EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE ON GENDER EQUALITY: A STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEMS

Abstract

The evolution of jurisprudence on gender equality reflects a complex interplay between international human rights frameworks and domestic legal systems, highlighting both progress and persistent challenges (1). Over the past five decades, instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) have significantly influenced legal reforms worldwide, providing normative standards for equality in political, economic, and social spheres (2). However, the degree of incorporation and enforcement within domestic jurisdictions varies considerably, shaped by cultural, political, and constitutional contexts (3).

This study examines the trajectory of gender equality jurisprudence, analyzing landmark international cases from bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, alongside key domestic rulings from diverse jurisdictions (4). It identifies patterns of convergence where international norms have guided national reforms, as well as points of divergence where local traditions and political considerations have slowed progress (5).

The research also explores how evolving judicial interpretations have expanded the scope of gender rights beyond non-discrimination to include substantive equality, intersectionality, and affirmative measures (6). Furthermore, it highlights the role of constitutional courts, feminist legal scholarship, and advocacy networks in shaping progressive judicial reasoning (7).

Ultimately, the paper argues that while significant strides have been made in embedding gender equality into legal systems, inconsistencies in enforcement and backlash against judicial activism pose ongoing challenges (8). The study proposes a framework for harmonizing international and domestic jurisprudence to advance a more cohesive and impactful global gender equality regime (9).