Human Rights of Women: Intersectionality and the CEDAW

Buthaina Mohammed Alkuwari
{"title":"Human Rights of Women: Intersectionality and the CEDAW","authors":"Buthaina Mohammed Alkuwari","doi":"10.29117/irl.2022.0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research aims to track the record of the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)” since its entry into force in 1981, to review its texts and the cases brought to it, to know how it considered and dealt with intersectional discrimination against women. This paper evaluates if CEDAW has succeeded or failed to protect women from ‘intersectionality’. However, this discrimination describes compound discrimination against women based on sex, gender, identity, religion, belief, race, ethnicity, color, culture, socioeconomic status, age, class, and/ or origin... etc. The importance of this research is since despite a lot of cases of compound discrimination practiced against women around the world, the text of the Convention has not changed, and its committee, which is composed of experts in this field, did not adopt any ideas about the nature of discrimination. To determine the role of intersectionality, the research first focused on the theory of intersectionality in terms of concept and practice. Secondly, it showed how it affects women’s lives with examples from India, Brazil, Canada, Hungary, and others. Finally, it traced the concept of intersectionality, and how the Convention or its committee dealt with it through its general recommendations. The research found that CEDAW has overlooked the concept of intersectionality in its texts, while its committee addressed it in one of its recommendations in 2010 – noting that such recommendations are limited in scope and efficacy – which adversely impacted women’s rights globally. Therefore, the research recommends that the concept of intersectionality should be fully integrated into the text of the Convention, which will be reflected on the state parties by taking special measures that concretely give advantage to women who have been subjected to a history of discrimination.","PeriodicalId":30532,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29117/irl.2022.0229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research aims to track the record of the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)” since its entry into force in 1981, to review its texts and the cases brought to it, to know how it considered and dealt with intersectional discrimination against women. This paper evaluates if CEDAW has succeeded or failed to protect women from ‘intersectionality’. However, this discrimination describes compound discrimination against women based on sex, gender, identity, religion, belief, race, ethnicity, color, culture, socioeconomic status, age, class, and/ or origin... etc. The importance of this research is since despite a lot of cases of compound discrimination practiced against women around the world, the text of the Convention has not changed, and its committee, which is composed of experts in this field, did not adopt any ideas about the nature of discrimination. To determine the role of intersectionality, the research first focused on the theory of intersectionality in terms of concept and practice. Secondly, it showed how it affects women’s lives with examples from India, Brazil, Canada, Hungary, and others. Finally, it traced the concept of intersectionality, and how the Convention or its committee dealt with it through its general recommendations. The research found that CEDAW has overlooked the concept of intersectionality in its texts, while its committee addressed it in one of its recommendations in 2010 – noting that such recommendations are limited in scope and efficacy – which adversely impacted women’s rights globally. Therefore, the research recommends that the concept of intersectionality should be fully integrated into the text of the Convention, which will be reflected on the state parties by taking special measures that concretely give advantage to women who have been subjected to a history of discrimination.
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
妇女人权:交叉性与消除对妇女歧视公约
本研究旨在追踪《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》(CEDAW)自1981年生效以来的记录,审查其文本和提交给它的案件,了解它如何审议和处理对妇女的交叉歧视。本文评估了《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》是否成功或未能保护妇女免受“交叉性”。然而,这种歧视描述了基于性别、性别、身份、宗教、信仰、种族、民族、肤色、文化、社会经济地位、年龄、阶级和/或出身的对妇女的复合歧视……等。这项研究的重要性在于,尽管世界各地有许多对妇女实行复合歧视的案件,但《公约》的案文并没有改变,由这一领域的专家组成的委员会也没有通过任何关于歧视性质的想法。为了确定交叉性的作用,研究首先从概念和实践两个方面探讨了交叉性的理论。其次,它以印度、巴西、加拿大、匈牙利和其他国家的例子展示了它如何影响妇女的生活。最后,它追溯了交叉性的概念,以及《公约》或其委员会如何通过其一般性建议处理这一问题。研究发现,消除对妇女歧视委员会在其案文中忽视了交叉性的概念,而其委员会在2010年的一项建议中解决了这一问题,并指出此类建议的范围和效力有限,这对全球妇女的权利产生了不利影响。因此,该研究建议,应将交叉性的概念充分纳入《公约》的案文,缔约国将采取特别措施,具体地为曾经遭受歧视的妇女提供有利条件,从而反映这一概念。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
الدفاع من خلال تقنية الفيديوكونفرنس في المغرب: خرق مسطري أم مستقبل المحاكمة الجنائية؟ إشكالية تحديد الأشخاص المشمولين بالمصالحة وفقًا لتشريع ضريبة الدخل الفلسطيني - دراسة تحليلية مقارنة التنظيم التشريعي لمجلس الأمن القومي: دراسة مقارنة بين الأردن ومصر The Insider Trading Prohibition in Qatar: A Critical Comparative Study with US Law أثر اختيار الأولاد القصّر للمتجنس لجنسيتهم السابقة وفقًا للمادة 7 من قانون الجنسية الكويتي
×
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