Queering CEDAW? Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) in international human rights law

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Griffith Law Review Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608
G. Simm
{"title":"Queering CEDAW? Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) in international human rights law","authors":"G. Simm","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2020 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) found for the first time that a state had breached its obligations to prevent discrimination against women in the case of a lesbian couple subjected to a homophobic hate crime. No international human rights treaty specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The UN treaty bodies are developing a jurisprudence on the basis of such claims, with claimants sometimes forced to argue that they were discriminated against on the basis of ‘other status’. This article situates the CEDAW Committee's Views in ON and DP v Russian Federation in the context of attempts to queer international law, and international human rights law in particular. It analyses the costs and benefits of three strategies aimed at queering international human rights law: equality/universalism, special rights/a SOGIESC treaty; and queering CEDAW. The article aims to evaluate the significance of the first decision finding for the complainants on the basis of intersectional sexuality discrimination under CEDAW and to assess whether this amounts to queering CEDAW.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In 2020 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) found for the first time that a state had breached its obligations to prevent discrimination against women in the case of a lesbian couple subjected to a homophobic hate crime. No international human rights treaty specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The UN treaty bodies are developing a jurisprudence on the basis of such claims, with claimants sometimes forced to argue that they were discriminated against on the basis of ‘other status’. This article situates the CEDAW Committee's Views in ON and DP v Russian Federation in the context of attempts to queer international law, and international human rights law in particular. It analyses the costs and benefits of three strategies aimed at queering international human rights law: equality/universalism, special rights/a SOGIESC treaty; and queering CEDAW. The article aims to evaluate the significance of the first decision finding for the complainants on the basis of intersectional sexuality discrimination under CEDAW and to assess whether this amounts to queering CEDAW.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
酷儿均吗?国际人权法中的性倾向、性别认同和表达及性特征(SOGIESC)
2020年,联合国消除对妇女歧视委员会(CEDAW)首次裁定,在一对女同性恋夫妇遭受恐同仇恨犯罪的案件中,一国违反了防止歧视妇女的义务。没有任何国际人权条约明确禁止基于性倾向、性别认同和表达或性特征的歧视。联合国条约机构正在发展基于此类索赔的法理,索赔人有时被迫辩称他们因“其他地位”而受到歧视。本文将消除对妇女歧视委员会在ON和DP诉俄罗斯联邦案中的意见置于试图歪曲国际法,特别是国际人权法的背景下。本报告分析了旨在改变国际人权法的三种战略的成本和收益:平等/普遍主义、特别权利/一项SOGIESC条约;废除《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》。本文旨在评估基于《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》下的交叉性歧视对申诉人的第一项裁决的意义,并评估这是否相当于《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》的同性恋。
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
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Reconceptualising the crimes of Big Tech The current legal regime of the Indonesian outer small islands Mainstreaming climate change in legal education Skeletons in the cupboard: reading settler anxiety in Mabo and Love Post-enlargement (free) movement in the EU: who really counts as EU CITIZEN? understanding Dano through the lens of Orientalism
×
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