This paper is an attempt to broaden the discussion about the
prevention of domestic violence against women informed by
a rights-based strategy. Specifically, the study discusses the critical
elements of a human rights framework to reduce domestic
violence, present research findings on the prevalence and correlates of
domestic violence in intimate relationships and explore
strategies for the prevention of domestic violence on the basis of
research and analysis. The study suggests that domestic violence
needs to be resituated in the broader social transformation of society
and that domestic violence should be conceptualized as
violation of a woman’s most basic right. The strength of a rights-based
strategy is that it meshes formal treaty doctrines with
grassroots activism and critiques of power. The study suggests that
“right to housing” and “right to property and inheritance” are
critical and most fundamental for any strategy in the prevention of
domestic violence. Importance of immovable assets and social
support is significant in making a difference to the incidence of
violence, Changing norms of acceptability of violence in the family
is critical to reduce inter-generational transmission of violence, Male
attitudes and society’s attitudes also need to be changed in
this regard. Since prevention of domestic violence requires fundamental
changes in attitudes and behavior, it confronts societal
and individual resistance to change, Support structures could be both
within the family and from NGOs, SHGs etc., who can both
help in changing attitudes and in helping women acquire immovable
assets. This calls for creative community involvement, shared
responsibilities, and collective action with the goals to challenge the
patriarchal assumptions of power and control and entitlement
to women.
Keywords: Domestic Violence; Women; Human Rights; Development; Gender Equality; SDG5
Introduction
Within the burgeoning discourse on human rights, domestic
violence against women is increasingly viewed as a serious
violation of human rights subject to legal intervention. The societal
responses to domestic violence have focused, to date, primarily
on crisis intervention after the harm has occurred. While crisis
intervention is a necessary response to domestic violence, it alone
cannot address the complex dynamics of domestic violence. What is
needed is a comprehensive strategy that addresses the prevention
of domestic violence. However, few such strategies have been
developed, and even fewer have been evaluated. This study is an
attempt to provide a framework for the prevention of domestic
violence informed by a rights-based strategy.
The study is divided into five sections. The first section
provides a brief overview of the evolution of the international
human rights system. The second section clarifies the concept and
value-added of a rights-based approach to development. The third
section examines the scope of the international human rights law to
prevent violence against women. The fourth section examines the
links between domestic violence and women’s social and economic
rights. The concluding section provides a rights-based strategy in
the prevention of domestic violence.
Evolving International Human Rights System
Human rights have made a great deal of progress as moral and
legal force since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was
adopted by the United Nations (UN) on December 10, 1948. The
Declaration, which was written by Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of the UN
Commission on Human Rights, and 17 other international delegates,
is the primary international articulation of the fundamental and
inalienable rights of all human beings. The Declaration is not only the
point of departure for all human rights treaties that followed; it has
truly become the singly most meaningful human rights document
around the globe. The Declaration consists of 30 different articles
that enumerate a wide range of fundamental and inalienable rights
to which all human beings are entitled. The Declaration states that
“all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, and
it declares that everyone is entitled, without distinction of any kind,
to the various rights articulated in the Declaration. The Declaration
was not intended to be a legally binding document. The first step
toward implementation of the Declaration was the creation of
specific treaties to deal with some of the main principles outlined
in the Declaration. The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), for example, were adopted by the UN
General Assembly in 1966, and they were drafted and adopted as
legally binding international treaties meant to ensure protection
of the rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration. These two
treaties are broad in scope. Others are more specific, such as
convention on the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race
or gender, and on the right of the child. The standard method of
enforcing human rights treaties is a reporting system. Governments
are obliged to report periodically on their human rights practices
and then must defend their records in front of an international
body that can put diplomatic pressure on them to comply.
A major international treaty on women’s rights was adopted in
1979 by the UN General Assembly: Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW,
in fact, is the first comprehensive human rights treaty to address
women’s rights. CEDAW comprises of 30 articles, and provides a
universal definition of discrimination against women. The treaty
covers a wide range of issues, including maternity leave, pregnancyrelated
health care, property rights, and affirmative action for
women in education and employment. The treaty also provides a
legal framework for nations to eliminate gender discrimination. Till
today, 170 countries have ratified CEDAW.
In the 1990s, women’s rights have been further defined and
expanded through negotiations at six major world conferences. The
recognition of the fact that human rights are crucial for women’s
well-being, women’s organizations continued to focus on the global
stage some of women’s most basic rights, including freedom of
movement, freedom to work outside of the home, right to bodily
integrity and freedom from violence. It was the violence against
women issue, especially domestic violence, which finally drew wide
international attention to the idea that women’s rights are human
rights. In fact, women’s human rights became the most dramatic
agenda item at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights held in
Vienna, Austria. The 1995 UN World Conference on Women held in
Beijing, China, reaffirmed the conclusions of the Vienna Conference
and put women’s human rights even more firmly on the world
agenda.
In June 2000, the UN General Assembly reviewed the
implementation of the Beijing Platform (Beijing +5) and reaffirmed
government’s commitment to work for the realization of women’s
rights. The new document (Women 2000/Beijing +5 Outcome
Document) reaffirms the 150-page Platform for Action at the
landmark 1995 UN Women’s Conference and moves forward with
tougher measures to combat domestic violence and trafficking of
women. The Outcome Document calls for prosecution of all forms
of domestic violence, now including marital rape. The traditional
practices of forced marriage and honor killings are addressed for
the first time in an international document.
Although these documents and programs of action do not
have the status of international law, they carry political and moral
weight as policy guidelines for the UN, governments, and other
international organizations. Women’s organizations can use these
documents to hold governments and the UN accountable.
All these conferences provided opportunity and space for
public assessment and discussion of the critical areas of concern.
They reaffirm the commitments of women’s movements that have
placed women’s empowerment and rights on the international
agenda. There is now a clear recognition that women will never
gain dignity until their human rights are respected and protected.
Strengthening families and societies by empowering women to take
greater control over their own destinies cannot be fully achieved
unless all governments around the globe accept their responsibility
to protect and promote internationally recognized human rights.
Empowering women is also critical to promoting democracy. The
challenge, however, is to develop strategies to grant basic rights to
women and enable them to choose how to exercise those rights.
This is especially important because the gap between principles
and practices defines the central dilemma of human rights Steiner
et al. [1].
In order to improve institutional effectiveness, the international
human rights system has been rapidly evolving. In recent years new
roles have evolved for the UN, especially through the creation of the
office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. Within the Human
Rights Commission, new thematic mechanisms (such as special
rappoteurs and working groups) have emerged. New avenues have
opened for individual communications, as reflected in the recently
adopted Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). New forms of
redress are being developed – including international prosecution
against individuals and against corporations.
There is clearly room for additional reform of the UN
mechanisms to ensure effective institutions and stronger means of
enforcement. However, the international human rights norms have had, in
fact, a demonstrable and positive effect on the behaviour of
states toward their citizens (Risse et al. Ropp and Sikkink, 1999).
Thus, significant strides have been made; both on a global scale
through the United Nations and its agencies and on a regional level
through the proliferation of human rights interest groups and
nongovernmental
organizations around the globe.
There has been a paradigm shift in the vision of human
rights discourse. Now, the scope of the human rights vision has
been broadened to include non-state actors (e.g., individuals,
corporations, financial institutions and third-party states), in
addition to the traditional state-centric paradigm. In an era of
globalization where the world economy is increasingly being
integrated, moving beyond a state-centered view of human rights
to include non-state actors has a potential to hold non-state actors
accountable for violations of social and economic rights. However
effective implementation still rests with states, who as signatories
to international conventions are duty bound to protect, fulfill
and promote rights. Though for some states human rights are
still contentious, there has been a dramatic progression in the
acceptability of rights with the number of states ratifying core
conventions rising from 10 percent to more than half in the last
decade. This increasing acceptability of all rights including political,
civil, cultural, social and economic has made inroads into current
thinking on development policy and practice.
Rights-based Approach to Development
There has been a paradigm shift in the development discourse,
from a welfare-based approach to development to a rights-based
approach to development. Unlike the centrality of ‘economic
efficiency’ in the welfare-based approach, the rights-based
approach reflects a global consensus on the centrality of human
dignity and equality in social and economic life and the nonnegotiable
accountability of states for fulfilling their obligations.
The Human Development Report 2000 shows that human rights
and human development are inextricably linked and mutually reenforcing.
They take root and grow in diverse societies. They
expand capabilities by protecting rights [2]. This understanding
has contributed to the development of people centered sustainable
development.
This revolution in the discourse of development is strongly
influenced by the writings of Amartya Sen, the winner of the
1998 Nobel Prize in economics. First, Sen illustrates that human
values are not always analogous to preference-satisfaction, and
provides a critique of utility/ welfarism [3]. Second, Sen has had
a long-held conviction that violation of rights and freedom is
inimical to socio-economic development. Finally, Sen has combined
these two strands effectively in his recent book, Development as
Freedom [4]. Sen argues that freedom properly understood is the appropriate normative framework by which to understand global
issues of development. At the heart of Sen’s extensive writing in
moral philosophy and development economics is the idea that
the ability to survive is a substantive freedom. He focuses on a
person’s “capabilities” or substantive freedom of people ‘to lead
the lives they have reason to value and to enhance the real choices
they have’. These freedoms include the ability to acquire sufficient
food, freedom from disease and ill treatment, access to education,
freedom from social exclusion, freedom to participate in the life of
the community, and freedom from unemployment. According to Sen,
the success of development must be assessed by the achievement of
such freedoms. In fact, development is the result of the exercise of
these freedoms [4].
Sen further argues that substantive freedoms are supported
by instrumental freedoms, such as economic opportunities to use
resources, political choices about laws, social questions about
arrangements of health care, the security of a social safety net,
etc. The effectiveness of freedom interrelates with one another,
and freedom of one type may greatly help in advancing freedom of
other types. More importantly, Sen argues that individual freedom
is a social commitment: that substantive freedom is extremely
contingent on personal, social and environmental circumstances;
and that the exercise of such freedom is inseparably linked to social,
economic and political institutions.
According to Sen, expansion of freedoms is both the definition
of development and the means to achieve it. The ultimate aim of
development is enlarging the capabilities of all human beings. What
are really important for people are the freedoms associated with
human rights, he argues. In May 2001, the United Nations Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reaffirmed this view in a
forceful statement arguing for a better integration of human rights
in development strategies. The Millennium Development Goals calls
for the adoption of policies, programmes and strategies informed
by a rights-based approach. The Millenium Declaration requires
answers to pertinent questions relating to how targets are achieved,
and who are affected by improvements. The UN organizations
such as United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United
Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), and United Nations Development
Fund for Women (UNIFEM) are increasingly becoming committed
to follow a rights-based approach. The international bilateral and
multilateral non-government organizations such as OXFAM, CARE,
and DFID have come out with plans and strategies with a rightsbased
approach in their development work. The international
financial organizations like International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
the World Bank have some commitments to adopt a rights-based
approach. For instance, poverty, according to the World Bank’s
World Development Report 2000/2001, is “more than inadequate
income or human development – it is also vulnerability and lack of
voice, power, and representation”. Also, World Bank’s “Voice of the
Poor”, which is based on extensive consultations with thousands of
poor people around the world, concludes that dependency, lack of
power and voice are the core elements of poor people’s definition
of poverty [5] The Poverty Reduction Strategies Papers (PRSPs)
include human rights issues for some countries like Nicaragua,
Rwanda, Bolivia, Cambodia, Camaroon, Tanzania, Uganda and
Vietnam. According to some critiques, the approaches of the IMF
and the World Bank are not strictly in line with a rights-based
approach [6,7].
All these developments indicate that a new dialogue is taking
place between development and human rights experts. Today, it is
widely recognized that the path of human dignity runs not through
imposed technocratic solutions or imported foreign models
or assumed tradeoff between development and rights. Health,
education, housing, fair justice and free political participation are
not matters of charity but rather matters of right. This is what is
meant by “Rights-based Approach”. This refers to a participatory,
empowering, transparent, accountable and non-discriminatory
development paradigm that is based on universal, inalienable
human rights and freedoms.
The rights-based approach to development is based on the
central premise that development policies and programmes should
be based on norms and values enshrined in the international human
rights law. As compared to other development approaches, the idea
of legitimacy in international law, with the principles of equity and
justice, provides an added value to a rights-based approach.
The essence of rights is that they are empowering. Rights are
transformatory: people are able to take their own decisions as
actors or rights-holders by transforming rights to entitlements.
And it is the obligations of the state and non-state duty-bearers
to respect, protect and fulfill all human rights. The duty to respect
requires the duty-bearer not to breach directly or indirectly the
enjoyment of any human right. The duty to protect requires the
duty bearer to take measures that prevent third parties from
abusing the right. The duty to fulfill requires the duty-bearer to
adopt appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures
for the full realization of human rights.
The rights-based approach to development is based on the
international principles of non-discrimination and equality, and
participation. The principle of non-discrimination requires that
laws and institutions, at local, national and international levels,
that foster discrimination against specific individuals and groups
(e.g., vulnerable, marginal, and disadvantaged or socially excluded)
be eliminated. It calls for a broader strategy that addresses
socio-cultural and political-legal institutions. The principle of
participation requires active and informed participation by
the people, including the socially excluded, in the formulation,
implementation and monitoring of development policies and
programmes. Participation is recognized not just as a means to
other ends but also as fundamental human rights that should be
realized for its own sake. The rights based approach places equal
emphasis on accountability on part of the duty holders (state and
inter-governmental organizations).
The rights-based approach also recognizes the interdependence
or complementarity of rights. For instance, right to participation
may depend on right to association, right to assembly, freedom of
expression, right to information, right to education and right to
employment. Since all rights are equally important, the rights-based
approach recognizes the crucial interdependence of economic,
social and cultural rights, on the one hand, and civil and political
rights, on the other.
Keeping in mind the resource and other constraints in many
developing countries, the rights-based approach allows for
progressive realization and prioritization of rights over a period
of time. In other words, governments can set benchmarks and
priorities in participatory consultation with citizens. At the same
time, it emphasizes that all countries have to provide a ‘minimum
core obligation’ of all human rights to protect socially excluded
people against retrogression and non-fulfillment of this minimum
core obligation.
In the new millennium, human rights issues are taking on a new
focus. First, economic and social rights are becoming of paramount
concern as the link between an adequate standard of living and the
enjoyment of other basic rights becomes more apparent. Second,
there is an increasing realization that many groups in society
require a higher level of protection than society as a whole. These
groups are children, women, and indigenous groups, among others.
The rights-based approach can be conceived as a pre-condition for
women’s empowerment.
To re-iterate the essence of rights is that they are empowering.
Rights are legally-binding entitlements, not charity. Rights are
legitimate claims. The rights perspective is transformatory as it
transforms needs into rights and responsibilities. The state and
non-state actors have legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfill
those rights. So, rights empower women. Empowerment promotes
the exercise of meaningful choice by enhancing capabilities. It
recognizes that women are active agents in solving their problems.
It is also important to realize the interdependent nature of rights.
For example, enacting and implementing equal opportunity
laws will help empower women to gain equitable access to
resources, liberating individual initiative and creating economic
opportunities. Legislating against gender discrimination will
enhance the capabilities of women by giving them better access to
credit and productive resources, property and inheritance rights
and improved political participation and representation. In other
words, supporting and enacting a rights-based approach to the needs of women can not only end discrimination against them but
also empower them. Women’s empowerment, in turn, is linked to
the well-being of children, family and society.
A recent study has found that countries that promote women’s
rights and increase women’s access to resources and education
have lower poverty rates, lower child and infant mortality,
improved nutrition, lower fertility rates, lower AIDS prevalence,
less corruption, higher economic productivity and faster economic
growth than countries who do not .
Most of the principles of a rights-based approach to
development mentioned above are vital for protecting women
from violence. For instance, the critical elements of a rightsbased
strategy in the prevention of domestic violence are the
following: non-discrimination and equality; dignity of the
person; the understanding that all rights are interconnected and
interdependent in their realization; the participation of women in
the determination of issues affecting them.
Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Issue
Violence against women, including domestic violence, is a
human rights abuse. It exists in every country and culture in
epidemic proportion, and is disproportionately committed against
women. The irony is that international human rights instruments
and many domestic laws prohibit and condemn such violence.
Women experience violence in both conflict and non-conflict
areas. In civil conflict areas like Kosovo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and
East Timor, sexual violence has been used as a means of domination
and control over ethnic populations by military and paramilitary
forces. Women in refugee camps also suffer from rape and sexual
violence. Further in conflict and post-conflict societies domestic
violence is widely prevalent.
In non-conflict areas there is an epidemic of violence against
women. Population-based surveys from a range of countries
indicate that 10 to over 50 per cent women report physical assault
in intimate relationship. Of these women 33 to 50 per cent also
report sexual abuse or coercion [8]. Moreover, discrimination in the
enforcement of law, denial of equal opportunity in education and
employment, exclusion of women from political representation,
and the use of physical and psychological violence to intimidate
and subordinate women in public spheres all constitute violations
of the right to gender equality.
The effect of such violence is devastating. It not only harms
the woman, it destroys the family, limits a community’s workforce,
and perpetuates an atmosphere of fear, insecurity, and impunity.
It also is connected to other devastating human rights abuses
such the suppression of the right of speech, association and more
importantly liberty. Violence against women has also significant
impact on health of the woman and community. For example,
violence against women is now recognized as a lead factor in
the spread of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), which
invariably results in the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS). Progress against HIV requires that women are able to
protect themselves against all forms of violence, including domestic
violence, rape, and sexual abuse. The disease has also placed many
women at greater risk of further violence.
The roots of violence against women are located in the unequal
balance of power between men and women. The low value some
cultures assign to women and girls and the norms that discriminate
against women contribute to violence and prevent women from
defending themselves. Unequal access by women and girls to
education, economic resources, and decision making authority are
the central outcomes of gender inequality and this limited access
undermine the ability of women to negotiate both public and
private acts of violence. Overall the denial of equal rights to women
through cultural and social norms and practices in fact perpetuates
and reinforces violence against women.
The recognition of violence against women, and specifically
domestic violence, as a human rights violation is first articulated
in Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the
1993 United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. Although
CEDAW does not explicitly address violence against women, it
recognizes that discrimination is a root cause of violence against
women and that the denial of equal rights to women reinforces
and perpetuates violence against women. The UN Convention
to Eliminate Violence Against Women is the first protocol to
specifically focus on the full continuum of violence experienced by
women.
Fundamentally the human rights approach focuses on those
whose rights are being violated, allowing developing solutions that
keep victims experiences and needs at the forefront. International
standard continue to evolve in recognition of the pervasive nature
of violence against women under circumstances ranging, for
example, from domestic violence, to coercive sex work, to rape as
a weapon of war. There are three critical approaches within the
rights framework that have contributed enormously to facilitate
the placing of domestic violence on the international and national
agendas – namely due diligence, equal protection and domestic
violence as torture. These three distinct legal approaches are
discussed below.
Legal Approaches to Domestic Violence
Under international human rights law, the concept of state
responsibility has been enormously expanded. The state now has
a dual role to play. First, the state should not indulge in human
rights violations. Second, more importantly, if violations occur in the
private spheres, the state has a clear obligation to prevent
those violations and protect the victims. Currently, there are three
approaches of state responsibility for dealing with the issue of
violence against women by private actors.
Due Diligence
The legal concept of “due diligence” describes the minimum
effort a state must undertake in order to fulfill its responsibility
to protect individuals from abuses of their rights. The committee
charged with overseeing implementation of CEDAW in 1992
adopted General Recommendation 19 which emphasizes that
“States may also be responsible for private acts if they fail to act
with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate
and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation”.
In 1993, the United Nations Declarations on the Elimination of
Violence against Women (DEVAW) also calls on States to “pursue
by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating
violence against women” and further to “exercise due diligence to
prevent, investigate and, in accordance with national legislation,
punish acts of violence against women, and whether those acts are
perpetrated by the State or by private actors”.
Equal protection of the law: This approach is based on the
principle of the equal protection of law. If discrimination in law
enforcement is demonstrated in case of violence against women,
then the State may be held liable for violating international human
rights standard of equality . For instance, Article 26 of the ICCPR
provides that “all persons are entitled without any discrimination
to the equal protection of the law”. This has then led the basis for
states addressing victims of domestic violence, a group usually
outside law enforcement. Here lies the significance of the Optional
Protocol to the CEDAW which was adopted in 1999. The proposed
inquiry procedure under that protocol can be approached, following
complaints from individuals or groups. Individual women can bring
claims against a government, which fails to take measures to punish
or prevent domestic violence. There is provision for international
prosecution against individuals who perpetrate domestic violence.
Domestic violence as torture: Convention against Torture
defines torture as “an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” for a
purpose such as obtaining information or a confession, punishment,
intimidation, or coercion, “or for any reason based on discrimination
of any kind”. Domestic violence is a violation of a woman’s rights to
bodily integrity, to liberty, and often right to life itself. Therefore,
this approach argues that domestic violence is a form of torture, and
should be dealt in line with other human rights instruments. Article
7 of the ICCPR states that “no one should be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. When
states fail to provide protections through legislation and other
measures, they hold responsibility for the abuse. The failure of a
government to prohibit acts of violence against women when they
are of the nature and severity envisaged by the accepted definitions
of torture constitutes a failure of state protection. Proponents of this
approach believe that application of a human rights framework by
recognizing domestic violence as torture and by insisting states to
fulfill their responsibility to protect women, can be a powerful tool
in eliminating violence against women. These three approaches
to address domestic violence suggest that women’s rights groups
have been successful in deconstructing the false dichotomy
between public-private divide which has so long restricted efforts
to put domestic violence in the national agenda. Marcus makes a
strong legal case for the reconceptualization of domestic violence
as a human rights issue, given the similarity and close parallel
between abuse and terrorism. She contends that people or group
wishing to terrorize others use three basic tactics: (a) surprise and
seemingly random (but actually well-planned) acts of violence, (b)
psychological and physical warfare to silence protest and minimize
opposition, and (c) the creation of an atmosphere of intimidation
in which there is no way to escape. In the similar manner as terror
can be directed at a community, it can also take the form of violence
perpetrated in a women’s home by her partner. In similar ways to
terror, violence is designed to maintain domination and control,
to increase advantages, and to defend privileges. She argues that
the term terrorism as an alternative to domestic violence carries
a connotation of privacy and thus minimizes or diminishes its
importance and seriousness. Thus, significant language now exists
to advance the status of women, and it is critical to capitalize on
these advances. In recent years, women’s human rights groups are
pressurizing governments to implement CEDAW, and take positive
measures to end legal, social and economic gender inequality.
Links between Domestic Violence and Social and
Economic Rights
Domestic violence is rooted in gender power balance, gender
identity, and gender-specific roles and responsibilities.
First, since women and men often have different roles
and responsibilities, they have different needs and priorities.
For instance, women tend to carry the primary responsibility
for maintaining household, like collecting water, fuel wood,
preparation of food, care for children and elderly. These activities
not only increase women’s daily burden of work (time poverty),
they also restrict women’s participation in community activities
and decision-making processes, employment, physical mobility etc.
Further the perceived non-fulfillment of these responsibilities is
often a precipitating trigger for domestic violence.
Second, women tend to have limited access to and control
over productive resources such as land, house, credit, agricultural
extension, water etc. Women’s limited access to land means less
access to agricultural extension services, credit and water. Women are
particularly threatened by loss of land, house and other property,
and ownership rights because of the prevalence of statutory law and
other forms of discrimination. This inhibits women’s rights within
marriage, leading to threat of divorce and violence against them.
Women also face additional obstacles to develop coping strategies.
Third, the pervasive nature of gender-specific violence not
only affects the individual victims directly, it also indirectly limits
women’s mobility and participation in social, economic and political
activities. Women in many societies are afforded little recourse
against domestic violence.
Finally, women are far less likely to participate in formal decisionmaking
processes. Unequal control over economic resources not
only inhibits women’s autonomy in household decision-making;
it also inhibits participation in public institutions and to break the
shackles of poverty and deprivation. Gender inequality is the most
pervasive manifestation of inequality of all kinds in any society
because it typically affects half of the population.
Moreover, women more than men in most countries face
structural barriers that impede women from having rights,
capabilities and capacity to choose. Women also face institutional
barriers and discrimination in law. Women’s participation in
decision-making are low at all levels. As a result they lack power and
voice. Therefore an enabling environment is necessary to remove
the structural and institutional obstacles. Therefore, promotion
and protection of these critical rights can not only prevent violence
against women, they will also empower women. In the long run, the
realization of these economic rights along with reduced violence
will help advance for overall empowerment.
Conclusions
For centuries, states have viewed domestic violence against
women as a private matter not relevant to state policy. During
the past decade, however, the issue of domestic violence against
women has become one of the preeminent issues in the women’s
international human rights movement. A large variety of countries
now have accepted some responsibility to help prevent violence
in the home and to prosecute offenders. To prevent and reduce
domestic violence, government, non-governmental and intergovernmental
organizations are already working at many levels
[9, 10]. The strategies that are being adopted include: home
visitation, collaborative efforts of domestic violence service
providers, prevention efforts that address violence both in homes
and in communities, school-based programs, and public education
campaigns.
India, like many other countries, has enacted legislation that
codifies domestic violence as a crime along with the creation of
national media campaigns designed to raise consciousness about
the issue, and establishment of women-only police stations intended
to encourage reporting of domestic violence crimes. To respond to
the needs of the victims, protection and support systems must be
available. Religious and social institutions that could assist victims
need to be trained in appropriate responses. Since the existing legal
framework is inadequate to fully address women’s needs, political
advocacy should be mobilized to change particular elements within
the laws that continue to be unresponsive to issues of gender-based
violence [11].
In addition to legal and institutional interventions domestic
violence needs to be resituated in social justice and broader
social transformation of society. What is needed is a rights-based
strategy in the prevention of domestic violence. The strength of a
rights-based strategy is that it meshes formal treaty doctrines with
grassroots activism and critiques of power. While the right to make
the claim is global, the specific and useful strategies to build a nonviolent
and gender egalitarian society must be developed locally
[12-15].
If one conceptualizes domestic violence as a violation of
a woman’s most basic right, the focus becomes an ecological
perspective [16-20]. It is only at this level of analysis and
interventions that the problem of domestic violence has the
potential to be eradicated. Domestic violence prevention strategies
must include a critical understanding of the underlying causes of
domestic violence as well as a vision of what constitutes a healthy,
non-violent family [21-27].
Research and analysis in this paper clearly suggests that “right
to housing” and “right to property and inheritance” are critical and
most fundamental for any strategy in the prevention of domestic
violence. Empowerment of women is the key to prevent genderbased
violence. Access to, and control over economic resources,
especially immovable assets, is the precondition to women’s
empowerment. Social support network, especially natal family and
neighbors, is also a crucial factor in reducing domestic violence.
Four points need to be emphasized here:
a) Importance of immovable assets and social support is
significant in making a difference to the incidence of domestic
violence.
b) Changing norms of acceptability of violence in the family
is critical to reduce inter-generational transmission of violence.
c) Male attitudes and society’s attitudes also need to be
changed in this regard. Since prevention of domestic violence
requires fundamental changes in attitudes and behavior, it
confronts societal and individual resistance to change.
d) Support structures could be both within the family and
from NGOs, women’s self-help groups etc., who can both help
in changing attitudes and in helping women acquire immovable
assets. This calls for creative community involvement, shared
responsibilities, and collective action with the goals to challenge
patriarchal assumptions of power and control and entitlement
to women.
Prevention of domestic violence at the national level depends
on the level of public and governmental commitment to making
prevention a long-term priority, and to establish a consistent,
coordinated, and integrated approach for each community. Given
the pervasiveness and harms of domestic violence, a national policy
of zero tolerance for domestic violence is necessary.
Read More About Lupine Publishers Journal of Archeology and Anthropology Please Click on Below Link:
https://journalofanthropologicalsciences.blogspot.com/
