Unprincipled and unrealised
Cedaw and discrimination experienced in the context of migration control
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12573584 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Catherine Briddick (0000-0001-7754-4784, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, UK, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 224-243 |
| Publication date | 2022-07-14 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Discrimination and the Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1358-2291 • E-ISSN: 2047-9468 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/13582291221114082 |
| OpenAlex | W4285495536 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 14 |
This article analyses the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendations and Views on individual complaints, to evaluate its contribution to the elimination of discrimination against women experienced in the context of migration control. It makes two arguments. First, the Committee’s General Recommendations contain a range of doctrinal and empirical shortcomings. This opacity, and these omissions, considerably reduce the value of the Committee’s statements as a means by which States’ discriminatory migration control practices might be contested. Second, the Committee’s decisions, in communications concerned with discrimination experienced in the context of migration control, are inconsistent with those standards that it has set, and with the decisions it makes in other types of cases. A detailed analysis of the jurisprudence grounds the conclusion that the Committee is, in practice, according States a margin of appreciation that varies according to the subject of the complaint. Particular, representative communications are drawn on to argue that the margin granted in cases concerned with migration control is over-wide, characteristic not of appropriate (quasi) judicial restraint, but unprincipled deference. The article concludes by suggesting how some of the criticisms outlined may be remedied, notably by the Committee adopting its own justification and proportionality assessment
Complaint · Context (archaeology · Control (management · Deference · Economics · Judicial review · Jurisprudence · Law and economics · Management · Political science · Proportionality (law · Scrutiny · Sociology · Standard of review · Discrimination and Equality Law · European and International Law Studies · History · International Human Rights and Reproductive Law · Law
The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
Introduction to the Symposium on Undoing Discriminatory Borders
Why Challenging Discrimination at Borders is Challenging (and Often Futile)
The Differences that Make a Difference
Margin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
The migration ban policy cycle
State Responsibility to act with Due Diligence in the Elimination of Violence against Women
Queering Gender [Identity] in International Law
Subsidiarity, exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the margin of appreciation in the human rights jurisprudence of African sub-regional courts
Irregular border-crossing deaths and gender
The Impact of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in Select African States
Constructing a Global Law-Violence against Women and the Human Rights System
A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for Its Application by the Human Rights Committee
Violence against Women, the Obligation of Due Diligence, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women--Recent Developments
| Citations per year | 1.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |