Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. On this and further critiques of the gender-specific frame of VAW, see Goldscheid (2014).

  2. These critiques obviously resonate with postcolonial feminist concerns in wider debates (Narayan 1998; Mohanty 1988).

  3. The Istanbul Convention entered into force on 1 August 2014.

  4. The same ‘practices’ have been intensely targeted across Western Europe and commonly linked to Muslim minorities (Dustin 2007, 4).

  5. Othering has been understood as “a strategy to locate a problem elsewhere and to remain categorically clean, untouched” (Baer 2010, 61).

  6. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, for example, has made efforts to address these critiques. See 15 years of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences (1994–2009): A Critical Review, 34–36.

  7. Article 1.1.a IC.

  8. Article 1.1.b IC.

  9. I use ‘migrant women’ to refer to those who have left their countries of origin for reasons unrelated to persecution (e.g. employment, education, family reunification).

  10. I use ‘refugee women’ to refer to those who are outside their country of nationality given well-founded fear of persecution and inability to avail themselves of the protection of that country, or to go back, due to fear of persecution. See 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

  11. I use ‘asylum-seeker women’ to refer to those who have applied for asylum in another country and await determination of their status.

  12. See however Römkens’ critique of the Istanbul Convention’s treatment of domestic violence (2013).

  13. Supra n 6 at 35.

  14. In the context of trafficking, Kapur for example notes that while feminists have been motivated by “concerns over women’s equality and freedom from violence, they have inadvertently also fallen into the trap of re-entrenching women’s victim status, especially of poor women, and hence their need to be rescued and protected by a paternalistic state” (2010, 10).

  15. “These kinds of cross-cultural comparisons have emerged out of a long history of feminist and postcolonial critique of essentialism, ethnocentrism and racism inherent in both mainstream and feminist representations of practices such as FGC and veiling” (Pedwell 2010, 2). Pedwell offers a critique of these cross-cultural comparisons.

  16. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Radhika Coomaraswamy, Report “Cultural Practices in the Family that Are Violent towards Women,” 31 January 2002, para 96. See however critique by Sally Engle Merry (2006, 62–63).

  17. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, Its Causes and Consequences, Yakin Ertürk, Report “Intersections between Culture and Violence against Women,” 17 January 2007, para 33.

  18. One recent illustration is the Joint General Recommendation/General Comment No. 31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices, 4 November 2014. The recommendation/comment acknowledges that there are a wide variety of practices harmful to women (para 8) but focuses however on FGM, child and/or forced marriage, polygamy, crimes committed in the name of so-called honour, and dowry-related violence (para 6).

  19. CEDAW Committee’s general recommendation No 31 serves once again to illustrate that this problematic culturalist lens still persists in international human rights law. Admittedly, the Committee drops the term ‘cultural’ and speaks simply of ‘harmful practices’ in this recommendation. The frame, however, retains the focus on certain categories as examples of harmful practices often “justified by invoking socio-cultural and religious customs and values.” Ibid. para 6.

  20. For a critique of assumptions that women in non-dominant communities are more oppressed see Volpp (2001, 1195). On the racialised binary of Western women as “emancipated agents” and non-Western women as “emaciated victims” challenged by postcolonial feminists, see also Stringer (2014, 120–125).

  21. The historical relationship between vulnerability and human rights law is however more complex and bifurcated. See Grear (2010).

  22. Fineman, however, reclaims vulnerability from these negative associations in order to challenge the liberal subject and to argue for a more responsive state (2008, 9). She maintains that, as long as vulnerability is only associated with certain marginalised populations, the liberal myth that ‘normally’ people are self-sufficient and autonomous is sustained (2012, 116).

  23. See also Munro and Scoular (2012, 201).

  24. The stereotypical images of ‘other’ women reminiscent of colonial times go well beyond international human rights law. They pervade domestic laws in Western countries (Dustin and Phillips 2008), including asylum law (Razack 1995). Examples of the ‘oppressed female other’ challenged in feminist literature include the Muslim woman (Abu-Lughod 2013; Razack 2008), the migrant woman (Volpp 2011), the refugee woman (Razack 1995), and the ‘third-world’ woman (Kapur 2002).

  25. Hereinafter ‘the Istanbul Convention,’ ‘the Convention,’ or ‘the Convention text’.

  26. Hereinafter I use ‘the drafters’ to refer to the members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CAHVIO).

  27. A full analysis of all the Convention’s objectives and state obligations exceeds the scope of this article. I focus on those that are most relevant for present purposes.

  28. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011. Among other things, the Explanatory Report defines several concepts for the purposes of the Convention, outlines the nature and content of state obligations, and indicates measures that state parties may take when implementing the Convention provisions.

  29. Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO). See Articles 66–70 IC.

  30. It would be hardly surprising to also see legislators, courts, and policy makers of state parties to the Convention looking at the drafters’ Explanatory Report for guidance.

  31. Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe, Terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, 1044th meeting, 10 December 2008.

  32. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, paras 7–17.

  33. CAHVIO, Synopsis of the meeting report, First Meeting—6–8 April 2009, 24 April 2009, CAHVIO (2009) 6.

  34. Supra n 32 at 5.A.ii.

  35. Ibid. 5.B and 5.C. On one side, participants included the Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, Women against Violence Europe, and Amnesty International. On the other side, participants included the European Committee on Crime Problems, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and Interpol. Bodies with migration/refugee expertise such as the European Committee on Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees were also among CAHVIO participants.

  36. Ibid. 7. For more details on the background of members, participants, and scientific experts see appendixes to CAHVIO Meeting Reports and Gormley (2014, 606–608).

  37. See e.g. United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (20 December 1993) and CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No 19, “Violence against Women” (1992) paras 1, 6, 7, and 11.

  38. Preamble IC. See also Article 3(a) IC.

  39. Article 1.1(a) IC.

  40. Article 1.1(b) IC.

  41. Article 12.6 IC. See Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, para 90 (seeing this obligation as a reflection of the wider gender equality aim and understanding empowerment “in all aspects of life, including political and economic”.

  42. Article 18.3 IC.

  43. The Convention mostly uses gender-neutral language such as ‘victims’ [e.g. Articles 19, 56.1(h) and 59 IC]. Yet it is possible to conclude that these provisions include and/or aim to address mostly the concerns of migrant, refugee, and asylum-seeker women. See e.g. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, paras 298–299.

  44. Article 4.3 IC.

  45. See Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, para 53.

  46. Article 19 IC.

  47. Article 56.1(h) IC.

  48. See Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, paras 124 and 291.

  49. Chapter VII IC.

  50. Article 59.1 IC.

  51. Article 59.2 IC.

  52. See Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, paras 301 and 306.

  53. Article 60.1 IC.

  54. Article 60.3 IC.

  55. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, paras 310–317.

  56. Ibid. para 310.

  57. In using the adjective ‘culturalist,’ I follow Razack who uses it to describe “an exclusive emphasis on culture as the sole source of patriarchal violence” in ways that obscure other factors at the root of violence (2004, 132).

  58. See title of the Istanbul Convention.

  59. Note however that the Istanbul Convention keeps the name ‘female genital mutilation,’ which some feminists have considered problematic (Gunning 1999, 47–48).

  60. See Chapter V IC.

  61. Articles 33–39 IC.

  62. Rejecting culturalisation does not mean advocating what Korteweg and Yurdakul call a “culture-blind approach” (2010, 4). This approach would ignore the anthropological insight that gendered violence “is deeply rooted in cultural understandings of gender and power” (Merry 2009, 16).

  63. Article 12.5 IC reads: “Parties shall ensure that culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be considered as justification for any acts of violence covered by the scope of this Convention”.

  64. Article 42.1 IC reads: “Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that, in criminal proceedings initiated following the commission of any of the acts of violence covered by the scope of this Convention, culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be regarded as justification for such acts. This covers, in particular, claims that the victim has transgressed cultural, religious, social or traditional norms or customs of appropriate behaviour”.

  65. Some feminists note that “the very invocation of the term ‘honour killing’ conjures racialized imageries” (Korteweg 2012, 138). For a critique of the ‘honour crime’ category, see Abu-Lughod (2011).

  66. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, para 89. The drafters note that the principle established in this provision “is important for societies where distinct ethnic and religious communities live together and in which the prevailing attitudes towards the acceptability of gender-based violence differ depending on the cultural or religious background.” The drafters here point to culture and religion as the sole explanations for communities’ differing attitudes towards tolerating VAW.

  67. Ibid. para 313.

  68. Ibid. para 198. Emphasis added.

  69. A reading of the Second Draft Convention confirms my inference that the drafters’ interpretation suggests that “cosmetic surgery of the female genitalia is not covered by this provision.” CAHVIO, Second Draft Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, 18 May 2010, CAHVIO (2009) 32 rev, Article 30 “Female Genital Mutilation”.

  70. Articles 12.3 and 18.3 IC.

  71. Article 12.3 IC.

  72. Article 18.3 IC.

  73. Ibid. The only example of vulnerable persons given in this provision is child victims.

  74. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, para 87. The list includes: “pregnant women and women with young children, persons with disabilities, including those with mental or cognitive impairments, persons living in rural or remote areas, substance abusers, prostitutes, persons of national or ethnic minority background, migrants—including undocumented migrants and refugees, gay men, lesbian women, bi-sexual and transgender persons as well as HIV-positive persons, homeless persons, children and the elderly”.

  75. Ibid.

  76. Ibid. para 298.

  77. “Particular circumstances” evoke however factors of episodic and limited nature. Its capacity to reach more structural ones remains therefore unclear. See Sosa, Lorena (manuscript on file with author).

  78. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, para 87.

  79. The mention of the perpetrator implicitly confirms that violence against these persons occurs in an individualised perpetrator/victim setting rather than in a broader, socialised context.

  80. Typology of Protection for Women Victims of Violence, 4 May 2009, CAHVIO (2009) 11, 3.

  81. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, para 298. The drafters later add that the trauma following exposure to sexual and other forms of abuse further makes many asylum-seeker women particularly vulnerable. Ibid. para 315.

  82. Ibid. paras 301–318. One may draw similar inferences from the Convention provisions. See Articles 59–60 IC.

  83. Istanbul Convention, Explanatory Report, 12 April 2011, paras 301–304.

  84. Ibid. para 317.

  85. Ibid. para 315.

References

  • Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2011. Seductions of the “honor crime”. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 22(1): 17–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2013. Do Muslim women need saving? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Dustin, Moira, and Anne Phillips. 2008. Whose agenda is it? Abuses of women and abuses of “culture” in Britain. Ethnicities 8(3): 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Alice. 2011. Violence against women under international human rights law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, Martha Albertson. 2008. The Vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • FitzGerald, Sharron A. (ed.). 2011. Regulating the international movement of women: From protection to control. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzGerald, Sharron A. 2012. Vulnerable bodies, vulnerable borders: Extraterritoriality and human trafficking. Feminist Legal Studies 20: 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Grear, Anna. 2010. Redirecting human rights: Facing the challenge of corporate legal humanity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kapur, Ratna. 2005. Erotic justice: Law and the new politics of postcolonialism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, Ratna. 2010. Makeshift migrants and law: Gender, belonging, and postcolonial anxieties. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Krivenko, Ekaterina Y. 2015. Rethinking human rights and culture through female genital surgeries. Human Rights Quarterly 37(1): 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, Sally Engle. 2003b. Constructing a global law: Violence against women and the human rights system. Law and Social Inquiry 28: 941–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, Sally Engle. 2009. Gender violence: A cultural perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty, Chandra. 1988. Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review 30: 61–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, Uma. 1998. Essence of culture and a sense of history: A feminist critique of cultural essentialism. Hypatia 13(2): 86–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pedwell, Carolyn. 2010. Feminism, culture and embodied practice: The rhetorics of comparison. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Phillips, Anne. 2010. Gender and culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razack, Sherene H. 2008. Casting out: The eviction of Muslims from Western law and politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schneider, Elizabeth M. 1993. Feminism and the false dichotomy of victimization and agency. New York Law School Law Review 38: 387–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Elizabeth M. 2000. Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, Pamela. 2009. Vulnerable woman: A critical reflection on human rights discourse and sexual violence. Emory International Law Review 23: 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, Rebecca. 2014. Knowing victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ticktin, Miriam. 2008. Sexual violence as the language of border control: Where French feminist and anti-immigrant rhetoric meet. Signs 33(4): 863–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpp, Leti. 2000. Blaming culture for bad behavior. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12: 89–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volpp, Leti. 2001. Feminism versus multiculturalism. Columbia Law Review 101(5): 1181–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volpp, Leti. 2011. Framing cultural difference: Immigrant women and discourses of tradition. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 22(1): 90–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, Bronwyn, Denise Thompson, and Sheila Jeffreys. 2002. The UN approach to harmful traditional practices. International Feminist Journal of Politics 4(1): 72–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am thankful to Eva Brems, Alexandra Timmer, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lourdes Peroni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peroni, L. Violence Against Migrant Women: The Istanbul Convention Through a Postcolonial Feminist Lens. Fem Leg Stud 24, 49–67 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-016-9316-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-016-9316-x

Keywords

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