A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women - Asia Pacific ...

CEDAW Country Ratification Report
Pakistan
Ratification
Pakistan acceded to CEDAW on 12 March 1996.
Declaration
The accession by Pakistan was subject to the following declaration: “The accession
by [the] Government <strong>of</strong> the Islamic Republic <strong>of</strong> Pakistan to the [said Convention] is
subject to the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Constitution <strong>of</strong> the Islamic Republic <strong>of</strong> Pakistan.”
Reservations
The Government <strong>of</strong> Pakistan also expressed the following reservation to the
Convention, “The Government <strong>of</strong> the Islamic Republic <strong>of</strong> Pakistan declares that it
does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 <strong>of</strong> Article 29 <strong>of</strong> the Convention.” The
Government did not want to be obliged to take measures to eliminate discriminatory
legislation, especially those enacted under “the garb <strong>of</strong> Islamic laws”.
The governments <strong>of</strong> Austria, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark,
Sweden and Portugal submitted objections to the UN Secretary-General in relation to
Pakistan’s declaration and reservation. They argued in their objections and noted that
the general and unspecified nature <strong>of</strong> Pakistan’s declaration and reservation caused
ambiguities in relation to its obligations under CEDAW. In particular the failure to
apply the Convention to national law indicates that the Government <strong>of</strong> Pakistan is not
committed to the object and purpose <strong>of</strong> the Convention. The various governments
recommended that Pakistan’s declaration and reservation should not be given effect.
They argued that it conflicted with the principle <strong>of</strong> international law which states
that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose <strong>of</strong> a treaty should not be
permitted.
Impact
The Constitution <strong>of</strong> Pakistan 1973 [‘the Constitution”] does not address the
incorporation or implementation <strong>of</strong> international treaties, and obligations and treaties
are not considered part <strong>of</strong> domestic law unless there is an Act <strong>of</strong> Parliament. This
was reinforced by the Supreme Court <strong>of</strong> Pakistan which held that treaties can only be
“enforced as law when legislation is made by the country through its Legislature”.
Hence the courts are not bound by international agreement and cannot take notice
<strong>of</strong> violations <strong>of</strong> such agreements unless they have been incorporated into domestic
legislation. Therefore initially, consideration <strong>of</strong> treaty obligations was not within the
jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the Pakistani courts, however a 1993 decision in Karachi held that
international law “may be accommodated in the municipal law even without express
legislative sanction provided they do not run into conflict with Acts <strong>of</strong> Parliament”.
If there is a conflict however, the Court has held that the “sovereignty and the integrity
110