Women’s Rights After War on Paper: An Analysis of Legal Discourse
Women’s Rights After War on Paper: An Analysis of Legal Discourse
复制标题
纸面上的战后妇女权利：法律话语分析
DOI：
10.1080/14623528.2023.2212511
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Raja, Sinduja
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Raja, Sinduja
2003年，卢旺达制定了一部新宪法，并引入了一系列法律来促进妇女权利。2003年至2019年期间，出台了40多项法律。这些法律涵盖了从选举代表制到土地改革以提高妇女在卢旺达社会中的经济和社会地位的各个领域。政府称赞性别平等是实现持久民主和平的一条道路。从那时起，许多学者研究了这些法律的执行情况，以及它们是否为妇女带来了真实的收益。1 1995年在北京举行第四次妇女问题世界会议和制定联合国安全理事会第1325号决议（妇女、和平与安全议程）2之后，许多国家急于表明它们支持妇女的权利和平等，特别是在冲突期间或冲突后进行重建的国家。我们的“战后妇女权利”项目的其他一些重点国家，如卢旺达，因其制定了性别进步立法作为未来冲突的解毒剂而（在不同程度上）被誉为国际榜样。虽然本论坛的其他贡献集中在围绕实施妇女权利改革的实质性问题上，但本文审查了改革本身。我质疑这些法律的框架--文字、它们的含义以及它们背后的逻辑--并考虑它们是否像声称的那样进步。我认为，在包装一个特定版本的权利的过程中，在法律中使用的语言巩固现有的不平等，编纂和结构的方式，然后通过其实施得到加强的伤害。通过不仅关注法律说了什么，而且关注它们没有说什么，我认为大多数法律只提供了进步政治的外表，从一开始就限制了变革的可能性。当我的论文
In 2003, Rwanda instituted a new constitution and brought in a spate of laws to advance the rights of women. More than forty laws were introduced between 2003 and 2019. These laws covered areas ranging from electoral representation to land reform to bolster the economic and social standing of women in Rwandan society. The government hailed gender parity as a path to enduring democratic peace. Since then, many scholars have studied the implementation of these laws and whether they have led to real gains for women. 1 In the wake of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 and the institution of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, the Women, Peace, and Security Agenda, 2 many countries rushed to show that they support women’s rights and equality, especially countries rebuilding during or after conflict. A number of other countries of focus in our Women’s Rights After War project, like Rwanda, are lauded (to different degrees) as international examples for their gender-progressive legislation instituted as an antidote to future conflict. While the other contributions in this forum focus on substantive issues around the implementation of women’s rights reforms, this article examines the reforms themselves. I question the framing of the laws–the words, their meaning, and the underlying logic behind them–and consider whether they are as progressive as claimed. I argue that in the process of packaging a specific version of rights, the language used in the laws entrench existing inequalities, codify, and structure harm in a way that then becomes reinforced through their implementation. By focusing not only on what the laws say, but also on what they do not, I argue that most only provide a veneer of progressive politics, circumscribing possibilities of transformative change at the outset. While my paper