Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:48:33.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Would the “Optional Protocol” Effectuate India's Due Diligence Obligation Under the Women's Convention?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

Vasudevan SHRITHA
Vasudevan SHRITHA*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Houston, 3551 Cullen Boulevard, Room 447 Houston, TX 77204-3011
*
Email: skvasude@central.uh.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

India acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women with a Declaration (CEDAW) to Article 5(a) stating that it will implement the principle on gender-based equality only to the extent of non-interference in the personal affairs of its religious communities. The due diligence obligation in the CEDAW, which was adopted through General Recommendation No. 19 in 1992, normatively expanded Article 5 to imply an obligation on nation states to redress traditional cultural attitudes that cause gender-based violence. This article argues that the cultural nature of GBV in India converts the Declaration of India into an inconsistent reservation under public international law. This implies that India's Declaration is an egregious breach of the CEDAW's due diligence obligation. Accession to the CEDAW's Optional Protocol is advocated as a solution to this serious breach. Theoretical implications for the three-stage norm life cycle and epiphenomenal norms are presented.

Keywords

Gender-Based Violence (GBV)CEDAW ComplianceInternational LawEpiphenomenal NormsIndia
Type
Article
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2023 , pp. 76 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Asian Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 September 1981).

2 CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence Against Women, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1992) [CEDAW General Recommendation 19].

3 SULLIVAN, Donna J., “Gender Equality and Religious Freedom: Toward a Framework for Conflict Resolution” (1991) 24 New York Journal of International Law and Politics 795Google Scholar; RIDDLE, Jennifer, “Making CEDAW universal: A critique of CEDAW's reservation regime under Article 28 and the effectiveness of the reporting process” (2002) 34 George Washington International Law Review 605Google Scholar.

4 Declarations, Reservations, Objections and Notifications of Withdrawal of Reservations Relating to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW/SP/2010/2 (1 March 2010).

5 Riddle, supra note 3.

6 CEDAW General Recommendation 19, supra note 2.

7 Michele BRANDT and Jeffrey A. KAPLAN, “The Tension between Women's Rights and Religious Rights: Reservations to CEDAW by Egypt, Bangladesh and Tunisia” (1995) 12 Journal of Law and Religion 105.

8 CEDAW Committee & others, General Recommendation 19, Violence Women (1992).

9 HASSELBACHER, Lee, “State Obligations Regarding Domestic Violence: The European Court of Human Rights, Due Diligence, and International Legal Minimums of Protection” (2009) 8 Northwestern Journal of Human Rights 190Google Scholar.

10 Andrew BYRNES and Eleanor BATH, “Violence against Women, the Obligation of Due Diligence, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Recent Developments” (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 517 at 518.

11 Radhika COOMARASWAMY, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, UN Doc.E/CN.4/1997/47/Add.1 (1996); Rashida MANJOO, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, UN Doc.A/HRC/14/22/Add.2 (2010).

12 Riddle, supra note 3.

13 Sullivan, supra note 3.

14 Hilary CHARLESWORTH and Christine CHINKIN, “The gender of jus cogens” (1993) 15 Human Rights Quarterly 63 at 73.

15 Byrnes and Bath, supra note 10 at 518.

16 CEDAW General Recommendation 19, supra note 2.

17 Hilary CHARLESWORTH, Christine CHINKIN and Shelley WRIGHT, “Feminist approaches to international law” (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law 613 at 614.

18 CEDAW General Recommendation 19, supra note 2.

19 Charlesworth and Chinkin, supra note 14 at 63.

20 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, supra note 4.

21 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, GA Res. 34/180, UN Doc. A/34/46 (entered into force 3 September 1981) [CEDAW], art. 5.

22 Ibid., art. 16.

23 CEDAW General Recommendation 19, supra note 2 at para. 11.

24 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, supra note 4.

25 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980).

26 Gary KING, Robert O. KEOHANE and Sidney VERBA, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton University Press, 1994) at 7.

27 Huma AHMED-GHOSH, “Chattels of society: Domestic violence in India” (2004) 10 Violence Against Women 94 at 94.

28 Ibid., at 95.

29 Ratna KAPUR and Brenda COSSMAN, Subversive Sites: Feminist Engagements with Law in India (Sage Publishing, 1996) at 101; Ahmed-Ghosh, supra note 27 at 96.

30 Ahmed-Ghosh, supra note 27 at 103.

31 Ahmed-Ghosh, supra note 27 at 96.

32 Ibid., at 104.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 George BUHLER, The Laws of Manu-Translated (1886), online: Internet Sacred Text Archive <http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm>.

36 Ahmed-Ghosh, supra note 27 at 106.

37 Ibid., at 110.

38 AHMAD, Nehaluddin, “Female feticide in India” (2010) 26 Issues in Law and Medicine 13Google ScholarPubMed at 15.

39 Ibid., at 15.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., at 17.

43 Ibid.

44 Sudip BHATTACHARYA and Amarjeet SINGH, “‘The more we change, the more we remain the same’: female feticide continues unabated in India” (2017) BMJ Case Rep. 1.

45 Ibid., at 1.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 PATEL, Vibhuti, “Campaign against rape by women's movement in India” (2014) 24 Deport. Esuli Profughe RivistaTelematica Studi Sulla MemoriaFemminile 36Google Scholar at 37.

51 Ibid., at 37.

52 Tuka Ram and Anr vs State of Maharashtra, 15 September 1978, 1979 AIR 185, 1979 SCR (1) 810; MURTHY, Laxmi, “From Mathura to Bhanwari”, 48(23) Economic and Political Weekly 16Google Scholar at 16.

53 Ibid., at 16.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid., at 17.

56 Ibid., at 16.

57 Ibid.

58 SULLIVAN, Renae, “Sexual Violence in India: The history of Indian women's resistance” (2015) 11 McNair Scholars Research Journal 15Google Scholar at 73.

59 Pervez Iqbal SIDDIQUI, “Father-in-law gets 10 yrs for Imrana rape” The Times of India (20 October 2006), online: The Times of India <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/Father-in-law-gets-10-yrs-for-Imrana-rape/articleshow/2210881.cms>.

60 Sullivan, supra note 58 at 73.

61 Dipti Mayee SAHOO, “An analysis of widowhood in India: A global perspective” (2014) 2 International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research 45 at 45.

62 Ibid., at 45.

63 Ibid., at 46.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 A. Judith CZERENDA, “The Meaning of Widowhood and Health to Older Middle-Class Hindu Widows Living in a South Indian Community” (2010) 21 Journal of Transcultural Nursing 351 at 351.

67 CEDAW General Recommendation 19, supra note 2.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 Ann Elizabeth MAYER, “Reflections on the proposed United States reservations to CEDAW: Should the constitution be an obstacle to human rights” (1995) 23 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 727 at 731–2.

72 Ibid., at 731.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid., at 732.

77 Ian McTaggart SINCLAIR and Ian Robertson SINCLAIR, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Manchester University Press, 1984); Mayer, supra note 71 at 733.

78 Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recognizes the opinion of international scholars as an extant source of law. Hence, on doubtful questions, opinio juris, or the opinion of scholars in the field of public international law prevails. See Gennady DANILENKO, Law-Making in the International Community (Springer, 1993) at 15.

79 Mayer, supra note 71.

80 Ibid.

81 Frank HORN, Reservations and Interpretative Declarations to Multilateral Treaties (Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, Tokyo: North-Holland, 1988) at 5; Mayer, supra note 71 at 733.

82 See Danilenko, supra note 78.

83 GURIN, Patricia, “Women's Gender Consciousness” (1985) 49 Public Opinion Quarterly 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar; AGNES, Flavia, “Women's Movement within a Secular Framework: Redefining the Agenda” (1994) 29 Economic and Political Weekly 1123Google Scholar at 1123.

84 Agnes, supra note 83 at 1123.

85 Flavia AGNES, Sudhir CHANDRA and Monmayee BASU, Women and Law in India: An Omnibus Comprising Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women's Rights in India, Enslaved Daughters: Colonialism, Law and Women's Rights; and Hindu Women and Marriage Law: From Sacrament to Contract (Oxford University Press, 2004).

86 Ibid.; National Alliance of Women, “India: Second NGO Shadow Report on CEDAW” (November 2006), online: Partners for Law in Development <http://pldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CEDAW_-Second-Shadow_report_2006.pdf>.

87 Agnes, supra note 83.

88 Sally Engle MERRY, “Constructing a Global Law-Violence against Women and the Human Rights System” (2003) 28 Law and Social Inquiry 941.

89 National Alliance of Women, supra note 86.

90 Ibid., at 7.

91 Charlesworth and Chinkin, supra note 14 at 69; CEDAW, art. 1.

92 National Alliance of Women, supra note 86 at 8.

93 Shirin M. RAI, The National Commission for Women: The Indian Experience (Routledge, 2018).

94 MANDAL, Saptarshi, “The impossibility of Marital Rape: Contestations around Marriage, Sex, Violence and the Law in Contemporary India” (2014) 29 Australian Feminist Studies 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 National Alliance of Women, supra note 86 at 17.

96 Susanne ZWINGEL, “How do international women's rights norms become effective in domestic contexts? An analysis of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)” (2005), online: <https://d-nb.info/97814287X/34>.

97 Andrew C. BYRNES, “The Other Human Rights Treaty Body: The Work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women” (1989) 14 Yale Journal of International Law 1 at 57.

98 Ibid., at 57.

99 Neil ENGLEHART and Melissa K. MILLER, “Women's Rights, International Law and Domestic Politics: Explaining CEDAW's Effectiveness” (2011) APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper, 5.

100 Anne F. BAYEFSKY, “Making the human rights treaties work” (1994) 26 Studies in Transnational Legal Policy 229 at 234.

101 Ibid., at 240.

102 Daniel W. HILL Jr., “Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior” (2010) 72 The Journal of Politics 1161 at 1163.

103 Riddle, supra note 3 at 626.

104 Englehart and Miller, supra note 99 at 1.

105 Ibid., at 1.

106 DONNELLY, Jack, “International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis” (1986) 40 International Organization 599CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 614 (1986); Zwingel, supra note 96 at 48.

107 ISA, Felipe Gomez, “The Optional Protocol for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Strengthening the Protection Mechanisms of Women's Human Rights” (2003) 20(2) Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 291Google Scholar at 302.

108 Englehart and Miller, supra note 99 at 1.

109 Isa, supra note 107 at 304.

110 Ibid., at 305.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid., at 306.

113 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 6 October 1999, 2131 U.N.T.S. 83 (entered into force 22 December 2000) [CEDAW Optional Protocol], art. 1.

114 Ibid., art. 2.

115 Isa, supra note 107 at 313.

116 CEDAW Optional Protocol, art. 3.

117 Ibid., art. 5.

118 Ibid., art. 6.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid., art. 7.

121 Donnelly, supra 106 at 30.

122 Isa, supra note 107 at 316.

123 CEDAW Optional Protocol, art. 8.

124 Ibid.

125 Ibid., art. 10.

126 NUSSBAUM, Martha C., “India: Implementing Sex Equality Through Law” (2001) 2 Chicago Journal of International Law 35Google Scholar.

127 Ibid., at 58.

128 Ibid., at 55.

129 Ibid., at 46.

130 Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Others, 23 April 1985, 1985 AIR 945.

131 Catharine A. MACKINNON, “Sex equality under the Constitution of India: Problems, prospects, and ‘personal laws’” (2006) 4 International Journal of Constitutional Law 181 at 192.

132 Section 3(a), The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (1986).

133 Nussbaum, supra note 126 at 55.

134 Ibid., at 56.

135 Jamie CASSELS, “Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible?” (1989) 37 American Journal of Comparative Law 495 (1989).

136 Avani Mehta SOOD, “Gender justice through Public Interest Litigation: Case Studies from India” (2008) 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 833 at 839.

137 Thomas RISSE and Kathryn SIKKINK, “The socialization of international human rights norms into domestic practices: introduction” in Thomas RISSE, Stephen C. ROPP, and Kathryn SIKKINK, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 5 at 66.

138 Sullivan, supra note 3.

139 BOYLE, Francis A., “Irrelevance of International Law: The Schism between International Law and International Politics” (1980) 10 California Western International Law Journal 193Google Scholar.

140 Zwingel, supra note 96.

141 Emilie M. HAFNER-BURTONB and Kiyoteru TSUTSUI, “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises” (2005) 110 American Journal of Sociology 1373; Beth A. SIMMONS, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

142 Merry, supra note 88; Zwingel, supra note 96.

143 Judith WYTTENBACH, “Violence against Women, Cultural/Religious Traditions and the International Standard of Due Diligence” in Carin BENNINGER-BUDEL, ed., Due Diligence and Its Application to Protect Women from Violence (Brill, 2008), 223 at 226.