The Istanbul Convention in the Context of Feminist Claims

Feminist movements had great influence in the initial recognition of gender-based violence as a human rights issue and continue to be relevant after the adoption of norms by pointing to gaps in regulation and to deficient implementation. In consequence, human rights instruments often show an imprint of the concerns flagged by social movements and civil society. Moreover, considering that human rights treaties are “living instruments” that adapt to new social realities, paying attention to contemporary feminist claims could ensure that these treaties remain effective and compelling. This chapter explores to what extent the Istanbul Convention is in line with feminist claims held at the time of its adoption and thereafter. It offers a reflection on the potential of the Convention to adapt to changing times and to ensure the responsiveness of the gender-based violence paradigm

The Istanbul Convention in the Context of Feminist Claims

Feminist movements had great influence in the initial recognition of gender-based violence as a human rights issue and continue to be relevant after the adoption of norms by pointing to gaps in regulation and to deficient implementation. In consequence, human rights instruments often show an imprint of the concerns flagged by social movements and civil society. Moreover, considering that human rights treaties are “living instruments” that adapt to new social realities, paying attention to contemporary feminist claims could ensure that these treaties remain effective and compelling. This chapter explores to what extent the Istanbul Convention is in line with feminist claims held at the time of its adoption and thereafter. It offers a reflection on the potential of the Convention to adapt to changing times and to ensure the responsiveness of the gender-based violence paradigm

Comparative analysis of conceptions of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in selected third countries, FRAME Deliverable 3.3

This report presents a comparative analysis of the different understandings and perspectives on human rights, democracy and rule of law in third countries with which EU has established strategic partnerships: China, India, Peru and South Africa. This explorative report focuses on theoretical conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law, with limited attention to their operationalization. The eventual aim of Work Package 3, of which this report forms a part, is to provide the EU with conceptualizations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law that take into consideration the diverse conceptions found in third countries and in other international organisations. This comparative study poses a challenge to the reader who is unfamiliar with non-western perspectives on human rights, democracy and rule of law. While South African conceptions appear largely familiar to a European audience, China, India, and Peru present notions and perspectives that are more divergent – compared to those found in the EU. In this sense, this report is meant to challenge some of the reader’s assumptions. The report starts with a detailed description of the methodology used (Chapter II). It clarifies the terminology used, and the methods of data collection and analysis. It also discusses the practical and methodological challenges of this comparative study. Chapter III provides a description of the historical, social, and political context of each of the countries under review, in order to more fully understand the development of the domestic conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law. Chapter IV is dedicated to the comparative analysis of the domestic conceptions. This chapter is divided into three parts. Human rights conceptualisations are examined in Section A. This sections shows that in the countries under review, the notion of ‘human dignity’, present in the European conception, is combined with other traditional notions that encourage group understandings of human rights and moderate individualism. This is the case with the notions of ‘harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood’ in India, the principle of Ubuntu in South Africa and the principle of unity in China. With the exception of China, where the ‘universal and relative’ character of human rights is emphasized, the universality of human rights was endorsed in all countries. The same holds for the indivisibility of human rights, although prevalence of one set of rights was perceived in practice. The main distinction, amongst the countries and with the EU, was the notion of ‘minority’, inherently connected to each country’s own historical construction. Collective rights, and moreover, the country’s approach towards diversity, is deeply connected to these notions. The review also shows that the approach towards equality taken by the countries under review is very similar to the one adopted at the EU, recognizing the equality of individuals and prohibiting discrimination based on enumerated grounds. The main difference is found in relation to the recognition of sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination. The next chapter discusses conceptions on democracy in Section B. It finds that South Africa, Peru and India all hold similar conceptions of democracy as the EU. At the same time, these countries have distinctive elements in their concept of democracy, for instance by recognizing both constitutional authority and traditional authority (South Africa), fostering the political representation and participation of socially disadvantaged groups (India). The Chinese conception of democracy diverges widely from the EU conception of democracy since it does not include free and competitive elections as a core element, nor does the principle of ‘multi-party cooperation’ challenge the undisputed leadership of the Communist Party of China. Also, contrary to the liberal and free-market foundation of the EU, we found an explicit commitment to socialism in the Constitution of China and India, and explicit references to a ‘social state’ and ‘social justice’ as core constitutional values in Peru and South Africa, respectively. As regards the rule of law, dealt with in Section C, this report finds that the EU shares core minimal/ ‘thin’ elements with all four countries under review. Chinese, Indian, South African and Peruvian views on legality and equality before the law do not appear much different from the EU’s views. On the other elements of the rule of law, conceptual divergences occur, particularly with regards to China, which promotes the notion of a ‘socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics.’ It appears that in modern day China the rule of law is viewed more as an instrument (to rein in corruption, for example, and to attain the desired social system) than as an end in itself. The report concludes that some elements of the domestic conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law in China, India, Peru and South Africa are widely different from the EU’s conceptions, although there is also much shared ground. Without doubt, EU external policies should be sensitive to possible conceptual differences and indicate awareness of these differences in their conceptualisations of human rights, democracy and rule of law. It also recognises that an enduring challenge is to distinguish compliance/implementation from abstract conceptions. The report also shows that human rights occupy a privileged position in international relations and in EU foreign policy in particular, and that this emphasis on human rights is also reflected at national level. The degree of standard setting on human rights – by means of binding international treaties and authoritative soft law instruments – is not matched for democracy and rule of law

Human rights concepts in EU Human Rights Dialogues

This report presents five case studies on EU Human Rights Dialogues (HRDs). The case studies concern the HRDs with the African Union, China, India, Morocco and Peru. Building on the findings of the previous reports in Work Package 3 of the FRAME project, the aim of this report is to explore how domestic and organisation-based conceptions of human rights, democracy and rule of law emerge in HRDs and what consequences these conceptions entails for the HRDs’ goals. The report starts with a description of the methodology used (Chapter II). Next, Chapter III puts HRDs in context by examining their institutional setting. The Chapter specifically focuses on three key issues: respect for sovereignty and the equality of participants; transparency; and the priorities of the dialogues. Chapter IV is dedicated to the case studies. The Chapter is divided in two parts: the first part focuses on General Human Rights Dialogues and the second on Formal Human Rights Dialogues. General HRD’s are Dialogues of a general nature based on regional or bilateral treaties, agreements or conventions or strategic partnerships dealing systematically with the issue of human rights. The first case study in this category concerns India. This is an elaborate study. It fills a gap in the scholarly literature since the EUIndia HRD has so far been little researched. One of the main difficulties that the case study highlights with the HRD is that the EU is conditioned by an essentially Eurocentric world-view about India. The next case study in this first part of the Chapter concerns Peru. The research shows that although the EU’s conceptions of human rights differ in some respects from the Peruvian, the Dialogue has been productive. The last case study in the part of General HRD’s concerns European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), more specifically Morocco. This too is an elaborate case study which presents a much-needed addition to the academic literature. It details the institutional setting of the dialogue and describes to what extent diverging conceptions of human rights appear in the dialogue, and what the sensitive issues are in this respect. Despite the conceptual differences, this is probably the most successful dialogue of the ones analysed in this report. The second part of the Chapter, the part on Formal HRDs, starts with a brief case study on the African Union. In this dialogue there are real points of contention between the two partners, such as the views on the International Criminal Court and concerning the issue of migration. The case study raises the asymmetry of the bilateral relation rooted in the colonial past. It closes with a brief case study on the HRD with China. It highlights that the EU and China conceptualise human rights, democracy and rule of law differently. These differences are emphasised often by the Chinese. Guarding its national sovereignty, China is cautious about the suggestions made by other powers. In Chapter V the reports concludes with discussing how the institutional settings of the Dialogues impacts their content. It then reflects on key overarching topics, namely state sovereignty; the critique of double standards; universality and cultural diversity; indivisibility; when conceptions patter; and the politicisation of conceptual differences. It closes with some suggestions on how the HRD’s could be strengthened

Human rights, democracy and rule of law: Different organisations, different conceptions?

This report presents an exploration of different conceptualisations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law within international organisations. The report focuses on the United Nations, the African Union, the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The eventual aim of Work Package 3, of which this report forms part, is to provide the EU with conceptualizations of human rights, democracy and the rule of law that take into consideration the diverse conceptions found in third countries and in other international organisations. The organisations’ original purpose, moment of creation, and structure inevitably influence the development of their human rights, democracy and rule of law conceptions, and their practical engagement with these concepts. For this reason, the attention devoted by each organisation, and also, by specific bodies within them, to one or other conceptual element varies significantly