Two WLC Members Attend CEDAW Conference

They came from Kyrgystan, Colombia, Nepal, New Zealand, Finland and the DRC.  From Canada, Ecuador, Nigeria, China, Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico.  Women with sharp cheekbones, soft faces, bright eyes, bold voices, indigenous names, shy smiles; a panoply of skin tones and dispositions, and all with stories to tell about their countries—the women of their countries.  And one man, to represent all men, who so need a place at this table, discussing women’s human rights.  My colleague Meghan and I, from Lewis & Clark Law School, were two of four women from the United States who attended the Women’s Human Rights Education Institute’s (“WHRI”) “CEDAW for Change” module in Toronto in May.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”) is an international treaty that can be used as a tool by NGOs, IGOs, individuals, and other countries to pressure States to comply with its demands.  And there are no greater demands than these: human rights for all women, and the elimination of discrimination in health care, education, basic needs, labor, leisure, love… the list is long. While CEDAW does not have a true enforcement mechanism, the UN CEDAW Committee monitors compliance through States’ submitted reports on the status of their human rights work, and “shadow reports” submitted by NGOs to keep the States accountable.  Under CEDAW, States are responsible for eliminating discrimination in both the public and private sphere, and are accountable for their own citizens and for all women within their sphere of influence, such as non-citizens living in refugee camps.  States that have ratified CEDAW are obligated to take temporary special measures to achieve CEDAW principles by addressing embedded privileges and deprivations (a common example of a TSM is a race or gender quota in a workplace).  Some of the women at the week-long conference were preparing to write shadow reports and to testify at the UN, some were working to develop TSMs within their local governments, some were educators hoping to inform women about their rights through dissemination of the treaty principles, and others were lawyers hoping to actually bring cases under the international law, in those countries where it has been adopted as part of the domestic constitution.

As we studied the convention in depth, we shared ways in which discrimination exists in our countries, and were humbled by each other’s stories.  We asked ourselves—

what is discrimination?  Girls dropping out of primary school in Nepal because of child marriage.  Women being cast out from their families after divorce in Iran because they are no longer virgins.  Women being forced to give birth while shackled in U.S. prisons.  Women in Canada being passed up for faculty positions despite exceeding their male peers in university sciences.  Women being stigmatized in their workplaces in St. Lucia because of their HIV status.

Our moderators—Alda Facio, a Costa Rican feminist theorist who helped establish the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice at the ICC, and Martha Morgan, Professor Emerita at the University of Alabama School of Law—challenged our conceptions of discrimination and equality by noting the differences between formal equality, substantive equality, and equity.  They described equity as a discretionary term that can refer to subjective social goals or political aspirations rather than true equality, though many people use it interchangeably with equality.  Formal equality is the concept of “sameness”—the rules apply in the same way to all (e.g. free public education, taxes, voting rights).  Such “equality” is said to be neutral, but is in fact built upon the historical male standard, which discriminates against women.  Substantive equality, on the other hand, recognizes differences while affirming equality.  It addresses discrimination in purpose and effect by correcting disadvantageous environments and creating equality of opportunities, access, and results or benefits.  Substantive equality is an objective human rights goal.  Learning this language of international human rights goes beyond semantics and can help the human rights community throughout the world to communicate better and work together to achieve ultimate goals.

CEDAW is not a perfect instrument.  Its lack of an enforcement mechanism means that under-funded nonprofit groups are left with the role of monitoring States’ compliance.  It has been ratified by 186 countries, but it is the most reserved international treaty—countries can exempt compliance from certain articles by making reservations upon ratification.  The United States is one of few countries that has not ratified CEDAW, despite the opportunity to make reservations.  Perhaps this is because CEDAW’s advocacy for women’s reproductive rights is read by many conservative Americans as a door to widespread abortion (likely a far-fetched fallacy).  Maybe it is because the United States thinks it has already conquered discrimination; as Katja from Finland said, self-satisfaction prevents progress when States believe they have already overcome discrimination.

U.S. ratification of CEDAW is an important goal for American human rights activists.  While it is easy to direct our gaze elsewhere, discrimination against women is a reality in the United States, and it will require much dedication and education to overcome.  Other goals for activists who wish to see CEDAW used to its fullest potential include encouraging more States to ratify the Optional Protocol (a separate treaty which allows individuals to bring their CEDAW-related grievances to an international forum where domestic remedies have failed), and bridging CEDAW’s gaps through amendments or creative interpretation of the current treaty (some gaps include the lack of articles explicitly discussing the needs of single women, migrant women workers, women who experience gender-based violence, women in wartime, and indigenous women).

Despite the work to be done, the passion and commitment to women’s rights that I saw at this WHRI conference were an inspiring reminder that allies for change exist all over the world.  My time in Toronto was reinvigorating, and a rare opportunity to meet and befriend women from many different cultures (who were, not so strangely, also very alike in many ways). Lewis & Clark Law School’s Women’s Law Caucus generously helped support this journey, from which I have come away with a better understanding of international law and of human nature.

To read the text of CEDAW, visit http://bit.ly/egOmY.  To learn more about WHRI and their workshops, visit http://learnwhr.org/.  To read reports submitted to the CEDAW committee for its July 2011 session, visit http://bit.ly/fRdoiC.

Post by Erin Duncan, 2L