Violence Against Women: UN Fact-finding Visit to U.S.

As reported by IntLawGrrls Johanna Bond, Beth Van Schaack, and yours truly, Hope Lewis in posts here, Rashida Manjoo (pictured), a former South Africa Gender Commissioner, is the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences.

Now, there's welcome news that Manjoo will be conducting a fact-finding visit to the United States of America beginning on Monday, 24 January and running through 7 February 2011. (See UN Press Release here.)
The visit is an important opportunity for organizations working to end gender-based and family violence as well as the individual women and girls who are at risk of such violence to be heard in an international context. At informal meetings sponsored by NGOs, women and girls will be able to talk with the rapporteur directly in order to identify failures or successes in state compliance, spread the word about best practices, and, most importantly, discuss specific effective strategies to prevent and remedy violence against women at local, national, and international levels.
Intersectionality and Interdependence
As Johanna Bond discusses in her post, Manjoo and some other special rapporteurs take an “intersectional” approach. Intersectionality recognizes the multiple aspects of identity (including dimensions like gender, race, culture, class, sexual orientation, and disability) that influence human experience. Manjoo has also reaffirmed the importance of the interdependence of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural human rights in preventing and remedying violence against women.
Plans for the Visit
An excerpt from the press release appears below:

GENEVA – The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo, will conduct an official fact-finding mission to the United States from the 24th of January to the 7th of February 2011. “During my visit, I intend to meet with national stakeholders involved in fighting all aspects related to violence against women, with a view to appreciate the phenomenon in the United States,” said the human rights expert, who will visit the country at the invitation of the Government. The Special Rapporteur will travel to Washington D.C., North Carolina, Florida, California, Minnesota and New York City, where she will discuss the issue with government authorities at both the federal and the state levels, and with representatives of civil society. The Special Rapporteur will also visit shelters and detention centers and she will meet with individual victims of gender-based violence. A press conference on the initial findings of the visit will be held at the United Nations Information Center in Washington (1775 K ST NW, Suite 400, Washington DC) on Monday February 7 at 1 p.m. Based on the information obtained during the visit, Ms. Manjoo will present a report with her final findings and recommendations to a forthcoming session of the Human Rights Council.
Ms. Rashida Manjoo (South Africa) was appointed Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences in June 2009 by the UN Human Rights Council, for an initial period of three years. As Special Rapporteur, she is independent from any government or organization and serves in her individual capacity. Ms. Manjoo is also a Professor at the Department of Public Law at the University of Cape Town.
Additional information on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, is available here and the OHCHR Country Page for the United States is available here.

Violence Against Women in Afghanistan

On Monday, the New York Times ran an article entitled, "For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out," in which author Alissa Rubin described the plight of many Afghan women.
Rubin notes the many ways in which poverty and patriarchy have taken their toll on the women in her story. She states:

The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: The family is their fate. There is little chance for education, little choice about whom a woman marries, no choice at all about her role in her own house. Her primary job is to serve her husband's family." According to Rubin, feelings of hopelessness and desperation lead a significant number of Afghan women to commit suicide through self-immolation, an inexpensive but excruciatingly painful form of suicide. Other women who end up at the Herat burn hospital have suffered similar burns at the hands of fathers, brothers, and in-laws, according to Dr. Shafiqa Eanin, a plastic surgeon at the burn hospital. Health care providers at the hospital noted that "The most sinister burn cases are actually homicides masquerading as suicides."

Rubin's article sheds light on an extremely troubling phenomenon that is certainly not unique to Afghanistan. In many parts of the world, women are killed in so-called honor killings, in which relatives kill a woman in an effort to restore the family honor that was allegedly sullied through some unpermitted contact between the woman and another man. A 2002 United Nations report notes that "honor killings" occur in Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, and Morocco, among others. Rubin describes how this plays out in Afghanistan: "Returned runaways are often shot or stabbed in honor killings because families feat they have spent time unchaperoned with a man."
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that as many as 5000 women are the victims of honor killings around the world each year. The Office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women has been raising awareness about the issue for over a decade. Despite some progress in raising awareness about this form of gender-based violence, there is still a significant need for increased human rights advocacy on the issue, as Rubin's article makes abundantly clear.

Intersectionality and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Rashida Manjoo, will present a thematic report to the Human Rights Council in June 2011. Manjoo’s report will focus on intersectional forms of discrimination in the context of violence against women. Manjoo, who has held the appointment of Special Rapporteur since 2009, comes to the office with impressive credentials from her years as an advocate of the High Court of South Africa, as the former South African Parliamentary Commissioner of the Commission on Gender Equality, and as an accomplished activist focusing on violence against women within South Africa.
The Special Rapporteur should be applauded for undertaking the research to produce a report on intersectionality and violence and to bring it to the attention of the Human Rights Council. Not since the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, has the Special Rapporteur’s office engaged with issues of intersectionality in such a meaningful way. In 2001, the then-Special Rapporteur, Radhika Coomaraswamy, issued a report in preparation for the World Conference that was important in challenging the U.N.’s historical tendency to compartmentalize human rights abuses as either the result of gender discrimination or racial discrimination -- but not both. In the past, I have critiqued the U.N. human rights treaty bodies’ tendency to neatly compartmentalize forms of discrimination rather than explore their intersections. I am encouraged to see the Special Rapporteur’s office undertake to study the myriad ways in which women are targeted for violence based not only on gender but also on their membership in ethnic, religious, sexual, and other minority communities.

FGM: The American Academy of Pediatrics Weighs In

Recently, according to the New York Times, the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested a policy change that would allow American doctors to perform "a ceremonial pinprick or 'nick'" on girls "if it would keep their families from sending them overseas for the full circumcision." (See the new policy here). Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a complex, heart-wrenching issue that has occupied feminists both within and outside of Africa for many years. (For an excellent description of the issue, see IntLawGrrl Hope Lewis's article here) The health consequences for girls can be severe, even fatal. It is a deeply entrenched cultural practice in some places within Africa. The human rights community - at international and local levels - has agitated for recognition of FGM as a violation of women's human rights, and it is recognized as such in a number of international human rights documents. But still it continues. Some countries, such as Ghana, have passed legislative bans - although many of these have proven to be completely ineffective. More often than not, simply prohibiting the practice does not work. A few activist strategies, however, have enjoyed some success in curbing the practice in some areas. For example, a community in Kenya has popularized an alternative initiation rite, one that does not involve genital cutting. Some communities have successfully framed the issue as one involving significant health issues for girls rather than as one that violates the human rights of girls. I am a human rights activist/scholar, but I am also a pragmatist. Although I would love to see some recognition of the ways in which FGM violates women's rights, if an approach that emphasizes health resonates with local communities and works to combat the practice, then it makes sense to frame the issue in terms of health. So is it wise of the AAP to change its policy to one of tolerance? As with most things, the devil is in the details. As some feminists will legitimately argue, there is a serious risk of legitimizing the practice if it is medicalized and accepted within organizations such as the AAP. However, if we are truly talking about a "ceremonial pinprick" that will have cultural meaning within the community and take the place of more dramatic and dangerous cutting, then it might not be a bad solution in those limited circumstances. The bottom line, however, is that for any solution to work on a large scale, it will have to come from and have meaning within the communities that actually practice FGM.

Human Rights in My Backyard: Feeling Blue About Being Purple

My home state of Virginia is supposed to be a purple state, but it hasn’t felt very purple lately.
On Wednesday, the Virginia General Assembly voted to restrict state funding for abortions when the health of the mother is at risk. According to the Washington Post:

On a 20 to 19 vote, the Democratic-led Senate agreed to an amendment proposed by McDonnell (R) that would limit state funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is at risk. Nothing in state law previously prohibited Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother was in jeopardy.

The proposal to restrict state funding came from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a staunch conservative who took office on January 16, 2010. Abortion rights supporters fear that the measure will affect all Medicaid abortions at public hospitals in the state except those that fit into the narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. This latest insult to women’s rights comes on the heels of McDonnell’s comments about a week ago, in which he declared April to be Confederate History Month and intentionally omitted anti-slavery language in his Proclamation. He infuriated civil rights leaders in the state and attempted to defend his actions by minimizing the role of slavery in the war. McDonnell’s efforts to mobilize the conservative base in this purple state may do real harm in the lives of women and people of color in the state – and may, regrettably move us from purple to red.

Women @ ASILquater

As we have each year since our founding (here, here, and here), IntLawGrrls is proud today to highlight women who will speak March 24-27 at the forthcoming annual meeting of the American Society of International Law.
This 104th gathering of the Society, entitled International Law in a Time of Change, kicks off with the Grotius Lecture by Antony Anghie at 4:30 p.m. on March 24, features a keynote address by State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh at 5 p.m. March 25, the Manley O. Hudson Medal Lecture by Edith Brown Weiss (right)at 4:15 p.m. March 26, a keynote by Canada's Chief Justice, Beverley McLachlin (below left), at 5:30 March 26, and runs through March 27. All events will take place at the Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22d Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Details and registration here.)

Delighted to see from the program that, once again, there's much diversity in topics and presenters. Virtually all panels again have at least 1 woman participating, and that many have more (those few that do not include women do not, alas, receive mention in this list). Kudos to the Program Committee Co-Chairs, IntLawGrrls' own Hari M. Osofsky and our colleagues K. Russell LaMotte and Allen S. Weiner! Particularly proud that so many persons featured are IntLawGrrls or IntLawGrrls guest alumnae -- not only Planning Committee members Rebecca Bratspies, Chimène Keitner, Hope Lewis, and Beth Van Schaack, but also, of course, Lucy Reed (right), who will conclude her 2-year tenure as ASIL President at the meeting, to be succeeded by our colleague David D. Caron.
Without further ado, here's this year's honor roll:

Thursday, March 25, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "Empirical Approaches to International Law": Elizabeth Andersen (ASIL Executive Director), IntLawGrrl Elena Baylis (Pittsburgh), Susan Franck (Washington & Lee), Janet Levit (Tulsa), and panelists; Tonya Putnam (Columbia), moderator.
►"New Thinking on Social and Economic Rights: Honoring Virginia Leary," an IntLawGrrls foremother: IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Gay McDougall (United Nations) (below, far right), Mona Rishmawi (United Nations), and Alicia Ely Yamin (Harvard), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Barbara Stark (Hofstra), moderator.
►"International Human Rights Law, Foreign Sovereign Immunity, and National Courts": Rosanne van Alebeek (Amsterdam), Sarah H. Cleveland (Counselor to State Department) (near right), panelists.
►"Getting to Closure: Winding Up the International and Hybrid Criminal Tribunals": Tracey Gurd (Open Society Justice Initiative) and Anne Joyce (State Department), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Valerie Oosterveld (Western Ontario), moderator.
►"Risk, Science and Law in the WTO": Tracey Epps (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade), panelist.
►"New Voices I": Dionysia Avgerinopoulou (Columbia), IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Máiréad Enright (Cork), and Alexandra R. Harrington (McGill), panelists; Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown), moderator.

Thursday, March 25, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
►"Providing Global Public Goods Under International Law": Anne van Aaken (St. Gallen, Max Planck Institute), Victoria Henson-Apollonio (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), Inge Kaul (United Nations), and Sabrina Safrin (Rutgers-Newark), panelists; IntLawGrrl Rebecca Bratspies (CUNY), moderator.
►"Extraterritoriality: Bagram and Beyond": Sabine Nölke (Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs), panelist; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Chimène Keitner (California-Hastings), moderator.
►"Hot Topics in GATS and Human Rights": Jane Kelsey (Auckland) and Marion Panizzon (World Trade Institute), panelists.
►"Teaching International Law: Lessons from Clinical Education": Lusine Hovhannisian (Public Interest Law Initiative) and Deena Hurwitz (Virginia), panelists.

Thursday, March 25, 12:30-2:30 p.m.
► Women in International Law Interest Group Luncheon: Dinah Shelton (George Washington; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) (left), speaker.

Thursday, March 25, 1-2:30 p.m.
► "Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Modern Challenges to Use of Force Law": Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker (Pacific McGeorge) and Hina Shamsi (NYU), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Mary Ellen O'Connell (Notre Dame), moderator.
► "Evolving Intersections Between Treaty Law and Domestic Law": IntLawGrrl Johanna E. Bond (Washington & Lee) and Mallory Stewart (State Department), panelists.

Friday, March 26, 9-10:30 a.m.
► "International Environmental Justice: Possibilities, Limits and Tensions": Deepa Badrinarayana (Chapman) and Jennifer M. Green (Minnesota), panelists.
► "Corruption and Human Rights": Leslye Obiora (Arizona), panelist.
► "International Law 2.0": Beth Simone Noveck (Office of Science and Technology) and Renee C. Redman (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center), panelists; IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Molly Beutz Land (New York), moderator.
► "New Voices II": Neha Jain (Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law), Kimberley N. Trapp (Cambridge), and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Julie Veroff (Oxford), panelists.

Friday, March 26, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.
► "Non-State Actors and the Emerging Climate Change Law Regime:" Elizabeth Burleson (South Dakota) and IntLawGrrl Naomi Roht-Arriaza (California-Hastings), panelists; Jaye Dana Ellis (McGill), moderator.
► "Updating the Restatement": Oona Hathaway (Yale) and 9th Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown (left), panelists.
► "Same or Different? Fighting Terrorists in the Bush and Obama Administrations": IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann (California-Davis) and Susan Baker Manning (Bingham McCutchen), panelists.

► "The Rising Use of International Law by African Judiciaries": Erika George (Utah), panelist; Angela M. Banks (William & Mary), moderator.
► "Preventing the Next Financial Crisis: Coordination and Competition in Global Finance": Barbara C. Matthews (BCM International Regulatory Analytics), panelist.

Friday, March 26, 12:45-2:15 p.m.
► "Reform and Restructuring at International Financial Institutions": Anne-Marie Leroy (General Counsel, World Bank), panelist.
► "Theoretical Insights at the Margins of International Law: CLS Meets TWAIL": Celina Romany (Puerto Rico Bar Association), panelist; Jeanne M. Woods (Loyola-New Orleans), moderator.
► "Family, Sex, and Reproduction: Emerging Issues in International Law": Joanna N. Erdman (Toronto), Katherine Franke (Columbia), Laura Katzive (Wellspring Advisors), and Kathleen Lahey (Queen's-Ontario); Nancy Northup (Center for Reproductive Rights), moderator.
► "War and Law in Cyberspace": Eliana Davidson (Defense Department) and Robin Geiss (International Committee of the Red Cross), panelists.
► "Implications of the Global Financial Crisis on International Trade and Investment Regimes": Elizabeth Trujillo (Suffolk), panelist.

Friday, March 26, 2:30-4 p.m.
► "Bottom-Up Strategies for Survival and Resistance: Examples from Latin America and Elsewhere": Chantal Thomas (Cornell), panelist; Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol (Florida), moderator.
► "Transnational Legal Dialogue, a Human Rights-Based Hierarchy, and the Creation of Norms": Jutta Brunnée (Toronto), IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald (former Judge, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) (right, and Melissa A. Waters (Washington University), panelists; Erika de Wet (Amsterdam and Pretoria), moderator.

► "Remembering Tom Franck: What He Taught Us about the Recourse to Force": Rosalyn Higgins (former President, International Court of Justice) (far left), moderator.

► "ICSID in the Twenty-First Century: An Interview with Meg Kinnear" (Secretary-General, World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) (near left).

Friday, March 26, 4:15-5:15 p.m.

► "Hudson Medal Lecture": Medal Winner Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown).

Friday, March 26, 5:30-6:30 p.m.

► ""Keynote": Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, Supreme Court of Canada

Saturday, March 27, 9-10:30 a.m.

► "The Road Forward from Copenhagen: Climate Change Policy in the 21st Century": Ann Petsonk (Environmental Defense Fund), panelist.

► "The ICC Review Conference and Changing U.S. Policy Towards the Court": Olivia Swaak-Goldman (International Criminal Court), panelist; Leila Nadya Sadat (Washington University), moderator.

► "China and East Asia on the World Stage": Deborah Brautigam (American) and Saadia Pekkanen (University of Washington), panelists; Julia Ya Qin (Wayne State), moderator.

Saturday, March 27, 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

► "Advancing Women's Rights Internationally": Cathy Albisa (National Economic and Social Rights Initiative), Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin (Minnesota) and Rebecca Cook (Toronto),panelists; Kamari Maxine Clarke (Yale), moderator.

► "Treaty Bodies and Beyond: The Practice and Process of Translating International Norms into Domestic Law": Susan Deller Ross (Georgetown) and Ruth Wedgwood (John Hopkins; Human Rights Council) (right), panelists; Celia Goldman, moderator.

Our Newest IntLawGrrl: Josephine Mason King-Bond

Please join me in congratulating IntLawGrrl Johanna Bond, as well as her husband J.D. King and their sons Eli and Emmet, on the birth of Josephine Mason King-Bond. Josephine was born on December 9, 2009. She weighed 7 lbs., 7 oz. and was 19.5 inches long. Both Johanna and Josephine are doing well--I've even received an email from Johanna since! Pictures coming soon.

Sugar and Spice in Sports

According to this week's New York Times, the International Association of Athletics Federations, which governs international track and field events, is investigating the eligibility of runner Caster Semenya (left) of South Africa. The IAAF plans to conduct sex-determination testing to confirm her eligibility after concerns were raised during a track and field competition in Berlin. Barry Bearak is the author of the Times piece; he describes Semenya as a "muscular, husky-voiced 18-year-old."
This is a troubling case.
It troubles me that we still expect female athletes to be feminine in their athleticism. Perhaps Semenya would not have been the target of an investigation had she been less muscular, although she might not have handily won the 800-meter race in Berlin with a more petite, more feminine, and less muscular frame. As IntLawGrrls posted during last year's Olympic Games, we are markedly more comfortable with the sport of beach volleyball (right), in which women compete in bikinis, and in which we may easily assess both their sexuality and their athletic skills. (I still remember the collective public angst when American Olympian Kerri Walsh lost her wedding ring in the sand during a 2008 beach volleyball match).
In her NYT article about the IAAF investigation of Semenya, Alice Dreger observes that

sex is so messy that ... science can and will inform [the I.A.A.F.'s] decision, but they are going to have to decide which of the dozens of characteristics of sex matter to them.

Dreger concludes that the IAAF decision will be one based on sport, such as the number of "points awarded for a touchdown," rather than "natural" sex. After all, rigid, naturalized notions of sex and gender do not reflect the experience of many people whose sex and gender are located along a continuum of masculinity and femininity. (One such athlete was Stella Walsh Olsen, on whom IntLawGrrls posted a while back.)
Although many of the early IAAF sex-based eligibility investigations focused on women from the former Soviet Union, Semenya's case involves not only stereotypes of gendered behavior but also implicates issues of race. The sexuality of African women has long been the subject of voyeuristic colonialist study and speculation. Bearak's article notes the comparison to a woman on whom IntLawGrrls has posted: Saartjie Baartman, or Sawtche, the so-called Hottentot Venus, who was

'taken to Europe in the early 19th century and exhibited like a wild beast....'

The colonial fascination with African women's sexuality is well-documented by Anne McClintock in her book Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest (1995), in which she describes how the African woman "became the prototype of the Victorian invention of primitive atavism." The international perception of Semenya's femininity, or lack thereof, reflects a similar postcolonial racial bias.
If the IAAF has its way, genetic testing will determine Semenya's precise chromosomal constitution. Unfortunately, the results will not encourage us to question our own assumptions either about gender and race or about the ways such stereotypes affect female athletes all over the world.

Go On! So Many Conferences ... So Little Time

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest) In addition to the ASIL annual meeting that Diane previews above, two noteworthy conferences, both set for Friday, April 3, 2009, are fast approaching:

Reproductive and Sexual Health and the African Women's Protocol

Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, Virginia

Description:

The African Women's Protocol, adopted by the African Union in 2003 and in effect in 2005, is the first regional human rights instrument to focus comprehensively on women's rights. The symposium will serve as a discussion of the Protocol's utility at the intersection of reproductive/sexual health and women's rights, both quintessentially unmet needs of the African continent.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic, lack of access to contraception, harmful cultural practices, sexual violence and exploitation, deteriorating access to health services, and abortion will be among the topics of Symposium papers.
Washington and Lee's 2008-09 Scholar-in-Residence, Charles Ngwena, Professor of Health and Human Rights at the University of the Free State, South Africa, will chair the symposium, bringing together prominent scholars from Africa, Asia, Canada and the United States.

Speakers include IntLawGrrls' own Susana SáCouto.

CEDAW and Its Optional Protocol

New England Law School, Boston, Massachusetts

Description:

New England Law Boston will sponsor an international conference on April 3 entitled 'CEDAW and Its Optional Protocol.' Cosponsored by the American Society of International Law (ASIL), the conference will recognize the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); examine work undertaken as a result, and discuss ways of increasing its effectiveness.
Members of the CEDAW Committee who will participate include Shanthi Dairiam, Pramila Patten, Cornelius Flinterman, and Silvia Pimentel. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights will be represented by Jane Connors, director of the Human Rights Treaties Branch of the High Commissioner's Office. The conference will consist of several panels examining challenges to the effective implementation of the Convention, the issue of United States ratification, and the jurisprudence of the Committee, including comparative analyses of the work of other treaty-bodies and regional human rights institutions.

HIV+ Women & Forced Sterilization

The Legal Assistance Center, a human rights organization in Namibia, currently represents approximately 10 HIV-positive women who have been forcibly sterilized in government hospitals. Lawyers working on the cases for LAC report that some of the women had no idea that doctors had performed the sterilization while they were undergoing Cesarean sections. Many of the women did not discover the sterilization until they reported back to the hospital for follow-up care or other services. Some women consented to the procedures, but did so under duress. Although there is on-going litigation at the domestic level, these cases may end up before the Committee that monitors the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women at some point in the years to come.
Namibia ratified the Optional Protocol to CEDAW on May 26, 2000. In 2006, the CEDAW Committee decided a forced sterilization case brought by a Hungarian Roma woman who alleged that she had been sterilized without her informed consent. According to the Committee,

Before leaving the hospital the author asked the doctor for information on her state of health and when she could try to have another baby. It was only then that she learned the meaning of the word 'sterilization.'

The Committee found that the government had violated Article 10(h) of CEDAW by failing to provide appropriate family planning information. The Committee also found that the lack of informed consent violated Articles 12 and 16, which – respectively – guarantee the right to non-discriminatory health care services and the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights. In both cases, the women faced a pernicious form of discrimination based both on gender and HIV status or ethnicity.
Kudos to the Legal Assistance Center for taking this issue on!

Gains in Global Family Planning: Reactions on the Ground in Uganda

As Diane Amann reported here on January 29th, President Barack Obama restored U.S. funding for international organizations whose health care activities include counseling about, advocating for or performing abortions.
Upon rescinding the Mexico City Policy, Obama issued a statement observing:

It is clear that the provisions of the Mexico City Policy are unnecessarily broad and unwarranted under the current law, and for the past eight years, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries. It is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning in developing countries.

(read the statement here).
As Amann points out, the decision was celebrated by family planning organizations and decried by abortion opponents. What are activists saying on the ground in countries that have been hurt by the U.S.’s restrictive funding policy? New Vision, a Kampala-based newspaper, reports:

“Elly Mugumya, the Executive Director of Reproductive Health Uganda, says that reversal of the gag rule could not have come at a better time. Mugumya, whose organization could not access USAID funds, says Obama’s announcement will go a long way in reducing maternal deaths and re-igniting the debate on safe abortion..” Mugumya observes, “You had to disguise or miss out on the funding, consequently suffocating public information and family planning choices because providing any information on abortion was seen in the wrong light. We pretended that abortion does not take place, yet it kills 13 – 16 % of mothers every year.”

Thomas Mega, the Uganda Country Director for Marie Stopes International, observes: “Our hope is that USAID can ultimately release the funds they otherwise held back to enable us [to] procure contraceptives to enable Ugandan women [to] be in charge of their sexual and reproductive health.”
The mood on the ground in Uganda appears to be quite optimistic. In a classic example of the “two steps forward, one step back” phenomenon, Obama’s important decision comes at a time when U.S. Congressional members modified the economic stimulus package to remove support for access to contraceptives in the U.S. According to Human Rights Watch,

the provisions, which would have allowed states to expand access to contraceptives under Medicaid, were taken out after protests from some congressional members.

Those Members of Congress supported removal of the provisions despite a 2007 Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that similar funding for contraceptives

would save $200 million over five years, including money Medicaid would otherwise have spent on services related to unintended pregnancies.

IntLawGrrls @ AALS

Kudos to all IntLawGrrls members and guests/alumnae who shone at last week's annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools.
As mentioned above, yours truly was honored as new Chair of the Section on International Law. Here's the rest of the honor roll:
► Jeannine Bell took part in the Section of Law & Anthropology's panel on "Origins and Solutions to the Indian Freedmen Disputes"
► Johanna E. Bond presented at the "New Voices in Human Rights" panel of the Section on International Human Rights
► Vivian Grosswald Curran presented at the panel, jointly sponsored by the Sections on Comparative Law and Law and Economics, on "The Doing Business Reports by the World Bank and the Legal Origins Thesis: Is Economics Replacing Comparative Law?"
► Fiona de Londras delivered a great analysis of English, Irish, and American jurisprudence in the Section of International Law's panel on "Taking International Law Seriously: Will the United States Abide by International Law that is a Law of Rules?"
► Stephanie Farrior was elected to the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law
► Chimène Keitner presented at the "New Voices in Human Rights" panel of the Section on International Human Rights
► Linda M. Keller was elected to the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law, and further was elected, along with Annecoos Wiersema, as that Section's Newsletter Co-Editor
► Lisa Laplante was elected to the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law
► Hope Lewis was elected to the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law
► Christiana Ochoa was elected Chair of the Section on International Human Rights and Treasurer of the Section on International Law, and further served as Commentator for the latter section's "New Voices in Human Rights" panel
► Hari M. Osofsky was elected to the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law
► Annecoos Wiersema was elected to the Executive Committee of the Section on International Law, and further was elected, along with Linda M. Keller, as that Section's Newsletter Co-Editor
Heartfelt congratulations!

Sex and Death

On Friday, Amnesty International reported the stoning death of a 13 year-old-girl in Somalia (map credit here). According to Amnesty, a group of approximately 50 men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death in a stadium with about 1000 spectators. Duhulow had apparently been raped by three men and reported the rape to the armed opposition group in Kismayo. Rather than investigate the rape, members of the al-Shabab militia accused Duhulow of adultery, detained her, and executed her.
In 2003, the international women’s human rights community mobilized to stop the stoning death of a Nigerian woman, Amina Lawal, who was accused of adultery under Islamic law. Lawal was convicted of adultery in March 2002, but the Katsina State Shariah Court of Appeals overturned the conviction on September 26, 2003.
Although the details vary, these stories represent modern, violent community-based efforts to control women’s sexuality. And the stories are replicated all over the world. From the domestic violence victim in the United States whose partner beats her whenever she speaks to another man to the rape victim accused of adultery in Somalia, the narrative is similar. Women’s sexuality is seen as a threat not only to morality but, more importantly, to male power as well.
The international movement to combat violence against women offers some hope. In only a decade and a half, the international movement to end gender-based violence has gained momentum and enjoyed some limited success. But to have widespread impact, the movement will need to confront deeply held beliefs – all around the world – that men may, indeed should, control women’s sexuality. Despite the early successes of the anti-violence movement, the pace of real cultural reform is painstakingly slow, and Duhulow’s story serves as a heart wrenching reminder of the task ahead.

Deadly Prisons

Barry Bearak, the co-bureau chief of the New York Times’s Johannesburg bureau, recently recounted his brief but harrowing imprisonment in Zimbabwe (read his account here). Bearak, who was arrested for ‘committing journalism’ on April 3, 2008, spent four nights in jail before being released and fleeing to Johannesburg.
Bearak’s bleak description of prison conditions in Zimbabwe undoubtedly resonates with those who advocate on behalf of prisoners throughout Africa. Human Rights Watch, among others, has attempted to expose the horrifying prison conditions in a number of African countries (Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia). The Legal Assistance Center (LAC), an active and well-respected human rights organization in Namibia (map at left), recently conducted a fact-finding investigation concerning the care and treatment of HIV-positive inmates in the national prison system. The fact-finding delegation, of which I was a part -- along with eight students from the University of Wyoming College of Law -- discovered that the prison conditions that Bearak describes were quite similar to the conditions in Namibia. Worse yet, HIV-positive inmates often lacked access to life-saving treatment and basic medical care. (Look for the complete report on LAC’s website in late summer). A number of factors contribute to the exceptionally high HIV transmission rates within Namibia’s prison system, including consensual, unprotected anal sex and rape. As in most prisons in the U.S., prison authorities refuse to distribute condoms despite their potential to prevent HIV transmission in many cases. Sadly, as Bearak experienced in Zimbabwe, prison conditions are often abysmal; for HIV-positive inmates the conditions may, indeed, be deadly.

Update: transnational law & curricular reform

As a follow-up to earlier IntLawGrrls posts (here and here), as well as posts on Opinio Juris (here), I wanted to share this exciting news:
The Washington and Lee University School of Law faculty voted unanimously yesterday to add transnational law to the first year curriculum. This decision reinforces the school's continued development of its transnational law program, and should pair in exciting ways with its (also unanimous) vote earlier this spring to move towards a third year focused on practicum courses. By giving all students a grounding in transnational law in the first year, the school will enhance the value of its innovative transnational law electives in the years that follow.
Roger Alford, whose Opinio Juris posts had criticized the reforms, generously commented this morning:

Sounds like a great curriculum move. Combine that with W&L's stellar international law faculty (beginning next year the IL faculty will include Johanna Bond, Mark Drumbl, Susan Franck, Fred Kirgis, Russell Miller, Hari Osofsky, etc.) and I think that any concerns about the marginalization of international law at Washington & Lee are misplaced.

We are excited to be part of this pedagogical experiment.

On May 1

On this day in ...
... 1830, Mary Harris "Mother" Jones was born -- or so she said. Some historians now believe she was in fact born on Aug. 1, 1837. It's their view that the labor agitator took the unusual step of claiming to be 7 years older than she was in order to cultivate a grandmotherly image, to establish herself as the matriarch of the labor movement. The reason that Jones (left) moved her date of birth up several months ought to be obvious: today is May Day, the date on which workers around the world have been marching for labor rights since the Chicago march of 1886 on which we've posted. What is certain is this: Jones was born into a tenant farming family in Cork, Ireland, immigrated to the United States, and became a labor organizer after losing her husband and children to yellow fever and her dressmaking shop to the Chicago fire. The transnational foremother of IntLawGrrl Johanna E. Bond, Jones led many a May Day march before her death in 1930. Here's a sample quote from the "fiery," 5-foot-tall Jones:

I'm not a humanitarian. I'm a hell-raiser.

... 1932, the Convention (No. 29) concerning Force or Compulsory Labor, the Forced Labour Convention that the International Labour Organization had adopted on June 28, 1930, entered into force.

You go, 'Grrl

IntLawGrrl Johanna E. Bond (left) slipped good news far too subtly into her last post: she'll be moving east this summer to join the faculty at Washington and Lee University School of Law in Lexington, Virginia. As an an Associate Professor of Law, Johanna will be teaching an international human rights practicum, gender & the law, and torts. She'll join the topnotch international law teaching team -- including IntLawGrrl Hari M. Osofsky -- that W&L's Mark A. Drumbl worked to assemble this year.(Mark's also spearheaded major curricular reform at the school. The plan drew criticism from Roger Alford at Opinio Juris, a response from Johanna, and, most recently, a reply from Mark. More commentary no doubt yet to come.)
Johanna, who was a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center before moving to her current home athe University of Wyoming, has been busy even in advance of the move. She just returned from traveling with students on a 2 weeks' human rights trip in Namibia, on which she promises to post soon.
Heartfelt congratulations!

Int'l Law and Curricular Reform in the U.S. Legal Academy

The innovative curricular reforms at Washington & Lee (described in detail here) have generated some controversy among legal academics in the U.S. The reforms, which transform the third-year of legal study into a curriculum consisting of courses in which there is an emphasis on learning in real-life legal settings, reflect an emerging consensus regarding what is currently lacking in legal education. (Read more of the critique of traditional legal education in the summary of the Carnegie Report here) (pictured at left) Many commentators applaud W&L’s bold reform efforts. Some, however, have leveled critiques that suggest a lack of information about both the reform process and the substantive outcome. In one such post by Roger Alford, on Opinio Juris (here), Alford concludes that electives focusing on international law will inevitably suffer under the new third-year curriculum. What Alford fails to realize, however, is that: (1) W&L is in the process of instituting a mandatory transnational law course in the first year of law school; and (2) many of the third-year practica will include an international or comparative perspective. If the W&L faculty votes to require transnational law in the first year, all students will be exposed to transnational law, allowing for richer, deeper exploration of international law in subsequent years. In addition, several of the practicum courses now slated for the new third-year curriculum focus on international law. Students in the climate change practicum, the international law practicum, or the international human rights practicum, for example, will explore relevant issues in greater depth and with an emphasis on the practical application of international legal theory. In this year alone, W&L has hired four new internationalists to complement the well-respected international faculty who are already there (Mark Drumbl, Rick Kirgis). In the spirit of full disclosure, I am one of the four new internationalists (along with intlawgrrl, Hari Osofsky, Susan Franck, and Russ Miller). At W&L, there is a great deal of institutional support both for teaching and scholarship that focuses on international law and for re-envisioning the law school experience. What do others think of the law school reform movement?

Is Steinem Wrong?

I grew up with Ms. Magazine and often find myself in agreement with Gloria Steinem, the Ms. Co-Founder pictured below left. That is perhaps what makes her op-ed in Tuesday's NYT so disappointing.
In it, Steinem argues that "gender is probably the most restricting force in American life." To make her point, she contrasts the experience of being female with that of being black and suggests that the former constitutes a more formidable obstacle to success in American politics than the latter. She suggests that the historical stereotyping of “black men as more ‘masculine’” works to their advantage in contemporary politics. How quickly Steinem forgets the scores of black men lynched as a response to the racist conception of black men as a hyper-masculinized threat to white women’s sexuality.
Although Steinem asserts that she is not “advocating a competition for who has it toughest,” her op-ed piece does exactly that. Steinem acknowledges that “the caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together.” Her piece, however, undermines this important insight and attempts to drive a wedge between the feminist and anti-racist movements, marginalizing women of color in the process.
Perhaps Steinem should take a cue from the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), a committee that has, in recent years, embraced an intersectional understanding of race and gender discrimination. In its General Recommendation 25, the CERD Committee explores the ways in which gender and race discrimination are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. This approach reflects the “third wave” of feminism (described here by Amy Schriefer), and has greater potential to combat both racism and sexism than Steinem’s more divisive approach. (photo credit)