UN CONVENTIONS
The snappily styled Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), known more colloquially as the ‘Women’s Convention’ is in effect the International Bill of Rights for Women and was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in New York in 1979.This was the outcome of years of activism and lobbying by women’s rights groups.
Witty observers often ask, why…if women are human… do we actually need special human rights conventions for them. Won’t the Universal Declaration of Human Rights do for them also?
The answer to these witty observations is that whilst we do indeed have other human rights instruments many of them are “gender neutral” and based on the assumption that the world is a “level playing field.” They guarantee that citizens will be treated without discrimination by the State, but that is insufficient guarantee that inequalities which already exist will be eliminated, and overlooks the fact that citizens may abuse each other. Normally stronger citizens abuse weaker ones of course.
“The UN Charter and other instruments that guarantee equality, non-discrimination, or non-distinction on the basis of sex do not create rights for women that are specific to their day-to-day reality. Rather they offer the opportunity to women, to exercise on the same basis as men, rights that are universally recognised and inherent because of men’s and women’s common humanity”.(CEDAW Kit prepared by UNIFEM/UNICEF 1995)
Whilst there are indeed some aspects of life which are common to women and to men, and clearly women should be accorded equal opportunities in those areas, an enumeration of the rights of women needs to address such aspects as the right to autonomy within the family, the right to reproductive health care and reproductive choices, the right to economic autonomy, the right to protection against violence inside and outside the family.
“ For most women a relevant rights regime would be one that not only guaranteed equality with men in those areas of life that are common to the sexes, but would also promote justice in private and civil life…. Current human rights instruments reflect male experience in a world of men… the right to be free from torture applies to men and women as citizens, but is silent about violence in the family to which many women around the world are subject on a daily basis “. (CEDAW Kit prepared by UNIFEM/UNICEF 1995)
In addition to detailing what constitutes equality for women CEDAW sets out measures to achieve it in all fields (political, economic, social, and cultural). Amongst other things this means that unlike previous international instruments concerned with non-discrimination between the sexes CEDAW allows for what it terms ‘temporary special measures” such as quotas to ensure for example equality in numbers of male and female parliamentarians.
The same witty people often say that quotas and other measures intended to level the playing field are not only insulting to women but also against human rights. Some women may feel insulted by them but quotas are definitely supported by this human rights instrument.
Unlike other human rights treaties, CEDAW specifically obliges countries which ratify to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by ‘non-state actors’ which is to say by any person, organization or enterprise. This is another distinguishing feature of the CEDAW as generally speaking non-state actors are not accountable under international human rights law. Whilst certainly women suffer gender-based violations of their rights through direct actions of the State (e.g. through torture or wrongful imprisonment) most violations of women’s rights occur in more private spheres of life, and at the hands of individuals. Under CEDAW States are obliged to change the cultural, social and legal context which allows such violations as sexual harassment in the workplace, domestic violence, and trafficking, as well as to take steps to eradicate the so-called Harmful Traditional Practices (HTPs) such as Female Genital Mutilation, Honour Killing etc. CEDAW concerns itself then not only with the individual’s rights with respect to the State, but also with individual’s relationships to non-state institutions and other individuals.
All these special features have made CEDAW into one of the most controversial of the human rights conventions. For example ,in those societies where the family group is regarded as much more important than the individual many objections or reservations have been entered with respect to the articles concerned by ratifying countries.
Another achievement of CEDAW is that it re- affirms the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. In practice international human law gives priority to civil and political rights, de-valuing or at least giving less importance to social, economic and cultural rights which involve some of women’s most pressing concerns. It is well recognized that women’s economic, social and cultural subordination inhibit many women from claiming even their basic civil and political rights.
Some 185 States have ratified CEDAW at the current time (i.e. over 90% of UN member countries) which means that they are committed not only to bring their own legislation into line with the Women’s Convention but also to implement all of its provisions.
Perhaps of even more interest is the list of countries which have not ratified which includes the USA, Iran, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga.
It is interesting here perhaps to review some of the objections to CEDAW raised a few years ago in the US Senate: Some senators rehearsed again the usual old arguments against multilateralism; ratification would give too much power to the international community, and would result in violations of US sovereignty.
Other objections related to the protection of the American way of life at least as perceived by the senators in question. It was felt for example that:
the Treaty would destroy traditional families by redefining family life.
the Treaty will require the US to send women into armed combat (which they do anyway I think?)
the Treaty will interfere with the proper role of parents in child-rearing
the Treaty will threaten single-sex schools and will require “gender-neutral” textbooks
the Treaty promotes abortion by promoting access to family planning
the Treaty could lead to sanctioning of same-sex marriages and will require legalization of prostitution
It is to be hoped and indeed expected that the new American Administration will take a more constructive approach and eventually ratify this Convention. It would be a pity if some of the other non-ratifiers on the list were to get there first. The comments of the United States above give us some idea of the kinds of objections which might arise. The pattern of reservations of course varies according to country and culture. In Islamic countries reservations are made against those articles which are considered incompatible with Shari’a law, though it is interesting to note that the reservations made by different Muslim countries are not identical.
The most controversial articles in the Arab world have been those which deal with a woman’s right to transfer her nationality to her children (Article 9), Article 16 dealing with equality in marriage and family relations, and Article 15 dealing with legal and civil rights and competence.
The Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women oversees the implementation and monitoring of the Convention. This Committee is formed of 23 experts in women’s rights from a variety of disciplines, who are elected by secret ballot and serve in their personal capacity. Every ratifying nation is obliged to report to the Committee on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) within one year of signing and every four years thereafter. Though naturally of varying quality these reports in general provide excellent data on the situation of women in that country. The Committee encourages reports from both official sources and NGOs. However it is generally recognized that the Committee lacks “teeth” in a number of ways. It has no power to reject reservations, even those which could be considered inconsistent with the overall objectives and purpose of the treaty (such as reservations to Article 2).
In general if the Women’s Convention is to become a reality it needs to become much more widely known and recognized in order ‘customer demand’ obliges States to take their commitments seriously. Often for example, the CEDAW is not part of the human rights curriculum in law schools. In order to become a reality CEDAW should be known by all law-makers and those administering justice, as well as by all those seeking it.
Read more on CEDAW
The full text of CEDAW, its Optional Protocol, and information about ratification, non-ratification and reporting is available atwww2.ohchr.orgwww2.ohchr.org
Another excellent site is that of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch–Asia Pacific at www.iwraw-ap.org which assists NGOs in producing the so-called ‘shadow’ reports in parallel to the official government report.