Dual and Dueling Gender in Global Narratives

Author(s):  
Kara Ellerby

Through a tracing of key international documents, one can better understand how gender equality emerged as a specific set of politics and how “gender equals women” was a key development in this process. This chapter focuses on two narratives about gender that remain in tension with one another. One is radical and critical of the world order, while the other treats gender as a “technocratic” shortcut—treating women as a means to an end. Through a careful reading of the Geneva Conventions, reports on the World Conferences on Women, the Vienna Declaration, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Declaration on Violence Against Women, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325), a dual and dueling set of global narratives emerges. These narratives are reproduced in a neoliberal world order that prefers and promotes liberal feminist women’s rights and inclusion that adds women without challenging or radically destabilizing gender or the gendered institutions that exclude women in the first place.

Author(s):  
Luis Cabrera

While there have been numerous recent analyses of the legitimacy of suprastate governance institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) or United Nations Security Council, few accounts have considered individual duties in relation to those institutions, broadly analogous to suprastate political obligation. Identified in this chapter are three categories of duties that should be salient to a range of institutions. These include duties to support their reform, to resist specific institutional features or practices, and to reject the continued operation of some institutions and support the creation of alternate ones. These duties would correspond roughly to how well an institution would appear to fit into a global institutional scheme that actually would fulfill cosmopolitan aims for rights promotion and protections and related global moral goods. An implication is that the current global system itself is a candidate for rejection, given its inherent tendencies toward the gross underfulfillment of individual rights.


2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Franceschet

The United Nations ad hoc tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda had primacy over national judicial agents for crimes committed in these countries during the most notorious civil wars and genocide of the 1990s. The UN Charter granted the Security Council the right to establish a tribunal for Yugoslavia in the context of ongoing civil war and against the will of recalcitrant national agents. The Council used that same right to punish individuals responsible for a genocide that it failed earlier to prevent in Rwanda. In both cases the Council delegated a portion of its coercive title to independent tribunal agents, thereby overriding the default locus of punishment in the world order: sovereign states.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document