![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
The article makes two claims regarding women’s rights and their domestic implementation: First, ongoing international debates have created both agreement and contestation regarding the meaning of women’s rights. Hence, the concept is ‘in motion’. Second, this has led to diverse forms of domestic engagement with this set of norms. These processes have two components, the first being the translation between situated meanings, the second the actual implementation of the concept, a dynamic that remains principally incomplete. To elucidate these claims, the article first presents translation dynamics in the work of the CEDAW Committee, and then traces translation efforts in Finland and Chile, two culturally distinct States parties to the Convention.
Notes
1. Bunch and Reilly, “Demanding Accountability”; Bunch and Fried, Beijing.
2. Çağlar, Prügl, and Zwingel, Feminist Strategies in International Governance.
3. Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink, The Power of Human Rights.
4. Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders.
5. Zwingel, Translating International Women’s Rights.
6. Krook and True, “Rethinking the Life Cycles.”
7. Levitt and Merry, “Vernacularization on the Ground.”
8. Acharya, “How Ideas Spread.”
9. Roald, “Islamists in Jordan.”
10. Goodale, “Introduction. Locating Rights”.
11. Epstein, “Stop Telling us How to Behave.”
12. The Global Gender Gap report covers economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. In 2015, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden had the smallest gaps and ranked 1–4. Ranks 6 and 7 were occupied by Rwanda and the Philippines, rank 12 by Nicaragua, 16 by Namibia, and 22 by Bolivia. The United States reached rank 28 (Global Gender Gap Report 2015, Rankings http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings/).
13. Basu, The Challenge of Local Feminisms; Meyer and Prügl, Gender Politics in Global Governance; Jain, Women, Development and the UN; Moghadam, Globalizing Women.
14. See Note 6.
15. Despite the tendency of expansion, it should be noted that there is a narrowness in this conceptual development as it has focused more and more on integrating women into formal arenas of decision-making, not so much on a broader idea of women’s empowerment and leadership.
16. See Note 2.
17. McKean, “The Conventions and Declarations.”
18. Buss, “The Christian Right”; Joachim, Agenda Setting, the UN, and NGOs.
19. IWRAW AP, “Exploring the Potential.”
20. Halley et al., “From the International to the Local.”
21. Razavi, “Governing the Economy for Gender Equality?”
22. See Note 5.
23. Byrnes and Bath, “Violence against women”; Zwingel, “International feminist strategies.” GR 19 is currently under revision in order to integrate further dimensions of violence against women (see www.ohchr.org, Treaty Bodies, CEDAW).
24. Zwingel, Translating International Women’s Rights.
25. Cook, “Human rights and maternal health.”
26. See Note 24.
27. See Note 18.
28. Tønnessen, “Feminist Interlegalities and Gender Justice in Sudan.”
29. E.g. Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court.
30. A fuller account of this section can be found in Zwingel, Translating International Women’s Rights, chapter 8.
31. Finland submitted reports in 1988, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2012 and Chile in 1991, 1995, 1999, 2004 and 2011.
32. Since 2008, NGO submissions for the constructive dialogue are accessible online at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/SessionsList.aspx?Treaty=CEDAW.
33. To better understand these variations, as many cases as possible should be analyzed, including those with thin connections to CEDAW. For an overview of works examining the use of CEDAW in domestic contexts, see http://libguides.fiu.edu/cedaw_impact .
34. Holli and Kantola, “State Feminism Finnish Style.”
35. Nousiainen and Niemi-Kiesiläinen, “Introductory Remarks on Nordic Law.”
36. NYTKIS, Submission (2014).
37. See Note 34.
38. For example, in 1993, Finland informed the Committee that indirect discrimination, unequal treatment related to pregnancy and parenthood, and sexual harassment in the workplace had been added to the scope of the Act (UN Doc. CEDAW/C/FIN/2).
39. NYTKIS, Submission (2008).
40. UN Docs. CEDAW/C/FIN/6; CEDAW/C/FIN/CO/6/Add.1.
41. SETA – LGBTI Rights in Finland, NGO submission to the 57 session.
42. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/FIN/4.
43. UN Docs. CEDAW/C/FIN/5; CEDAW/C/FIN/7.
44. UN Docs. A/56/38; CEDAW/C/FIN/CO/6.
45. See Notes 36, 39.
46. See Note 24.
47. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/FIN/2.
48. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/FIN/4.
49. In both 2008 and 2012, the government reported the number of 125 family spaces which amounts to one fourth of the 500 spaces recommended for Finland by the Council of Europe (UN Docs. CEDAW/C/FIN/CO/6/Add.1 and CEDAW/C/FIN/7).
50. Finnish NGOs, The Implementation of The Convention.
51. See Note 39; Amnesty International, Finland. Submission to the UN Committee.
52. Trevizán, “Performing Memory and Democracy in Chile.”
53. Schild, “Care and Punishment in Latin America.”
54. Valdés, “The CEDAW and the State of Chile”; UNDP, “Género. Los desafios de la igualdad”.
55. Opposition was particularly massive against Chile’s ratification of the Optional Protocol to CEDAW. The Catholic Church spearheaded these protests and successfully prevented ratification (Zwingel, How do International Women’s Rights, 363ff).
56. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CHI/1.
57. CEM et al., Informe Sombra CEDAW.
58. NGOs did report on a quota bill submitted to Parliament in 1997, but it was archived due to lack of support (See Note 57).
59. Concluding Observations, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CHL/CO/5–6.
60. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CHL/CO/5–6/Add.1.
61. This may change in the near future: In 2016, the Lower House adopted a bill that specifies three indications – danger for the life of the mother, non-viability of the fetus and pregnancy as result of rape – based on which an abortion can be legally performed. The bill is approved by 70% of the population and has to pass the Senate to become law (BBC, ‘Chile lawmakers lift abortion ban’).
62. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CHI/3.
63. Freeman, “Article 16”.
64. Massey, For Space.
65. Liebowitz and Zwingel, “Gender Equality Oversimplified.”