Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives

14. The Developing Approaches of the International Commission of Jurists to Women's Human Rights

Chapter 14 The DevelopingApproaches of the International Commission of Jurists to Women's HumanRights Mona Rishmawi Introduction In recent years the international women's rights movement has been successful in addressing universal gender discrimination. It is due to this success that human rights groups have begun to address questions of the human rights of women. For instance, the International Commission ofJurists (ICJ), AmnestyInternational, Human RightsWatch, and the International Human Rights Law Group have all created programs that specifically deal with gender-specific issues. While it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs, it is certain that this interest is long overdue. This chapter attempts to explore: 1. Some conceptual and methodological obstacles inherent in the traditional international human rights movement that may hamper its effectiveness in addressing the human rights of women; and 2. The attempt of the ICJ to deal with those problems in order to enhance its relevance and effectiveness. In composing this chapter I do not intend to enter into a philosophical debate on what constitutes women's human rights. I am simply adopting as a framework for this discussion the principles codified in the 1967 Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (DEDAW),1 as well as the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of DiscriminationAgainst Women (CEDAW).2 Approaches of the ICJ to Women's Human Rights 341 Human Rights and Women's Rights: Conceptual and Methodological Concerns When attempting to work on the human rights of women, traditional human rights groups encounter two conceptual problems. These obstacles have direct implications on their methods of operations. The first relates to the definition of human rights, the second to the nature of state obligations. Each will be further explored below. The Definition of Human Rights: The Private/Public Distinction Human rights are traditionally defined as individualclaimsagainst the state. Violations of these rights are perpetrated by state officials or in the state's domain. Hence state responsibility is direct and clear. For instance, torture is committed by state agents in prisons that are part of the public domain and censorship of free speech is conducted by a state official. Clear and direct state responsibility is what distinguishes human rights abuses from ordinary crimes, human rights scholars argue. In contrast, violationsof women'srights take place in public aswell as in private spheres.3 Many of these violationsare perpetrated by private individuals. Genital mutilation, dowry-killing,and wife beating commonly occur within the family. Since these acts are not committed by the state, human rights advocates argue that they constitute ordinary crimes that fall outside their mandates. State responsibility in such cases is confined to ensuring the proper administration ofjustice, that is, that domestic law prohibits such acts, and the perpetrator is found and tried according to the provisions of international and domestic laws. Meanwhile, the human rights of women underline another dimension in the human rights debate. Women's rights go beyond the relationship between the individual and the state. Indeed, the human rights of women often clash with other powers within the society that are no less powerful than state institutions. These powers include culture, tradition, custom, religion, and patriarchy which institutionalize the debasement of the status of women in the society.4 This analysis makes it particularly difficult for human rights groups whose mandates are focused around traditional human rights issues to deal adequately with women's human rights matters. As a result, Amnesty International reports on rape only as a method of torture in prisons.5 Human Rights Watch monitors reports on domestic violence concentrating on police performance.6 This approach, however, is insufficient to address institutionalized gender discrimination. 342 Mona Rlshmawl The Nature of State Responsibility: Negative or Positive Duties Another conceptual problem facing the adequate redress of violations of women's human rights is the debate on whether human rights impose negative or positive obligations on states. Some scholars argue that state obligations to respect human rights are negative as they require the state not to interfere with individualrights and freedoms. For example, states are obliged not to interfere in free expression and movement of persons. Such a restrictive approach to the nature of state obligations excludes from the category of human rights, claimssuch asshelter, health care, food, and other economic, social and cultural rights that impose positive duties. These rights, however, are essential to the human rights of women. CEDAW imposes significant positive economic...