|
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, commonly referred to as CEDAW, is an international convention that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979 and came into force in 1981. The Convention requires States Parties to:
The Convention also provides that special (affirmative action) measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women [article 4, paragraph 1] and measures protecting maternity, shall not be considered discriminatory [article 4, paragraph 2]. In addition, state parties are required to take all appropriate measures to:
[The following discussion is based on the work of Shanti Dairiam of the regional NGO International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW Asia Pacific).] Equality In terms of equality of opportunity, equality of access, and equality of results, equality, must be both de jure - by law - and de facto - in fact (see box). Formal equality is a flawed concept because it assumes that women and men are the same, and does not take into consideration the biological and socially constructed differences between them. For instance, a fish project in Bangladesh required that all participants should own a pond in a situation where women did not have property rights. This amounts to de facto discrimination against women. Protectionist approaches that prohibit women from working at night are also discriminatory. Rather than imposing discriminatory protective measures, Governments should explore why it is not safe for women to work or travel at night and address these factors. Thus, the CEDAW concept of equality must provide enabling conditions that remove the obstacles or barriers arising from socially-constructed or biological differences. Non-discrimination CEDAW requires the elimination of all forms of discrimination, both direct and indirect. Direct discrimination has the purpose or intent of discriminating. For example, a regulation prohibiting women from working in certain industries or occupations, such as underground mining, constitutes direct discrimination. Indirect discrimination is unintended but has the effect of discrimination as in the example of the fish pond project cited above. Indirect discrimination is often subtle and invisible. If women do not take advantage of opportunities, CEDAW requires that Governments find out why and then address these factors. Some discrimination may be cross-cutting or historic: Cross-cutting: Government approaches to development and to the elimination of discrimination tend to be sectoral, although many forms of discrimination against women are cross-cutting because they affect women in all or several sectors. For example, in Algeria the Ministry for Labour, seeking to improve women's access to employment, instituted reforms in the Labour Code, ensured maternity benefits for women, and set up support services such as child care. However, the CEDAW Committee found that such measures had failed to consider that many women were unable to enter the labour force because the Family Code required that they first obtain their husbands' permission. Thus, the measures benefited only those women in the labour force (presumably with their husbands' permission), while other women continued to be denied their right to employment. A multi-sectoral approach is needed that considers discrimination under the Family Code, as well as the Labour Code. Similarly, in
China women have the right to petition for divorce. However, in
considering a woman's petition, Magistrates will take into account
whether she will have access to housing once she leaves the marital
home. State housing policy grants housing rights to husbands after
divorce. Thus, unless a woman can demonstrate access to housing
after divorce (perhaps by moving in with her parents), paternalistic
Magistrates will refuse her divorce petition. Consequently, women
victims of domestic violence have little chance of getting out of
abusive relationships through divorce. In this case, discrimination
is cross-cutting because discrimination in the allocation of housing
leads to discrimination in access to divorce, and may contribute to
abuses of women's human rights. Historic: The impact of previous discrimination may cause later, apparently unrelated, measures to have a discriminatory effect. For example, during downsizing as a result of recession, an Australian company adopted a policy of firing those workers most recently hired. However, due to previous discrimination against women, all the factory's women workers were among the most recently hired. Consequently, this policy was deemed to constitute discrimination. State obligation The state is obligated under CEDAW to ensure both de jure and de facto equality. The rights of women must be respected by regulating all state actions and actors, as well as the private sector, individuals and organizations. The rights of women must also be ensured in the public, private and family domains with effective laws against discrimination. The state should protect the full rights of women and put in place enabling conditions such as legal aid to ensure that women can exercise their rights in practice.
The Convention was opened for signature in New York on 1 March 1980. Countries may:
By March 2001, 167 countries had signed the Convention, making it one of the international human rights treaties with the largest number of signatories. The Convention, however, is also among the treaties with the highest number of reservations by States Parties (UN headquarters press release 31 January 1997). Most
East and Southeast Asian and Pacific countries
have ratified CEDAW. However, many of them have stipulated
reservations, as seen in Table 1.
Table 1: CEDAW
status in East and Southeast Asia, and Pacific Countries
Brunei Darussalam has neither ratified nor signed. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women issues recommendations that may be used as an aid to interpreting the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The General Recommendations, which refer to substantive rights of women, deal with the following subjects (click here to read the text of the articles): · #3:
article 5, public education campaigns Although the Convention has been ratified by a large number of countries, many of these have not taken specific steps to implement the Convention. Like most international conventions, enforcement of CEDAW relies largely on advocacy and the weight of public and particularly international public opinion. At the international level, implementation of the Convention is monitored through the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which has held sessions since 1981. The Committee is made up of 23 experts nominated by their respective Governments and elected at a meeting of all States Parties that have ratified the Convention. Each State Party may nominate one expert. Those elected will serve in a personal capacity for a four-year term. States Parties that have ratified the Convention are required to submit an initial report one year after ratification and then report once every four years. The Committee normally meets once a year and hears an average of eight reports per session. In 1996, the Committee revised its guidelines for reporting by inviting Governments to include information on measures taken to implement the Beijing Platform for Action. The reports are considered at length in a consultative process. At its fourteenth session, the Committee allocated two and a half meetings for consideration of a report by a State Party. Despite late reporting by a number of countries, the Committee has faced a growing backlog of work over recent years and has been under pressure to meet more than once a year in order to clear the backlog. Recently, NGOs from reporting countries have presented supplementary information or alternative reports in Special Consultations between NGOs and CEDAW Experts. NGOs can play
a very important role in making the Convention an instrument for
women's empowerment through advocacy and monitoring their
government's implementation of the treaty. Because the Convention's
enforcement mechanism is based on a reporting system, it is
important that NGOs understand and use the reporting mechanism to
maintain government accountability both inside the country and at
the United Nations. The Committee also issues suggestions and general recommendations A working group of the Committee considers ways to implement article 21 of the Convention, which authorizes the committee to issue suggestions and recommendations based on the examination of reports and information received from States Parties. Since 1992, the working group has reported on particular articles of the convention or themes that run across a number of articles. One of the most important recommendations concerned gender based violence against women, an issue that is not addressed directly in the Convention. Recommendation 19 defines gender-based violence as a form of discrimination against women. Recommendations have also been made on articles 7 (elimination of discrimination in political and public life), 8 (equal opportunity for women to represent their governments internationally); and most recently on article 12 (women and health). Despite its limitations, CEDAW is the most powerful international tool for the elimination of discrimination against women. Some countries have used CEDAW as the basis for drafting new or amending existing Constitutions. Sri Lanka used CEDAW as the basis for its Women's Charter in 1993. In the past, a great deal of effort has been devoted to advocacy and lobbying Governments to ratify the Convention and to the removal of reservations. It is now timely to focus more on its effective implementation by the large number of States Parties that have ratified it. Implementation remains slow Although many countries have ratified the Convention, implementation remains slow and quite limited in many countries. For example, in Thailand: · The reservation on the legal capacity of women was withdrawn in 1990, although little has changed in practice. Married women are still required to provide evidence of approval from their husbands for legally binding agreements, whereas married men are not required to provide evidence of their wives' approval. · Although the Government reported to CEDAW that Cabinet had approved a resolution to issue the same citizenship rights to the spouse of a Thai women as are currently available to the spouse of a Thai man, the amendment has not yet been presented to or approved by Parliament. · While the Government withdrew reservations in respect of equal educational opportunities in 1996, the police academy and other academies under the supervision of the armed forces did not amend their regulations to make places available to women applicants [Somswadi, 1997: 2-6, see Further Reading for the reference]. Women's groups can undertake a number of activities:
Another milestone on the road towards equality between women and men and the full enjoyment by women of their human rights has been met. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women entered into force on the 22 December 2000. On the 6 October 1999, in a landmark decision for women, the United Nations General Assembly, acting without a vote, adopted the 21-article Optional Protocol to the Convention, and called on all States Parties to the Convention to become party to the new instrument as soon as possible. States that ratify the Optional Protocol recognize the competence of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to consider petitions from individual women or groups of women who have exhausted all available national remedies. The Optional Protocol also entitles the Committee to conduct inquiries into grave or systematic violations of the Convention. States that ratify may opt out of the inquiry procedure, but no other reservations are permitted. The Division for the Advancement of Women in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs provides the technical and substantive servicing of the Convention and its Optional Protocol. The Optional Protocol is significant for a number of reasons. Its two procedures reaffirm existing remedies available under other international human rights instruments, such as the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Optional Protocol also advances the development of international human rights law, and incorporates practice developed by international monitoring mechanisms over the last 30 years. It recognizes that women continue to face specific challenges in seeking redress for their grievances under general human rights mechanisms. As of 2001, the Optional Protocol has been ratified or acceded to by 13 States parties: Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Mali, Namibia, New Zealand, Senegal, Slovakia and Thailand. There are a total of 62 signatories to the Optional Protocol. The adoption of an Optional Protocol to provide a right to petition was one of the commitments made by States at both the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women. Its entry into force represents a major step towards the realization of the objectives set out in the Beijing Platform for Action.
UNIFEM is not directly responsible for CEDAW, as UNICEF is for the Convention of the Rights of Children. However, UNIFEM does provide strategic, technical and some financial support for:
CEDAW has been widely accepted by countries in the East and Southeast Asia and Pacific region. Recognizing the joint interest of UNICEF and UNIFEM in promoting the principles laid out under the Convention, the UNICEF-East Asia and Pacific Regional Office and the UNIFEM East and Southeast Asia Regional Office have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate throughout the region to support the implementation of CEDAW. This agreement recognizes the complementary strengths of the two organizations. Building upon UNICEF's strength in the region at the country level and UNIFEM's technical expertise, both regional offices agree to keep each other informed of and involved in on-going activities on advocacy for or implementation of CEDAW. In addition, UNIFEM will provide technical support for work that UNICEF may pursue on CEDAW advocacy and implementation at the country level.
Current Asian members of the CEDAW Committee 1) Hon.
Rosario Manalo 2) Ms
Hei-Soo Shin 3) Ms
Sjamsiah Achmad Previous Asian Members of the CEDAW Committee Irene R.
Cortez Philippines (1982-1986) Organizations facilitating CEDAW Implementation (click here for detail) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women:
Division of the Advancement of Women (2001): "CEDAW" http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/index.html Division of the Advancement of Women (2001): " Optional Protocol to Women's Convention comes into Force", http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/index.html Office of the Prime Minister, Thailand (1996): Thailand's Combined Second and Third Report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Committee for Thailand's Second Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and National Commission on Women's Affairs (NCWA) July. Somswadi, Virada. (1997): "Some Pertinent Legal and Social Issues on Women in Thailand." Women's Studies Centre, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiangmai University, March. UNIFEM (1998): " Bringing Equality Home. Implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women", edited by Ilana Landsberg-Lewis UNIFEM/Inter-American Institute of Human Rights (2000): " Optical Protocol: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women" United Nations, A/51/277 7 August (1996). "Advancement of Women. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Report of the Secretary." United Nations, (1996). Commission on the Status of Women. Report of the fortieth session. (11-22 March 1996), Economic and Social Council. Official Records 1996 Supplement 6. United Nations, 31 January (1997). Committee on Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concludes Three-Week Session at Headquarters. Press Release.
A. CEDAW
status in East and Southeast Asia, and Pacific Countries Dated: 21Feb2002
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
