Abstract
This chapter offers an alternative and complementary analysis of the study of constitutional law. The chapter deals with the evolution of case law on citizenship from two different viewpoints: citizenship as an aspiration, in which the objectives of equality, reparation and emancipation of women through the law are studied, and citizenship as belonging, in which the problems of identity and culture as new challenges to the traditional concept of citizenship are analyzed. The chapter highlights the adoption of substantive equality and the support of affirmative actions in Latin America. With regards to emancipation, the chapter shows an evolution towards the support of horizontal effects of fundamental rights. Courts are more willing to accept state intervention in private relations characterized by the defenselessness of one of its members. The chapter also discusses the conflicts that have their origin in the constitutional respect for cultural diversity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The concept of modernity used in these interpretations is defined by Jürgen Habermas as the cultural, scientific, political, and economic model that surged in Europe at the start of the fifteenth century (though its existence was not self evident until the eighteenth century) and that in general terms, is defined as a rational process of secularization of the culture and of the development in societies characterized by capitalism and state bureaucracies. See generally Jürgen Habermas, Le discours philosophique de la modernité, Paris, Gaillimard, 1985, p. 2.
- 2.
These are the terms of Chief Justice Earl Warren of the US Supreme Court in Perez v. Bronwell, 356 U.S 44 (1958).
- 3.
Sandro Mezzardra, Derecho de fuga, Traficantes de Sueños, Madrid, 2005.
- 4.
Ecuador, in 1929 was the first Latin American country to pass the female suffrage. Brazil and Uruguay did it in 1932, Cuba in 1934, El Salvador in 1939, Dominican Republic in 1942 and Jamaica in 1944. Guatemala, Panama and Trinidad and Tobago in 1945; Argentina and Venezuela in 1947, Chile in 1948 and Costa Rica in 1949. Haiti in 1950, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Santa Lucia, Granada and San Vicente in 1951. Bolivia in 1953, Belize, Colombia and México in 1954 (the latter did not provide for the right under the same terms given to men until 1958), Nicaragua and Peru in 1955, Honduras in 1957 and Paraguay in 1958.
- 5.
For the most in depth perspective on this subject, see Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1982.
- 6.
See Sylvia Walby, Theorizing Patriarchy, Blackwell, Cambridge, 1990.
- 7.
The United States approved women’s right to vote 1920. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” U.S Const. amend, XIX.
- 8.
“There will be no laws or personal privilege nor discrimination on account of race, birth, social class, sex, religion or political ideas.”
- 9.
Colombian Constitutional Court, ruling C-804 of 2006.
- 10.
Colombian Constitutional Court, Ruling C-355 de 2006.
- 11.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
- 12.
Article 13 of the Colombian Constitution states “All persons are born free and equal before the law, they will receive the same protection and treatment from the authorities and will enjoy the same rights, freedoms and opportunities without any discrimination on account of sex, race, national origin or family, language, religion, political opinion or philosophy. The State will promote conditions so that equality is real and effective, and will adopt measures in favor of discriminated groups. The State will especially protect those persons who because of their economic, physical or mental condition find themselves in debilitated circumstances and will sanction abuse or harm against them.”
- 13.
Report No. 103/01 case 11.307.
- 14.
For an in depth study on quota laws in the Andean regions, see Magdalena León, ed., Nadando contra la corriente. Mujeres y cuotas políticas en los países andinos, UNIFEM, Bogotá, 2005.
- 15.
Argentina (1991), Bolivia (1997), Brazil (1997), Mexico (1996), Panama (1997), Peru (1997) and Venezuela (1998).
- 16.
Jutta Marx, Jutta Borner and Mariana Caminotti, Las legisladoras. Cupos de género y política en Argentina y Brasil, Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, 2007, pp. 85–87.
- 17.
Id., p. 102.
- 18.
Mala Htun, “Democracia e inclusión política: la región andina en perspectiva comparada”, en Magdalena León, Nadando contra la corriente. Mujeres y cuotas políticas en los países andinos, op.cit., p. 55.
- 19.
Catherine Achin y Sandrine Lévêque, Femmes en politique, La Découverte, Paris, 2006, p. 77.
- 20.
This distinction beings with a more complex conceptualization. According to Mala Htun, “This distinction corresponds to the two dimensions of the concept of representation described by Hanna Pitkin in her classical study The Concept of Representation (1967). On the one hand, representation can be understood as ‘standing for’, where presence is most important from a descriptive or symbolic sense. Legislators represent descriptively their constituents when they have similar physical features, share the same experiences, and serve as a symbol that evokes certain attitudes and emotions. On the other hand, representation is to act in favor of, or in Pitkins’s terms, ‘action for’, that supposes that legislators must exercise their function of ‘representation that actively promote the interests of the citizens that elected them’.” Mala Htun, “Democracia e inclusión política: la región andina en perspectiva comparada,” op.cit., p. 33.
- 21.
Peter Smith, Democracy in Latin America. Political Change in Comparative Perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 252.
- 22.
Catharine A. MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory”, Signs, Vol. 7, No. 3, Spring, 1982, pp. 515–544.
- 23.
Martha Alberston Fineman and Roxanne Mykitiuk, eds., The Public Nature of Private Violence, Routledge, New York, 1994.
- 24.
Nancy Fraser considers the nuclear family as “the site of egocentric, strategic, and instrumental calculation, as well as the site of usually exploitative exchanges of service, labor, cash and sex, not to mention, that is the frequent site of violence and coercion.” Quoted in, Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell, ed. “Introduction” to Feminism as Critic on the Politics of Gender, Minneapolis, Minnesota University Press, 1987.
- 25.
Deborah King, “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness” en Signs 14 No. 1, 1998.
- 26.
Peter Digeser, “Performativity Trouble: Postmodern Feminism and Essential Subjects”, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, September, 1994.
- 27.
See, e.g., Angela P. Harris, “Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 42, 1990.
- 28.
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, Routledge, New York, 1990.
- 29.
Chantal Mouffe, “Feminism, Citizenship and Radical Feminist Politics” in, Judith Butler y Joan W. Scout, eds., Feminist Theorize the Political, Routledge, New York, 1992.
- 30.
Iris Marion Young, “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship”, Ethics, Vol. 99, January, 1980.
- 31.
Carol Smart, “The Woman of Legal Discourse”, Social Legal Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 29–44, March, 1992.
- 32.
Alessandro Baratta, “El paradigma del género, de la cuestión criminal a la cuestión humana”, en Haydée Birgin, El derecho en el género y el género Biblos, Buenos Aires, 2000.
- 33.
Amy Gutman, “The Challenge of Multiculturalism in Political Ethics”, Philosophy and Publics Affairs, Vol. 22, No. 3, Summer, 1993.
- 34.
Susan Moller Okin, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” in, Joshua Cohen y Howard Matthew, Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.
- 35.
See Ayelet Shachar, “On Citizenship and Multicultural Vulnerability”, Political Theory, Vol. 28, No. 1, February, 2000.
- 36.
To explore an opposition to these arguments see, Letti Volpp, “Feminism versus Multiculturalism”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 5, June, 2001.
- 37.
Resolution 2005/28, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/v-hrc.htm
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children, UN Fact Sheet. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm
- 42.
CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 19, see http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Motta, C. (2013). Citizenship. In: Motta, C., Saez, M. (eds) Gender and Sexuality in Latin America - Cases and Decisions. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6199-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6199-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6198-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6199-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)