Through the Eyes of Women? The Jurisprudence of the Cedaw Committee

In 1999, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (OP CEDAW) was adopted. The OP CEDAW was received with much enthusiasm as it enabled women, for the first time, to submit a communication to the CEDAW Committee about a violation of their CEDAW rights and to seek redress at an international level. Whilst some of this enthusiasm has since been dampened by the significant number of communications that have been declared inadmissible and by criticisms about the progressiveness of the Committee’s views, the Committee has nonetheless issued a number of important decisions on areas such as violence against women, reproductive health and gender stereotyping. In this paper, the jurisprudence of the CEDAW Committee’s views will be examined. The question will be asked, have the views of the CEDAW Committee been cautious or progressive? Consistent or inconsistent? Commendable or regrettable? This paper will demonstrate that in cases involving severe human rights violations, such as violence, rape or death, the CEDAW Committee has been strong in its views and has incorporated a good analysis of how gender has contributed to these violations. However, for matters in which the discrimination has not been as direct or the consequences have not been as severe, the Committee has not undertaken the more nuanced analysis that is needed to draw out the human rights violations that have occurred. Hence, whilst the CEDAW Committee has commendably advanced the international law on women’s human rights in some areas, it has also been reluctant and slow to do so in others.