How has the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women contributed to the protection of women rights?

Out of 7.95 billion individuals worldwide, approximately 3.95 billion are women [1], yet unfortunately, they still have to fight for the recognition of their basic rights. The continuous domination of patriarchal structures around the globe has ensured their systematic exclusion and marginalization from political, social, and economic spheres. Feminism, a term that was first used in the 1890s by women to call for their equal political and legal rights has unfortunately been misconstrued by critics and is often wrongly perceived as an inherently anti-male ideology [2]. Generations later, it has been reduced to a stereotypical narrative, frequently distorted by a quixotic absurd theory. This article will look into the global position of women today and analyze the impact the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had in articulating women’s rights and representing them internationally.

Generally, there are some internationally applicable non-discrimination clauses, such as Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [3], which proclaims that “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind of race, color, sex, language or religion.” Similarly, Articles 2(1), 3, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 2(2) and 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) had provisions with a similar effect [4]. These clauses, although, apply universally to all human beings, and acknowledge the right to equality, they do not specifically address nor consider the challenges women face worldwide. This void was filled with the enactment of CEDAW on July 17, 1980. This convention is focused on women’s rights who endure disproportionate suffering and hold limited representation in key decision-making processes [5].

CEDAW, enacted on July 17, 1980, and signed by 64 countries [6] is a Convention on Elimination of all sorts of Discrimination Against Women. The convention consists of 30 articles [7]. Some of the prominent provisions include Article 1 which defines discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion, or restriction that impedes women’s enjoyment of political, economic, social, cultural, or civil rights on an equal basis with men”. Article 3 urges states to take preemptive actions to ensure women’s enjoyment of their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. This provision, however, remains one of the most contentious and weakly implemented, particularly in countries with Islamic constitutions where women are often denied equal status. Similarly, Article 5 focuses on eliminating gender stereotypes and changing societal norms that perpetuate discrimination, especially in family and cultural roles. This can be done by ensuring equal rights in family matters. However, countries with patriarchal legal systems uphold laws that conflict with the convention, particularly regarding inheritance, marriage, and divorce laws

One of the loopholes in the theoretical aspect of CEDAW was the absence of expressed provisions addressing violence against women. While the convention inferred violence as a crime, it did not clearly define actions to put it out. To address this issue, the CEDAW Committee issued General Recommendation No. 19 which defined violence against women as any act of physical, sexual, or mental harm directed at women because of their gender. It further stated that such violence constitutes a form of discrimination. Furthermore, it does not have any similar provision related to the right to food incorporated in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights [8]. Article 15 of the African Charter instructs women’s right to adequate and nutritious food, clean water, and sanitation. The omission of any such provision in CEDAW reinforces the argument that it has not done enough for the empowerment of the socio-economic rights of the woman if they wouldn’t be provided with such how can they take the responsibility of health and welfare of their families?

Moving towards the implementation aspect, the convention established a committee to oversee its application (Article 17) but the treaty initially lacked a complaint mechanism, rendering it ineffective in addressing violations. Although an Optional Protocol (OP) was adopted in December 2000 [8] to strengthen enforcement by allowing individual and group complaints, its impact remains limited. The OP requires complainants to exhaust all domestic remedies before submitting cases, however, it applies only to states that have ratified the Protocol. Unfortunately, many countries, including Oman, Brunei, and Pakistan, have placed reservations on provisions of the treaty, particularly those concerning inheritance, marriage laws, and religious practices, often citing conflicts with Sharia law [9]. These reservations have led to concerns that CEDAW has become a “Western” document, unable to significantly alter the lived experiences of women in non-Western, particularly Muslim-majority, countries. For instance, Pakistan remains one of the countries with the highest rates of child marriage [10], illustrating how CEDAW has not resulted in substantial improvements. Enforcement mechanisms, such as the CEDAW Committee, which monitors states’ progress, often face criticism for their limited authority, as compliance is largely dependent on the political will of state parties and is voluntary.

Although CEDAW has played some role in highlighting gender inequality, its success in effecting substantial change is hindered by the obstacles of ‘reservations made by states’ [11]—because of the incompatibility with their national laws, particularly the provisions grounded in religious or cultural traditions.  Nonetheless, through individual cases and general recommendations, CEDAW continues to influence legal reforms, pressuring states to align their laws with international human rights standards. However, its ability to achieve full and consistent implementation across diverse cultural and legal contexts is still questionable.

In 1994, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women (DEVDAW) which broadened the definition to include various forms of violence such as sexual abuse, dowry-related violence, marital rape, and female genital mutilation [13]. Article 4 of DEVDAW obliges states to refrain from using cultural, traditional, or religious justifications for not addressing such violence. This declaration underscored the need for countries to take more resilient actions in the elimination of violence against women, yet implementation remains inconsistent. In RBP v. Philippines, the CEDAW Committee criticized the court’s reliance on outdated rape myths and the victim’s failure to resist as a basis for questioning her credibility or her lack of involuntariness [14]. The Committee after this case urged the Philippines to ensure that criminal proceedings, involving sexual violence, be conducted free from prejudices and stereotypes. However, critics argue that such cases are still frequent in many countries, showing the inefficacy of CEDAW in ensuring full protection from gender-based violence in judicial systems.

Nevertheless, if we look at the other side of the picture, CEDAW has made some strides in the international arena. Because of CEDAW, Turkey has made some remarkable reforms. They raised the minimum legal marriage age to 17 [15], ensured women could work and retain their wages without their husband’s permission [16], and enabled women to retain their maiden names. In Honduras, CEDAW inspired policies that provided agricultural training and loans to female farmers. Austria amended maternity leave policies, while Cambodia established a Ministry of Women’s Affairs [17].

Several landmark cases have underlined the evolving role of CEDAW in advancing women’s rights, while also exposing continuous challenges in enforcement and implementation. One significant case of E.S. & S.C. v. Tanzania [18] improved the legal status of woman in Tanzania regarding their property rights. The case involved two widows who after the deaths of their husbands as per Tanzanian law were deprived of their right of inheritance. CEDAW Committee instructed the government to compensate them and amend its inheritance laws to comply with the provisions of the Convention.

Similarly in the UK, X v. United Kingdom [19] involved a woman seeking asylum due to the risk of getting forced to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM). The CEDAW Committee called on the UK to recognize FGM as a form of gender-based persecution and to grant asylum to women facing such risks. This ruling emphasized the importance of recognizing gender-based violence as a ground for asylum, particularly in cases where a return to the home country would expose the women to life-threatening practices.

Another key case is Maria da Penha v. Brazil [20], in which as a result of committee’s intervention Brazil implemented the ‘Maria da Pehn’ Law after they failed to protect a woman against domestic violence. This legislation was especially named after that woman and introduced legal protection for other women facing domestic violence. These cases, along with Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras [21], have contributed to advancing the protection of women from gender-based violence and discrimination. In Velasquez Rodriguez, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held Honduras responsible for the disappearance of a woman activist. These cases collectively highlight the power of CEDAW to influence legal reforms and enhance the protection of women’s rights globally.

However, despite these significant victories, there is still a long way to go in ensuring full legal and social equality for women. Despite significant progress in many areas, women remain starkly underrepresented globally, particularly in political, economic, and leadership positions. This lack of representation can be attributed to a combination of deep-rooted societal norms, cultural barriers, and institutionalized gender biases.

Globally, women occupy only around 26.5% of parliamentary seats [22], with the percentage varying widely depending on the region. In many countries, women are still extensively excluded from high-ranking political and judicial positions and decision-making. They are also underrepresented in corporate leadership as well whereas per report they hold only 5% of CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies [23]. This distinction is not solely because of discriminatory hiring practices but also because of societal expectations associated with women in their role of being solely responsible for the upbringing of kids and taking care of families. These expectations drastically impact women’s career trajectories and access to opportunities.

In countries such as parts of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, cultural and religious norms further enhance gender inequality, excluding women from education, formal employment, and public life altogether. Even where women do manage to achieve positions of power, they frequently have to face challenges in the shape of gender-based violence, harassment, and societal backlash. The underrepresentation of women in positions of power is not merely a matter of numbers but also an issue of unequal access to resources, opportunities, and legal protections. As a result, women’s voices are often sidelined in shaping policies that affect them, contributing to a cycle of gender inequality that is difficult to break. Despite the frameworks put forth by international agreements like CEDAW, the reality is that women’s full participation in all areas of life remains an ongoing struggle, restrained by the handcuffs of legal and societal barriers.

In conflict zones, where women are disproportionately affected by violence, displacement, and lack of access to basic services, CEDAW has faced challenges in addressing these urgent needs. For instance, in countries like Syria and Yemen, despite being signatories to CEDAW, women continue to suffer from extreme violence, forced displacement, and lack of access to justice. The Convention has been criticized for not having strong enough mechanisms to enforce its provisions in such dire situations, where local governments may be unwilling or unable to protect women’s rights and the example of that can be seen in Singapore where marital rape is still not criminalized.

CEDAW’s application often fails to adequately address the needs of sexual minorities or women in countries where reservations limit its effectiveness. In societies where female representation in politics remains minimal, the application of CEDAW is still insufficient. Notably, although in the United States, the appointment of Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, in 1981, and Lady Hale’s in 2017, were milestones. In Pakistan, the appointment of Justice Ayesha Malik in 2022, though historic, underscores the slow pace of change. Its impact remains limited, particularly in non-Western countries where cultural and religious reservations continue to impede progress. If CEDAW was truly meant to eradicate all forms of discrimination, why, then, do women still have to take to the streets every year in March to demand their basic rights [24]? To effect meaningful change, CEDAW must undergo significant reform, expanding its scope to address the unique challenges faced by women across diverse contexts and ensuring that its provisions have practical, enforceable impact and are implemented effectively on a global scale.

References

[1] Hubert Wolf, ‘The Population Ratio by Gender: An Overview’ (2024) https://www.ncesc.com/geographic-pedia/what-is-the-population-ratio-by-gender/ (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ‘Feminist Philosophy’ (June 2018) https://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FALL2017/Entries/feminism-topics/index.html (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 2

[4] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976, Articles 2(1), 3 and 26

[5] United Nations, ‘Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Holds General Discussion on the Equal and Inclusive Representation of Women in Decision-Making Systems’ (February 2023) https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2023/02/committee-elimination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women-holds-general-discussion (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[6] Asia Pacific, ‘state and non-state parties to CEDAW’ (2022) https://cedaw.iwraw-ap.org/cedaw/state-and-non-state-parties-to-cedaw/ (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[7] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979

[8] African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1986

[9] Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 2000

[10] Amnesty International, ‘Reservations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Weakening the protection of women from violence in the Middle East’ https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ior510092004en.pdf (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[11] The Nation, ‘Child marriage in Pakistan about 6th highest in world: Report’ (2022) https://www.nation.com.pk/29-Oct-2022/child-marriage-in-pakistan-about-6th-highest-in-world-report (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[12] Princeton University Journal of Public and International Affairs, ‘Ratification, Reservations, and Review: Exploring the Role of the CEDAW Compliance Mechanisms in Women’s Rights’ (2021) https://jpia.princeton.edu/news/ratification-reservations-and-review-exploring-role-cedaw-compliance-mechanisms-womens-rights (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[13] Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, 1993

[14] RBP v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011)

[15] Turkish Civil Code [Türk Medeni Kanunu] 2001, Article 124

[16] Financial Times, ‘Turkey’s attitude on women and work shifts slowly’

https://www.ft.com/content/4999dcf2-84b9-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096 (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[17] Global Success: CEDAW Women’s Rights Treaty

https://now.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Global-Success.pdf (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[18] E.S. & S.C. v. Tanzania (CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013)

[19] X v. United Kingdom ECHR 6 [1981]

[20] Maria da Penha v. Brazil (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). case 12,051)

[21] Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras (Ser. C) No. 4, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACrtHR), 29 July 1988,

[22] United Nation, ‘Parliaments play a crucial role in women’s equal right to participate’ (2023) https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2023/06/parliaments-play-crucial-role-womens-equal-right-participate (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[23] Catalyst, ‘Women in Leadership (Quick Take)’ (March 2022)https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-management/ (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)

[24] Dawn News, ‘Aurat March 2024- Where to Go and What Are the Manifestos’ (October 2024) https://images.dawn.com/news/1192305 (last accessed: 15^th December, 2024)