MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000119268

Normative and International Human Rights Law Imperatives for Criminalizing Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: The Marital Rape Impunity in Comparative and Historical Perspective

2018· article· en· W3000119268 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vasanthi Venkatesh, Melanie Randall

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpunityCriminologyHuman rightsCriminal lawDomestic violencePolitical scienceLegislationSexual violenceLawSociologyPoison controlSuicide prevention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this third chapter of the book, The Right to Say No, Marital Rape and Law Reform in Canada, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi, (Hart, 2017) we provide a big-picture perspective on the long and bumpy road taken by many of the world’s countries in moving towards legal recognition that sexual assault can occur in a marital relationship and in the provision of a criminal law remedy for this form of gendered violence. We begin the chapter by articulating our arguments about why engaging the power of criminal remedies is necessary to the struggle to end sexual violence against women in marriage, particularly with reference to criminal law’s importance in expressing fundamental social norms. Section II moves to a critical review of the historical origins and ideological justifications underpinning the marital rape exemption in diverse societies. We show how similar themes occur across very different social regimes. This is followed in section III by a global, comparative analysis of the marital rape exemption and the criminalisation of marital rape in various countries of the world. We provide an overview of the historical and uneven progress towards providing criminal legal remedies for women sexually assaulted by their husbands or intimate partners in different legal systems around the world. In this section we also analyse and critique the two most comprehensive and recent databases of marital rape legislation around the world, provided by the World Bank and the United Nations, respectively. Section IV provides an overview of the major human rights instruments and sources of legal authority that require states to criminalise sexual assault in marriage, including the instruments aimed at securing women’s equal rights and ending gendered violence. Our central argument is that international human rights law and the due-diligence standard provide powerful normative bases on which women’s movements and other social justice supporters can organise to end impunity for sexual violence in intimate relationships.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207