Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW under Art. 8 of the Optional Protocol, and the reply of the Government of Mexico, 27 Jan 05, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ 9. State Responsibility for Effective and Gender Sensitive Remedies (Article 2(b)) Raquel Martin de Mejia v. Peru, supra, focus on remedies.134-140 CEDAW Committee, the Boerefijn Report, supra, 19-32.238 Rebecca Cook, State Responsibility for Violations of Women’s Rights, supra, 169-171.252 5 Changes in Domestic Laws (Arts 2 & 24) X& Y v. The Netherlands, ECHR, 1985, 16/1983/72/110, App no. 00008978/80, 26/03/1985, lOpp.254 R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330 Supreme Court of Canada, 1999, paras 68-74 265 Anne Warner La Forest, “Domestic Application of International Law in Charter Cases: Are We There Yet?” (2004) 37 U.B.C. L. Rev. 157, 157-160, 161-170, 186-190 .272 See also: M.C. v. Bulgaria, ECHR, 2003 (App no. 39272/98) 04/12/2003, http://ww-Av.echr.coe.int/ Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241 (India) http://www.iudis.nic.in/ Legal Aid Airey v. Ireland, (Just Satisfaction) ECHR (1979) App no 6289/73, 06/02/1981.286 See also: Airey v. Ireland, ECHR (1979) App no 6289/73, 09/10/1979, WAVw.echr.coe.int Criteria for Gender Sensitive Remedies Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Reparations, Judgment ofNov 27, 1998, (ser. C) No. 42 (1998), paras: 107-192.292 See also: Dinah Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law, 2nd ed., (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2005) Theories of Remedies: 7-21, Remedies in National Law: 22-49, Non-Monetary Remedies: 269-290, International Tribunals including sexual harassment remedies: 226-230, Historical Injustice claims: 429-439 including sexual servitude for the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII: 436-439. 10. Use of Temporary Special Measures (Art. 4) CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 25: Temporary Special Measures, 2004, supra, paras 15-39.Annex 14 Rebecca Cook, Obligations to Adopt Temporary Special Measures under the CEDAW Convention in I. Boerefijn et al eds., Temporary Special Measures, Intersentia, 2003, 119, 119- 135.309 6