UNITED NATION'S RESOLUTION ON ELIMINATION OF FEMALE GENITAL RITUAL: A LEGITIMATE RESPONSE TO A HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEM OR WHAT?

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW MEDICINE AND LAW Pub Date : 2014-12-01
Obiajulu Nnamuchi
{"title":"UNITED NATION'S RESOLUTION ON ELIMINATION OF FEMALE GENITAL RITUAL: A LEGITIMATE RESPONSE TO A HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEM OR WHAT?","authors":"Obiajulu Nnamuchi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A recent United Nations' (U.N.) Resolution, \"Intensifying Global Efforts for the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilations,\" urging all countries to enact legislation outlawing female circumcision or female genital ritual (FGR) signals a disturbingly new frontier in the polemic surrounding the ancient cultural practice. Never before has the apex global institution lent its imprimatur to a project whose foundation is profoundly muddled in uncertainties and murkiness. That the Resolution received an instantaneous and near-universal acclaim as a necessary protective weapon against supposed assault on the human rights of women is not news. After all, aside from essentially validating extant legislative frameworks in several countries, the proclamation fits seamlessly with decades-long agitations of activists, scholars and media pundits of one stripe or the other. What is absurd--indeed, the real news--is continued neglect of calls for a rethinking of the criminalization fervor currently gripping the world, for a reassessment of the evidence trumpeted by abolitionists as justificatory of their unbridled interference in what practicing communities revere as a sacred cultural rite. Relying on the premise that claims regarding harmful impact of FGR, the fulcrum upon which eradication forces depend for their activism, cannot be substantiated, this paper argues that prohibitory regimes based thereon, whether at the U.N. or country level, is per se a violation of the human rights of the women purportedly sought to be protected. Human rights (including, in this case, its self-appointed \"apostles\"), cannot, as a popular Igbo maxim admonishes, become \"outsiders who wept louder than the bereaved.\" This is the prism from which this paper analyzes the on-going supranational crusade to suppress FGR. It is a critique of extant FGR legal and policy regimes, an instance of which is the U.N. Resolution, as unrepresentative of legitimate advancement of human rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":54182,"journal":{"name":"MEDICINE AND LAW","volume":"33 4","pages":"61-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MEDICINE AND LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A recent United Nations' (U.N.) Resolution, "Intensifying Global Efforts for the Elimination of Female Genital Mutilations," urging all countries to enact legislation outlawing female circumcision or female genital ritual (FGR) signals a disturbingly new frontier in the polemic surrounding the ancient cultural practice. Never before has the apex global institution lent its imprimatur to a project whose foundation is profoundly muddled in uncertainties and murkiness. That the Resolution received an instantaneous and near-universal acclaim as a necessary protective weapon against supposed assault on the human rights of women is not news. After all, aside from essentially validating extant legislative frameworks in several countries, the proclamation fits seamlessly with decades-long agitations of activists, scholars and media pundits of one stripe or the other. What is absurd--indeed, the real news--is continued neglect of calls for a rethinking of the criminalization fervor currently gripping the world, for a reassessment of the evidence trumpeted by abolitionists as justificatory of their unbridled interference in what practicing communities revere as a sacred cultural rite. Relying on the premise that claims regarding harmful impact of FGR, the fulcrum upon which eradication forces depend for their activism, cannot be substantiated, this paper argues that prohibitory regimes based thereon, whether at the U.N. or country level, is per se a violation of the human rights of the women purportedly sought to be protected. Human rights (including, in this case, its self-appointed "apostles"), cannot, as a popular Igbo maxim admonishes, become "outsiders who wept louder than the bereaved." This is the prism from which this paper analyzes the on-going supranational crusade to suppress FGR. It is a critique of extant FGR legal and policy regimes, an instance of which is the U.N. Resolution, as unrepresentative of legitimate advancement of human rights.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联合国关于消除女性生殖器仪式的决议:对人权问题的合法回应还是什么?
最近的一次联合国会议题为“加强全球努力消除切割女性生殖器官行为”的决议敦促所有国家颁布立法,禁止女性割礼或女性生殖器官仪式(FGR),这标志着围绕这一古老文化习俗的争论出现了令人不安的新前沿。这个全球最高机构从未批准过一个基础在不确定性和模糊性中严重混乱的项目。该决议立即获得了近乎普遍的赞誉,被视为一种必要的保护武器,以防止所谓的对妇女人权的侵犯,这并不是什么新闻。毕竟,除了从本质上验证几个国家现有的立法框架之外,该宣言与数十年来各种形式的活动家、学者和媒体权威人士的鼓动不谋而合。荒谬的是——事实上,真正的新闻是——人们一直忽视这样的呼吁:重新思考目前席卷世界的定罪热潮,重新评估废奴主义者大肆宣扬的证据,这些证据是他们肆无忌惮地干涉实践社区所尊崇的神圣文化仪式的理由。基于这样一个前提,即关于FGR有害影响的说法(根除力量赖以行动的支点)无法得到证实,本文认为,基于此的禁止性制度,无论是在联合国还是在国家层面,本身都是对据称寻求保护的妇女人权的侵犯。人权(包括,在这种情况下,它自封的“使徒”),不能像伊博人的格言告诫的那样,成为“比失去亲人的人哭得更大声的局外人”。这是本文分析正在进行的压制FGR的超国家运动的棱镜。它是对现有的FGR法律和政策制度的批评,其中一个例子是联合国决议,因为它不能代表合法的人权进步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can a patient’s death go unpunished? Social Marketing Challenges in Western Balkans: Evidence From Kosovo Domestic Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic – Analysis of Legal Solutions Adopted by Selected European Countries The, Of, For, In The Use of Amicable Settlement for Resolving Medical Malparctice in Indonesia The Importance of labeling products with a GMO or non-GMO label
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1