International Women Rights - Essay Example

? and Section # of Are the human rights of women any better protected internationally than they were before the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979? Introduction ‘Human rights’ are a prismatic universal phenomenon, which is an international subject of debate in the contemporary times. Regardless of the claim that human rights are ratified around the globe and are considered to be universally applicable, the discrimination towards women purely on the basis of gender remains a disturbing issue for the world today. The conventions to provide these rights to women can be categorized into three broad categories (Mohanrsca, 2010): The protective conventions- these were the earliest most tools formed which aimed at the provision of protection to women pertaining to working conditions, such as restrictions against night shifts at work, mining employments, and specific sorts of labor work in plantation. The corrective conventions- these expedient tools focused on the mitigation of particular social problems which undermined the position of women in the society. It includes efforts to prohibit prostitution and sale of women for slavery or forced labor, child labor, and other forms of personal abuses. The elimination of discrimination conventions- these are the recent and the foremost form of tools used to provide protection to women against any sort of discrimination extended towards them due to their gender. The UN developed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979 in order to place non-discriminatory rules in place. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979 (CEDAW) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is an internationally acceptable UN convention, which aims to demolish the practice of discriminating women in all sectors of life, be it employment, justice seeking, provision of public services, healthcare, education, domestic relations, political participation etc. By the 11th August 2006, the Convention had a massive following and support from around the globe, which was substantiated by the fact that 98 countries signed the convention and it was ratified or acceded to by 184 nations worldwide (Blanchfield, 2006). The United Nations claimed that this convention was an expedient tool of ensuring non-discrimination and that it was a valuable mechanism for the extension of human rights to woman who are subjected to tyranny and oppression around the globe and yet not provided with due rights before the law. Therefore, it forces the member states to implement certain measures which would ensure that women receive their due rights and freedom. Its popular acceptance is also substantiated by the fact that 90% of United Nations member states have ratified it. It cannot be denied that CEDAW is a move towards more equality between men and women, however the enactment of laws and policies does not ensure that the aim would be achieved, since it is the effectiveness based on the practicality of the convention and its acceptance in real life and not just on mere paper which determines its success or failure. The Effectiveness of CEDAW The effectiveness of the measures carried out under CEDAW vary in accordance with certain factors such as the development level of a nation, the political ideology in place, the commonly practiced religion and cultural relativism prevalent in the region etc. It has been observed by institutions such as Amnesty International Organization, which carry out surveys and research for social welfare, that this convention has worked for the betterment of women around the globe, but there still remain obstacles pertaining to the above mentioned factors which hinder the complete implementation of these measures, resulting in the continuous and ever increasing subordination of women in different spheres of the world (Amnesty International, 2010, 64-65). One of the most common discrimination is gender based violence, wherein women are granted protection only in the public sphere, but in the private sphere they are like aliens to the international law, thereby demarcating the boundaries for state intervention to remain outside private sphere. Furthermore, it is claimed that culture imposes traditional norms and roles upon both the genders and these norms are skewed towards making women’s position detrimental. There has been apparent and visible progress as according to the UN report published for the analysis of its conventions, and by Amnesty international, which state that the position of women have improved after the commencement of CEDAW, however the fission between the rhetoric of human rights and the actual effectiveness of the measures still remains an attention grasping issue (Amnesty International, 2010, 64-65; Callander, 2011). For example, Nigeria is a nation that has ratified the measures of CEDAW without any reservation and yet the rate at which the women there face physical and sexual abuse is alarming, the violence against women is condoned by the state law, by provision of the right to men to correct their wives, children and domestic workers. Such indirect reservations allows for loopholes in the convention, making it possible for discriminatory practices to seep in and destroy the very nature and aim of the convention (Amnesty International, 2005, 2-35; Callander, 2011). It has been a topic of controversy around the globe that whether the Convention has been an effective step towards the issue of human rights with regards to women at an international level. The advocates in favor of the CEDAW, which includes people like Representative Woolsey, who claim that this convention is a “powerful tool” for the women of the world, and that the United States is the only developed nation which has not accepted or ratified the CEDAW. Furthermore, Senator Joseph Biden and Barbara Boxer are examples of advocates who claim to be proponents of the convention, for they say that the women are empowered by the CEDAW to attain equality in their own nations, equality which was not accorded to them before the convention. They provide certain examples to support their claims, such as the description of a Tanzanian woman, who claimed that she had the right to sell the property that she inherited legally from her father, while the court initially denied her appeal stating that being a woman, she had no right to sell property, but CEDAW gave her the right due to its non-discriminatory feature, thereby depicting that it protects women from the conventional clutches of discriminatory court proceedings. Non-Governmental Organizations such as Amnesty International also back this claim that the CEDAW does provide protection and accordance of specific rights to women around the globe, but they go further to claim that these are insufficient and inadequate; hence require more acceptance and penetration into the roots of the societies at an international level (Blanchfield, 2006, 7-8). On the contrary side, there are the opponents of the ratification of this convention. These parties recognize the importance of eliminating discrimination against women at a global level, and also accept the rights of the women which must be accorded to them with due respect and reverence, however they oppose the convention with the claim that it is not the most effective and efficient way for achieving this larger objective. Some opponents go so far as to claim that the convention contradicts its very own purpose, such that it tends to hurt women rather then providing them human rights internationally. They claim that the convention can only be viewed in the sense that it ‘serves as a facade for continuing atrocities’, not in every region but in countries which are State Parties to the Convention, comprising of some of the most well known and industrializing nations of the world, China and North Korea. Furthermore, even while countries ratify the convention because denying to ratify the convention would mean they do not recognize women rights, these nations tend to have reservations which make the treaty’s main purpose ineffective. If every country around the globe would make reservations, and alter or amend clauses of the convention, then it would become a mere tailor-fitted suit for the countries, which is produced in accordance with their own cultural ideologies and where cultural relativism seeps in inevitably, thus defeating the very purpose eliminating the discrimination against women at a global level (Blanchfield, 2006, 8). Conclusion In light of the entire argument, it can be concluded that the proclamation of women’s rights as human rights and vice versa, remains an empty rhetoric, thereby making these conventions mere words by global institutions, for it is entirely at the disposal of the nation state government and public to ensure the effective implementation of the measures aimed specifically to eliminate discrimination against women. Since it can also be seen that the nations have been given the right to ratify and yet have reservations which null the benefits provided by certain clauses, this abolishes the context of the convention since they are being molded in accordance with cultural preferences. Thus the betterment of women after the enactment of CEDAW has been minimal due to its ineffectiveness and is not up to the desired level; however it cannot be denied that the condition of women has improved slightly, as claimed by the proponents of the convention, but the overall effectiveness is not up to the desired mark, regardless of the massive acceptance of the Convention by the majority of countries in the world. Works Cited Amnesty International. ‘Nigeria: Unheard Voices, Violence Against Women in the Family’. 2005. April 17, 2011. Amnesty International. ‘Libya of Tomorrow: What hope for Human Rights’. United Kingdom. Amnesty International Publications. 2010 Blanchfield. L (2006) ‘The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): Congressional Issues’. CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL33652 Callander. R. Do Women have Human Rights?. 2011. April 17, 2011 Mohanrsca. Women’s Human Rights: More Said than Done. 2010. April 17, 2011 Read More