Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interrogating the substantive implications of India’s declaration to CEDAW’s Article 5(a): Part I

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of International Law

Abstract

India acceded to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) with a Declaration to its Article 5(a) in 1993, stating that it will implement its obligations only when it does not require interference in the religious activities of its minorities. The due diligence obligation to the CEDAW expands the obligations under Article 5(a) and calls upon nation-states to specifically redress the traditional, cultural attitudes that cause GBV. This Article argues that India’s Declaration to CEDAW’s Article 5(a), stating that it will redress the harmful cultural patterns causing gender-based violence (GBV) only when it does not require interference in the religious affairs of its minority religion- Islam, is in material violation of the due diligence obligation as traditional, cultural attitudes cause GBV in India. This case is made by examining two historical moments- the sati of Roop Kanwar, 1987, and the Parliamentary reversal of the Shah Bano Judgment, 1986. This Article uses the methodology of political science to make its case, situating the current argument at the intersection of the relationship between political science and public international law. Conventionally, the study of human rights compliance within political science has proceeded only by parsing empirical facts subsequent to treaty accession. This Article makes the methodological innovation of empirical observation of compliance prior to India’s accession in 1993. Hence, simultaneously this Article speaks back to the compliance literature and demonstrates that a cogent picture on the historical nature of GBV is necessary to comprehend the nature of compliance. A fallacy in contemporary scholarship that marks treaty accession as an artificial cut-off point is detected. This Article uses these two historical moments to also contest the argument that norms are epiphenomenal. The due diligence has accurately captured the empirical causes of GBV worldwide. Further, the epiphenomenal contention is contested by demonstrating that norms derive from the contingent experiences of nation-states. Therefore, this Article uses the methodologies of both political science as well public international law to assess the implications of India’s Declaration to CEDAW’s Article 5(a).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Uproar Over Rajput “Sati”: Wife Emolates Herself On Husband’s Funeral Pyre, 9 Hinduism Today (1979-1989), 1987, at 1, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/220811691/abstract/871DD7BB1A5F45D1PQ/4 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  2. Mala Sen, Death by fire: Sati, dowry death, and female infanticide in modern India 1 (2002), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aG7nntWmhpMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=mala+sen&ots=OoWYa8D3cD&sig=umLts26ut9X2fWsPvYBfzCh_jIc (last visited Mar 18, 2017).

  3. Id. at 1.

  4. Id. at 1.

  5. Anand A. Yang, Whose sati?: Widow burning in early 19th century India, 1 J. Womens Hist. 8–33 (1989).

  6. The Supreme Court of India has recently held the practice of triple talaaq ‘void, illegal and unconstitutional’. See Economictimes.com and Agencies, Supreme Court bars Triple Talaq for six months. Here’s a 11-point primer, The Economic Times, August 22, 2017, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-bars-triple-talaq-till-parliament-makes-a-law-heres-a-11-point-primer/articleshow/60169892.cms (last visited Sep 12, 2017). However, this does not deride the empirical validity of the occurrence of the Shah Bano Judgment in 1986 juxtaposed with Roop Kanwar’s sati in 1987, which are moments structured around the due diligence’s frame and closer in time to India’s CEDAW accession in 1993, for reasons further explained in the current article.

  7. AsgharAli Engineer, The Shah Bano Controversy (1987).

  8. Special to the New York Times STEVEN R. WEISMAN, Dispute Over a Moslem Divorce Ensnarls Gandhi, New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast), February 9, 1986, at A.3, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/425776984/abstract/6CE50A82037D4128PQ/4 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  9. Id.; Carol Anne Douglas, Indian Muslim woman’s legal victory jeopardized, 16 Off Our Backs, 1986, at 13, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/197153090/abstract/6CE50A82037D4128PQ/2 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  10. Girilal Jain, The Muslim Women Bill - Why Rajiv Has Pushed It, India - West (1975–1989); San Leandro, Calif., May 30, 1986, at 4, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/371419821/abstract/4B143B4F98784BD4PQ/24 (last visited Mar 19, 2017).

  11. “Declarations and Reservations: India.” 9th July 1993. In United Nations Treaty Collection. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec; [accessed September 9 2017]. Further, a Declaration is an interpretation of a treaty and does not “purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty.” Declarations do not create binding legal obligations but merely declare the aims of the state party with regard to the treaty. Whereas, a Reservation modifies, alters or excludes the legal effects of a treaty. In this regard, it is unclear if India’s Declaration is merely a Declaration as it has reserved India’s obligation from an important norm of the CEDAW- the due diligence obligation. India’s Declaration seems tantamount to a legal Reservation though not explicitly stated. (For an explanation of a Declaration and Reservation see: United Nations Treaty Collection- Glossary of Terms Relating to Treaty Actions, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml#declarations (last visited Mar 24, 2020).

  12. Mehra (2013) states that this Declaration reserves India’s obligations from interfering in traditional, “discriminatory” practices: See Madhu Mehra “India’s CEDAW Story”, in CEDAW in International, Regional and National Law,  eds. Anne Hellum, Henriette Sinding Aasen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 386. This discourse is also supported by Andrew Byrnes “Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women”, in CEDAW in International, Regional and National Law, eds. Anne Hellum, Henriette Sinding Aasen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 56.

  13. The term “traditional, cultural attitudes” is taken from the jurisprudence of General Recommendation No. 19, General Recommendation No. 35 (which expands upon General Recommendation No. 19) and the Preliminary report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women,1994, which contains the foremost explication on the due diligence obligation (Available at: Radhika Coomaraswamy, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/85 (1996), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G96/105/09/PDF/G9610509.pdf?OpenElement (last visited Apr 15, 2017). It is a frame of reference in common usage under the jurisprudence of the CEDAW and denotes the quantum of traditional cultural practices in various cultures like sati, genital mutilation, forced marriage, dowry violence, intimate partner violence, rape, sexual abuse and sexual trafficking. It is a jurisprudential term that has been abstracted off these cultural practices of GBV worldwide and is a compact legal term referencing multiple practices of GBV.

  14. Paragraph 7, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women (1992), http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d920c54.html (last visited Sep 13, 2017).

  15. Paragraph 9, Id.

  16. UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women, 1992, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d920c54.html [accessed 13 September 2017].

  17. Nicholas G. Onuf & Richard K. Birney, Peremptory norms of international law: their source, function and future, 4 Denv J Intl Pol 187, 188 (1974).

  18. Id. at 188.

  19. United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html [accessed 18 March 2020].

  20. Onuf and Birney, supra note 17 at 191.

  21. Yakin Erturk, 15 YEARS OF THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, ITS CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES (1994–2009)—A CRITICAL REVIEW 8 (2009), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/134/56/PDF/G0913456.pdf?OpenElement (last visited Sep 12, 2017).

  22. Id. at 8.

  23. Yakin Erturk, supra note 21.

  24. Jennifer Riddle, Making CEDAW universal: A critique of CEDAW’s reservation regime under Article 28 and the effectiveness of the reporting process, 34 Geo Wash Intl Rev 605 (2002), http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/gwilr34&section=25 (last visited Oct 13, 2016).

  25. Id.

  26. Belinda Clark, The Vienna Convention Reservations Regime and the Convention on Discrimination Against Women, 85 Am. J. Int. Law 281–321 (1991), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203063 (last visited Sep 23, 2016); Riddle, supra note 24.

  27. Donna J. Sullivan, Gender Equality and Religious Freedom: Toward a Framework for Conflict Resolution, 24 NYUJ Intl Pol 795 (1991).

  28. Clark, supra note 26.

  29. Laura A. Donner, Gender Bias in Drafting International Discrimination Conventions: The 1979 Women’s Convention Compared with the 1965 Racial Convention, 24 Cal W Intl LJ 241, 241 (1993).

  30. Francis A. Boyle, Irrelevance of International Law: The Schism between International Law and International Politics, The, 10 Cal W Intl LJ 193 (1980), http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/calwi10&section=15 (last visited Nov 13, 2016); Harold Hongju Koh et al., Why do nations obey international law? (1997), http://www.jstor.org/stable/797228 (last visited Nov 29, 2016); Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello & Stepan Wood, International law and international relations theory: A new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship, Am. J. Int. Law 367–397 (1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2997914 (last visited Nov 13, 2016).

  31. Boyle, supra note 30; Beth A. Simmons, Mobilizing for human rights: international law in domestic politics (2009), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qmDxDMruTMMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=mobilizing+for+human+rights&ots=B8Dlus18BA&sig=9GJXkGpVXCX_oUcvbrIMAzFElwI (last visited Dec 7, 2016).

  32. Simmons, supra note 31 at 4.

  33. Berta E. Hernandez-Truyol, Glocalizing Law and Culture: Towards a Cross-Constitutive Paradigm, 622 (2003), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2666238 (last visited Apr 24, 2017).

  34. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3970.html [accessed April 22 2017].

  35. UN General Assembly, Article 2(f) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3970.html [accessed April 22 2017].

  36. UN General Assembly, Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3970.html [accessed April 22 2017].

  37. Hernandez-Truyol, supra note 33.

  38. Riddle, supra note 24.

  39. UN General Assembly, Article 5(iii) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 18 December 1979, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1249, p. 13, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3970.html [accessed April 22 2017].

  40. Coomaraswamy, supra note 13 at 9; Dubravka Simonovic, Violence against women, its causes and consequences 5 (2016), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/297/08/PDF/N1629708.pdf?OpenElement.

  41. Christine Chinkin, Violence against women: the international legal response, 3 Gend. Dev. 23–28 (1995), http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/741921810 (last visited Apr 24, 2017); Joanna Bourke-Martignoni, The history and development of the due diligence standard in international law and its role in the protection of women against violence, in Due diligence and its application to protect women from Violence 47–62 (2008), http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/10.1163/ej.9789004162938.i-300.18/ (last visited Apr 24, 2017).; Marsha A. Freeman, Beate Rudolf & Christine Chinkin, The UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women: A commentary 447 (2012), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HAENi8BnCrMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=The+UN+Convention+on+the+Elimination+of+All+Forms+of+Discrimination+against+Women:+A+Commentary&ots=vsUAsjCovv&sig=HsrA9_ORbaaI3soE1ox3VmRt7yg.

  42. Paragraph 11, General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992); available at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19; [accessed April 22 2017].

  43. Ibid.

  44. Id.

  45. Paragraph 24 (b) General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992); available at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19; [accessed September 12 2017].

  46. Paragraph 6 (b) General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992); available at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom19; [accessed September 12 2017].

  47. 73 Carin Benninger-Budel, Due diligence and its application to protect women from violence (2008), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8nhyChU2JswC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=cedaw+due+diligence&ots=PS4K55i1XU&sig=2EtL3NTUnObM6u6KdY2CyEPJ_RI (last visited Oct 13, 2016).

  48. Hilary Charlesworth, The public/private distinction and the right to development in international law, 12 Aust YBIL 190 (1988), http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ayil12&section=13 (last visited Apr 24, 2017).

  49. UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, 5th February 1996, E/CN.4/1996/53, available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G96/105/09/PDF/G9610509.pdf?OpenElement [accessed 23 September 2017]

  50. Ibid., 27.

  51. This discourse has been reiterated by the subsequent Special Rapporteurs Ms. Yakin Erturk: See Yakin Erturk, supra note 21 at 16. And Ms. Rasheeda Manjoo: See Rashida Manjoo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, (2010), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/131/09/PDF/G1013109.pdf?OpenElement (last visited Sep 12, 2017).

  52. Para 8 specifically states that General Recommendation. No. 35 “complements and updates” states compliance commitments and “should be read in conjunction with it”: Paragraph 8 of General Recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation No. 19 (14 July 2017); available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CEDAW_C_GC_35_8267_E.pdf; [accessed January 21, 2018].

  53. Paragraph 7 of General Recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation No. 19 (14 July 2017); available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CEDAW_C_GC_35_8267_E.pdf; [accessed January 21, 2018].

  54. Paragraph 14 of General Recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation No. 19 (14 July 2017); available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CEDAW_C_GC_35_8267_E.pdf; [accessed January 21, 2018].

  55. Paragraph 26 (a) of General Recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation No. 19 (14 July 2017); available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CEDAW_C_GC_35_8267_E.pdf; [accessed January 21, 2018].

  56. See for instance: Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Kiyoteru Tsutsui, Human rights in a globalizing world: The paradox of empty promises1, 110 Am. J. Sociol. 1373–1411 (2005), http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/428442 (last visited Nov 6, 2016); Simmons, supra note 31.

  57. Sullivan, supra note 27.

  58. For more on compliance with the due diligence obligation please refer to pp. 7–8.

  59. For details please refer to p. 1.

  60. Hindu Funeral Traditions, , Everplans , https://www.everplans.com/articles/hindu-funeral-traditions (last visited Jan 4, 2019).

  61. Madhu Kishwar & Ruth Vanita, The Burning of Roop Kanwar, 42 Manushi 15–25 (1987), http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20files%2042-43/15.%20The%20Burning%20of%20Roop%20Kanwar.pdf (last visited Nov 21, 2016).

  62. Dorothy K. Stein, Women to burn: Suttee as a normative institution, 4 Signs 253–268, 255 (1978), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173024 (last visited Sep 23, 2016).

  63. Goerge Buhler, The Laws of Manu- Tranlsated (1886), http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu09.htm (last visited Apr 1, 2017).

  64. Uma Chakravarti, Conceptualising Brahmanical patriarchy in early India: Gender, caste, class and state, Econ. Polit. Wkly. 579–585 (1993), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4399556 (last visited Mar 10, 2016).

  65. Wendy Doniger, On Hinduism 525 (2014).

  66. Chakravarti, supra note 64 at 579.

  67. Chakravarti, supra note 64.

  68. Stein, supra note 62 at 254.

  69. Id. at 255.

  70. Kin Killed Widow, India Court Told: [Home Edition], Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext), November 23, 1987, at 11, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/292732703/abstract/871DD7BB1A5F45D1PQ/6 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  71. Id.

  72. 12 David Kinsley, Hindu goddesses: Visions of the divine feminine in the Hindu religious tradition (1988), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HzldwMHeS6IC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=david+kinsley&ots=kEEh2Q4YKL&sig=c8qLMsSnkd6ETVmvq6VA-lGZjz8 (last visited Mar 9, 2016).

  73. John Stratton Hawley, Sati, the Blessing and the Curse: The Burning of Wives in India 6 (1994).

  74. Eric Stokes, 7. The Aftermath of Revolt. India, 1857–1870. By Thomas R. Metcalf. London and Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Pp. xi+ 352. 45s., 10 Hist. J. 143–145 (1967), http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S0018246X00027370 (last visited Mar 19, 2017).

  75. Doniger, supra note 65.

  76. Uma Chakravarti, Whatever happened to the Vedic Dasi? Orientalism, nationalism and a script for the past, Recasting Women Essays Colon. Hist. 27–87 (1989).

  77. Stein, supra note 62 at 255.

  78. Adam Kelliher, YOUNG WIDOW’S FIERY SUICIDE MAKES HER A GODDESS IN INDIA: [WEEKEND Edition], Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash., September 27, 1987, at A7, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/384969424/C13CD03F4D6E4CF6PQ/9 (last visited Mar 18, 2017).

  79. Uproar Over Rajput “Sati”, supra note 1.

  80. Id.

  81. Parihar, Rohit, Nothing but Embers, India Today, November 29, 1999.

  82. Uproar Over Rajput “Sati”: Wife Emolates Herself On Husband’s Funeral Pyre, 9 Hinduism Today (1979–1989); Kapaa, 1987, at 1, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/220811691/abstract/94AC465261644CB9PQ/5 (last visited Mar 17, 2017).

  83. Rone Tempest, A Burning Controversy / Hundreds of Indian women end their lives in flames: [SUNDAY Edition], San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext); San Francisco, Calif., November 1, 1987, at 6, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/302188902/5F6D935557604378PQ/7 (last visited Mar 19, 2017).

  84. Adam Kelliher, Suicide spurs debate on Hindu rite: [FIVE STAR SPORTS FINAL Edition], Chicago Sun - Times; Chicago, Ill., September 27, 1987, at 47, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/257197696/94AC465261644CB9PQ/4 (last visited Mar 17, 2017).

  85. Uproar Over Rajput “Sati”, supra note 1.

  86. Id.

  87. Ruth Vanita, India: Widow Burning Revived, 18 Off Our Backs, 1988, at 12, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/197155871/abstract/7FA9A225CFB14118PQ/1 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  88. Kishwar and Vanita, supra note 61 at 16.

  89. Id. at 16.

  90. Id. at 16.

  91. Id. at 16.

  92. Id. at 16.

  93. Id. at 16.

  94. For more details, please refer to p.1.

  95. Engineer, supra note 7.

  96. CEDAW Committee & others, General Recommendation 19, Violence Women (1992).

  97. Id.

  98. Douglas, supra note 9.

  99. Id.

  100. Id.

  101. Id.

  102. Flavia Agnes, Women’s Movement within a Secular Framework: Redefining the Agenda, 29 Econ. Polit. Wkly. 1123–1128 (1994), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4401166 (last visited Apr 15, 2016).

  103. Carol Anne Douglas, Indian Feminist on Activism, Muslim Law, 17 Off Our Backs; Washington, 1987, at 5, https://search.proquest.com/news/docview/197145652/abstract/6BF87379BC9042D8PQ/20.

  104. Douglas, supra note 9.

  105. UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against women, 1992, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52d920c54.html [accessed 13 September 2017].

  106. Elisabeth Bumiller, The Moslem Divorce That Is Splitting All India, The Washington Post (1974-Current file), May 4, 1986, at C3, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/139082940/abstract/6CE50A82037D4128PQ/5 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  107. Id.

  108. Sheila Tefft, Alimony issue splits Moslems, triggers rifts throughout India, Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file), March 16, 1986, at 8, http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/170879762/abstract/6CE50A82037D4128PQ/8 (last visited Dec 12, 2016).

  109. Id.

  110. Id.

  111. Id.

  112. Id.

  113. Id.

  114. Id.

  115. Jain, supra note 10.

  116. Id.

  117. Id.

  118. AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science, University of Florida, 206 Anderson Hall, P.O. Box 11732, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Shritha K. Vasudevan

  2. Chennai, India

    Shritha K. Vasudevan

Authors
  1. Shritha K. Vasudevan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shritha K. Vasudevan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasudevan, S.K. Interrogating the substantive implications of India’s declaration to CEDAW’s Article 5(a): Part I. Indian Journal of International Law 59, 43–76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-020-00110-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-020-00110-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation