|
INTERNATIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Margaret E. Galey*
INTRODUCTION
In contrast to the substantial body of international human rights
instruments developed through the United Nations political organs and
Specialized Agencies since the late 1940's, the lack of enforcement of
international human rights standards has been a major obstacle to the
wider enjoyment of human rights.1 And though the UN Charter provides
that the UN shall promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for
all without distinction as to ... sex and despite the contribution of
the UN Commission on the Status of Women in defining an international
norm prohibiting discrimination against women, the international
enforcement of women's rights has been especially dismal.2 Efforts to
enforce women's rights have been doubly disadvantaged. Not only do
those efforts suffer from problems of enforcing international human
rights standards generally because primary enforcement mechanisms,
national governments, often lack political will and/or resources to
promote compliance with standards their governments have obligated
themselves to support. But since women are treated as a minority in
law and custom in most countries of the world, governmental efforts to
promote their rights have an even lower priority and those efforts may
Staff Consultant, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U. S. House of
Representatives. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect
those of the Committee. The author served as Congressional Staff
Advisor to the U.S. Delegations to the 1978, 1980, and 1982 sessions
of the UN Commission on the Status of Women; and as the Western
Representative to the Ad Hoc Group on Communications at the 1980 and
1982 sessions.
Page 2
not even be made in the first place.
There is a need for international enforcement bodies and
procedures to provide recourse to individual women whose rights have
been violated and to prod governments to adopt measures that give
effect to obligations they have undertaken. My purpose is to discuss
two recent developments that may contribute to promoting international
enforcement of women's rights. One is the new procedure for handling
communications (that is, complaints) on alleged violations of
internationally recognized women's rights in the UN Commission on the
Status of Women. The other is the potential enforcement capability of
the Committee under the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women.
I. Handling Communications (Complaints)
The UN Commission on the Status of Women, established in 1947 as
a subsidiary body to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is
the only international intergovernmental body responsible for
preparing recommendations and reports to promote women's rights in
political, social, civil, economic and cultural fields. It also makes
recommendations to the Council on urgent problems requiring immediate
attention in the field of women's rights with the object of
implementing the principle that men and women shall have equal rights
and of developing proposals to give effect to those recommendations.3
To these ends, the Commission has contributed to developing an
international norm outlawing discrimination against women through the
preparation of various international instruments. The most
significant of these has been the Convention on the Elimination of
Page 3
Discrimination Against Women which was adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1979, entered into force in 1981, and authorized the
creation of a Committee to promote compliance with its provisions
among States Parties. The Committee's work is discussed below.
However, prior to the adoption of the Convention and through most of
its history, the Commission on the Status of Women relied on three
measures to promote acceptance of women's rights that it defined.
They were receiving communications, using advisory services and
reporting systems. The communications procedure is of major interest
here.
The Commission's authority for handling communications on
violations of women's rights dates to 1948 when ECOSOC, its parent
body granted it authority under ECOSOC Resolutions 76(v) and later
under 304(XI) to receive both confidential and non-confidential lists
of communications prepared by the Secretariat. The Commission
traditionally would appoint a three member Subcommittee on
Communications to review these lists and report its results to the
plenary. However, the most the Commission could do or for that
matter, ever did, was to report that it had "taken note" of those
complaints-hardly an example of assertiveness on the Commission's
part.4
Meanwhile, in 1948, ECOSOC also granted similar authority to the
UN Commission on Human Rights in its Resolution 75(V). Subsequently,
the Council approved strengthened procedures for the Commission on
Human Rights in resolutions of 1967 and 1970 that permitted it to deal
with gross and persistent violations of internationally recognized
human rights. Resolution 1503(1970) authorized the Secretariat of the
Page 4
Human Rights Commission which receives upwards of 50,000
communications annually to screen those and transmit the ones that may
be "gross violations" to the Subcommission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities for further screening
and investigation. If the Subcommission determines a particular
violation to be "gross", it will investigate it, prepare the case and
forward it to the Commission for action. Close observers of the Human
Rights Commission contend that this procedure has had an impact on the
behavior of governments that have engaged in gross and persistent
violations. Those governments are called to account in a private
session of the Commission where they must explain their behavior and
answer questions put to them by other Members of the Commission and
report back the following year on measures they have taken to correct
their behavior.5
In contrast, the UN Commission on the Status of Women has been
slow to pursue expanding its authority to handle communications.
After almost 30 years of "taking note" of confidential communications
in closed sessions, the Commission in 1974 almost lost its limited
authority to receive them. At the Commission's 1974 session, a
Western delegate asked whether Resolution 1503 applied to the handling
of communications on the status of women and in the resulting
confusion, members voted to uphold a Soviet proposal to discontinue
receiving them. The intervention of several non-governmental
organizations and Belgium at ECOSOC in 1974, however, resulted in
ECOSOC's request that the Commission reconsider its decision to
discontinue receiving communications.6 Then at the 1976 and 1978
sessions of the Commission, Western governments struggled against the
Page 5
Eastern bloc's persistent efforts to gut the Commission's authority
and transfer the matter to the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Several Western governments the U.S., UK and Nordics worked
to ensure the item appeared on the Commission's agenda, to reaffirm
and expand the Commission's authority to receive communications.7
In 1980, the Commission adopted a U.S.-sponsored draft resolution
requesting ECOSOC's approval to convene a group of experts to study
and recommend to its 1982 session a set of procedures for the
Commission's handling of communications. ECOSOC did not approve the
draft resolution but instead requested the Commission on the Status of
Women and the Commission on Human Rights at their 1982 sessions to
recommend such procedures.8
During the 1982 session of the Commission on the Status of Women,
an informal drafting group of several Western and Third World
representatives discussed the desirability of focusing on categories
of alleged violations rather than individual cases. While some felt
the Commission should deal with individual cases, they also considered
this would require investigation of allegations, a politically
sensitive matter, and considerable expense which the Commission's
membership would likely not support. And though some thought the
Commission should deal with "gross and reliably attested violations of
women's rights" thus incorporating the language of ECOSOC Resolution
1503, others considered it preferable to consider violations in the
context of the need to eliminate discrimination against women
following the Convention. Subsequently, in plenary, a
Ukranian-sponsored draft resolution proposing that the communications
issue be deferred until the UN Commission on Human Rights acted on the
Page 6
matter was offered and drafted. Then the Commission adopted a
UK-sponsored draft resolution reflecting the Western plus Third World
compromise.
Draft Resolution X, introduced by the UK and co-sponsored by
Trinidad and Tobago, Honduras and Nigeria, was adopted by a roll call
vote: 16-6-5.9
At their respective 1983 spring sessions, the UN Commission on
Human Rights endorsed and ECOSOC approved draft resolution X.10
The new procedure: (1) reaffirms the Commission's existing
mandate to consider confidential and non-confidential communications
on the status of women; (2) requests the Secretary-General to submit
to the Commission at its 30th session in 1984 a report on confidential
and non-confidential communications on the status of women that
includes (a) complaints received under Council Resolutions 76(V) and
304(XI) including the comments of Governments, and (b) those received
by the Specialized Agencies, regional commissions and other UN bodies
together with information on any action taken following receipt of
such communications; (3) requests the Secretary-General to solicit the
cooperation of the Specialized Agencies, regional commissions and
other UN bodies in compiling the report; (4) authorizes the Commission
to appoint a 5-member Working Group, selected on the basis of
geographical distribution to meet in closed session during meetings of
the Commission.in order to (a) consider all communications, including
any replies of governments with a view to identifying those which
appear to reveal a consistent pattern of reliably attested injustice
and discriminatory practice against women; and (b) prepare a report
based on its analysis that indicates the categories of communications
Page 7
most frequently submitted to the Commission; (5) requests the
Commissibn to examine the Report and make recommendations to ECOSOC
which shall then decide what action may be taken on the emerging
trends and pattern of communications; (6) decides that all action as
described above shall remain confidential until such time as the
Commission may decide to make recommendations to ECOSOC; and (7)
decides to authorize the Secretary-General to provide within existing
budgetary resources, and services and facilities necessary for
implementing this resolution.11
This procedure now in effect was tested for the first time at the
Commission's 30th session in February, 1984 which has just concluded
in Vienna. There the subject of communications was discussed without
contentious debate for the first time in a decade!
At the Commission's 1984 session, the Director of the Advancement
of Women Branch reviewed the legislative history of the resolution on
communications, indicated that the Secretariat had distributed the
confidential list of communications in a sealed envelop to the heads
of delegations present and authorized the Working Group to meet and
discuss the list. That Group held three private meetings and
submitted its Report to the Commission in closed session on February
23, 1984. The Commission then adopted the report of the Working Group
and decided to include it, along with comments, in the Commission's
regular Report.to ECOSOC and the UN General Assembly.
The Working Group's Report says that the Group studied a list of
121 communications and replies of some governments, and that many
communications dealt with the separation of families and persons
wishing to marry. However, the Group did not consider these to be
Page 8
within its mandate since they applied equally to men and women.
However, the Group did identify one trend, "the widespread physical
violence against women in official custody, including cases of rape,
sexual abuse and violent treatment of pregnant women" and recommended
that the Commission suggest a course of action to ECOSOC.
Subsequently, the UK Representative introduced a draft resolution,
"Physical Violence specific to their Sex Against Detained Women" which
was co-sponsored by Australia, Canada, Denmark, Pakistan, Spain and
Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission adopted it by consensus and
recommended it for ECOSOC's approval. The draft resolution noted
"with grave concern the pattern of physical violence against women",
that "women are especially vulnerable to sexual violence" and that
"pregnant women require special protection". In recalling ECOSOC
resolutions authorizing the Commission to deal with communications and
to draw attention to emerging trends and patterns, the Commission then
called on UN Member States to take measures to eradicate such
violations, invited them to submit views to the Secretariat as the
basis for preparing a Report to the Commission at its 1986 session on
the subject, and authorized the Secretary-General to provide, from
within existing budgetary resources, the services and facilities
necessary to implement the resolution. Following the adoption of the
draft resolution, the Soviet Representative said she had participated
in the Working Group "in a spirit of cooperation and with great
appreciation for its useful work that resulted in a Report based on a
consensus of views". She said her delegation agreed to the draft
resolution without asking for a vote with the "clear understanding"
that it concerned only those trends mentioned in the Working Group's
Page 9
Report as her delegation's position was that complaints by individuals
against governments should be examined inside their countries with
respect to national legislation. This, in the author's view is
perhaps the most positive statement from the Soviet Representative at
the Commission on this subject in recent memory.12
The new procedure and the draft resolution may seem a small step
forward for women, but they represent major steps forward for
womankind. Why? What are their implications for the enforcement of
women's rights?
First, there is now a bona fide international procedure with a
few teeth in it that offers recourse to individual women or groups of
women that allege violations of their rights. They can now have some
expectation that alleged violations will be considered by the
Commission's Working Group and that if they form a pattern of
injustice and discriminatory practice, they may be identified as a
trend or pattern on which action needs to be taken. Thus, the
procedure is more than simply an exercise in "taking note" every two
years at Commission sessions of confidential communications. As the
1984 session demonstrated, the Commission can now take some action to
call to the attention of governments, individuals, other UN bodies and
non-governmental organizations categories of violations of women's
rights and emerging trends and patterns.
Second, the debate leading up to the adoption of the procedure
provides an international legislative record that strongly endorses
the Commission's role in this area. In this regard, the 1984
Commission session marks the first time that the Commission has
decided to incorporate the text of the Report of the Working Group on
Page 10
Communications into its overall Report to ECOSOC. Previously, the
Commission's Report to ECOSOC only noted that a Subcommittee had taken
note of communications; and in 1980 and 1982 when the Ad Hoc Group on
Communications prepared and submitted written reports to the
Secretariat and interested members of the Commission, the Commission's
Report only referred to the fact that they had been orally presented.
The publication of the Working Group's Report signals acceptance of
the procedure and the Commission's expanded authority and an important
benchmark in the international legislative debate.13
In addition, this record can be used in the future to reaffirm
and defend the Commission's expanded authority. It may even be used
at a later time to expand its present authority further, e.g.,
elaborate additional procedures after the Commission has tried this
one for several years.
Third, the debate over the last decade leading to the adoption of
the procedure has sensitized representatives of governments to the
fact that there are women's rights and that they are violated,
sometimes in abusive ways and that something should be done about this
at the international level by the UN Commission on the Status of
Women. Members of the Commission have had to learn about this issue
and its foreign policy implications in order to decide how to deal
with it at Commission meetings. Government officials responsible for
backstopping delegations to the UN Commission meetings also had to
learn about the matter in order to instruct their delegations to
Commission meetings. With respect to the U.S., both Democratic and
Republican appointees have supported the Commission's authority and
need for the new procedure. Ms. Koryn Horbal, U.S. Representative to
Page 11
the Commission in 1978 and 1980 strongly endorsed the Commission's
right to discuss communications and its need to expand its authority.
At the 1980 session, Ms. Horbal proposed on behalf of the U.S. and
Western Group a draft resolution calling for the creation of a group
of experts to determine what procedures the Commission should adopt in
order to deal with communications.14 Though the Commission adopted
it, ECOSOC did not approve it in 1980, but did authorize the
Commission at its 1982 session to determine procedures to be used to
handle communications and advise ECOSOC accordingly.15
Subsequently, the U.S. Representative to the Commission in 1982
and 1984, Ms. Nancy Reynolds, also endorsed the expansion of the
Commission's authority and supported the development of proposals
which led to the 1982 Commission draft resolution.16 Subsequently,
Ms. Reynolds sought the support of the U.S. Representative to the UN
Commission on Human Rights for the 1982 Commission Resolution. In the
U.S. Department of State, career officers were sensitized to the issue
and viewed strengthening the Commission's procedure as an important
U.S. human rights initiative. In this respect, this initiative also
supported an important aspect of U.S. human rights policy, namely the
desirability of promoting international human rights in multiple
rather than a single UN body, as the Soviets had proposed during the
1970's in Commission debates on this item. U.S. policy has supported
discussing human rights in the UN Commission on Human Rights, the
relevant UN Specialized Agencies such as ILO and UNESCO, as well as in
the Commission on the Status of Women.
Thus, the process of initiating, debating, adopting and
implementing the new international procedure has promoted
Page 12
international consciousness raising among State Department officials
both career officers and political appointees about violations of
international women's rights, their relation to human rights, the need
for an international recourse and that the contribution the new
procedure can make to alleviating alleged violations and complaints.
Fourth, publicity about the procedure at local, national and
international levels by NGOs and interested individuals can help
spread the word about the availability of the international mechanism
to which appeals can be made of alleged violations if domestic
remedies are not available or if they have been exhausted.
Fifth, pending ECOSOC's approval of the Commission's draft
resolution, close observers expect the Council to approve that draft
resolution and the Secretariat of the UN Commission to prepare a
report on the physical abuse of women in detention for the
Commission's 1986 session. The report will form the basis for
discussion and recommendation, if determined necessary, on what
measures should be taken to end such abuse. Governments will have to
formulate positions on the report in preparation for the 1986 meeting.
And, since the Report is likely to be published as an official UN
document, it will be available to governments other than those which
are members of the Commission as well as to interested NGOs and
individuals who may have an interest in publicizing the contents of
the Report.
Of course, the procedure has its limitations. It does not
provide for investigation of alleged violations nor for sanctions
against governments that commit alleged violations. Neither does it
allow for the publication of confidential lists or of categories of
Page 13
violations based on those lists. Yet, the fact remains that
governments, in approving the procedure, have acknowledged the fact
that violations of women's rights do occur, have become sensitized to
this fact and have set into motion a process which in the future
offers international recourse to women who allege violations of their
rights. In all these respects, the debate on, adoption of and
implementation to date of the procedure represent an important turning
point in the international enforcement of women's rights.
II. Reporting Under the Convention
A second, recently established international enforcement
mechanism is the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW). It is authorized by Articles 17-22 of the
Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to be
established after the Convention enters into force, that is, 30 days
after the date of deposit with the UN Secretary-General of the 20th
instrument of ratification. The Committee itself was proposed by
Sweden and agreed to by a majority of states including the U.S. during
the final drafting of the Convention to give the same international
status to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women as the UN General Assembly had given to the Convention on the
Elimination of Discrimination based on Race and to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had established
Committees to implement their respective provisions.17
The Convention itself, initiated in the 1974 session of the
Commission on the Status of Women, was adopted by the UN General
Assembly in Resolution 34/180 of 18 December 1979.18 It entered into
Page 14
force on 3 September 1981; as of January 1984, 90 states had signed
the Convention and 54 had ratified it.19 Who ratifies the Convention
is important for two reasons. First, only States Parties are
obligated to take all necessary measures to give effect to its
provisions and to report on them to the Committee. Second, only
States Parties are eligible for membership on the 23-member Committee
that examines the reports and proposes measures to encourage states to
increase their efforts to promote compliance with the Convention's
provisions.
Since the Convention came into force, the Committee has held two
regular sessions and is holding its third session right now. The
first, held from October 18-22 at UN Headquarters in Vienna considered
organizational matters, elected officers, adopted an agenda and rules
of procedure and selected members of the Committee.20 The second
session met from August 1-12, 1983, in New York at UN Headquarters to
consider national reports of States Parties and reschedule the date of
its regular session so that the Committee's Report beginning in 1984
could be transmitted through ECOSOC to the fall session of the UN
General Assembly.21 The Third Session of the Committee opened in New
York at UN Headquarters on March 26 and will conclude on April 6,
1984. It is to consider reports of States Parties that it had not had
time to discuss at its second session. The Third Session is also to
consider and adopt the official Reports of its Second (1982) and Third
(1984) sessions.22
While it is perhaps too soon to assess the impact of the
Committee as an international enforcement mechanism for women's
rights, several preliminary conclusions may be offered. First, it
Page 15
could be argued that since the Convention's obligations apply only to
States Parties, of which there are only 54, that it has limited
applicability. There is some truth to this, particularly since
certain key Western States including the U.S. have not yet ratified
it, and only about 1/3 of the entire UN membership has done so.23
Universal or more nearly universal ratification would surely increase
the extent of obligations imposed and their broader application. If a
greater number of states would ratify the Convention, say upwards of
100, the Convention's provisions could have broad international moral
authority for non-ratifying states. Yet considering that the
Convention was open for signature in 1979, came into force two years
later and in January, 1984 had 54 States Parties reflects a fairly
significant rate of ratification, particularly in view of the cultural
biases against women's rights in most countries of the world. The
Secretary-General's Representative at the Committee's 1983 meeting
attributed the numbers of ratifications to the importance that
governments attached to the Commissions and the efforts of women's
groups at national and international levels.24
Second, and related to the first point, though only 54 states
have ratified it, they have obligated themselves to take "all
appropriate measures" to ensure the full development and advancement
of women in all spheres--political, educational, employment, health
care, economic.and social, legal, marriage and family relations and to
modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women to
eliminate prejudice, customary and all other practices based on the
idea of the inferiority or superiority of either sex. When
traditional societies such as those of 19 Latin American states, 11
Page 16
Eastern European states, 8 African states, and 6 Asian states consent
to undertake "all appropriate measures" as well as 10 Western states,
one may expect changes in municipal law to begin being made and in
turn, gradual changes in the practice of the way those governments
treat their women nationals.
Third, States Parties are to report according to Article 18 of
the Convention on the legislative, judicial, administrative or other
measures which they have adopted to give effect to the Articles of the
Convention and progress made: (1) within a year after the entry into
force for the State concerned and (2) thereafter at least every four
years and whenever the Committee so requests. The Rules of Procedure
of the Committee further specify that the UN Secretary-General shall
notify the Committee of the non-receipt of any Report required from a
State party; that the Committee send reminders through the UN
Secretary-General to states concerning their overdue reports and if
the state fails to submit a required report, refer to this fact in its
annual report to the UN General Assembly--in effect publicize that
State's lack of adherence to the Convention. The Committee may also
ask a State to provide information in addition to what it submitted in
its Report and it may make general recommendations to States Parties
on their Reports for their comment within a certain time limit.25
Thus, the Convention's reporting obligation and the Committee's rules
of procedure make clear that there are sanctions, however mild, for
failure to report. These are stronger in their legal authority than
resolutions adopted for instance by the Commission on the Status of
Women over the years requesting that Members report on measures taken
to implement the Conventions on Political Rights of Women, on the
Page 17
Nationality of Married Women, or on the Registration of Marriages or
on the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
or on progress achieved in implementing the goals of the UN Decade for
Women. Such resolutions are recommendary and failure to comply does
not carry the threat of global publicity in the UN General Assembly as
the Committee's rules of procedure imply it can propose.
Fourth, the Committee itself, according to Article 17, consists
of 23 experts competent in the fields covered by the Convention and
selected according to geographic principles by States Parties to serve
in their personal capacities. The Committee is to meet regularly
every year to review national reports. Representatives of UN
Specialized Agencies may attend meetings of the Committee for
discussion of provisions of the Convention that fall within the scope
of their activities and may even be invited by the Committee to submit
provisions in their reports on competence. According to Article 18,
48 States Parties should have submitted Reports to the Committee as of
this writing. Thus far, only 14 reports less then one-third of those
due, have in fact been submitted. The low rate of reporting may seem
to reflect lack of interest or failure to take obligations seriously.
Before making this conclusion, we should note that at its second
session (1983), the CEDAW adopted a set of general guidelines on the
form and content of Reports to be submitted to the Committee to assist
States Parties.in preparing Reports ensure that they observed
uniformity in reporting and enable the Committee to obtain "a complete
picture" of the progress made in implementing the Convention. The
guidelines call for a two-part Report. Part I is to describe "the
actual, general, social, economic, political and legal framework" of
Page 18
the State's approach to the Convention, institutions established to
promote "principles of the Convention and legal and other measures
taken including whether provisions of the Convention can be invoked or
enforced by the courts. Part II is to provide specific information on
constitutional, legislative and administrative provisions already in
force plus new developments since entry into force as well as legal or
practical restrictions or limitations, even of a temporary nature, on
the enjoyment of each right.26
The 14 Reports submitted so far reflect an uneven quality because
they were submitted prior to the preparation and adoption of the
guidelines. Six are from Eastern European States, two from Latin
America, two from Asia, two from Western Europe, one each from Africa
and the Middle East.27 Yet they proved useful to the Committee's
deliberations on the general guidelines. Eleven of the 14 Reporting
States are members of the Committee. Twelve members have not yet
reported. Perhaps they along with others who have not submitted
Reports are treating this interval as a "grace period" to prepare
Reports in conformity with those guidelines. Thus, it may be too soon
to assess the impact of the Reporting requirement. Yet it should be
remembered that under the Committee's rules of procedure, a consensus
decision, or failing consensus, a simple majority vote is all that is
necessary for the Committee to send reminders to states that have not
submitted reports. To be an effective enforcement mechanism, however,
the Committee will need to encourage compliance with the reporting
requirements, and promote their expeditious consideration as well as
their judicious examination. While the present CEDAW session and
subsequent sessions are likely to begin to demonstrate whether CEDAW
Page 19
will have this capability, the Convention and its Committee offer
important potential means for promoting accpetance of the norm
outlawing discrimination against women in all spheres of activity.
CONCLUSIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from this discussion. First,
despite admonitions of the UN Charter Articles and the provisions of
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that fundamental freedoms
and human rights dshall be promoted without distinction as to ...
sex...; it has taken almost 35 years to develop the international norm
outlawing discrimination against women and almost 40 years to adopt
meaningful international mechanisms to promote enforcement of women's
rights. Yet the international norm itself as well as the two
international enforcement mechanisms, discussed here, have been
modeled along the lines of or in the shadow of international
instruments and enforcement mechanisms established to promote human
rights.
Second, and related to the first conclusion, historically, it may
not have been possible to have expected the UN Commission on the
Status of Women to move forward in developing the new communications
procedure or to support the Convention and its Committee without the
substantial development of international human rights instruments by
UN organs. What models would the Commission on the Status of Women
have used absent such enforcement mechanisms as Resolution 1503 and
those in several international human rights instruments, particularly
the Convention Against Discrimination Based on Race and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Page 20
Third, a related historic matter concerns the status of women
worldwide and the fact that the fashion of UN years and decades among
UN members in the 1970's led the Commission on the Status of Women in
1974 to propose an International Women's Year to be observed in 1975,
and endorse a UN Conference to commemorate the year which resulted in
declaring a UN Decade for Women, 1976-85. Subsequently, a UN
Mid-Decade Conference was held in Copenhagen in 1980 to evaluate
progress achieved. These worldwide activities have stimulated an
internationalization of the women's movement and called the attention
of governments, NGO's and individuals to the importance of improving
the condition of women and to the fact of women's plight, including
violations of their rights. International consciousness raising has
produced a new awareness among women and contributed to a climate in
which efforts to develop measures to enforce rights could bear
results.28
Fourth, the new enforcement mechanisms discussed here are
complimentary, not substitutes for one another. Each serves a
different though/ related purpose. The Convention and the Committee
under the Convention impose obligations on States Parties to "take all
appropriate measures"--legislative, judicial, administrative and
other--to promote the advancement of women and thereby to eliminate
discrimination against them in national societies, and to report to
the Committee.. But the Convention's obligations apply to States
Parties per se. Even if a greater number of states should ratify the
Convention, making the Convention's provisions a matter of broad
international moral authority for non-ratifying states, only states
parties must submit reports. Reports of States Parties are according
Page 21
to the general guidelines adopted by the Committee not to confine
themselves to lists of legal instruments but include the economic,
political, and social policies in the country as well as a discussion
of restrictions or limitations even temporary measures imposed by law
or practice on the enjoyment of women's rights.
If States Parties follow these guidelines, their reports may be
expected to provide information on measures taken as well as
restrictions or obstacles, that is, both positive and negative
information in terms of law and practice.
In contrast to the reporting system under the Convention, the new
procedure for handling complaints in the Commission on the Status of
Women is expected to elicit complaints alleging violations of domestic
law and/or practice on women's rights. The sources of such
allegations could be much broader than the sources of reports
submitted under the Convention. The 1984 working group in the
Commission said it examined 121 complaints. The point here, however,
is that the Commission's work would act as a check on the work of the
Committee and vice versa. If a States Party for instance submitted a
Report which failed to indicate restrictions or violations of women's
rights, members of the Committee or the Secretariat could check that
information and if found lacking, request the State to submit
additional information. Similarly, should a State Party faithfully
Report in addition to "measures taken", restrictions, violations or
obstacles to promoting women's rights, these may provide the Working
Group of the Commission with a check on complaints of alleged
violations of women's rights. Article 21 provides that the Reports of
the Committee are to be transmitted through ECOSOC to the General
Page 22
Assembly and also to the Commission on the Status of Women. Since the
Committee's annual report to ECOSOC will be considered along with the
Report of the Commission on the Status of Women in even numbered years
(because the latter meets biennially), the Council itself will be
able, should it wish, to check restrictions and obstacles identified
in one report with Commission's proposals regarding "emerging trends
and patterns of alleged violations."
Thus, while it is somewhat premature to assess the impact of
these new international enforcement mechanisms on improving the status
of women, there can be little doubt that they represent a turning
point in the international enforcement of women's rights from
paleolithic to neolithic times.
- 23 -
FOOTNOTES
1. Panel'on International Enforcement of Human Rights, chaired by Dr. Thomas
Buergenthal, American Society of International Law, April, 1983, Washington,D.C.
To appear in ASIL Proceedings forthcoming. Louis B. Sohn and Thomas Buergenthal
International Protection of Human Rights, New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
1973 for an excellent discussion of the development of international human rights
law under the United Nations, the European Convention and the Organization of
American States.
2. Margaret E. Galey,"Promoting non-discrimination Against Women: The UN
Commission on the Status of Women",International Studies Quarterly, vol. 23
No. 2, June, 1979, pp. 273-302. Se also, "Symposium: Women and International
Human Rights," Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 3, #2 Spring, 1981 and especially
articles by Fran Hosken and Laura Reanda.
3. Galey, ibid, pp. 275, 279-281.
4. Ibid.,pp. 285-290.
5. UN Action in the Field of Human Rights, UN, New York, 1980, pp. 338-341.
6. Galey, op. cit., p. 286.
7. Ibid., pp. 285-287; see also the Report of the US Delegation to the 26th session
of the UN Commission on the Status of Women(mimeo) and the Report of the
US Delegation to the 27th Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women
(mimeo). Personal observations of the 27th session, March 20-April 5, 1978,
New York, UN Headquarters. See also UN, Commission on the Status of Women, Report
of the 27th Session(20 March-5April, 1978)(E/CN/6/620/Rev.l),p.45.
8. ECOSOC, Official Records, (E/1980/80) "Communications on the Status of Women",
(Res. 1980/30) Resolutions and Decisions of ECOSOC, New York, UN, 1980.
9. UN, Commission on the Status of Women, Report of the 29th session(24 February-
5 March, 1982)(E/CN.6/1982/14), UN, New York, 1982,pp.38-43. The vote on the
resolution adopted on March 4, 1982 was: Canada, France, Finland, Guatemala,
24 -
Honduras,-Japan, Italy, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Spain, Trinidad and Tobago,
UK, US, Venezuela and Zaire in favor; Cuba, Czechoslovakia, GDR, India,
Ukraine, USSR opposed; China, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Senegal abstained.
10. Resolution 1983/39,"Communications concerning Human Rights',' UN Commission on
Human Rights, Report of the 39th session(January 31-March 11, 1983; E/CN.4/1983/
60), pp, 171-173. The resolution was adopted on 9 March 1983 by a recorded
vote of 30(West plys Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Fiji, Gambia,
Ghana, Jordan, Mexico, Mecaragua, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Togo, Uganda,
Uruguay, and Zaire)--4(Bulgaria, Poland, Ukraine, USSR)-8(Argentina, China, Cuba,
India, Libya, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe). ECOSOC Resolution 1983/27
was adopted by a vote of 34(West including US)--5(Eastern bloc)--10.
11. For the text of the resolution, see UN, Commission on the Status of Women,
29th session, op.cit., pp.9-10.
12. UN, Commission on the Status of Women, 30th session, Vienna, 15-24 February
1984, Draft Report,Chapter on Communications concerning the Status of Women,pp.1-3.
13. Ibid.
14. Personal Observations of the 1978 and 1980 sessions of the Commission.
See also statement by Ms. Horbal to the UN Commission on the Status of Women
on item #7,"Communications", April 3, 1978, Press Release, US/UN-22(78) mimeo.
See Also, Commission on the Status of Women, 28th session, op.cit.,pp.56-61.
15. See note 8 for ECOSOC Resolution.
16. UN, Commission on the Status of Women, report of the 29th session, pp.
See also Report of the US Delegation to the 29th session of the UN Commission
on the Status of Women, 1982, p. 4.(mimeo)
17. For text of the Convention ses U.S. Senate, Message from the President of the
US transmitting the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women, 96th Congress, 2nd session, Executive R, USGPO, Washington,D.C., 1980.
25 -
See also Galey, op cit., especially pages, 279-281, and the essay by Catherine
Tinker, "Human Rights for Women: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women", Human Rights Quarterly, op.cit.,pp.32-43.
18. Galey, op.cit.
19. UN, "Branch for the Advancement of Women, Center for Social Development and
Humanitarian Affairs, Status of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination Against Women as of 31 January 1984", UN, Vienna, January, 1984.
(Decade Note #2).
20. GAOR, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women, Report of the First Session,(A/38/45) UN, New York, 1983.
21. UN,Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, "Provisional
Agenda", second session(CEDAW/C/6, 30 May, 1983),pp. 1-3.
22. UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, "Provisional
Agenda", Third Session(26 March-6 April, 1984; CEDAW/C/9), February 7, 1984, pp.1-3.
23. See note 19. The US signed the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women in the ceremony at Copenhagen, Denmark at the UN World Conference
of the UN Decade for Women in July, 1980; subsequently, President Carter transmitted
it to the Senate where it has been pending before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. For the text of the President's communication, see note 17.
24. UN, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, "Draft
Report of CEDAW", Second Session(CEDAW/C/8; 4 August, 1983), p. 2.
25. See note 20 for the text of "Rules of Procedure of the Committee...",pp.23035.
26. UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,"General
Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Reports Received from States Parties
Under Article 18 of the Convention," Second Session,(1-12 August, 1983;CEDAW/C/7)
11 August 1983, pp. 1-3.
27. UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, "Consideration
of Reports, Comments and information submitted by States Parties under Article 18
of the Convention," Draft Report of the Second Session(l-12 August, 1983;CEDAW/C/8
26 -
Add. 1 through Add. 15. For individual initial reports see, UN,CEDAW/5/Add.l- 14.
Initial Reports from the GDR, Mexico, Hungary, Cuba, Byelorussia, Philippines, Norway,
Sweden, Panama, Egypt, Ukraine, USSR, Rwanda, and China.
28. Galey, op.cit.,pp. 273-274. US House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Report of Congressional Staff Advisors to the US Delegation, UN World
Conference of the UN Decade for Women, Copenhagen, Denmark, July, 14-30, 1980,
USGPO, Washington, 1980, pp. 1-28.
|
RSS
HIDE
