{"title":"Gender-sensitive post-legislative scrutiny in theory and practice","authors":"Maria Mousmouti","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2022.2154455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) enables an assessment of whether laws have met their intended objectives and outcomes. PLS can reveal achievements and errors in the design of legislation, achievements and gaps in implementation and broader positive and negative impacts that enable or hinder the achievement of regulatory results. Gender-sensitive post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) is PLS with a gender lens. Gender sensitive PLS is a strategic tool that can detect the impact of the law on gender equality. It can reveal the actual impact of legislation on men, women and gender inequalities, make visible biases, stereotypes and assumptions relating to gender and other characteristics, access, participation barriers and data gaps and improve the effectiveness of legislative initiatives. As a process, gender sensitive PLS requires a clear gender focus in the scrutiny, a gender sensitive data collection process and conclusions and recommendations that clearly highlight, among other findings, achievements and failures in relation to gender equality. Gender sensitive PLS is a powerful tool for gender sensitive Parliaments on the road to gender equality. Gender sensitive PLS can trigger legislative and institutional change, encourage advocacy, raise awareness and create ripple effects within Parliaments and other bodies around gender equality issues.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":"10 1","pages":"322 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2022.2154455","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 Post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) enables an assessment of whether laws have met their intended objectives and outcomes. PLS can reveal achievements and errors in the design of legislation, achievements and gaps in implementation and broader positive and negative impacts that enable or hinder the achievement of regulatory results. Gender-sensitive post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) is PLS with a gender lens. Gender sensitive PLS is a strategic tool that can detect the impact of the law on gender equality. It can reveal the actual impact of legislation on men, women and gender inequalities, make visible biases, stereotypes and assumptions relating to gender and other characteristics, access, participation barriers and data gaps and improve the effectiveness of legislative initiatives. As a process, gender sensitive PLS requires a clear gender focus in the scrutiny, a gender sensitive data collection process and conclusions and recommendations that clearly highlight, among other findings, achievements and failures in relation to gender equality. Gender sensitive PLS is a powerful tool for gender sensitive Parliaments on the road to gender equality. Gender sensitive PLS can trigger legislative and institutional change, encourage advocacy, raise awareness and create ripple effects within Parliaments and other bodies around gender equality issues.
期刊介绍:
The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.