Methods, Impact, and Reach of the Global Feminist Judgments Projects (original) (raw)
Related papers
Feminist legal theory manifests through writing and speaking about 'law' and 'women,' in an effort to promote and improve understanding about justice. Feminist legal theory is a set of ideas, an activity engaged in by thinkers in and outside academia, and an intellectual and political movement. Developments in feminist legal theory emerged through engagement with problems rooted in inequalities, experienced by individuals and communities, at the hands of people, corporations, or the state. This article draws out key areas of tension within the field of feminist legal theory, focusing on English-language feminist legal theory and spanning the field of national jurisdictions and international human rights.
2024
Feminist legal theory emerged from second-wave feminism to challenge the inherent biases and patriarchal structures within legal systems. It critiques traditional legal theories that often overlook or marginalize women’s experiences, advocating for a more equitable legal framework. This theory remains relevant in the 21st century, as laws in many jurisdictions continue to discriminate against women, either explicitly or through their failure to account for gender-specific experiences. While progress has been made, feminist legal theory reveals that legal systems remain steeped in male-centric perspectives. Not only do patriarchal interpretations persist, but the gap between formal legal equality and substantive gender justice continues to widen. This paper explores the evolution of feminist legal theory, identifying key debates such as the reformist-radical divide and the sameness-difference controversy, which highlight the varying approaches to achieving gender equity in law. Additionally, it emphasises the growing importance of intersectionality in understanding the complex layers of discrimination faced by women from diverse backgrounds. Ultimately, this analysis argues that feminist legal theory remains indispensable in the pursuit of social justice. It continues to challenge and reshape legal systems that perpetuate inequality, making it more crucial than ever in advancing gender justice in an evolving global society.
The Necessity of Multi-Stranded Feminist Judicial Opinions
Social Science Research Network, 2018
This article examines and evaluates Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Rino: A Two Stranded Rope, the latest published book in the growing collection of global feminist judgments projects. Feminist judgments projects are exploding across the globe, with completed projects in Canada, England, Australia, the United States and Ireland, an international law feminist judgments project well under way, and projects in Scotland, India, Mexico and Africa in process. In the US, a series of subject-matter specific feminist judgment books is in progress, the first volume of which has already been published. The participants in these projects have asked what difference a judge with a feminist perspective could have made in the reasoning or result in a case, and then attempted to show, through the writing of 'shadow opinions,' what that judgment might look like. Through the lens of Feminist Judgments: Te Rino, this article, written by the editors of the US feminist judgments book, explores and compares how the various international feminist judgments projects have taken on the enduring jurisprudential question of how much a judge's individual perspective matters in decision making. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Every lawyer has had the experience of reading a judicial opinion and thinking, 'even with those same facts and that same law, I would have reached the opposite conclusion.' Such is the nature of legal education, which encourages critical reasoning and requires students to argue alternative interpretations of often ambiguous cases and statutes. Despite this common experience, however, it remains taboo in law for judges or lawyers to acknowledge that decision makers' personal perspectives influence their reasoning or the outcome in cases. 1 Consider the backlash United States
2001
I can not say that I think you very generous to the Ladies, for while you are proclaiming peace and good will to Men, Emancipating all Nations, you insist upon retaining absolute power over Wives. 2 [A]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and ... everyone is entitled to all ... rights and freedoms ... without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. 3 In no society do women enjoy the same opportunities as men.' 'Levin, Mabie & Levin Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law. Many thanks to Professor Dr. iur. AnnePeters, University of Basle (formerly Walther-Schiicking-Institute of International Law, University of Kiel) for inviting me to write an essay for this exciting volume of the German Yearbook of International Law. In addition, many thanks are due to CindyKirkconnell(UF '00) for her spectacular research assistance and to Cindy Zimmerman for her editorial and computer wizardry.
Feminist re-drafting of the 2012 ICJ's Judgment on Jurisdictional Immunities
Feminist Judgments in International Law, 2019
Book chapter: ‘Feminist re-drafting of the 2012 ICJ's Judgment on Jurisdictional Immunities’, in book: “Feminist Judgments in International Law”, by T. Lavers, L. C. Hodson (Eds), part of the “International Court of Justice Feminist International Judgments Project”, Hart Publishing, 2019. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening) [2012] ICJ Reports 99 (Judgment). FEMINIST JUDGMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: The emergence of feminist rewriting of key judgments has been one of the most interesting recent developments in legal methodology. This unique enterprise has seen scholars collaborate in the ‘real world’ task of reassessing jurisprudence in light of feminist perspectives. This important new volume makes a significant contribution to the endeavour, exploring how key judgments in international law might have differed if feminist judges had sat on the bench. This collection asks whether feminist perspectives can offer meaningful and viable alternatives to international law norms; and if so, whether that application results in distinguish able differences in outcomes. It answers these questions with particular reference to sources of international law, the public and private divide, State responsibil ity, State immunities, treaty law, State sovereignty, human rights protection, global governance, and the concept of violence in international law. This landmark publi cation offers a truly innovative reassessment of international law.
The law substantially influences individual lives, making it necessary to embrace a sound approach towards its interpretation. Even so, indeterminacy in the law accommodates different applications of interpretation that includes legal feminism. This dissertation assessed how feminist legal methods were adopted, particularly in judging Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer and R v Brown from a feminist perspective. Particularly, emphasis was focused on construing law as a form of hermeneutics and as a concept influenced by continental philosophy. In reflecting the mindset of a diverse set of decision makers, these methods strongly affirmed the need for a diverse judiciary. This paper considered Ronald Dworkin’s work on interpretivism and the hermeneutic circle as discussed by Hans-Georg Gadamer. It concluded that a diverse judiciary that represents the multi-cultural and ethnically diverse elements of our society is in the best position to administer justice.
American feminist jurisprudence is the study of the construction and workings of the law from perspectives which foreground the implications of the law for women and women's lives. This study includes law as a theoretical enterprise as well its practical and concrete effects in women's lives. Further, it includes law as an academic discipline, and thus incorporates concerns regarding pedagogy and the influence of teachers. On all these levels, feminist scholars, lawyers, and activists raise questions about the meaning and the impact of law on women's lives. Feminist jurisprudence seeks to analyze and redress more traditional legal theory and practice. It focuses on the ways in which law has been structured (sometimes unwittingly) that deny the experiences and needs of women. Feminist jurisprudence claims that patriarchy (the system of interconnected relations and institutions that oppress women) infuses the legal system and all its workings, and that this is an unacceptable state of affairs. Consequently, feminist jurisprudence is not politically neutral, but a normative approach, as expressed by philosopher Patricia Smith: "[F]eminist jurisprudence challenges basic legal categories and concepts rather than analyzing them as given. Feminist jurisprudence asks what is implied in traditional categories, distinctions, or concepts and rejects them if they imply the subordination of women. In this sense, feminist jurisprudence is normative and claims that traditional jurisprudence and law are implicitly normative as well" (Smith 1993, p. 10). Feminist jurisprudence sees the workings of law as thoroughly permeated by political and moral judgments about the worth of women and how women should be treated. These judgments are not commensurate with women's understandings of themselves, nor even with traditional liberal conceptions of (moral and legal) equality and fairness. Although feminist jurisprudence revolves around a number of questions and features a diversity of focus and approach, two characteristics are central to it. First, because the Anglo-American legal tradition is built on liberalism and its tenets, feminist jurisprudence tends to respond to liberalism in some way. The second characteristic is the goal of bringing the law and its practitioners to recognize that law as currently constructed does not acknowledge or respond to the needs of women, and must be changed. These two features can be seen in the major debates in current feminist jurisprudence, which range from questions of the proper perspective from which to understand the problems of the law, to questions of legal theory and practice.
Priorities of Feminist Legal Research: A sketch, a draft agenda, a hint of an outline
Feminists Law, 2011
Two decades back feminist scholarship addressing international law still occupied outsider status in many arenas. Early interventions in the field outlined the priorities of feminist research in international law as the mainstreaming and consolidation of feminist insights in other terrains into international legal analysis, inclusion of feminist perspectives within mainstream legal practice, and the expansion of feminist analysis of public/private onto the international law stage. 1 Today I would argue that our priority should be change not consolidation, challenge not inclusion, re-examination not expansion.