Search results

The politics of gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- The International Criminal Court in time and space -- Representing gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- Recognising gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- Redistributing gender justice at the International Criminal Court -- Complementing gender justice through the International Criminal Court -- Legacies and legitimacy of international gender justice

Intro -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Acronyms -- Gendering Government -- 1 Gender and Political Institutions in Australia and Canada -- 2 Feminist Actors in Australia and Canada: Identities, Ideas, Strategies, and Structures -- 3 The Feminist Electoral Project: Working against the Grain -- 4 The Femocrat Strategy: Challenging Bureaucratic Norms and Structures -- 5 Feminists and the Constitutional and Legal Realms: Creating New Spaces -- 6 Feminists and Federalism: Playing a Multi- Level Game -- 7 Feminists and Institutions: A Two- Way Street -- Notes -- References -- Index.

Verlagsinfo: Feminists, like other political actors, cannot avoid the state. Whether they want equal pay, anti-domestic violence laws, refugee or childcare centres, they must engage with state institutions. What determines the nature and extent of this involvement? Why are some feminists more willing to engage with some institutions, while others are not? Gendering Government seeks to answer these questions through a comparison of feminist engagement with political institutions in Australia and Canada. Chappell considers what effect political institutions have had on shaping feminist claims, and in turn, to what extent these claims shape the nature of these institutions. She adds a new dimension to our understanding of the relationship between gender interests and government, showing how the interaction is dynamic and mutually defining. She further extends existing comparative studies in the field of women and politics by examining the full range of such institutions, including the electoral, parliamentary, legal/constitutional, and bureaucratic arenas.

This article examines the mixed gender justice outcomes of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) first case, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, and argues that they were influenced by competing institutions: older gender-biased norms of international law and new formal gender justice rules of the ICC's Rome Statute. Using a feminist institutionalist framework, the article suggests that formal and informal institutions work together in multiple ways to produce different outcomes, and that in understanding the operation of informal institutions, it is as important to search for silences and inaction, as it is to identify articulation and action. Adapted from the source document.