Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 49–67 | Cite as

Violence Against Migrant Women: The Istanbul Convention Through a Postcolonial Feminist Lens

Article

Abstract

This article examines the recent Council of Europe Convention on violence against women (VAW) through the lens of postcolonial feminist critiques. The article argues that, while there is certainly cause for optimism, the Convention still falls into some of the traps identified by postcolonial feminists. The Convention largely circumvents the stigmatising risks that arise from framing certain VAW forms primarily as a problem of some ‘cultures’. Yet dangers linger in the Convention’s approach to ‘honour’ as an unacceptable justification for VAW. Inherent risks also remain in the vulnerability frame through which the Convention views migrant, refugee, and asylum-seeker women. Applied uncritically, these approaches risk re-inscribing images of inherently powerless women victimised by their non-European ‘cultures,’ reminiscent of colonial times.

Keywords

Istanbul Convention Migrant, refugee, and asylum-seeker women in Europe Postcolonial feminism Violence against women 

References

  1. Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2011. Seductions of the “honor crime”. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 22(1): 17–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2013. Do Muslim women need saving? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, Susanne. 2010. A closer look at law: Human rights as multi-level sites of struggles over multi-dimensional equality. Utrecht Law Review 6(2): 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, Audrey R., and Benjamin Carbonetti. 2011. Human rights protections for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups: The contributions of the UN Committee on economic, social and cultural rights. Human Rights Quarterly 33(3): 682–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dustin, Moira. 2007. Gender equality, cultural diversity: European comparisons and lessons. http://www.lse.ac.uk/genderInstitute/pdf/NuffieldReport_final.pdf. Accessed 28 March 2016.
  7. Dustin, Moira, and Anne Phillips. 2008. Whose agenda is it? Abuses of women and abuses of “culture” in Britain. Ethnicities 8(3): 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, Alice. 2011. Violence against women under international human rights law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2008. The Vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20: 1–23.Google Scholar
  10. Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2012. “Elderly” as vulnerable: Rethinking the nature of individual and societal responsibility. The Elder Law Journal 20(2): 101–142.Google Scholar
  11. FitzGerald, Sharron A. (ed.). 2011. Regulating the international movement of women: From protection to control. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. FitzGerald, Sharron A. 2012. Vulnerable bodies, vulnerable borders: Extraterritoriality and human trafficking. Feminist Legal Studies 20: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldscheid, Julie. 2014. Gender neutrality, the “violence against women” frame, and transformative reform. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 82: 623–662.Google Scholar
  14. Gormley, Lisa. 2014. The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence: A consolidation of existing international law, or significant progression? European Human Rights Law Review 6: 606–617.Google Scholar
  15. Grear, Anna. 2010. Redirecting human rights: Facing the challenge of corporate legal humanity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunning, Isabelle R. 1999. Global feminism at the local level: Criminal and asylum laws regarding female genital surgeries. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice 3: 45–62.Google Scholar
  17. Kapur, Ratna. 2002. The tragedy of victimization rhetoric: Resurrecting the “native” subject in international/postcolonial feminist legal politics. Harvard Human Rights Journal 15: 1–37.Google Scholar
  18. Kapur, Ratna. 2005. Erotic justice: Law and the new politics of postcolonialism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kapur, Ratna. 2010. Makeshift migrants and law: Gender, belonging, and postcolonial anxieties. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Korteweg, Anna C. 2012. Understanding honour killing and honour-related violence in the immigration context: Implications for the legal profession and beyond. Canadian Criminal Law Review 16: 135–160.Google Scholar
  21. Korteweg, Anna C., and Yurdakul, Gökçe. 2010. Religion, culture and the politicization of honour-related violence: A critical analysis of media and policy debates in Western Europe and North America. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Gender and Development Programme Paper Number 12.Google Scholar
  22. Krivenko, Ekaterina Y. 2015. Rethinking human rights and culture through female genital surgeries. Human Rights Quarterly 37(1): 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Longman, Chia, and Tamsin Bradley. 2015. Interrogating the concept of “harmful cultural practices”. In Interrogating harmful cultural practices: Gender, culture and coercion, ed. Chia Longman, and Tamsin Bradley, 11–30. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Longman, Chia, and Gily Coene. 2015. Harmful cultural practices and minority women in Europe: From headscarf bans to forced marriages and honour related violence. In Interrogating harmful cultural practices: Gender, culture and coercion, ed. Chia Longman, and Tamsin Bradley, 51–66. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Mahoney, Martha R. 1994. Victimization or oppression? Women’s lives, violence, and agency. In The public nature of private violence: The discovery of domestic abuse, ed. Martha Albertson Fineman, and Roxanne Mykitiuk, 59–92. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Merry, Engle. 2003a. Human rights law and the demonization of culture (and anthropology along the way). Polar: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 26(1): 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merry, Sally Engle. 2003b. Constructing a global law: Violence against women and the human rights system. Law and Social Inquiry 28: 941–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Merry, Sally Engle. 2009. Gender violence: A cultural perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Mohanty, Chandra. 1988. Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review 30: 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Munro, Vanessa E., and Jane Scoular. 2012. Abusing vulnerability? Contemporary law and policy responses to sex work in the UK. Feminist Legal Studies 20: 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Narayan, Uma. 1998. Essence of culture and a sense of history: A feminist critique of cultural essentialism. Hypatia 13(2): 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Otto, Dianne. 2006. Lost in translation: Re-scripting the sexed subjects of international human rights law. In International law and its others, ed. Anne Orford, 318–356. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pedwell, Carolyn. 2010. Feminism, culture and embodied practice: The rhetorics of comparison. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Peroni, Lourdes, and Alexandra Timmer. 2013. Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal of Constitutional Law 11(4): 1056–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peroni, Lourdes, and Alexandra Timmer. 2016. Gender stereotyping in domestic violence cases: An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence. In Stereotyping and human rights law, ed. Alexandra Timmer and Eva Brems. Intersentia. Google Scholar
  37. Phillips, Anne. 2010. Gender and culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  38. Razack, Sherene. 1995. Domestic violence as gender persecution: Policing the borders of nation, race, and gender. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 8: 45–88.Google Scholar
  39. Razack, Sherene H. 2004. Imperilled Muslim women, dangerous Muslim men and civilised Europeans: Legal and social responses to forced marriages. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 129–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Razack, Sherene H. 2008. Casting out: The eviction of Muslims from Western law and politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  41. Römkens, Renée G. 2013. Reflections on domestic violence as gender-based violence in European legal developments. In Family ambiguity and domestic violence in Asia: Concept, law and process, ed. Maznah Mohamad, and Saskia E. Wieringa, 192–209. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schneider, Elizabeth M. 1993. Feminism and the false dichotomy of victimization and agency. New York Law School Law Review 38: 387–399.Google Scholar
  43. Schneider, Elizabeth M. 2000. Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Scully, Pamela. 2009. Vulnerable woman: A critical reflection on human rights discourse and sexual violence. Emory International Law Review 23: 113–123.Google Scholar
  45. Stringer, Rebecca. 2014. Knowing victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Ticktin, Miriam. 2008. Sexual violence as the language of border control: Where French feminist and anti-immigrant rhetoric meet. Signs 33(4): 863–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Volpp, Leti. 2000. Blaming culture for bad behavior. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12: 89–116.Google Scholar
  48. Volpp, Leti. 2001. Feminism versus multiculturalism. Columbia Law Review 101(5): 1181–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Volpp, Leti. 2011. Framing cultural difference: Immigrant women and discourses of tradition. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 22(1): 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winter, Bronwyn, Denise Thompson, and Sheila Jeffreys. 2002. The UN approach to harmful traditional practices. International Feminist Journal of Politics 4(1): 72–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yurdakul, Gökçe, and Anna C. Korteweg. 2013. Gender equality and immigrant integration: Honor killing and forced marriage debates in the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain. Women’s Studies International Forum 41: 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Rights Center, Faculty of LawGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations