Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T14:04:11.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Mobilization, Transnational Activism, and Gender Equality in the EU

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2013

Rachel A. Cichowski
Rachel A. Cichowski*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Law, Societies and Justice Program, University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how EU rights and laws serve as legal opportunity structures for women’s rights activists in Europe. Further, it examines what effects this transnational activism has on the permanence and inclusion of public interests and gender equality in EU legal and political processes. The analysis examines the legal domain of EU women’s rights over a thirty-year period. Methodologically, the study relies on case law analysis, primary document collections, and interviews with non-governmental organizations and governmental elites at both the EU and the national level. I ask how legal mobilization can serve as a catalyst for institutional change (by influencing litigation and legislative action), and how this effects subsequent EU-level women’s rights mobilization and public inclusion.

Résumé

Le présent article examine comment les droits et les lois de l’UE servent de structures juridiques offrant des possibilités aux militantes des droits de la femme en Europe. De plus, il examine les effets de cet activisme transnational sur la permanence et l’inclusion des domaines d’intérêt public et de l’égalité entre les sexes dans les processus juridiques et politiques de l’UE. La présente analyse examine le domaine juridique des droits de la femme dans l’UE pendant une période de trente ans. Sur le plan méthodologique, l’étude repose sur des analyses de la jurisprudence, sur des recueils de documents de base, et des entrevues avec des organisations non gouvernementales et des élites gouvernementales, à la fois au niveau national et à celui de l’UE. Je demande comment la mobilisation juridique peut servir de catalyseur pour un changement institutionnel (en influençant les procédures judiciaires et les actes législatifs) et comment cela touche au niveau de l’UE la mobilisation pour les droits de la femme et l’inclusion publique subséquentes.

Keywords

Legal mobilizationECJEU gender equality policyEuropean women’s groupslegal integrationMobilisation juridiqueSJPUE politique sur l’égalité entre les sexesgroupes de femmes européensintégration juridique
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. 209 - 227
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 Gamson, William and Meyer, David, “Framing Political Opportunity, ” in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, eds. McAdam, Doug, McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 276 Google Scholar; Doug McAdam, “Political Opportunities: Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions,” ibid., 35–37; McCann, Michael, Rights at Work (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Cichowski, Rachel, The European Court and Civil Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Kay, Tamara, “Legal Transnationalism: The Relationship between Transnational Social Movement Building and International Law,” Law & Social Inquiry 36, no. 2 (2011)Google Scholar; Barclay, Scott, Jones, Lynn C., and Marshall, Anna-Maria, “Two Spinning Wheels: Studying Law and Social Movements,” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 54 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Tilly, Charles, From Mobilization to Revolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978)Google Scholar; McAdam, Doug, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)Google Scholar; McAdam, Doug, McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N., “Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes—Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements,” in McAdam, et al, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements.Google Scholar

3 Tarrow, Sidney, The New Transnationalism Activism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

4 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Cichowski, Rachel, “Courts, Rights and Democratic Participation,” Comparative Political Studies 39 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simmons, Beth, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Schneider, Ann. L. and Ingram, Helen, Policy Design for Democracy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997).Google Scholar

6 Keck, Margaret and Sikkink, Kathryn, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Tarrow, Sidney, The New Transnational Activism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

7 Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

8 The data sets are compiled from the EU Commission’s Transparency Registrar, which contains detailed information on the individuals, groups, and organizations who interact with EU policy institutions. There is clearly a methodological bias towards well-established organizations, as the registrar only includes those organizations that were visibly present in Brussels and actively engaged with EU institutions. The registrar can be accessed at: http://europa.eu/transparency-register/index_en.htm.

9 The data and analyses in this article extend the time period and build on research published in Cichowski, The European Court and Civil Society.

10 Katzenstein, Mary and Mueller, Carol, eds., The Women’s Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunity, and Public Policy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

11 Case 80/70 Defrenne I [1971] ECR 445.

12 In 1967, Vogel-Polsky published an article in a Belgian legal journal suggesting that individuals should be able to utilize Article 157 before national courts against member states that had failed to implement the principle in national law (“L’Article 119 du Traité de Rome peut-il être considéré comme self-executing? » Journal des Tribunaux, 15 April 1967). Vogel-Polsky began looking for a test case, and with little interest from the trade unions, ultimately found her case in the private sector: a stewardess, Gabrielle Defrenne, employed by Sabena Airlines (interview as cited in Hoskyns, Catherine, Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union (London: Verso, 1996)Google Scholar, 68).

13 For a more detailed discussion of this case law see Cichowski, The European Court and Civil Society; Case 43/75 Defrenne II [1976] ECR 455; Case 149/77 Defrenne III [1978] ECR 1365.

14 Cichowski, Rachel, “Women’s Rights, the European Court and Supranational Constitutionalism, ” Law & Society Review 38 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 O’Connor, Karen, Women’s Organizations’ Use of the Courts (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1980)Google Scholar; Harlow, Carol and Rawlings, Richard, Pressure Through Law (London: Routledge, 1992).Google Scholar

16 See discussion in Cichowski, The European Court and Civil Society. For example, the ECJ pregnancy case law including Case C-411/96 Boyle [1998] ECR 6401 and Case C-66/96 Pedersen [1998] ECR 7327.

17 Vallance, Elizabeth and Davies, Elizabeth, Women of Europe: Women MEPs and Equality Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 75.Google Scholar

18 Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975, OJ L45/19.

19 Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976, OJ L39/40.

20 Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978, OJ L6.

21 Hoskyns, Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union, 99.

22 Centre for Research on European Women (CREW), CREW Reports 11, no. 5 (Brussels: CREW Publications, 1983).

23 Commission of the European Communities, Women of Europe, No. 6/78 (Brussels: 1978).

24 Katzenstein and Mueller, The Women’s Movements of the United States and Western Europe.

25 Deshormes, Fausta, “Women of Europe, ” Women’s Studies International Forum 15, no. 1 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Case 69/80 Worringham [1981] ECR 767; Case 170/84 Bilka [1986] ECR 1607.

27 Case 12/81 Garland [1982] ECR 359.

28 Case 96/80 Jenkins [1981] ECR 911.

29 Case 129/79 Macarthys [1980] ECR 12.

30 Case 14/83 Von Colson [1986] ECR 1891.

31 Case 12/54 Danfoss [1989] ECR 345.

32 Case 184/83 Hoffman [1984] ECR 645.

33 Hoskyns, Catherine, “The European Community’s Policy on Women in the Context of 1992,” Women’s Studies International Forum 15 (1992): 23.Google Scholar

34 Ibid.; Hoskyns, Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union.

35 Moravcsik, Andrew, “Negotiating the Single European Act: national interests and conventional statecraft in the European Community, ” International Organization 45, no. 1 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Hoskyns, Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union, 130.

37 Each CREW Report has a section that is specifically dedicated to ECJ case law and subsequent national-level equality cases (the column “The Verdict”).

38 See CREW (1985).

39 First Report of the Network Experts, V/564/84-EN, Commission of the European Communities, 1984.

40 For example, Commission of the European Communities, Report of a Comparative Analysis of the Provisions for Legal Redress in Member States of the EC in Respect of Art 119 of the Treaty of Rome and the Equal Pay and Equal Treatment Directives (Brussels: 1984); Commission of the European Communities, Sex Equality Litigation in the Member States of the EC: A Comparative Study (Brussels: 1993, 1995).

41 Case 262/88 Barber [1990] ECR 1889.

42 The Barber decision, which in effect provided the direct effect of Article 157 (TFEU) in the pension sphere, was met with extreme criticism from member states who realized the costs involved with such a judgment. A host of Article 267 litigation followed (e.g., Moroni ECJ 1993b; Ten Oever ECJ 1993c; Neath 1993d, to name just a few). And subsequent EU legislative acts included an unprecedented Treaty revision (the Barber Protocol) and an amended Directive, (Council Directive 96/97/EC amending Directive 86/378/EEC).

43 Case C-450/93 Kalanke [1995] ECR 3051.

44 Case C-177/88 Dekker [1990] ECR 3941.

45 Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992, OJ L 648/1.

46 Case C-356/03 Mayer [2005] ECR 295.

47 Case C-147/02 Alabaster [2004] ECR 3101.

48 Case C-342/01 Gómez [2004] ECR 2605.

49 Case C-506/06 Sabine Mayr [2008] ECR 73.

50 Case C-249/96 Grant [1998] ECR 346.

51 Case C-13/94 P v. S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR 2143.

52 Case C-273/97 Sirdar [1999] ECR 7403.

53 Case C-285/98 Kreil [2000] ECR 69.

54 Council Directive 92/85/EEC on pregnancy and maternity; Council Directive 96/34/EC on parental leave; Council Directive 96/97/EC on equal treatment in social security; Council Directive 97/75/EC extending parental leave directive to UK; Council Directive 97/80/ED on burden of proof in sex discrimination cases; Council Directive 98/52/EC extending burden of proof directive to UK; Council and Parliament Directive 2002/73/EC updating 1976 equal treatment directive; Council and Parliament Directive 2004/113/EC equal treatment in access to goods and services; Council and Parliament Directive 2006/54/EC known as the “recast directive” brought together previous gender equality directives and ECJ case law in a way that “recast” or clarified this body of law into a single text.

55 Commission of the European Communities, Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities 96/67 (Brussels: 1996).

56 Cynthia Cockburn, “Gender in an International Space: Trade Union Women as European Social Actor,” Women’s Studies International Forum 20, no. 4 (1997): 463.

57 European Women’s Lobby website: http://www.womenlobby.org/

58 Groote, Jacqueline de, “European Women’s Lobby, ” Women’s Studies International Forum, 15 (1992): 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Cichowski, The European Court and Civil Society.

60 ENGENDER was established in Brussels in 1996 and is a group of ten individuals working on common projects in the area of “equality and participation.” The group of consultants has performed both individual and collaborative research projects for the Commission on such subjects as “Structural Funds and Equal Opportunities” and “Women in the Judiciary.” Interview with ENGENDER member, Brussels, June 2001.

61 Case C-450/93 Kalanke [1995] ECR 3051.

62 For example, see Prechal, “Kalanke Ruling,” Common Market Law Review 33 (1996): 45, and Szyszczak, Erika, “Positive Action after Kalanke, ” Modern Law Review 59 (1996): 6 Google Scholar, to name just a few.

63 Commission of the European Communities, Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities 96/ 67 (Brussels: 1996). Positive action had long been a policy focus for the EWL; thus, this ruling came in stark contrast to the policy agenda they had hoped would develop at the European level.

64 Case C-409/95 Marschall [1997] ECR 6363. Similar to the Kalanke case, this preliminary reference originated from a German court and involved a male job candidate disputing the decision to hire a female for the position.