Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T06:25:05.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Catharine A. MacKinnon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Catharine A. MacKinnon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Sex, Gender, and International Law
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 100 , 2006 , pp. 246 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

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 For the original discussion of this argument, and its exploration in depth for one country, see Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward A Feminist Theory of the State (1989).

2 MacKinnon, supra note 1, discusses these examples.

3 This analysis is developed more fully in Catharine A. MacKinnon, Are Women Human? and Other International Dialogues 1 (2006).

4 Kadic v. Karadžić, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995).

5 See Catharine A. MacKinnon, Sex Equality 24-35 passim (2001) (discussing Canada); effective January 1999, Sweden passed a de facto sex equality approach to prostitution, decriminalizing the prostituted people and criminalizing the purchase of people for sex. Act Prohibiting the Purchase of Sexual Services [SFS] 1998:408 (Swed.); see also Catharine A. MacKinnon, On Sex and Violence: Introducing the Antipornography Civil Rights Law in Sweden, in MacKinnon, supra note 3, at 91.

6 See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-discrimination, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.l, at 26, para. 7 (1994); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee, General Recommendation No. 19, Violence Against Women, UN Doc. A/47/38 (1993); CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 23, Political and Public Life, UN Doc. A/52-38/Rev.l, pt. II, at 61, para. 15 (1997); CEDAW Committee, Report on Mexico Produced by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women Under Article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, and Reply from the Government of Mexico, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/2005/OP.8/Mexico, para. 34 (Jan. 27, 2005).

7 Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgment, No. ICTR-96-4-T, para. 688 (Sept. 2, 1998). See Catharine A. MacKinnon, Defining Rape Internationally: A Comment on Akayesu, in MacKinnon, supra note 3, at 237.

8 This refers to Butler v. Regina, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452, 479 (Can.) in which the Supreme Court of Canada found that pornography “results in harm, particularly to women and therefore to society as a whole,” upholding a criminal law against it over a constitutional expression challenge on equality grounds. However, the law, being within the discretion of the state rather than in the hands of those harmed, has not been enforced effectively.

9 Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, and Ngeze, Judgment and Sentence, No. ICTR-99-52-T (Dec. 3, 2003); see MacKinnon, Catharine A., Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, and Ngeze , 98 AJIL 325 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.