The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Conclusion and Implementation

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women did not emerge suddenly at a single meeting. The United Nations General Assembly had already adopted a declaration on eliminating discrimination in 1967. A formal draft report prepared by the Secretariat in 1994 for the Committee's consideration recalled that the Commission on the Status of Women decided in 1974 to draft a single comprehensive convention. After collecting comments from governments, specialized agencies and nongovernmental organizations, it forwarded the text for further consideration in 1976.

The same report recorded that the General Assembly Third Committee's working group held twelve meetings in 1977 and twenty-one in 1978, while the monitoring system, reservations provisions and preamble remained unresolved. The Third Committee's original 1979 report showed India's representative introducing the draft as working-group chair on 6 December, followed by amendments from representatives including those of Morocco and the United Kingdom. Reaching the final text involved competing proposals, separate votes and repeated negotiations over the scope of obligations.

References: [1] [2]

On 18 December 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention through Resolution 34/180 in New York. This date marks the Assembly's approval of a common text, not the day on which every state became a party. The UN's treaty depositary record for 1982 explicitly stated that the Convention opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters on 1 March 1980.

Signature was followed by ratification or accession procedures. Article 27 provided for entry into force on the thirtieth day after deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession; the actual date was 3 September 1981. For states ratifying or acceding afterward, entry into force was calculated from the thirtieth day after their own deposit. Adoption, signature and entry into force therefore correspond to different legal acts and should not be merged into a single “founding date.”

References: [3] [4]

Article 1 examines more than explicit exclusion: distinctions and restrictions based on sex that aim to impair women's equal rights, or have that effect, also constitute discrimination. Article 2 requires states to embody equality of women and men in constitutions or other appropriate laws, provide judicial protection and take measures against discrimination by individuals, organizations and enterprises. State obligations therefore extend beyond avoiding discriminatory decisions by the state itself.

The provisions cover political participation, nationality, education, employment, health, rural life, marriage and family relations. Article 4 permits temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality, to be discontinued once equality of opportunity and treatment has been achieved. Article 5 requires changes to social and cultural patterns based on gender superiority or inferiority and stereotyped roles. The treaty places law, institutions and everyday practices under scrutiny, but prescribing these obligations does not mean domestic practice already satisfies them.

References: [3]

Article 17 establishes the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, whose experts are elected by states parties and serve in their personal capacity. Article 18 requires an initial national report within one year after entry into force for the state, followed by reports at least every four years and whenever requested by the Committee. Reports should describe legislative, judicial and administrative measures and progress in implementation, and may also identify difficulties.

The Committee's first report recorded nine meetings held by the experts in Vienna from 18 to 22 October 1982. They discussed openness, session duration, location and procedural rules, adopting the rules on 22 October. Lack of time, however, postponed discussion of guidelines for national reports until the next session. This sequence shows that granting supervisory authority through a treaty still had to be followed by usable procedures; establishing a committee did not itself mean that every country had already been examined.

References: [3] [5]

Reservations were another key issue in accepting the treaty. Article 28 prohibits reservations incompatible with its object and purpose, but a large number of parties does not prove that every state accepted and implemented every obligation in the same way. Early drafting discussions also revealed disagreements about supervision, and individual complaints were not included in the final 1979 Convention.

The Optional Protocol, adopted on 6 October 1999 and entering into force on 22 December 2000, separately established procedures for communications from individuals or groups and inquiries into grave or systematic violations. Communications generally require prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, except where remedies are unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to be effective. The Protocol also permits requests for interim measures to avoid irreparable harm. Acceptance of the Convention does not automatically entail acceptance of these additional procedures, and admissibility of a communication must be assessed separately.

References: [1] [3] [6] [7]

On 26 January 2005, the Committee issued its views in A.T. v. Hungary. The applicant faced continuing threats of violence from her former partner, while civil and criminal proceedings had failed to provide timely, effective protection. The Committee stated that criminal proceedings lasting more than three years constituted unreasonable delay in light of the risks and held that property or privacy rights could not supersede women's rights to life and physical and mental integrity.

The Committee found that Hungary had failed to fulfill relevant obligations under Article 2 and under Article 5(a) read together with Article 16. It recommended ensuring the safety of the applicant and her family, providing safe housing, legal assistance and proportionate compensation, and improving the protection system. It also required the state to respond within six months on actions taken. The views and recommendations themselves did not establish that domestic remedies had been implemented; compliance with the Convention still had to be tested through measures, responses and actual protection.

References: [8]