Journals / Ankara Barosu Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 77 - Sayı: 1

GENERAL RECOMMENDATION NO 35 OF CEDAW COMMITTEE: AN EXAMPLE OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE OBLIGATION WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Hukukunda Özen Yükümlülüğünün Dönüşümünün Bir Örneği Olarak CEDAW* Komitesinin 35 Sayılı Tavsiye Kararı

Pages
231–266
Publication Date
2019-04-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Before analyzing the General Recommendation No. 35, the due diligence obligation and the feminist theory’s criticism and concrete contributions to this obligation will be discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:International human rights law has undergone a specific transformation with the efforts of the feminist theory and the women’s movement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:One example of this intellectual and normative transformation is the UN General Recommendation No 35 of the CEDAW Committee issued by the UN on 14 July 2017.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Before analyzing the General Recommendation No. 35, the due diligence obligation and the feminist theory’s criticism and concrete contributions to this obligation will be discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Özen yükümlülüğü (due diligence) · toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı şiddet · kamusal alan/özel alan ayrımı

Abstract

International human rights law has undergone a specific transformation with the efforts of the feminist theory and the women’s movement. The transformational effect of feminist movement and theory is important in holding states accountable for human rights violations by non-state actors. One example of this intellectual and normative transformation is the UN General Recommendation No 35 of the CEDAW Committee issued by the UN on 14 July 2017. In this study, the obligations of states in combating gender-based violence will be examined in the context of the CEDAW General Recommendation No 35. Before analyzing the General Recommendation No. 35, the due diligence obligation and the feminist theory’s criticism and concrete contributions to this obligation will be discussed.

Özet

Uluslararası insan hakları hukuku feminist teori ve kadın hareketinin çabalarıyla belirli bir dönüşüm geçirmiştir. Devletlerin özel alanda ve/veya üçüncü kişilerce gerçekleştirilen insan hakları ihlallerinden sorumlu tutulmalarında feminist hareket ve teorinin dönüştürücü etkisi önemlidir. Söz konusu düşünsel ve normatif dönüşümün bir örneği 2017 tarihli BM. CEDAW Komitesinin 35 Sayılı Tavsiye Kararıdır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu tavsiye kararı bağlamında devletlerin toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı şiddetle mücadelede özen yükümlülükleri incelenecektir. 35 Sayılı Tavsiye Kararına ilişkin tespit ve değerlendirmelere geçmeden önce özen yükümlülüğü ve feminist teorinin söz konusu yükümlülüğe yönelik eleştiri ve somut katkıları ortaya konulacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜRGEY, F. İ. Ç., DERİCİLER, Ö. Y. (2019). GENERAL RECOMMENDATION NO 35 OF CEDAW COMMITTEE: AN EXAMPLE OF THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE DUE DILIGENCE OBLIGATION WITHIN THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, Cilt: 77 - Sayı: 1, 231–266. https://ajindex.com/articles/46899

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. ABI-MERSHED, Elizabeth A. H.: “Due Diligence and the Fight Against Gender-Based Violence in the Inter-American System”, Due Diligence and Its Application to Protect Women from Violence içinde, der: Cari Benninger-Budel, Netherlands:Brill, 2009, s. 127-138.
  2. BENNINGER-BUDEL, Carin: “Introduction”, Due Diligence and its Application to Protect Women from Violence içinde, der: Cari Benninger-Budel, Netherlands:Brill, 2009, s. 1-23.
  3. BOEREFIJIN, Ineke - NAEZER, Eva: “Due Diligence and Ints Application to Protect Women From Violence”, Due Diligence and its Application to Protect Women from Violence içinde, der: Cari Benninger-Budel, Netherlands: Brill, 2009, s. 91-108.
  4. BOURKE-MARTIGNONI, Joanna: “The History and Development Standard in International Law and Its Role in the Protection of Women against Violence, Due Diligence and its Application to Protect Women from Violence içinde, der: Cari Benninger-Budel, Netherlands:Brill, 2009, s. 47-62.
  5. CHARLESWORTH, Hilary: “What are “Women’s International Human Rights”?”, Human Rights of Women-National and International Perspectives içinde, der: Rebecca Cook, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, s. 58-84.
  6. CHARLESWORTH, Hilary - CHINKIN, Christine: The Boundaries of International Law, A Feminist Analysis, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.
  7. CHINKIN, Christine: “A Critique of the Public/Private Dimension”, EJIL, cilt 10, No:2, 1999, s. 387-395.
  8. CLAPHAM, Andrew: Human Rights Obligations and Non-State Actors, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  9. ERTURK, Yakın: Sınır Tanımayan Şiddet, İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 2015.
  10. HERRING, Jonathan: Family Law, UK: OUP, 2014.
  11. LASCH, Christopher: Haven in a Heartless World, USA: W.W.Norton&Company, 1995.
  12. MANJOO, Rashida: “State Responsibiity to act Due Diligence in the Elimination of Violence against Women”, International Human Rights Law Review, cilt 2, sayı 2, 2013, s. 240-265.
  13. NOWAK, Manfred: Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003. O’DONOVAN, Katharine: Sexual Divisions in Law, ABD: Weidenfeşd & Nicolson, 1985.
  14. OLSEN, Frances: “The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform”, Harvard Law Review, cilt 96, 1983, s. 1497-1578.
  15. POOLE, Ross: Ahlak ve Modernlik, çev: Mehmet Küçük, İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları, 1993.
  16. SCHNEIDER, Elizabeth M.: Battered Women and Feminist Lawmaking, New Haven&London: Yale University Press, 2000.
  17. UYGUR, Gülriz,: “2006/17 Sayılı Başbakanlık Genelgesi Işığında Kadına