Global Human Rights Defence

Islamic Reservations to CEDAW and Universality of Human Rights within the Cultural Relativists Paradigm

Islamic Reservations to CEDAW and Universality of Human Rights within the Cultural Relativists Paradigm

Author: Linda Osman

Department: Women’s Rights Team

Introduction

    The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination of Women (CEDAW, 1979) ambitiously seeks to eradicate female oppression on a global scale. However, the ability of States to opt-out of its provisions, by making reservations, can undermine those aims. This article will explore the tension between the principles of Universality and cultural relativism before turning to look at this tension in the context of Islamic reservations to CEDAW. It argues that while reservations can promote the self-determination of specific cultures, they also can undermine the rule of law and the ability to eradicate oppression and injustice, globally.

 

Principle of universality v cultural relativism

    Universality is the principle that human rights apply equally to every person around the world, based on the inherent dignity of being human. The Universality principle was first set out in the United Nations’ (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. Following the atrocities of World War II, UN member States considered that the only way to promote global harmony and to safeguard human dignity was for human rights to be protected by the rule of law.  Accordingly, the Convention declares a bill of rights which each State covenants to protect through national provision. Its preamble regards such rights as the foundation of global freedom, peace and justice, and the key to human flourishment. These rights are conceived of as existing prior to the Convention (which merely articulates them) by the virtue of humanity (Preamble of UDHR, 1948; Mcbeth, 2008).

    Since 1948, the human rights project has expanded  several international treaties. However, as Fraser notes, critics have challenged the concept – even the desirability – of universality (Fraser, 2020). A core critique has been that human rights reflect Western, Judeo-Christian values and that it is hegemonic and imperialistic to impose a Western rights-based framework on the rest of the globe. While some critics call for tweaks to the human rights system to account for cultural nuances, some have called for its rejection, suggesting it lacks legitimacy (Fraser, 2020; Mutua, 2002).

    Cultural relativists argue that the validity of a social norm can only be determined within the culture from which it arises – there is no absolute morality. Accordingly, they argue that communities should be allowed to self-determine cultural norms (Fraser, 2020). Claiming that human rights are ‘universal’ or axiomatic belies the fact that rights discourse is a cultural artifact, born out of a specific socio-historical context. A rights system may not suit all communities. For example, there were concerns in the 1990s about whether the international human rights system reflected Asian values. Similar concerns arose in relation to Africa (Fraser, 2020; Engle,2002).

    The concerns of cultural relativists are not unreasonable: culture itself is a human right and worthy of respect and protection. Also, pragmatically, there will be resistance to uphold human rights treaty provisions if these do not chime with the cultures that are being embedded into. Nonetheless, some cultural practices can seem so incompatible with preserving human dignity that it is difficult to accept that they should be left unheeded by the global conscience. For example, female genital mutilation and child marriage. As Donnelly (2007) suggests, when authoritarian rulers regularly appeal to ‘culture’ to justify heinous or self-serving acts, a strong emphasis on universalism ‘seems not merely appropriate but essential.

    Total deference to local cultural practice may lead to failure of eradicating global suffering and injustice. But conversely, Donnelly also notes how American foreign policy regularly appeals to “universal” values in its pursuit for ideological and political domination (Donnelly, 2007). Clearly, there must be a pragmatic approach that will allow the international community to strike the right balance between promulgating human rights and preserving cultural self-determination. Later, we review whether the practice of making treaty reservations strikes this balance.

 

Ending discrimination against women

    Sex inequality around the globe has threatened both the human rights movement and the principle of universality. Despite the UDHR providing that its rights should be enjoyed equally by both sexes, discrimination against women continued to be a global crisis, undermining human dignity, the rule of law and hampering social flourishment. Key issues were the global gender gap, the exclusion of women from political participation, nationality matters, and abuses of marriage. Accordingly, the UN issued a draft of international treaties to safeguard women’s rights, culminating with CEDAW. CEDAW was adopted in 1981 and is the UN’s most ambitious project to address the gender gap (Ahmad et al, 2017).

    In essence, the Convention seeks to put women on an equal footing with men in their enjoyment of human rights. Key provisions include requiring nation States: to outlaw sex discrimination; to ensure full participation of women in political and public life; to eliminate sex-based prejudices and notions of female inferiority; to prevent sexual exploitation; to uncouple a woman’s nationality from her husband’s; to allow women full access to healthcare, education, employment; to ensure women’s equality before the law, and to free women from abuse and disadvantage in marriage and family life.

    As Ahmad  (2017) notes, the instrument owes its effectiveness to ‘broad mandates and continual reporting mechanisms that require signatory member States to report the steps taken to comply with CEDAW. An important feature was the creation of a Committee into which States report and which makes recommendations on what individual States can do to further the elimination of sex inequality. This Committee function helps to ensure that the bill of women’s rights has more than mere symbolic value and is actually implemented (Ahmad et al, 2017).

 

Islamic concerns about CEDAW

    The tension between cultural relativism and the principle of universality can be readily seen in how CEDAW was received by Muslim States. A core tenet of the Islamic faith is that rights must give way to divine law derived from the most important Islamic sources: the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is known as Sharia law. Many areas of Sharia law have been abolished, following Western colonial influence. However, certain aspects of the religious law are preserved in most countries, particularly on matters relating to family life and values (Ahmad et al, 2017).

    Being divine law, Sharia is extremely well-regarded and protected by Muslim communities (Ahmad et al, 2017). Many Muslim countries for example Brunei, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia had concerns about CEDAW’s compatibility with Sharia law with regard to gender and gender relations. Accordingly, they entered reservations when ratifying the treaty, to the effect that the treaty was only binding in so far as it was compatible with Islamic law. The doctrinal foundation for these reservations have been hotly contested by Islamic scholars , but there is limited scope for doctrinal discussion here (Bydoon, 2011). Nonetheless, the legitimacy of universality is somewhat undermined if human rights can be incompatible with the world’s second largest religion. Nonetheless, if cultural values are oppressive for women who live within certain localities, it may not be desirable to allow States to opt-out of upholding CEDAW rights.

    Before considering this further, it is helpful to discuss reservations generally. A reservation is a notification from a signatory State to a treatise that it intends to modify the way in which certain provisions apply to it (Article 2 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969). When considering reservations to the Genocide Convention, the International Court of Justice noted how reservations facilitated a trade off when attempting to get as many States as possible to sign a treaty (International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1951). As Bydoon notes, the purpose of a reservation is to  ‘respect the integrity of internal law’ by maintaining the balance between the consent of States and the treaty’s objectives (Bydoon, 2011). However, questions arose over when such reservations will be valid (in the context of a multilateral convention) – particularly when one more signatory State objects to the reservation (Schutter, 2010).

    The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties resolved some matters by determining that a signatory State may formulate a reservation unless it a) is prohibited by the treaty; b) does not fall within the class of permissible reservations outlined in the treaty; or c) is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty (Article 19 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969) . Generally speaking, the fact that a State objects to a reservation will not prevent the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving parties unless the objecting State expressly says so (Article 20 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).  The effect of a reservation is that it bilaterally modifies the relevant provision between the reserving State and the other States only – it does not modify that provision for the other parties inter se (Article 21 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969). Evidently, reservations may dilute the integrity and the purpose of the Convention, undermining the universal enjoyment of rights.

 

Islamic reservations to articles 15 and 16

    Article 28 CEDAW permits reservations when they are not incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention, and many States have made reservations. Several Muslim States expressed specific concern about the compatibility of Articles 15 and 16 CEDAW with Sharia law (Ahmad et al, 2017). Article 15 holds that member States shall accord women legal equality with men and that any restriction on women’s legal capacity is restricted. Accordingly, rejection of this provision has considerable ramifications for the rule of law (and its sub-principle of equality before the law) within those States. Article 15(2) provides that women shall have equal right to enter into contracts and administer property. Article 15(4) mandates that the law relating to freedom of movement and domicile must apply equally to both sexes. Many Islamic States have made reservations in relation to Article 15, like Bahrain, Oman, Syria, Tunisia, and others (UN, 2006). Only Jordan has recently lifted its reservation to Article 15 in 2009; demonstrating that such reservations are not always of an enduring nature and they can be useful when allowing States to ‘catch up’ with the demands of the Convention ( Jordan’s CEDAW Shadow Report, 2012). Nonetheless,t is apparent that excluding the operation of Article 15 provisions could leave women extremely disadvantaged and bereft of enjoying rights and freedoms.

    Article 16 seeks to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to family relations and marriage, ensuing that women have the same rights as men to choose a spouse and enter into marriage freely and consensually; the same rights and responsibilities within marriage and at its dissolution; equal parenting and family planning rights, and the same rights between spouses to hold property and pursue employment. The Article also outlaws child marriage. As Bydoon notes, the freedom of Muslim women to marry and choose a spouse under Sharia law is debatable, as is their right to dissolve a marriage  (Bydoon, 2011).

    Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait, and many other Islamic States had made reservations in relation to Article 16 (UN, 2006). Islamic scholarly objections to Article 16 have tended to argue that it is a purposeful attack on Arabic culture and tradition, and undermines the family unit as the building block of society (Bydoon, 2011).  However, while patriarchal values and specific gender roles may be a part of Islamic culture, depriving women of the protection of Article 16 could readily perpetuate female oppression and exploitation. It is not difficult to see how rejecting these rights could lead to marital unhappiness, life dissatisfaction and greater suffering.

    A number of States objected to the Islamic reservations as being incompatible with CEDAW’s overall objectives, therefore engaging Article 28(2) of CEDAW. For example, Austria, Canada and Sweden objected to the Islamic reservations made by the Maldives (UN, 2006). However, as Bydoon (2011) notes, a key problem is that the Vienna Convention does not set out a procedure for determining whether reservations are compatible – nor is it  clear which body is competent to assess the validity of reservations or what the consequences of non-validity are .  The UN Committee on CEDAW has a supervisory capacity to monitor how States are advancing women’s rights and can make recommendations to States under Article 21(1) CEDAW. Nonetheless, it is silent on the actual mechanism for determining the compatibility of reservations and potential remedial steps. Accordingly, political pressure is likely to be the chief means through which States will be persuaded to refrain from, or lift reservations.

    As can be seen, the issue of Islamic reservations to CEDAW dramatically highlights the tension between respecting local customs and cultures – particularly those based on cherished religious doctrine – and promoting the universality of human rights, particularly women’s rights. It is undeniable that, if a woman does not have legal capacity on par with her male counterparts, she cannot enjoy equal rights before the law. Accordingly, her right to claim legal entitlements and remedies, and avail herself of legal protections are seriously impacted. Her standing as a political and legal subject is radically diminished.

    Likewise, a woman who is unable to make autonomous decisions about marriage and family life may also experience hardship, although she may be acculturated so that she accepts these circumstances. This begs the question, at what point is it right for the rest of the globe to dictate how a woman should be treated in her own culture? Nonetheless, the claims of countries who argue that the Islamic reservations to articles 15 and 16 are, prima facie, incompatible with the goals of the conventions are compelling. It is submitted that the balance between universality and cultural relativism should be tipped in favor of bringing equal rights to womankind across the globe.

 

Conclusion

    Through the Islamic reservations to CEDAW, one can see the sharp tension between allowing States to self-determine in accordance with the culture of its people, and promulgating universal human rights, which aim to apply to everyone equally for the purpose of raising living standards and ending suffering and injustice. However, it is submitted that freeing women from oppression is a noble cause and that cultures should attempt to align with the provisions of CEDAW as much as possible.

 

References

     Ahmad, N., Othman, R., Ghazali, N. and Syuhada, N., 2017. Cedaw Implementation in Malaysia: An Overview of Reservations from Islamic Perspective. Intellectual Discourse, 25(Special Is), pp.615-635

Bydoon, M. (2011). Reservations on the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)” Based on Islam and its Practical Application in Jordan: Legal Perspectives. Arab Law Quarterly, 25(1), 51-69.

Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979.

Donnelly, J.( 2007), The relative universality of human rights. Human rights quarterly, pp.281-306.

Engle, K. (1999). Culture and human rights: The Asian values debate in context. NYUJ Int’l L. & Pol., 32, 291.

Fraser, J. (2020), Social Institutions, and International Human Rights Law Implementation: Every Organ of Society (Cambridge University Press )

International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1951

Mcbeth, A. (2008). Every organ of society: The responsibility of non-state actors for the realization of human rights. Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol’y, 30, 33.

Mutua, M. (2002). Human rights: A political and cultural critique. University of Pennsylvania Press.

UN Women. (n.d). “Reservations to CEDAW”. Retrieved on June 10, 2022 from https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservations.htm?msclkid=0c7ad9b7c4a811ec8240534dfa733350

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.

POPULAR POSTS

FOLLOW US

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Mandakini

Coordinator - Tibet Team

Mandakini graduated with honours from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Her team analyses the human rights violations faced by Tibetans through a legal lens.

Kenza Mena
Team Coordinator -China

Kenza Mena has expertise in international criminal law since she is currently pursuing a last-year Master’s degree in International Criminal Justice at Paris II Panthéon-Assas and obtained with honors cum laude an LLM in International and Transnational Criminal Law from the University of Amsterdam. She also holds a Bachelor’s degree in French and Anglo-American law. 

Since September 2021, she has been the coordinator of Team China at GHRD, a country where violations of human rights, even international crimes, are frequently perpetrated by representatives of the State. Within Team China, awareness is also raised on discrimination that Chinese women and minorities in the country and, more generally, Chinese people around the world are facing.

Kenza believes that the primary key step to tackle atrocities perpetrated around the world is advocacy and promotion of human rights.

Aimilina Sarafi
Pakistan Coordinator

Aimilina Sarafi holds a Bachelor’s degree cum laude in International Relations and Organisations from Leiden University and is currently pursuing a Double Legal Master’s degree (LLM) in Public International Law and International Criminal Law at the University of Amsterdam.
She is an active advocate for the human rights of all peoples in her community and is passionate about creating a better world for future generations. Aimilina is the coordinator for the GHRD team of Pakistan, in which human rights violations of minority communities in Pakistan are investigated and legally evaluated based on international human rights legal standards.
Her team is working on raising awareness on the plight of minority communities such as women, children, religious and ethnic minorities within Pakistan.

Lukas Mitidieri
Coordinator & Head Researcher- Bangladesh

Lucas Mitidieri is currently pursuing his bachelor’s degree in International Relations at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). As the GHRD Bangladesh Team Coordinator, he advocates for human rights and monitors violations across all minorities and marginalized groups in Bangladesh. Lucas believes that the fight for International Human Rights is the key to a world with better social justice and greater equality.

Nicole Hutchinson
Editorial Team Lead

Nicole has an MSc in International Development Studies with a focus on migration. She is passionate about promoting human rights and fighting poverty through advocacy and empowering human choice. Nicole believes that even the simplest social justice efforts, when properly nurtured, can bring about radical and positive change worldwide.

Gabriela Johannen
Coordinator & Head Researcher – India

Gabriela Johannen is a lawyer admitted to the German bar and holds extensive knowledge in the fields of human rights, refugee law, and international law. After working for various courts and law firms in her home country, she decided to obtain an LL.M. degree from Utrecht University where she studied Public International Law with a special focus on Human Rights. Additionally, while working as a pro-bono legal advisor for refugees, she expanded her knowledge in the fields of refugee law and migration.

Gabriela is the coordinator and head researcher for GHRD India, a country, she has had a personal connection with since childhood. Her primary focus is to raise awareness for the severe human rights violations against minorities and marginalized groups that continue to occur on a daily basis in India. By emphasizing the happenings and educating the general public, she hopes to create a better world for future generations.

João Victor
Coordinator & Head Researcher – International Justice

João Victor is a young Brazilian lawyer who leads our team of International Justice and Human Rights. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and possesses over 5 years of experience in dealing with Human Rights and International Law issues both in Brazil and internationally, including the protection of refugees’ rights and the strengthening of accountability measures against torture crimes.

João has an extensive research engagement with subjects related to International Justice in general, and more specifically with the study of the jurisprudence of Human Rights Courts regarding the rise of populist and anti-terrorist measures taken by national governments. He is also interested in the different impacts that new technologies may provoke on the maintenance of Human Rights online, and how enforcing the due diligence rules among private technology companies might secure these rights against gross Human Rights violations.

Célinne Bodinger
Environment and Human Rights Coordinator

As the Environment and Human Rights Coordinator, Célinne is passionate about the health of our planet and every life on it.

Angela Roncetti
Team Coordinator and Head Researcher- South America

Angela holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from Vitória Law School (FDV) in Brazil. Her research combines more than five years of experience conducting debates and studies on the rights of homeless people, the elderly, children, and refugees. Besides that, she also volunteers in a social project called Sou Diferente (I am Different in English), where she coordinates and takes part in actions aimed at the assistance and the emancipation of vulnerable groups in the cities of the metropolitan area of Espírito Santo state (Brazil).

Lina Borchardt
Team Head (Promotions)
(Europe)

She is currently heading the Promotions Team and University Chapter of Global Human Rights Defence. Her background is the one of European and International Law, which I am studying in The Hague. She has previously gained experience at Women´s Rights organizations in Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey over the past years.
She has been working for Global Human Rights Defence in the Netherlands since 2020. Her focus now is concentrated on the Human Rights and Minorities Film Festival and the cooperation of GHRD with students across the country.

Pedro Ivo Oliveira
Team Coordinator and Researcher
(Africa)

Pedro holds an extensive background in Human Rights, especially in Global Health, LGBTQ+ issues, and HIV and AIDS. He is currently finishing his Bachelor’s Degree in International Relations and Affairs at the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Moreover, he successfully attended the Bilingual Summer School in Human Rights Education promoted by the Federal University of Minas Gerais and the Association of Universities of the Montevideo Group. Besides, Pedro Ivo has a diversified professional background, collecting experiences in many NGOs and projects.

With outstanding leadership abilities, in 2021, Pedro Ivo was the Secretary-General of the 22nd edition of the biggest UN Model in Latin America: the MINIONU. Fluent in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, Pedro Ivo is the Team Coordinator and Head Researcher of the Team Africa at Global Human Rights Defence. Hence, his focus is to empower his team from many parts of the world about the Human Rights Situation in the African continent, meanwhile having a humanized approach.

Alessandro Cosmo
GHRD Youth Ambassador
(European Union)

Alessandro Cosmo obtained his B.A. with Honors from Leiden University College where he studied International Law with a minor in Social and Business Entrepreneurship. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Public International Law at Utrecht University with a specialization in Conflict and Security. 
As GHRD’s E.U. Youth Ambassador, Alessandro’s two main focuses are to broaden the Defence’s reach within E.U. institutions and political parties, as well as mediate relations between human rights organizations abroad seeking European funding. 
Alessandro believes that human rights advocacy requires grass-roots initiatives where victims’ voices are amplified and not paraphrased or spoken for. He will therefore act on this agenda when representing Global Human Rights Defence domestically and abroad

Veronica Delgado
Team Coordinator and Researcher- Japan, Sri Lanka & Tibet

Veronica is a Colombian lawyer who leads our team of Japan, Sri Lanka and Tibet. She holds a master’s degree in Public International Law from Utrecht University. She has experience in Colombian law firms. Here she represented clients before constitutional courts. She also outlined legal concepts to state entities such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ombudsman’s Office on international law issues.

Veronica has an extensive research background with subjects related to public international law. She worked as an assistant researcher for more than two years for the Externado University of Colombia. Here she undertook in-depth research on constitutional, business, and human rights law issues. She was involved with consultancy services with the Colombian Army regarding transitional justice. 

Wiktoria Walczyk
Coordinator & Head Researcher (Nepal & Indonesia)

Wiktoria Walczyk has joined GHRD in June 2020 as a legal intern. She is currently coordinator and head researcher of Team Nepal and Indonesia. She has an extensive legal knowledge concerning international human rights and is passionate about children’s and minorities’ rights. Wiktoria has obtained her LL.B. in International & European Law and she specialised in Public International Law & Human Rights at The Hague University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. Moreover, she is pursuing her LL.M. in International & European Law and focusing on Modern Human Rights Law specialisation at the University of Wroclaw in Poland. In order to gain an essential legal experience, Wiktoria has also joined Credit Suisse’s 2021 General Counsel Graduate First Program where she is conducting her legal training and discovering the banking world. She would like to make a significant impact when it comes to the protection of fundamental human rights around the world, especially with regard to child labour. 

Fairuz Sewbaks
Coordinator and Head Researcher
(Africa)​

Fairuz Sewbaks holds extensive legal knowledge regarding international human rights, with a specific focus on human rights dealings taking place in continental Africa. She holds a bachelor’s degree from The Hague University in public international law and international human rights and successfully followed advanced human rights courses at the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria. She furthermore participated in the Istanbul Summer School where she was educated about the role of epidemics and pandemics in light of human rights.

 

Fairuz is the coordinator and head researcher for GHRD Africa. Her primary focus is to establish and coordinate long-term research projects regarding the differentiating human rights dealings of vulnerable and marginalized groups in continental Africa, as well as conducting individual research projects.

Priya Lachmansingh
Coordinator and Head Researcher, Political Advisor
(Asia & America)

Priya Lachmansingh is currently pursuing her bachelor’s degree in International & European
Law at the Hague University of Applied Science.
As GHRD’s Asia & America human rights coordinator and GHRD Political Advisor, Priya’s
prominent focus is to highlight human rights violations targeted against minority and
marginalized groups in Asia and America and to broaden GHRD reach within Dutch political
parties and as well seek domestic funding.

Jasmann Chatwal
Team Coordinator & Head Coordinator: North America

Jasmann is a political science student at Leiden University who joined GHRD in May 2021 as an intern in team Pakistan. Now, she is the team coordinator for North America and is responsible for coordinating the documentation of human rights violations in USA, Canada, and America.