More Women – But Which Women? A Reply to Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This article responds to a thoughtful intervention by Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez documenting the selection process for women seeking judicial appointment to the European Court of Human Rights. Written in the context of the author’s experience as candidate for appointment to the Court, the analysis concentrates on the gendered dimensions of international institutional cultures, habits and practices that frame selection to judicial of ce as much as any formally applicable rules. I explore the ways in which ostensible access to international judicial bodies conceals the manifold ways in which Courts are coded masculine, and how female candidacy requires careful deliberation on performance, presentation and identity. Drawing on ‘new insti- tutionalism’ theory, I underscore that female presence alone rarely undoes embedded institu- tional practices. Rather, transforming institutional practices and values must parallel female presence, thereby rede ning the institution and the forms of power it exercises. The article concludes by re ecting on the importance of feminist judging, and argues that it is precisely the transformative political and legal changes sought by self-de ned feminists that may stand the best chance of undoing the structures, habits and practices that continue to exclude women from being appointed and from engaging on terms of full equality when they arrive.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)229-236
JournalEuropean Journal of International Law
Volume26
Issue number1
Early online date01 Feb 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Mar 2015

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'More Women – But Which Women? A Reply to Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this