Case Study Part Five: Empowering the Masculine and the Feminine in International Law

  • Alexandra Walker


This chapter is the final section of the case study. It focuses upon the ways in which the unconscious material of gender justice can be consciously integrated to empower the masculine and feminine consciousness in international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting that international law needs to recognise and affirm men’s rights to the private sphere, and to incorporate men and same-sex couples more explicitly into the gender justice framework.


  1. Bielefeldt, H. (2000). “Western” versus “Islamic” Human Rights Conceptions?: A Critique of Cultural Essentialism in the Discussion on Human Rights. Political Theory, 28(1), 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billet, B. (2007). Cultural Relativism in the Face of the West. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks, R. (2002). Feminist Justice, at Home and Abroad: Feminism and International Law: An Opportunity for Transformation. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 14(2), 345–362.Google Scholar
  4. Bulto, T. S. (2006). Beyond the Promises: Resuscitating the State Reporting Procedure Under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 12, 57–92.Google Scholar
  5. Byrnes, A., & Freeman, M. (2012). The Impact of the CEDAW Convention: Paths to Equality. Background Paper Prepared for the World Development Report 2012, 2011. Retrieved from
  6. Charlesworth, H. (1999). Feminist Methods in International Law. American Journal of International Law, 93, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth, H., & Chinkin, C. (2000). The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Charlesworth, H., Chinkin, C., & Wright, S. (1991). Feminist Approaches to International Law. American Journal of International Law, 85(4), 613–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coomaraswamy, R. (2002–2003). Identity Within: Cultural Relativism, Minority Rights and the Empowerment of Women. George Washington International Law Review, 34, 483–513.Google Scholar
  10. Donnelly, J. (2007). The Relative Universality of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29, 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durham, H., & O’Byrne, K. (2010). The Dialogue of Difference: Gender Perspectives on International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross, 92(877), 31–52.Google Scholar
  12. Engle Merry, S. (2006). Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hillman, J. (1985). Anima: An Anatomy of a Personified Notion. Dallas: Spring.Google Scholar
  14. Jouannet, E. (2007). Universalism and Imperialism: The True-False Paradox of International Law? European Journal of International Law, 13(3), 379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krisch, N. (2005). International Law in Times of Hegemony: Unequal Power and the Shaping of the International Legal Order. European Journal of International Law, 16(3), 369–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MacKinnon, C. (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. MacKinnon, C. (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. O’Rourke, C. (2011). International Law and Domestic Gender Justice: Why Case Studies Matter, April 7. Transitional Justice Institute Research Paper No. 11-04. Retrieved from SSRN, or
  19. Pahuja, S. (2005). The Postcoloniality of International Law. Harvard International Law Journal, 46(2), 459–469.Google Scholar
  20. Papadopoulos, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications. Hove and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Peters, J., & Wolper, A. (1995). Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Reeser, T. W. (2010). Masculinities in Theory: An Introduction. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Samuels, A. (1989). The Plural Psyche: Personality, Morality and the Father. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singer, J. (2000). Androgyny: The Opposites Within. York Beach, ME: Nicolas-Hays.Google Scholar
  25. World Health Organization. (2012). What Do We Mean by ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’?. Retrieved May 24, 2012.Google Scholar
  26. Young-Eisendrath, P., & Dawson, T. (Eds.). (1997). The Cambridge Companion to Jung. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Social ImpactUNSW AustraliaSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations