Search

INTRODUCTION 1287 I. CULTURAL CONVERGENCE OF SEXIST NORMS 1288 A. WOMEN AS PROPERTY 1289 1. People v. Chen 1290 2. People v. Moua 1292 B. THE HYSTERICAL WOMAN 1294 1. [...], American courts tend to accept cultural defenses raised by minority defendants attempting to explain their sex-subordinating crimes when the sexist norms underlying their cultural claims converge with those norms still embedded in American society. When culture is used as an excuse in this way, establishing an effective mechanism to assess the authenticity of minority defendants cultural claims is essential. Unfortunately, it is not the case in the American criminal courtroom today.

INTRODUCTION On January 2, 2019, at 3:45 AM, Bindu Ammini and Kanaka Durga undertook a three-mile hike up the Sabarimala Hill in Kerala, southern India, to enter the Sabarimala Temple. [...]

INTRODUCTION The Article examines the intra-group vulnerability of minority women, focusing on the context of polygamy among the Bedouin-Arabs in Israel, to explore two questions: First, should the liberal state [...]

I INTRODUCTION The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (' UNDRIP) (1) by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007 and the adoption of [...], The last few decades have witnessed the growing recognition of indigenous peoples' rights in international law. The adoptions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ('UNDRIP') in 2007 and the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ('ADRIP') in 2016 have received widespread praise for their transformative impact on indigenous rights within international and regional human rights frameworks. However, notably absent from the scholatly engagement with these instruments is discussion of the rights afforded to indigenous women. This article aims to fill this gap in the literature by offering a comparative analysis of the provisions on indigenous women's rights in UNDRIP and ADRIP. It argues that ADRIP provides a more comprehensive and progressive recognition of the rights of indigenous women than UNDRIP for two key reasons. First, ADRIP expressly recognises the compatibility of indigenous peoples' collective rights with women's rights to gender equality, thereby reflecting the indivisibility of these two generations of rights for indigenous women. Secondly, whilst both instruments emphasise the importance of eradicating violence against indigenous women, ADRIP frames violence against indigenous women as a threat to the enjoyment of their collective and individual rights and constructs indigenous women as rights-bearers rather than as victims of rights abuses. Conversely, UNDRIP frames violence against women in isolation from collective and individual rights and its provisions are underpinned by vulnerability rhetoric that depicts indigenous women as victims of human rights violations.

Thank you to Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems and the Journal of Gender, Race & Justice for inviting me, and a special thanks to Professor Wing for hosting us today. [...]