Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:28:55.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Equality and Legal Mobilization in the United Kingdom: Using Rights for Lobbying, Litigation, Defense, and Attack

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2013

Susan Millns  and
Charlotte Skeet
Susan Millns
Affiliation:
School of Law, Politics and Sociology University of Sussex UK
Charlotte Skeet
Affiliation:
School of Law, Politics and Sociology University of Sussex UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes women’s contemporary use of rights to mobilize and pursue claims for gender equality and gender justice in the United Kingdom. Empirically, the paper explores the growth of rights discourse and activity against the backdrop of a stronger constitutionalization of women’s rights at national, European, and international levels. It does this through an exploration of individual and collective lobbying and litigation strategies in relation to violence against women. The paper first examines this in the context of the right to bodily integrity through examples of the ways in which sexual violence and domestic abuse are addressed within the criminal justice system. The paper then addresses the right to be free from violence for women seeking refuge and asylum. The research reveals the need for varied strategies that target all aspects of the legal and political systems in order to ameliorate the protection and implementation of women’s rights.

Résumé

Le présent article analyse l’utilisation contemporaine des droits des femmes pour se mobiliser et présenter des réclamations visant l’égalité entre les sexes et la justice sexospécifique au Royaume-Uni. Empiriquement, l’article explore la croissance du discours et des activités sur les droits dans le cadre d’une constitutionnalisation plus forte des droits des femmes aux niveaux national, européen et international. Pour ce faire, l’article explore des stratégies de lobbying et de procédures individuelles et collectives en relation avec la violence faite aux femmes. Il examine d’abord cela dans le contexte du droit à l’intégrité physique à l’aide d’exemples de moyens par lesquels la maltraitance sexuelle et la violence familiale sont réglées dans le système de justice pénale. L’article aborde ensuite le droit pour les femmes qui cherchent un refuge et un asile d’être à l’abri de la violence. L’étude révèle le besoin de diverses stratégies qui ciblent tous les aspects des systèmes judiciaire et politique afin d’améliorer la protection et la mise en œuvre des droits des femmes.

Keywords

genderequalityUnited Kingdomasylumsexual violencehuman rightsHuman Rights Act 1998genreégalitéRoyaume-Uniasileviolence sexuelledroits de l’hommeLoi sur les droits de la personne (1998)
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 28 , Special Issue 2: Gender Equality, Legal Mobilization, and Feminism in a Multilevel European System , August 2013 , pp. 169 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2013 

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 See, for example, Atkins, S. and Hoggett, B., Women and the Law (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984)Google Scholar; Barnett, H., Introduction to Feminist Jurisprudence (London: Cavendish Publishing, 1998)Google Scholar; Bridgeman, J. and Millns, S., Feminist Perspectives on Law—Law’s Engagement with the Female Body (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1998)Google Scholar; Conaghan, J. C., “Reassessing the Feminist Theoretical Project in Law,” JLS 27/3 (2000): 351–85Google Scholar; Richardson, J. and Sandland, R., eds., Feminist Perspectives on Law and Theory (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2000)Google Scholar. An interesting recent addition to the literature on the framing of women’s rights in the legal system is the Feminist Judgments project ( Hunter, R., McGlynn, C., and Rackley, E., eds., Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar) which seeks to write the “missing” feminist judgments in key decisions in English law.

2 Lister, R., Citizenship—Feminist Perspectives, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003)Google Scholar; Lovenduski, J. and Randall, V., Contemporary Feminist Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Feminism and Equality (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987) Google Scholar; Phillips, A., Feminism and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 The notable exception is two special issues of the journal Feminist Legal Studies: “Gender Sexuality and Human Rights,” eds. J. Conaghan and S. Millns (2005) issue 13; “Encountering Human Rights: Gender/Sexuality, Activism and the Promise of Law,” eds. E. Grabham and R. Hunter (2008) issue 16.

4 “Do we need a Bill of Rights?” Discussion Paper, Commission on a Bill of Rights (London: Ministry of Justice, August 2011). The first public consultation was established on 18 March 2011 and closed on 11 November 2011 the second was launched in July 2012 consultation closed on September 30, 2012. http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr.

5 Meehan, E. and Collins, E., “Women, the European Union and Britain,” in Women in Politics, eds. Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar; E. Meehan, “Women’s Rights in Citizen Europe,” The Manchester Papers: http://www.charter88.org/pubs/manpaps/meehan.html.

6 The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

7 Byrne, P., “The Politics of the Women’s Movement,” in Women in Politics, eds. Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 57–72 at 58.Google Scholar

8 See Dobrowolsky, A. and Hart, V., Women Making Constitution: New Politics and Comparative Perspectives (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).Google Scholar

9 In the Westminster Parliament 22.2 percent of members are women. This figure compares with 46.7 percent in the Welsh Assembly and 34.8 percent in the Scottish Parliament (figures for March 2011). See Hansard Society, Women at the Top: Politics and Public Life in the UK (London: Hansard Society, 2012).

10 The Government of Wales Act 1998 and 2006, s.77, Standing Orders in the Scottish Parliament and s.75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

11 Human Rights Act 1998, chapter 42, section 6 creates a duty on public authorities.

12 Since courts are also public authorities they are required to develop common law in line with Convention rights, and s.3 provides a duty to interpret legislation to be compatible with Convention rights “so far as is possible.”

13 Samuels, H., “Feminist Activism, Third Party Interventions and the Courts,” FLS 13 (2005): 15–42.Google Scholar

14 While women’s groups had campaigned hard for the government to sign the option protocol to CEDAW, the government only adopted this as policy when their hand was forced by a determined minister for women who also held a cabinet portfolio. See Skeet, C., “Strengthening Women’s International Rights Norms in the UK after the Human Rights Act 1998: Lessons From Canada” in British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law ed. Waters, C. P. M. (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 149–68 at 163.Google Scholar

15 Skeet, “Strengthening Women’s International Rights Norms in the UK.”

16 The Government Of Wales Act 1998 and 2006 s.77, Standing orders in the Scottish Parliament and s.75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

17 The Fawcett Society, named after the suffragist Dame Millicent Fawcett, is a longstanding UK NGO that campaigns for women’s equality.

18 [2010] EWCH 3522.

19 It also replaced the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Commission.

20 Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.

21 For instance, see the Fawcett Society campaign: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1025.

22 For example, s.14, which provides for intersectional claims.

23 See the responses to the public consultations by the UK Bill of Rights Commission: http://www.justice.gov.uk /about/cbr.

24 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women—General Assembly Resolution 48/104 of 20th of December 1993. Preamble para. 5

25 Ibid., Art 1, 2, 4.

26 Recommendation 19: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm.

27 The United Kingdom ratified the Optional Protocol to CEDAW in 2004.

28 For example, Kontrova v. Slovakia (2007) 4 E.H.R.R. 482.

29 MC v. Bulgaria (2005) 40 E.H.R.R. 20.

30 Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria (Application no. 71127/01), 12 June 2008.

31 Opuz v. Turkey (2010) 50 E.H.R.R. 28.

32 Beijing, Platform of Action 1995.

33 Howe, A., “The Problem of Privatized Injuries: Feminist Strategies for Litigation,” in At the Boundaries of Law: Feminism and Legal Theory, eds. Fineman, M. A. and Thomadsen, N. S. (New York: Routledge, 1991), 148–67.Google Scholar

34 See Fox, M., “Legal Responses to Battered Women who Kill,” in Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body, eds. Bridgeman, J. and Millns, S. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), 79–104 Google Scholar; McColgan, A., “In Defence of Battered Women who Kill,” OJLS 13 (1993): 508–29Google Scholar; O’Donovan, K., “Defences for Battered Women who Kill,” JLS 18 (1991): 219–40Google Scholar; O’Donovan, K., “Law’s Knowledge, the Judge, the Expert, the Battered Woman, and her Syndrome,” JLS 20 (1993): 427–37.Google Scholar

35 R v. Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889; R v. Thornton [1992] 1 All ER 306. Southall Black Sisters ran a long campaign for Ahluwalia.

36 Bindel, J., Cook, K., and Kelly, L., “Trials and Tribulations—Justice For Women: A Campaign for the 1990s, ” in Feminist Activism in the 1990s, ed. Griffin, G. (Oxon: Taylor and Francis, 1995).Google Scholar

37 R v. Singh, The Times, 30 January 1992.

38 R v. Toi, The Times, 10 May 1995; R v. Greech, The Times, 22 February 1994.

39 R v. Smith [2000] 4 All ER 289: see Burton M., “Intimate Homicide and the Provocation Defence: Endangering Women? R v. Smith,” FLS 9 (2001): 247–58.

40 M. Burton, “Sentencing Domestic Homicide Upon Provocation: Still ‘Getting Away With Murder.’ R v. Suratan, R v. Humes and R v. Wilkinson (Attorney General’s Reference No. 74, No. 95 and No. 118 of 2002) [2002] E.W.C.A. 2982,” FLS 11 (2003): 279–89.

41 Fudge, J., “The effect of Entrenching a Bill of Rights upon Political Discourse: Feminist Demands and Sexual Violence in Canada” International Journal of the Sociology of Law (1989): 445–63 at 460.Google Scholar

42 Moody, S., “Images of Women: Sentencing in Sexual Assault Cases in Scotland,” in Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body, eds. Bridgeman, J. and Millns, S. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1997), 1, 213–39.Google Scholar

43 Stewart, M. W., Dobbin, S. A., and Gatowski, S. I., “Definitions of Rape: Victims, Police and Prosecutors,” FLS 4 (1996): 159–77Google Scholar; Temkin, J. and Krahé, B., Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap—A Question of Attitude (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008).Google Scholar

44 Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac, and Zoran Vukovic judgment IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T (22 February 2001): D. Buss, “Prosecuting Mass Rape: Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic judgment IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T (22 February 2001)” FLS 10 (2002): 91–99.

45 R v. R [1991] 4 All ER 481.

46 R v. Diggle (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 163.

47 A v. Hoare; C v. Middlebrough Council; X v. London Borough of Wandsworth; H v. Suffolk County Council; Young v. Catholic Care and Others [2008] UKHL 6.

48 International Collective of Prostitutes, Some Mother’s Daughter: Hidden Movement of Prostitute Women Against Violence (London: Crossroads Books, 1999).

49 Ibid., 45.

50 K. Busby, “Discriminatory Uses of Personal Records in Sexual Violence Cases,” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 9 (1997): 148–77; T. Murphy and N. Whitty, “What is a Fair Trial? Rape Prosecutions, Disclosure and the Human Rights Act,” FLS 8 (2000): 143–67.

51 R v. Darrach [2000] 2 SCR 443.

52 R v. Seaboyer and Gayme [1991] 2 SCR 577.

53 Skeet, “Strengthening Women’s International Rights Norms in the UK after the Human Rights Act 1998: Lessons from Canada,” in British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law, ed. C. P. M. Waters (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 149–68 at 157.

54 Kelly, L. and Regan, L., Rape: Still a Forgotten Issue (London: Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit, 2003)Google Scholar; Lees, S., Ruling Passions: Sexual Violence, Reputation and the Law (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Smart, C., Feminism and the Power of Law (London: Routledge, 1989).Google Scholar

55 But note that the ECt.HR places Art. 6, the Right to Fair Trial, above the rights of victims to justice. See Al–Khawaja and Tahery v. UK Chamber (2009) 49 E.H.R.R 1 and Grand Chamber [2011] 15 December, apps. 26766/05 and 2228/06.

56 M. Mandel, The Charter of Rights and the Legalisation of Politics in Canada (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, 1994), 389.

57 See Dauvergne, C., “A Reassessment of the Effects of a Constitutional Charter of Rights on the Discourse of Sexual Violence in Canada,” International Journal of the Sociology of Law 22 (1994): 291–308, 305Google Scholar; Morten, F. and Allen, A., “Feminists and the Courts: Measuring Success in Interest Group Litigation in Canada,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 /1 (2001): 55–84.Google Scholar

58 Samuels, H., “Feminist Activism, Third Party Interventions and the Courts,” FLS 13 (2005): 15–42.Google Scholar

59 M. Burton, “Intimate Homicide and the Provocation Defence—Endangering Women? R v. Smith,” FLS 9 (2001): 247–58.

60 See Crenshaw, K., “Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Feminist Theory, and Anti-racist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum (1989): 139 Google Scholar; Aspinall, P. and Watters, C., Refugees and Asylum Seekers: A Review from an Equality and Human Rights Perspective (Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report 52, p. 134)Google Scholar. The authors argue that there has been insufficient attention paid to these intersectional characteristics.

61 Martin, S. F., “Gender and the Evolving Refugee Regime,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 29 /2 (2010): 104–21Google Scholar; see alsoA. Edwards, “Displacement, Statelessness and Questions of Gender Equality under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,” Legal and Protection Policy Research Series: PPLAS/2009/02: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a8aa8bd2.html.

62 Women make up around 50 percent of refugee populations globally (figures from the Refugee Council UK: http://www.rcis.org.uk/asylum_process/women).

63 The figures for 2009 are 16,065 applications from men and 8,225 applications from women (Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 2009; Supplementary tables, table 2 j: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk /publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/hosb1510/.

64 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html.

65 Goldberg, P., “Where in the World Is There Safety For Me? Women Fleeing Gender-Based Persecution,” in Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, eds. Peters, J. S. and Wolper, A. (London: Routledge, 1994), 345.Google Scholar

66 Crawley, H., “Gender, Culture and the Asylum Determination Process: The Experiences of Refugee Women,” in Rights of Women Bulletin (Autumn 2002): 5–9 at 5.Google Scholar

67 N. Berkowitz and C. Jarvis, Immigration Appeal Authority: Asylum Gender Guidelines (2000). These can be found at http://www.rcis.org.uk/resources/pages/Asylum+process+resources/Asylum+gender+guidelines. Harvey, C., “Engendering Asylum Law: Feminism, Process and Practice,” in Feminist Perspectives on Public Law, eds. Millns, S. and Whitty, N. (London: Cavendish Publishing, 1999)Google Scholar. Harvey also argues that the failure to explicitly refer to gender as a ground of persecution is a problem and refers to the neglect of women’s experience as “systematic” (“Engendering Asylum Law,” 222–23).

68 Guidelines on the Protection of Refugee Women Prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Geneva, July 1991): http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/documents/legal/gender_guidelines/UNHCR_Guidelines_Protection_Refugee_Women.pdf. The UNCHR subsequently published guidelines in relation to sexual violence in 1995. The current guidelines were produced in 2002 and are complementary to both these documents.

69 Akram, S. M., “Orientalism Revisited in Asylum and Refugee Claims,” International Journal of Refugee Law 12 (2000): 7–40.Google Scholar

70 Found at http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/linksrhein/archiv/c/c000205.htm.

71 [1999] 2 AC 629.

72 A summary of the facts is given by Lord Steyn at 636–38.

73 One of the claimants and her legal team had been supported and advised by Southall Black Sisters: http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk/history.html.

74 [1993] 2 SCR 689.

75 Argued by Women’s Asylum News (WAN) 100 (March 2011): http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/publications/157/WAN_March_2011.pdf.

76 Gender Issues in the Asylum Claim found on the UK Borders Agency website: http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumpolicyinstructions/apis/genderissueintheasylum.pdf?view=Binary.

77 WAN 41– 48.

78 P and M v. Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA civ [2004] 1640.

79 Ibid., para. 48.

80 Ibid., para. 45.

81 Secretary State for the Home Department v. Fornah [2004] EWCA civ 986 and 680.

82 House of Lords, Hansard Debates, 8 December 2005, cols. 844–868.

83 Ibid,, col. 855.

84 Ibid,, per Baroness Kennedy, col. 856.

85 Ibid., col. 857.

86 Fornah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL.

87 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, para. 26.

88 Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0083:EN:HTM.

89 S. Ceneda and C. Palmer, ‘“Lip Service’ or Implementation? The Home Office Gender Guidelines and Women’s Asylum Claims in the UK” (Asylum Aid, March 2006): http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files /publications/38/Lip_Service_or_Implementation.pdf. Often this was because their claims were being fast-tracked, though fast-tracking was contrary to official guidance.

90 Black Women’s Rape Action Project and Women Against Rape, Misjudging Rape: Breaching Gender Guidelines and International Law in Asylum Appeals (London, 2006).

91 House of Lords, Hansard, Written Questions, 5 February 2007, col. WA93.

92 WAN 98 (December 2010): 2.

93 Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11EHRR 439; see the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Bratza, Bonello, and Hedigan in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 494.

94 [2001] EWCA Civ 1955, 19 December (Threat of domestic violence if returned to Jamaica).

95 [2002] EWCA Civ 314, 14 March (Threat of forced abduction and rape if returned to Albania).

96 [2002] EWCA Civ 952, 5 July (Threat of violence to homo-sexual men if returned to Zimbabwe, and loss of society of partner in the case of A).

97 It is accepted in ECtHR jurisprudence that where there is a real risk of FGM it would breach Article 3 to return.

98 [2008] UKHL 64.

99 EM (Lebanon) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 64, para. 7, per Lord Hope of Craighead.

100 For instance in Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden, Application no. 23944/05 (2007), the ECtHR found the claimant’s assertion that she had wrongly been refused leave to remain inadmissible. The ECtHR suggested that because the applicant was resourceful enough to get herself and her daughter to Switzerland, she was “strong enough” to protect them both from FGM if they were returned to Nigeria (at p. 14). A number of cases are currently pending. Izeubhai v. Ireland (no. 43408/08) and Amerado v. Austria (0969/10) concern appeals against return where there is threat of FGM, and N v. Sweden relates to an appeal against return by an Afghan woman who had been living in Sweden and having an extramarital affair with a Swedish man. She alleges fear of state- sanctioned domestic violence if returned. In relation to pending appeals, see ECHR press release: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/39C38938-2E29-4151-9280-D5AC063DD02E/0/FICHES_ Violence_femmes_EN.pdf.

101 Fornah [2006], per Lord Hope, at para. 35.

102 Claim no. HQ09X01333.

103 Article 3 ECHR is the right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. Article 4 is the right to be free from slavery and servitude.

104 H. Wistrich and C. Kilroy, ELS v. Home Office Casenote: www.airecentre.org/.../Advannced_Immigration_-_ELS_v_Home_Office_Casenote.pdf.

105 Rayment, T., “Trafficked, Raped, Deported: Story of a Sex Slave,” Sunday Times (3 April 2011): 15.Google Scholar

106 J. Dromey, 5 April 2011, Hansard Commons Debate, col. 884.

107 http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/19/sex-trafficking-uk-legal-reform; Press Release From Legal Team Representing Trafficked Woman In Ground Breaking Claim Against the Home Office, 11 April 2011.

108 See Southall Black Sisters, The Two Year Rule Campaign, http;//www.southallblascksisters.org.uk/campaign_oneyearrule.html. (accessed May 2011).

109 Southall Black Sisters, Executive Summary of Proposed Amendments to Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill 2003—Report Stage, 4, 9, and 11 March 2004, House of Lords at p. 2.

110 S. Anitha, P. Chopra, W. Farouk, Q. Hag, and S. Khan, Forgotten Women: Domestic Violence, Poverty and South Asian Women with No Recourse to Public Funds, 2008 http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/ukpoverty/downloads/forgottenwomen.pdf.

111 R v. Birmingham City Council ex parte Clue [2010] EWCA Civ 390.

112 Some local authorities have established a network to share best practice. No Recourse to Public Funds Network, Social Services Support to People With No Recourse to Public Funds: A National Picture (March 2011): http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/CommunityandLiving /Pdf/equalitydocs/NRPF_national_picture_final.pdf.

113 Women’s Aid Joint Statement–One Year On: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/page.asp?section= 00010001001000020001

114 http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/charter.pdf.

115 Launched initially in June 2008 and then given a Parliamentary launch on 22 October 2008.

116 The Rights of Women Seeking Asylum: A Charter, 6.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.

119 http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/charter.pdf.

120 Asylum Aid, Charter of Rights of Women Seeking Asylum. Two Years On: Impacts and Actions (July 2010): http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/publications/133/WomensAsylumCharter2Yearson.pdf.

121 See Schneider, E. M., “The Dialectic of Rights and Politics: Perspectives From the Women’s Movement,” in Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender, eds. Bartlett, K. T. and Kennedy, R. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991).Google Scholar

122 Skeet, C., “Strengthening Women’s International Rights Norms in the UK after the Human Rights Act 1998: Lessons from Canada,” in British and Canadian Perspectives on International Law, ed. Waters, C. P. M. (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006), 149–68Google Scholar

123 See Irving, H., “More Than Rights,” in Constituting Equality: Gender Equality and Comparative Constitutional Law, ed. Williams, S. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar and Baines, B. and Rubio-Marin, R., ed., The Gender of Constitutional Jurisprudence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar