一项艰巨的工作:承认堕胎是一个平等的问题。关于联合国人权事务委员会对梅莱特诉爱尔兰案和惠兰诉爱尔兰案的意见的评论

Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska
{"title":"一项艰巨的工作:承认堕胎是一个平等的问题。关于联合国人权事务委员会对梅莱特诉爱尔兰案和惠兰诉爱尔兰案的意见的评论","authors":"Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1542911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper comments on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee (hereafter the Committee) in the cases Mellet v. Ireland [1] and Whelan v. Ireland [2]. It focuses on the Committee’s findings regarding a violation of the prohibition of discrimination. The interpretation presented by the Committee, although much welcomed and undeniably tackling reproductive health and rights in a progressive way, still leaves room for future improvements. It is argued herein that the Committee’s reasoning is marked by some inaccuracies due to its inconsistent approach regarding gender equality. Whereas the Committee seems to have fully integrated a “substantive equality” approach when providing general interpretation of States’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter the ICCPR), its assessment of individual cases remains to some extent influenced by the “formal equality” approach.","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 1","pages":"25 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1542911","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A tough job: recognizing access to abortion as a matter of equality. A commentary on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland\",\"authors\":\"Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09688080.2018.1542911\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper comments on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee (hereafter the Committee) in the cases Mellet v. Ireland [1] and Whelan v. Ireland [2]. It focuses on the Committee’s findings regarding a violation of the prohibition of discrimination. The interpretation presented by the Committee, although much welcomed and undeniably tackling reproductive health and rights in a progressive way, still leaves room for future improvements. It is argued herein that the Committee’s reasoning is marked by some inaccuracies due to its inconsistent approach regarding gender equality. Whereas the Committee seems to have fully integrated a “substantive equality” approach when providing general interpretation of States’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter the ICCPR), its assessment of individual cases remains to some extent influenced by the “formal equality” approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive Health Matters\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"25 - 31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1542911\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive Health Matters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1542911\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Health Matters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1542911","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

摘要本文评论了联合国人权事务委员会(以下简称委员会)在Mellet诉爱尔兰案[1]和Whelan诉爱尔兰案[2]中的意见。它侧重于委员会关于违反禁止歧视规定的调查结果。委员会提出的解释虽然受到欢迎,而且无可否认是以渐进的方式处理生殖健康和权利问题,但仍有改进的余地。有人认为,由于委员会在两性平等问题上的做法前后不一,委员会的推理有一些不准确之处。委员会在对各国根据《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》(以下简称《公民权利公约》)承担的义务作出一般性解释时,似乎完全采用了“实质性平等”方法,但委员会对个别案件的评估在某种程度上仍然受到“形式上平等”方法的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A tough job: recognizing access to abortion as a matter of equality. A commentary on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the cases of Mellet v. Ireland and Whelan v. Ireland
Abstract This paper comments on the views of the UN Human Rights Committee (hereafter the Committee) in the cases Mellet v. Ireland [1] and Whelan v. Ireland [2]. It focuses on the Committee’s findings regarding a violation of the prohibition of discrimination. The interpretation presented by the Committee, although much welcomed and undeniably tackling reproductive health and rights in a progressive way, still leaves room for future improvements. It is argued herein that the Committee’s reasoning is marked by some inaccuracies due to its inconsistent approach regarding gender equality. Whereas the Committee seems to have fully integrated a “substantive equality” approach when providing general interpretation of States’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereafter the ICCPR), its assessment of individual cases remains to some extent influenced by the “formal equality” approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters ( SRHM) promotes sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) globally through its journal and ''more than a journal'' activities. The Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters (SRHM) journal, formerly Reproductive Health Matters (RHM), is a peer-reviewed, international journal that explores emerging, neglected and marginalised topics and themes across the field of sexual and reproductive health and rights. It aims to publish original, relevant, and contemporary research, particularly from a feminist perspective, that can help inform the development of policies, laws and services to fulfil the rights and meet the sexual and reproductive health needs of people of all ages, gender identities and sexual orientations. SRHM publishes work that engages with fundamental dilemmas and debates in SRHR, highlighting multiple perspectives, acknowledging differences, and searching for new forms of consensus. SRHM strongly encourages research that explores experiences, values, information and issues from the point of view of those whose lives are affected. Key topics addressed in SRHM include (but are not limited to) abortion, family planning, contraception, female genital mutilation, HIV and other STIs, human papillomavirus (HPV), maternal health, SRHR in humanitarian settings, gender-based violence, young people, gender, sexuality and sexual rights.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信