Navigating legal protections for cohabiting and economic relationships: can the market/home dichotomy guide us?

References

• Aerts, M., 2024. Vermogensverschuivingen tussen echtgenoten en ongehuwde samenwoners. Brussels: Larcier/Intersentia, 172–198.
   Google Scholar
• Aloni, E., 2013. Registering Relationships. Tulane Law Review, 87, 587–589.
   Google Scholar
• Antokolskaia, M., 2006. Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe: A Historical Perspective. A Tale of Two Millenia. Antwerp: Intersentia, 191–208.
   Google Scholar
• Antokolskaia, M., 2012. Economic Consequences of Informal Heterosexual Cohabitation from a Comparative Perspective: Respect Parties’ Autonomy or Protection of the Weaker Party? In: A.L. Verbeke, J.M. Scherpe, C. Declerck, T. Helms, and P. Senaeve, eds. Confronting the Frontiers of Family and Succession Law: Liber Amicorum Walter Pintens. Antwerp: Intersentia, 43–45.
   Google Scholar
• Bessière, C. and Gollac, S., 2020. Le genre du capital - Comment la famille reproduit les inégalités. Paris: La découverte.
   Google Scholar
• Blumberg, G.G., 1981. Cohabitation without Marriage: A Different Perspective. UCLA Law Review, 28, 1160–1164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boele-Woelki, K., et al. 2019. Principles of European Family Law Regarding Property, Maintenance and Succession Rights of Couples in de Facto Unions. Cambridge: Intersentia, 57–59.
   Google Scholar
• Böök, B., et al. 2020. Gendering the COVID-19 Crisis: A Mapping of Its Impact and Call for Action in Light of EU Gender Equality Law and Policy. European Equality Law Review, 2, 22–44. https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5300-european-equality-law-review-2-2020-pdf-1-446-kb
   Google Scholar
• Bouwman, T., 2023. Nudging in het contractenrecht ter bescherming van zwakkere partijen. The Hague: Boom juridisch, https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/427393.
   Google Scholar
• Bowman, C.G., 2010. Unmarried Couples, Law, and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 47–53.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, S., 1999. Family, Law, and Sexuality: Feminist Engagements. Social & Legal Studies, 8 (3), 369–390. doi:10.1177/096466399900800305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, D., 2000. ‘And You Can’t Find Me Nowhere’: Relocating Identity and Structure within Equality Jurisprudence. Journal of Law and Society, 27 (2), 249–272. doi:10.1111/1467-6478.00153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cossman, B., 2002. Family Feuds: Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative Visions of the Reprivatization Project. In: B. Cossman and J. Fudge, eds. Privatization, Law, and the Challenge to Feminism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 179–217.
   Google Scholar
• Crenshaw, K., 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 154–156.
   Google Scholar
• Delap, L., 2020. Feminisms. A Global History. London: Pelican Books, 101–140.
   Google Scholar
• Diduck, A., 2023. Laws’ Families 20 Years Later: The Challenges of Modern Family Justice. Keynote at the 18th World Conference (Golden Jubilee Conference) of the International Society of Family Law, Rethinking Law’s Families & Family Law?, 12-15 July, Antwerp.
   Google Scholar
• Duggan, L., 2002. The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism. In: R. Castronovo and D.D. Nelson, eds. Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 175–194.
   Google Scholar
• Eggermont, S., 2016. Tweerelaties. Huwelijk, wettelijke samenwoning en feitelijke samenwoning juridisch ontleed. Antwerp: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Ertman, M., 2005. The Business of Intimacy. Bridging the Private-Private Distinction. In: M.A. Fineman and T. Dougherty, eds. Feminism Confronts Homo Economicus: Gender, Law, and Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 468.
   Google Scholar
• Estin, A.L., 2001. Ordinary Cohabitation. Notre Dame Law Review, 76 (5), 1381–1392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ettelbrick, P., 1989. Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation. OUT/Look: National Lesbian and Gay Quarterly, 6, 14–16.
   Google Scholar
• Fineman, M.A., 2008. The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20 (1), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Fineman, M.A. and Grier, A., eds, 2013. Vulnerability. Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R., 2002. Feminist Legal Theory. In: R. Banakar and M. Travers, eds. An Introduction to Law and Social Theory, Oxford: Hart, 135–154. Post-print version available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277248454_Feminist_Legal_Theory.
   Google Scholar
• Fredman, S., 1997. Women and the Law. Vol. 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–58.
   Google Scholar
• Gan, O., 2019. Anti-Stereotyping Theory and Contract Law. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 42 (1), 84.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, M., 2008. Nonmarital Cohabitation: Social Revolution and Legal Regulation. Family Law Quarterly, 42 (3), 315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garwood, E., 2016. Reproducing the Homonormative Family: Neoliberalism, Queer Theory and Same-Sex Reproductive Law. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 17 (2), 9–10.
   Google Scholar
• Glendon, M., 1989. The Transformation of Family Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 253.
   Google Scholar
• Goossens, E., 2021. One Trend, a Patchwork of Laws. An Exploration of Why Cohabitation Law Is so Different Throughout the Western World. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 35 (1), 1–36. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebaa017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goossens, E., Bollen, K., and Verbeke, A.L., 2023. Waarover maken feitelijke samenwoners ruzie? Een empirisch-juridische dwarsdoorsnede van de rechtspraak feitelijke samenwoning. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht, 60 (3), 424–425, 429, 439–440.
   Google Scholar
• Halley, J. and Rittich, K., 2010. Critical Directions in Comparative Family Law: Genealogies and Contemporary Studies of Family Law Exceptionalism. American Journal of Comparative Law, 58 (4), 754–758. doi:10.5131/ajcl.2010.0001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendrickx, F., 2023. Inleiding tot het Belgische arbeidsrecht. Bruges: die Keure.
   Google Scholar
• Hochschild, A., 2012. The Second Shift. Working Families and the Revolution at Home. 3rd ed. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Jänterä-Jareborg, M., Brattström, M., and Eriksson, L., 2015. National Report: Sweden. In: Commission on European Family Law, ed, Informal Relationships. http://ceflonline.net/wp-content/uploads/Sweden-IR.pdf,2-4
   Google Scholar
• Keren, H., 2019. Feminism and Contract Law. In: R. West and C.G. Bowman, eds. Research Handbook on Feminist Jurisprudence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 410.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, M., 1989. Race, Racism, and Feminist Legal Theory. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 12, 130–131.
   Google Scholar
• Knapp, M., 2020. Protection of a Weaker Party in Public Interest – Material Scope of the Directive on Unfair Trading Practices in Business-To-Business Relationships in the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 5 (1), 62–72. doi:10.53116/pgaflr.2020.1.4.
   Google Scholar
• Landes, J.B., ed, 1998. Feminism, the Public and the Private. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leleu, Y.-H., 2021. Droit patrimonial des couples. Brussels: Larcier.
   Google Scholar
• Leleu, Y.-H., Alofs, E., Harmel, C., and Peters, M. 2024. La transmission genrée du capital familial. Étude juridique et empirique pour l’Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes. Brussels: Larcier/Intersentia, 272–275.
   Google Scholar
• Marvin v Marvin, 1976. 557 P.2d 106, 18 Cal. 3d 660, 134 Cal. Rptr. 815.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, G., 1995. (Out)laws: Acts of Proscription in the Sexual Order. In: M. Thornton, ed. Public and Private. Feminist Legal Debates. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 66–88.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, J. 2017. Unmarried Cohabitation in a European Perspective. In: J.M. Scherpe, ed. European Family Law. Vol. III. Cambridge: Intersentia, 94–98.
   Google Scholar
• Neave, M., 1995. Private Ordering in Family Law – Will Women Benefit? In: M. Thornton, ed. Public and Private. Feminist Legal Debates. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 144–149.
   Google Scholar
• OECD, 2024. Time Spent in Unpaid, Paid and Total Work, by Sex. https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/time-spent-in-unpaid-paid-and-total-work-by-sex.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Okin, S.M., 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books, 140.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, K., 1983. The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform. Harvard Law Review, 96 (7), 1497–1528. doi:10.2307/1340916.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pateman, C., 1983. Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy. In: S.I. Benn and G.F. Gaus, eds. Public and Private in Social Life. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 281.
   Google Scholar
• Pintens, W., et al. 2010. Familiaal vermogensrecht. Antwerp: Intersentia, 505.
   Google Scholar
• Polikoff, N., 1993. We Will Get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay and Lesbian Marriage Will Not Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in Every Marriage. Virginia Law Review, 79 (7), 1535–1550. doi:10.2307/1073381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Profeta, P., 2021. Gender Equality and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Labour Market, Family Relationships and Public Policy. Intereconomics, 56 (5), 270–273. doi:10.1007/s10272-021-0997-2.
   Google Scholar
• Sambolag, 2003. Swedish Cohabitation Act.
   Google Scholar
• Scherpe, J.M., 2012. Marital Agreements and Private Autonomy in Comparative Perspective. In: J.M. Scherpe, ed. Marital Agreements and Private Autonomy in Comparative Perspective. London: Hart Publishing, 443–446.
   Google Scholar
• Scherpe, J.M. and Hayward, A., ed, 2018. The Future of Registered Partnerships. Cambridge: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Scherpe, J.M. and Hayward, A., ed, 2024. The Legal Status of De Facto Relationships. Cambridge: Intersentia. (forthcoming).
   Google Scholar
• Schrama, W., 2004. De niet-huwelijkse samenleving in het Nederlandse en Duitse recht. Amsterdam: Stichting tot Bevordering der Notariële Wetenschap, 382–396.
   Google Scholar
• Schrama, W., 2008. The Dutch Approach to Informal Lifestyles: Family Function Over Family Form? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 22 (3), 314–315. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebn010.
   Google Scholar
• Schrama, W., Tigchelaar, J., and Yildiz, Y., 2020. De rol van de staat in het relatierecht. In: W. Schrama, and S. Burri, eds. Verantwoordelijkheden in het familierecht: de rol van staat, familie en individu. The Hague: Boom juridisch, 11–77.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, E.S., 2004. Marriage, Cohabitation and Collective Responsibility for Dependency. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2004, 256–257.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, J.B., 1992. The Privatization of Family Law. Wisconsin Law Review, 1992 (5), 1443–1568.
   Google Scholar
• Solnit, R., 2013. In Praise of the Threat: What Marriage Equality Really Means. In: R. Solnit, ed. 2014. Men Explain Things to Me. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 62–63.
   Google Scholar
• Steennot, R., 2019. Commentaar bij artikel VI.91/3 WER. In: R. Steennot, G. Straetmans, J. Stuyck, and H. Vanhees, eds. Economisch Recht. Artikelsgewijze Commentaar Met Overzicht van Rechtspraak En Rechtsleer (OHRA). Mechelen: Wolters Kluwer Belgium, 3.
   Google Scholar
• Swennen, F., 2015. Private Ordering in Family Law: A Global Perspective. In: F. Swennen, ed. Contractualisation of Family Law - Global Perspectives. Cham: Springer, 1–59.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, M., 1995. Preface. The Cartography of Public and Private. In: M. Thornton, ed. Public and Private. Feminist Legal Debates. xiii. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, and 2–16.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke, A.L., et al. 2015. Gender Inequalities and Family Solidarity in Times of Crisis. In: L. Cornelis, ed. Finance and Law: Twins in Trouble. Cambridge: Intersentia, 59–66.
   Google Scholar
• Verza, A., 2022. Vulnerability, Justice and Care. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 12 (1), 211–230. doi:10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1254.
   Google Scholar
• Vider, S., 2021. The Queerness of Home. Gender, Sexuality & the Politics of Domesticity After World War II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, K., 2007. Separate Spheres: Analytical Persistence in United States Women’s History. History Compass, 5 (1), 262–277. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00366.x.
   Google Scholar
• Women and Equalities Committee, House of Commons, 2022. The Rights of Cohabiting Partners. Second Report of Session 2022–23. https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23321/documents/170094/default/.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I.M., 1998. Impartiality and the Civic Public: Some Implications of Feminist Critiques of Moral and Political Theory. In: J.B. Landes, ed. Feminism, the Public and the Private. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442.
   Google Scholar
• Young, M., 2013. Gender and Terrain: Feminists Theorize Citizenship. In: M. Davies and V.E. Munro, eds. The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory. London: Routledge, 177–195.
   Google Scholar