Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Feminist Scholarship on International Law in the 1990s and Today: An Inter-Generational Conversation

  • Interview
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The world of international relations and law is constantly changing. There is a risk of the systematic undermining of international organisations and law over the next years. Feminist approaches to international law will need to adapt accordingly, to ensure that they continue to challenge inequalities, and serve as an important and critical voice in international law. This article seeks to tell the story of feminist perspectives on international law from the early 1990s till today through a discussion between three generations of feminist international legal scholars: Hilary Charlesworth, who, with her colleagues, contributed to the area in the immediate post-Cold War years, Gina Heathcote, who over the past decade has published extensively on feminist perspectives on the use of force and collective security, and Emily Jones, an early career scholar working on feminist approaches to international law. The conversation, which began as a Skype discussion, considers both the ways in which feminist approaches to international law have changed over the past two decades, as well as the ways in which they have been shaped by global politics, before turning to consider the future for feminist approaches to international law. The impact of feminist approaches to international law has been considerable. However, it seems that feminist approaches still lack legitimacy and credibility in many mainstream circles, remaining on the disciplinary periphery. Charlesworth, Heathcote and Jones discuss potential ways in which to manage some of these tensions, noting both the importance of ‘speaking to ourselves’ (Charlesworth in Feminist perspectives on contemporary International Law: Between resistance and compliance? Hart, Oxford, pp. 17–32, 2011) as a creative and nurturing space, as well as the need to be seen as a more credible voice in the mainstream. They note the need, too, for further feminist work beyond the realms of sexual violence and women’s representation. While the great amount of work in this area is, indeed, foundational, having achieved many important legal and political outcomes, feminist approaches should now develop beyond these areas. Doing so will not only propel this area of scholarship in new and exciting directions, but it might help feminist scholarship gain further traction by avoiding categorisation only under the umbrella of “women’s issues” and thus ready dismissal as just another specialist area of international law in the era of fragmentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. S.S. ‘Lotus’ Case (France v Turkey) PCIJ 1927 (Ser. A) No. 10 Sept. 7th.

  2. See: “Wisconsin International Law Journal Annual Symposium, 2014,” accessed July 13, 2017, http://law.wisc.edu/wilj/past/2014.html.

References

  • Brammertz, Serge and Michelle Jarvis eds. 2016. Prosecuting Conflict-Related Sexual Violence at the ICTY. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, Hilary. 1997. Sexing the State. In Sexing the Subject of Law, ed. Nagaire Naffine and Rosemary J. Owens, 251–268. Sydney: The Law Book Co of Australasia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, Hilary. 2011. Talking to Ourselves? Feminist Scholarship in International Law. In Feminist Perspectives on Contemporary International Law; Between Resistance and Compliance?, ed. Sari Kouvo and Zoe Pearson, 17–32. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, Hilary, and Christine Chinkin. 2000. The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, Hilary, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright. 1991. Feminist Approaches to International Law. The American Journal of International Law 85(4): 613–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin, Christin, Gina Heathcote, Emily Jones, and Henry Jones. 2017. Bozkurt Case (aka the Lotus Case) France v Turkey: Two Ships that Go Bump in the Night. In Feminist International Judgement Project, ed. Loveday Hodson and Troy Lavers. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, Karen. 2005. Feminism and its Discontents: Criminalizing Wartime Rape in Bosnia and Herzegovina. American Journal of International Law 99: 778–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halley, Janet. 2006. Split Decisions: Why and How to Take a Break from Feminism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heathcote, Gina, 2016. Fragmented Feminisms: Critical Feminist Thinking in the Post-Millennium Era. In International Law and…Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law, Vol. 5, 2014, ed. August Reinich et al. 309–322. Oxford: Hart.

  • Hemmings, Clare. 2011. Why Stories Matter: the Political Grammar of Feminist Theory. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Charlie. L. 2017. SOAS Management Give into Fractional Teaching Staff Pay Demands. London Student 8th May 2017. Accessed June 2017. http://londonstudent.coop/banner/2017/05/08/soas-fractional-fairpay-agreed.

  • Kapur, Ratna. 2005. Erotic Justice: Law and the New Politics of Postcolonialism. London: Glass House Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, David. 2004. The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, Martti. 2005. From Apology to Utopia. The Structure of International Legal Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouvo, Sari, and Zoe Pearson eds. 2011. Feminist Perspectives on Contemporary International Law; Between Resistance and Compliance?. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, Catharine. 2005. Are Women Human?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty, Chandra. 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nesiah, Vaskui. 2011. Priorities of Feminist Legal Research: a sketch, a draft agenda, a hint of an outline…’. feminists@law 1(1) online journal. http://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/issue/view/3.

  • Olsen, Frances E. 1983. The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform. Harvard Law Review 96(7): 1497–1578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.S. ‘Lotus’ Case (France v Turkey) PCIJ. 1927. (Ser. A) No. 10, September 7th.

  • Tesón, Fernando R. 1993. Feminism and International Law: A Reply. Virginia Journal of International Law 33: 647–684.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Jones.

Additional information

Conversation edited by Emily Jones, Sari Kouvo and Elin Sandegård.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Charlesworth, H., Heathcote, G. & Jones, E. Feminist Scholarship on International Law in the 1990s and Today: An Inter-Generational Conversation. Fem Leg Stud 27, 79–93 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-018-9384-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-018-9384-1

Navigation