GQUAL

Previous considerations regarding the information gathered

In all cases we only took into account permanent judges, not ad hoc ones.

PART I. ACTUAL PARTICIPATION. HOW MANY WOMEN AND WHERE?

Partial Results

Illustration 2 Number of members

excluding

CEDAW, CDN, ASEAN Commission

Aim

To delve into the actual participation of women in different areas of international justice and the slow increase it has shown up to today.

2000,2005,2010 and 2015 were our cutoff years to study women's participation in international tribunals and monitoring bodies.

2000 Women 65,03% members of CEDAW, CDN, ASEAN Commission

2015 Women 44,26% members of CEDAW, CDN, ASEAN Commission

Illustration 1 Total members of the monitored organizations conf. Information obtained so far.

Hypothesis

There has not been a linear and steady increase in women’s participation in these areas of international justice and that States have contributed to this by nominating more men than women over the past 16 years.

2000 Women 20,16%

2015 Women 27,96%

Objectives

• To determine to what extent women’s participation in international courts and monitoring bodies has augmented in a 16 year period.
• To know who are the candidates that run for these positions in order to identify States’ tendencies and practises relating their gender.
• To assess the composition of international tribunals and monitoring bodies already surveyed by GQUAL and their respective gender balance by 2000, 2005 and 2010.
• To evaluate the nominations made by Argentina, Chile and Uruguay from 2000 to 2016.

Illustration 3

Historic members of the

International Tribunal

for the Law of the Sea

1 (2.5%) woman in the last period.

Some tribunals were by 2000 composed of less than 5% of women and have slightly increased that percentage by the last assessed period:

UN treaty bodies have experienced almost an 8% decrease in women’s participation.

2000 women 47%

2015 women 39.9%

Of the total members of international tribunals and monitoring bodies under study.

Illustration 4

Historic members of the

International Court of Justice

1 (1.17%) woman 1946-2000

4 (3.77%) women up to 2015

PART II. NOMINATIONS. DO STATES TAKE GENDER EQUALITY SERIOUSLY?

Illustration 5

Historic members of the

European Court of Justice

Illustration 6

Historic members of the

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

2 (3.39%) women 1952-2000

10 (10.42%) women up to 2015

1 (4.67%) woman 1979-2000

4 (11.43%) women up to 2015

Analysis of nominations for the 2000-2016 period in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay

Previous considerations regarding the information gathered

Illustration 7

Parity projection line

• Difficulties during the data collection process

Most of the websites do not provide easy access to basic information about nominees and ballot results

Illustration 17

Total nominations by

States for positions in

international organizations

• No data on the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights could be obtained

Illustration 19

Total nominations made by

Argentina

• Concerning UN Special Procedures, the information is incomplete.

Illustration 18 Total nominations made by

States to positions in international organizations, excluding the CEDAW Committee, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Committee on the Rights of the Child

Final Conclusions

• No access to information before 2008.
• From 2008 to 2011 there is no way of determining for which positions were candidates nominated and whether they were self-nominated or put up by States

65 men (77,3%)

19 women (22,61%)

31 men (81,57%)

7 women (18,42%)

The working group was formed by the lawyers Mariana Kohan, Sabrina Frydman and Federico Vicente Herrero and the students María de los Ángeles Ramallo, Jimena Posleman, Lucía Belén Araque, Nadia Tolosa, Sabrina Silva, Mauro Penna, Agostina Daniela González y Agatha Ciancaglini Troller, under the coordination of Liliana Ronconi.

Even though women’s presence in the different areas of international justice has increased from 2000 to 2016, figures show that we are far from achieving participation parity.

Therefore, our hypothesis can be confirmed: there has not been a linear and steady increase in women’s participation in the different areas of international justice and States have contributed to this by nominating more men than women to said positions.

10 women (13,3%)

Illustration 20

Total nominations made by Chile

Illustration 21

Total nominations made by Uruguay

Illustration 8 Parity projection line omitting

CEDAW; CDN and ASEAN Com information.

17 men (62,96%)

10 women (37,03%)

17 men (89,47%)

2 women (10,52%)