Epistemic Blind Spots, Misconceptions and Stereotypes

The Home Birth Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

Bibliographic Data

ID12199713
AuthorsFleur van Leeuwen (0000-0002-1832-3604, corresponding author)
Year2024
Volume35
Issue1
Pages153-174
Publication date2024-02-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEuropean Journal of International Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0938-5428 • E-ISSN: 1464-3596
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/ejil/chae002
OpenAlexW4391915630
LanguageEN
References cited3

This article offers a critical feminist reading of the home birth jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The aim is to shed light on the gender sensitivity of the Court in its legal reasoning and knowledge production. Since its first decision on the permissibility of a blanket de facto home birth ban in the case of Ternovszky v. Hungary in 2010, the Court has given five judgments on the matter, including a Grand Chamber decision in the case of Dubska and Krejzova v. Czech Republic. The author finds that the Court applies an overtly restrictive obstetric narrative of childbirth without situating its controversial epistemic basis. In doing so, the Court reinforces a rationale that is linked to loss of agency and disempowerment of persons in childbirth and reproduces harmful stereotypes. The article highlights bias in knowledge formation and (re)production at the Court in addressing cases of home birth. The findings in this article add to feminist inquiries of international human rights adjudication, specifically in regard to knowledge formation, knowledge production and stereotyping as well as to literature on the Court’s gender sensitivity

Human rights · Jurisprudence · Political science · Sociology · European and International Law Studies · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Human Rights and Immigration · Psychology · Law

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access