Feminist Approach to International Law
Feminist Approaches to International Law
Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin and Shelley Wright
The American Journal of International Law
Vol. 85, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 613-645
(article consists of 33 pages)
Published by: American Society of International Law
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203269
The central argument of the "Feminist Approaches to International Law" (Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright, 1991) is diffuse. On the one hand, the case for and solution to the feministic deficit in international law is presented. Secondly, they argue that feminist approaches are universal or more understanding than elitist male perspectives; however, the lack of substantiating information means they do not fully demonstrate the weaknesses of the current system. In fact, they show the seriousness in which the role of women is taken, but that there is a need for greater speed in the changes to international law.
Hilary (1991) extrapolates the relevance of feminist theory in international law from her specialist knowledge and current research projects into the legitimacy of the United Nations (UN), the impact of international law on Australian Law and the role of women in international dispute resolution. Chinkin and Wright (1991) apply their understanding of feminist legal issues around women's human rights. En masse, Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright (1991) gauge how international law has been dominated by male agenda and how a feminist perspective has been a token issue.
Feminist theory suggests "we inhabit a world in which men of all nations have used the statist system to establish economic and nationalist priorities to serve all male elites, while basic human needs are not met" (pg 615). The statist system that is suggested applies to all governments that have been dominated by male leaders, leading to a so-called gender racism. The unanswered question remains as to whether Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright (1991) are dealing with countries where
Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin and Shelley Wright
The American Journal of International Law
Vol. 85, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 613-645
(article consists of 33 pages)
Published by: American Society of International Law
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203269
The central argument of the "Feminist Approaches to International Law" (Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright, 1991) is diffuse. On the one hand, the case for and solution to the feministic deficit in international law is presented. Secondly, they argue that feminist approaches are universal or more understanding than elitist male perspectives; however, the lack of substantiating information means they do not fully demonstrate the weaknesses of the current system. In fact, they show the seriousness in which the role of women is taken, but that there is a need for greater speed in the changes to international law.
Hilary (1991) extrapolates the relevance of feminist theory in international law from her specialist knowledge and current research projects into the legitimacy of the United Nations (UN), the impact of international law on Australian Law and the role of women in international dispute resolution. Chinkin and Wright (1991) apply their understanding of feminist legal issues around women's human rights. En masse, Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright (1991) gauge how international law has been dominated by male agenda and how a feminist perspective has been a token issue.
Feminist theory suggests "we inhabit a world in which men of all nations have used the statist system to establish economic and nationalist priorities to serve all male elites, while basic human needs are not met" (pg 615). The statist system that is suggested applies to all governments that have been dominated by male leaders, leading to a so-called gender racism. The unanswered question remains as to whether Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright (1991) are dealing with countries where