Law and Critique

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 43–66 | Cite as

Heteronormativity and the European Court of Human Rights

Article

Abstract

This article examines a recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (E.B. v France) that upheld the complaint of a homosexual woman who alleged that her application for authorization to adopt a child had been refused by domestic French authorities on the grounds of her sexual orientation. I argue that the judgment constitutes an innovative and atypical legal consideration of, and challenge to, the heteronormative social relations of contemporary European societies. After exploring the evidence presented by the applicant, and the Court’s interpretation of it, I argue that in order to reach its judgment it was necessary for the Court to make a significant departure from its established jurisprudence in relation to sexual orientation. An essential element of this involved the adoption of a distinctive critical approach, strongly resonant with aspects of ‘queer theory’, which focused attention on the social, cultural and political construction of normative heterosexuality. Whilst a number of commentators have assessed the importance of the judgment in terms of its evolution of ‘gay rights’ in the area of family life, I argue that the Court’s reconceptualized ‘theoretical’ understanding of, and critical approach to, heteronormativity offers the potential to expand the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights across a number of areas of social life—in marriage, public assembly, freedom of expression, as well as family life—where non-heterosexuals continue to face discrimination in contemporary Europe.

Keywords

European convention on human rights Heteronormativity Homosexuality Sexual orientation Queer theory 

References

  1. Barclay, Scott, Mary Bernstein, and Anna-Marie Marshall. 2009. Queer mobilizations: LGBT activists confront the law. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berlant, Lauren, and Michael Warner. 1998. Sex in public. Critical Inquiry 24(2): 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boussiakou, Iris, and Robin C.A. White. 2009. Separate opinions in the European court of human rights. Human Rights Law Review 9(1): 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious life: The powers of violence and mourning. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  8. Carabine, Jean. 1996. Heterosexuality and social policy. In Theorising heterosexuality, ed. Diane Richardson. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Curry-Sumner, Ian. 2009. E.B. v France: A missed opportunity? Child and Family Law Quarterly 21(3): 356.Google Scholar
  10. Doty, Kathleen A. 2009. From Fretté to E.B.: The European Court of Human Rights on gay and lesbian adoption. Law and Sexuality 18: 121–141.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, Michel. 1979. The history of sexuality, volume 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  12. Fuss, Diane. 1991. Inside/out. In Inside/out: Lesbian theories, gay theories, ed. Diane Fuss. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Grigolo, Michele. 2003. Sexualities and the ECHR: Introducing the universal sexual legal subject. European Journal of International Law 14: 1023–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halperin, David. 1995. Saint=Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hart, Linda. 2009. Individual adoption by non-heterosexuals and the order of family life in the European court of human rights. Journal of Law and Society 36(4): 536–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks, Stephen. 2001. “Good lesbian, bad lesbian…”: Regulating heterosexuality in fostering and adoption assessments. Child and Family Social Work 5(2): 157–168.Google Scholar
  17. Hicks, Stephen. 2005. Lesbian and gay foster care and adoption: a brief UK history. Adoption and Fostering Journal 29(3): 42–56.Google Scholar
  18. Human Rights Watch Europe. 2008. ‘Gay adoption ruling advances family equality’. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/01/23/europe-gay-adoption-ruling-advances-family-equality.
  19. Ingraham, Chris. 1996. The heterosexual imaginary: Feminist sociology and theories of gender. In Queer theory/sociology, ed. Steven Seidman. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, Stevi. 1999. Heterosexuality in question. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, Paul. 2005. Love, heterosexuality and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, Paul. 2010. ‘An essentially private manifestation of human personality’: Constructions of homosexuality in the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 10(1): 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keller, Helen, and Alec Stone Sweet. 2008. A Europe of rights: The impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Letsas, George. 2008. No human right to adopt. UCL Human Rights Law Review 1: 134–153.Google Scholar
  25. Loizidou, Elena. 2008. Butler and life: Law, sovereignty, power. In Judith Butler’s precarious politics: Critical encounters, ed. Terrell Carver, and Samuel A. Chambers, 145–156. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. McGhee, Derek. 2001. Heterosexuality, law and resistance. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moran, Leslie J. 1996. The homosexual(ity) of law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, Wayne. 2001. Queering international human rights law. In Law, sexuality: The global arena, ed. Carl F. Stychin, and Didi Herman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mowbray, Alastair. 2005. The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 5(1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rich, Adrienne. 1986. Blood, bread and poetry: Selected prose 1979–1985. London: Virago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sedgwick, Eve. 1990. Epistemology of the closet. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Smart, Carol. 1996. Collusion, collaboration and confession: on moving beyond the heterosexuality debate. In Theorising heterosexuality, ed. Diane Richardson. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Stychin, Carl F. 2003. Governing sexuality: The changing politics of citizenship and law reform. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  34. Warner, Michael. 1993. Fear of a queer planet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Weeks, Jeffrey, Brian Heaphy, and Catherine Donovan. 2001. Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilkinson, Celia, and Sue Kitzinger. 1993. Theorizing heterosexuality. In Heterosexuality: A feminism, psychology reader, ed. Celia Wilkinson, and Sue Kitzinger. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Wintemute, Robert. 1995. Sexual orientation and human rights: The United States Constitution, the European convention, and the Canadian charter. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wittig, Monique. 1979. Paradigm. In Homosexualities and French Literature, ed. George Stambolian, and Elaine Marks. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations