page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16

Darren Rosenblum Professor of Law BA, University of Pennsylvania JD, University of Pennsylvania Law School  MIA, Columbia UniversityDarren Rosenblum's scholarship delves into the unexplored territory of international law and gender. One of the most respected experts on gender law, Rosenblum advocates for the expansion of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) beyond just "women." In his article, "Unsex CEDAW, or What's Wrong with Women's Rights," featured in the Co-lumbia Journal of Gender and Law, he argues that the true power of CEDAW will be realized only when the bounds of gender are removed.Rosenblum has been published extensively, both in public law and corporate contexts, on various topics in internation-al and comparative gender and sexual equality. His work includes "Rethinking International Women's Human Rights through Eve Sedgwick" (Harvard Journal of Law and Gen-der, 2010); "Feminizing Capital: A Corporate Imperative" (Berkeley Business Law Journal, 2010); and "Internalizing Gender: Why International Law Theory Should Adopt Comparative Methods" (Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2007).Prior to joining the faculty of Pace Law School, Rosenblum was in private practice, focusing on international arbitra-tion, as well as antitrust and securities litigation. In July 2011, he was awarded the prestigious Fulbright Research Scholarship at Université de Versailles St Quentin en Yvelines in Paris, France. There he is working on his study, "Gender Balance, Equality and the French Corporate Board Quota: A Comparative Analysis," an examination of a recently-passed French law requiring gender quotas on the boards of publically-traded companies.Unsex CEDAW, or What's Wrong with "Women's Rights"Women's lives" cannot be improved until being a "woman" or a "man," or for that matter one of the many other sexes that exist, means less in terms of social, legal, and political standing.""8 Pace Law School

ExcerptUnsex CEDAW, or What's Wrong with "Women's Rights" 20 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 1 (2011).The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women ("CEDAW") has as its prin-cipal goals the protection and promotion of women's rights and the elimination of discrimination against women. Although challenges have hobbled implementation of CEDAW, it remains the central pillar of gender equality norms at the international level. It cannot succeed, however, in creating gender equality if it continues to focus so narrowly and exclusively on women. As Lady Macbeth gathers the strength to achieve her evil ends, she implores the spirits to "unsex me here." She believes that her feminine gender obstructs the ability to commit evil. Only by "unsexing" herself will she be empowered to kill King Duncan. Viewing "unsexing" as part of Lady Macbeth's evil reinforces the objectionable set of ideas I seek to criticize. Although Lady MacBeth's "unsexing" is normatively op-posite of what I seek here, CEDAW must also be "unsexed" to realize its potency.CEDAW's focus on "women" enshrines the male/female binary in the core of international law' when CEDAW's goals would be better served by seeking the elimination of the categories themselves. Strikingly, legal scholars have not directly targeted the centrality of the term "women" in CEDAW. Any discussion of CEDAW must address the foundational book by Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law. In that book, they take on women as their clients, with their singular goal the representation of women both as bystanders to interstate activity and as outsiders to rights protections. This article does not cut against their understanding of the import of "improving women's lives." The disagreement is with the reason behind this inequity. Women face subjugation by the power relationship that establishes men as superior but more significantly from the division of humanity into two groups, one of which necessarily sits on top. Focusing only on "improving women's lives" serves to reinforce the very binary that must be dismantled to achieve change. This does not mean that women's lives do not merit improving-my problem is with the central and exclusive framing of the issue in this light. "Women's lives" cannot be improved until being a "woman" or a "man," or for that matter one of the many other sexes that exist, means less in terms of social, legal, and political standing. This article aims to force those of us who take sex and gender and even women's rights seriously to see the treaty for what it is: a sometimes useful tool of international law whose emphasis on "women" reinforces the sex binary. In concluding that CEDAW should be more inclusive, this article does not intend to exclude the need for remedies that focus on the inequality that women face based on their identity; rather, it argues that the principal treaty on sex discrimination should not solely focus on this group.Perspectives Fall 2011 9