Report - Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights

do not take up formal equality rights, <strong>the</strong>ir inaction may be interpreted as a conscious choice not
to exercise <strong>the</strong>ir rights or an inability <strong>of</strong> doing so, ra<strong>the</strong>r than an acknowledgement that such inaction
results from a lack <strong>of</strong> enabling conditions (for example, lack <strong>of</strong> education, lack <strong>of</strong> child care, burden
<strong>of</strong> household responsibilities). Under this model, <strong>the</strong>re is no consideration <strong>of</strong> historical gender
inequities, and what may be required in order to overcome <strong>the</strong>m (for example, women might need
to ensure <strong>the</strong>y can borrow money from banks; women might need an information campaign to learn
about <strong>the</strong>ir legal rights). While essential, formal equality is not sufficient as it does not recognise
<strong>the</strong> unique nature <strong>of</strong> women’s concerns and experiences. It provides equality on paper but not in
reality;
• Protectionist model – in order to protect women from harm, women’s rights are restricted or
formulated differently from men’s rights on <strong>the</strong> assumption that women are more vulnerable, and
<strong>the</strong>refore not capable <strong>of</strong> securing <strong>the</strong>ir rights for <strong>the</strong>mselves. For example, in <strong>the</strong> Solomon Islands,
a Chairman decided that women should not be allowed to wear shorts and trousers to protect <strong>the</strong>m
from being raped.
Article 11.1 <strong>of</strong> ICESCR, which “recognises <strong>the</strong> right <strong>of</strong> everyone to an adequate standard <strong>of</strong> living
for himself and his family, including…adequate…housing” represents a protectionist approach
in that it assumes men to be <strong>the</strong> heads <strong>of</strong> household, and consequently, <strong>the</strong> right to adequate housing
ascribes to <strong>the</strong> man. It seems to imply that women enjoy that right through <strong>the</strong> protection afforded
to <strong>the</strong>m by <strong>the</strong> male head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> family. Fortunately, <strong>the</strong> Committee on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights has specifically addressed this phenomenon in General Comment 4, affirming that references
to “himself and his family…cannot be read as implying any limitations …<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> right to individuals
or to female headed households…”
The limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> protectionist model are that it perpetuates stereotypes <strong>of</strong> women as vulnerable
and dependent, it denies women <strong>the</strong>ir choice, autonomy, and opportunities to develop. The
justification for this approach is that it is in <strong>the</strong> best interests <strong>of</strong> women. Although this model
recognises women’s differences, <strong>the</strong> paternalistic stereotypes <strong>of</strong> women fur<strong>the</strong>r perpetuate women’s
inequality and do not lead to social change;
• Substantive/corrective model - In contrast to <strong>the</strong> above two models, CEDAW applies this third
model, focusing on producing women’s equality in result. That is:
– Framing rights so <strong>the</strong>y are inclusive <strong>of</strong> women (e.g. framing <strong>the</strong> human right to adequate housing
to include women’s experiences);
– Recognising rights that are specific to women (e.g. reproductive rights; expanding <strong>the</strong> list <strong>of</strong>
elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> human right to adequate housing to include freedom from violence against
women);
– Taking affirmative action measures (Article 4) that specifically target women in ways that allow
<strong>the</strong>m to overcome historical disadvantages. For example, <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> a government
programme to lease available land plots to women because in <strong>the</strong> past women were not allowed
to lease land;
– Create <strong>the</strong> enabling conditions (Articles 2 and 3) that would overcome factors that may prevent
women from exercising <strong>the</strong>ir rights o<strong>the</strong>rwise; and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15