¹ Roberts, Anthea et al., Conceptualizing Comparative International Law, in Comparative International Law (Roberts, Anthea et al. eds., forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² See Christopher McCrudden, Comparative International Law and Human Rights, in Comparative International Law, supra note 1.

³ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, opened for signature Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 UNTS 13,19 ILM 33. See, in particular, Women’s Human Rights: Cedaw in International, Regional and National Law (Anne Hellum & Henriette Sinding Aasen eds., 2013) [hereinafter Women’S Human Rights]; The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: A Commentary (Marsha A. Freeman et al. eds., 2012); The Women’S Convention Turned 30: Achievements, Setbacks, and Prospects (Ingrid Westendorp ed., 2012).

⁴ Comparative International Law, supra note 1.

⁵ See, e.g., Kennedy, David, The Disciplines of International Law and Policy, 12 Leiden J. Int’l L. 9, 17 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knop, Karen, Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 501, 503, 506 (2000)Google Scholar; see generally Roberts, Anthea, Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 60 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 57 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ See, e.g., Nollkaemper, Andre, National Courts and the International Rule of Law 8 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ See Benvenisti, Eyal, Judicial Misgivings Regarding the Application of International Law: An Analysis of Attitudes of National Courts, 4 Eur. J. Int’l L. 159, 161 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Nollkaemper, supra note 6, at 1.

⁹ Benvenisti, Eyal, Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts, 102 AJIL 241 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Roberts, supra note 5, at 68.

¹¹ Id.

¹² Aust, Helmut Philipp, Rodiles, Alejandro & Staubach, Peter, Unity or Uniformity? Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation, 27 Leiden J. Int’l L. 75 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Pant v. Nepal Government, Writ No. 917 of 2064, 138 I.L.R. 500 (S. Ct. Nepal 2007). The Court said: “We... should internalize the international practices in regard to the enjoyment of the right of an individual....” Id. at 528. The Court continued: “Otherwise, our commitment to the human rights will be questioned internationally, if we ignore the rights of such people only on the ground that it might be a social stigma.” Id. Even here, however, the Court was intent on creating a degree of distance between itself and the international community. It stressed the need to “chang[e] world society and practices of respecting the rights of minorit[ies] gradually.” Id. (emphasis added).

¹⁴ Paul B. Stephan, The Structure of Courts and International Lawmaking—Explaining Judicial Conflict, in Comparative International Law, supra note 1. Where I part company with Stephan, however, is that I do not seek to suggest that the way the courts behave is due to the structuring of the courts’ mechanisms by political actors. I leave open, therefore, the extent to which the courts in this context act as agents of national political actors, but my intuition is that this is, in the main, not what is happening in the cases I have considered.

¹⁵ Neha Jain, The Democratizing Force of International Law: Human Rights Adjudication by the Indian Supreme Court, in Comparative International Law, supra note 1.

¹⁶ Lauterpacht, Hersch, Decisions of Municipal Courts as a Source of International Law, 10 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 65, 93 (1929)Google Scholar (identifying national courts as “the trusted mouthpieces of international law”); id. at 95 (“[I]nternational law is the only branch of law containing identical rules professedly administered as such by the courts of all nations.”).

¹⁷ See, e.g., Kennedy, supra note 5, at 17; Knop, supra note 5, at 503, 506; see generally, Roberts, supra note 5.

¹⁸ See, e.g., Koskenniemi, Martti & Leino, Päivi, Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties, 15 Leiden J. Int’l L. 553 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ Merry, Sally Engle, Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle, 108 Am. Anthro Pologist 38, 44 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Id. at 40.

²¹ Id. at 44.

²² Zwingel, Susanne, How Do Norms Travel? Theorizing International Women’s Rights in Transnational Perspective, 56 Int’l Stud. Q. 115, 121 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Id. at 126.

²⁴ Id. at 118.

²⁵ This is similar to the hypothesis articulated by Stephan, supra note 14 (“National courts will demonstrate a significant variation in claims about international law.”). See also Aust, Rodiles & Staubach, supra note 12.

²⁶ E.g., Malkani v. Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Writ Petition No. 3192 of 1992 (S. Ct. Bangl. 1997) (described in Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, A Digest of Case Law on the Human Rights of Women (Asia Pacific)9–11 (2003)); Peter v. Ministry of Home Affairs, No. 1379 of 2048, 11 N.K.P. 2048 at 749 (Nepal 1992) (described in Forum for Women, Law and Development, Impact of Existing Discriminatory Citizenship Law on Women and Children in Nepal 61–62 (2006)).

²⁷ For example, the Constitutional Court of Turkey was asked to consider a legislative provision that required women to adopt the name of their husbands on marriage: see Esas No. 2009/85, Karar No. 2011/49 (Cuma, Resmî Gazete, Sayı: 28091) [Official Newspaper, No. 28091] (Turk. 2011). Cedaw was interpreted as permitting the legislature to use its margin of appreciation on the basis of local historical and political reasons. For the Turkish litigant seeking not to use her husband’s last name the court subverted Cedaw. Another example that comes close to subversion relates to Japan. Dana Zartner has argued that “Japanese courts assume that the meaning, scope, and effect of human rights provisions under international human rights law are the same as those under the Japanese Constitution.” Dana Zartner, Courts, Codes, and Custom: Legal Tradition and State Policy Toward International Human Rights and Environmental Law 243 (2014) (citing Yuji Iwasawa, International Law, Humanrights Law and Japanese Law: The Impact of International Law on Japanese Law 243 (1998)). In X1 and X2 v. Government of Japan, a Japanese court, in deciding that a provision of the Civil Code which prohibited women from remarrying for 180 days after divorce, did not violate Cedaw, assumed that Cedaw’s provisions were no stricter than the Japanese Constitution. Hiroshima Kōtō Saibansho [Hiroshima High Ct.] Nov. 28, 1991, 1406 Hanrei JihŌ [Hanji] 3 (Japan).

²⁸ Bayefsky, Anne F., General Approaches to Domestic Application of Women’s International Human Rights Law, in Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives 351, 365 (Cook, Rebecca J. ed., 1994)Google Scholar. For an equivalent conclusion regarding Chinese courts, see Congyan Cai, International Law, Domestic Courts, and the Rise of China, in Comparative International Law, supra note 1.

²⁹ Masupha v. Senior Resident Magistrate for the Subordinate Court of Berea, L.S.H.C. 9 [58] (Lesotho 2013).

³⁰ If they do that, they might just ignore Cedaw, and this is perhaps borne out by the absence of any citations to Cedaw in the Chinese courts.

³¹ McCrudden, supra note 2.

³² Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order 65–103 (2004) [hereinafter Slaughter, A New World Order]; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int’l L.J. 191 (2003)Google Scholar [hereinafter Slaughter, Global Community]; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Judicial Globalization, 40 Va. J. Int’l L. 1103 (2000)Google Scholar [hereinafter Slaughter, Judicial Globalization ]; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A Typology of Transjudicial Communication, 29 U. Rich. L. Rev. 99 (1994)Google Scholar [hereinafter Slaughter, Typology ].

³³ Merry, supra note 19, at 40.

³⁴ Id. at 48.

³⁵ Neha Jain appears to deny this. Jain, supra note 15. Although, in general, my analysis is similar to Jain’s, I dis agree that this aspect of her analysis can be generalized beyond India.

³⁶ Merry, Sally Engle, Constructing a Global Law—Violence against Women and the Human Rights System, 28 L. & Soc. Inquiry 941, 941 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Id. at 973.

³⁸ Katerina Linos, How to Select and Develop International Law Case Studies: Lessons from Comparative Law and Comparative Politics, in Comparative International Law, supra note 1.

³⁹ See also Ferneley v Boxing Auth. of New South Wales (2001) 115 FCR 306 (Austl.); Tōkyō Kōtō Saibansho [Tokyo High Ct.] Dec. 22, 2000, 796 Rōdō Hanrei 5 (Japan) (Shiba Shinyo Kinko case).

⁴⁰ Putusan No. 22-24 PUU-VI/2008 (Const. Ct. Rep. Indon.).

⁴¹ A v. Directorate of Finnish Immigration, 5.12.2005/3219, Kho:2005:87, ILDC 594 (Sup. Admin. Ct. 2005) (Fin.). “When considering the provisions of international treaties... cultural background was not a justification for taking a child to a third country, to which she had no ties, and marrying her off to a person whom she had not seen since her early childhood.” Id.

⁴² Rono v. Rono & Another, (2005) 1 K.L.R. 803, 813 (Kenya).

⁴³ Boureslan v. Aramco, 857 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1988); Abankwah v. I.N.S., 185 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 1999); Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2008).

⁴⁴ Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (2000) 2 S.C.C. 228 (India).

⁴⁵ Case No. 23 of the 16th Judicial Year/1995/Supreme Constitutional Court (Egypt).

⁴⁶ Compare HCJ 7957/04, Mara’abe v. Prime Minister of Israel 60(2) PD 477 [2005] (Isr.), with Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9); compare Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006), and Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), with Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Mar. 31).

⁴⁷ See, e.g., Mila Versteeg, Law Versus Norms: The Impact of Human Rights Treaties on Constitutional Rights (Va. Pub. Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, No. 2014-02), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2360814 (describing the impact of human rights treaties as dependent on whether a state has a monist or dualist system).

⁴⁸ Eric A. Posner & Alan O. Sykes, Economic Foundations of International Law 4 (2013).

⁴⁹ Courts refer to Cedaw as binding law (“duty”) in the following cases: Halagueña v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 172013, 602 S.C.Ra. 297 (Phil. 2009); Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, 248 S.C.Ra. 300 (Phil. 1995); Constitutional Court [Const. Ct.], 98 Hun-Ma363, Dec. 23, 1999, (11-2 KCCR 770) (S. Kor.); Supreme Court [S. Ct.], 2002Da1178, July 21, 2005 (S. Kor.); Awop v. Lapenmal, Vuic 2 (Malekula I. Ct. 2007) (Vanuatu); Gerechtshof’s-Gravenhage, Njf 2010, 113 m.nt Drewes en van Hellemondt (Wichmann/Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport) (Neth. 2010); Hr, Jb 2010,115 m.nt Schutgens en Sillen (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties/Wichmann) (Neth. 2010); L v. C, [2007] 3 H.Kl.R.D. 819 (H.K. Ct. App.); Amparo en Revisión 300/2012, Tercer Tribunal Colegiado en Materia Civil del Primer Circuito [Tcc] [Third Collegiate Civil Court of the First Circuit], Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Décima época, tomo Iii, Marzode 2013, Página 1908 (Mex.); Amparo Directo 799/2008, Tercer Tribunal Colegiado en Materia de Trabajo del Cuarto Circuito [Tcc] [Third Collegiate Court on Labor for the Fourth Circuit], Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Novena época, tomo Xxix, Febrero de 2009, Página 2035 (Mex.).

⁵⁰ Police v. Apelu, W.S.S.C. 178 (Samoa 2010) (court rejected counsel’s use of Cedaw to limit the harshness of the criminal law); Magaya v. Magaya, 3 LRC 35 (Sup. Ct. Zim. 1999) (Constitution protects the discriminatory aspects of customary law, Cedaw notwithstanding).

⁵¹ CEDAW is apparently being used for normative purposes rather than for its legal authority in the following cases: Rajapaksha v. Attorney General, SBHC 189 (Solom. Is. 2011); Balelala v. State, (2004) FJCA 49 (Ct. App. FIJI I.) (CEDAW “adds weight”); Nález ústavního soudu ze dne 28.02.2012 (úS) [Decision of the Constitutional Court of February 28, 2012], sp.zn. Pl.U´ S 26/11 (Czech) (development of recommendations to the Government, even in the absence of violation of Cedaw); Mojekwo v. Ejikeme, [2000] 5 Nwlr 402 (C.A.) (Nigeria) (customary law affecting rights of female family members inequitable); Chan v. Canada, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593 (Can.); Boureslan v. Aramco, 857 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1988) (CEDAW regarded as relevant even though not ratified by the Senate); Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (using CEDAW to support a particular interpretation of U.S. law—no sense of legal obligation); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, (2003) (Ginsburg, J., concurring); R. (Khan) v. Oxfordshire County Council, [2002] Ewhc 2211 (Admin) (Eng.) (importance of domestic violence reflected in Cedaw); Mapingure v. Minister of Home Affairs, Zwsc 22 (Zim. Sup. Ct. 2014) (referring to Cedaw, interalia: “it is both proper and instructive to have regard to them as embodying norms of great persuasive value in the interpretation and application of our statutes and the common law.”).

⁵² See Putusan No. 22-24 Puu-Vi/2008 (Const. Ct. Rep. Indon. 2008) (Cedaw’s support for affirmative action as representing developing international opinion and as a positive development); Rono v. Rono & Another, supra note 42 (Kenya “was moving in tandem with emerging global culture, particularly on gender issues” in adopting Cedaw); Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996) (Noonan, J., dissenting) (arguing that Title VII should be interpreted as having extra-territorial effect on U.S. employers abroad, so that the United States will be respected). So too, CEDAW is seen as evidence of changing times: Rajapaksha v. Attorney General, supra note 51; Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, supra note 49; Constitutional Court [Const. Ct.], 97 Hun-Ka12, Aug. 31, 2000, (12-2 Kccr 167) (S. Kor.); State v. Bechu, FJMC 3 (FIJI 1999); Amparo en Revisión 300/2012, supra note 49; L v. C, supra note 49; Corte Constitucional [C.C.] [Constitutional Court], septiembre 13, 2012, Sentencia C-715-12, at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/Relatoria/2012/C-715-12.htm (Colom.) (changing approach to definition of domestic violence); Attorney-General (Wa) v Marquet [2003] HCA 67 (Austl.) (CEDAW evidence of changing electoral practices and extension of franchise); Fornah v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2007] 1 A.C. 412, 459 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K.) (“In other words, the world has woken up to the fact that women as a sex may be persecuted in ways which are different from the ways in which men are persecuted and that they maybe persecuted because of the inferior status accorded to their gender in their home society”); Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, supra note 44 (“... the cry for equality and equal status... Is not restrictive to any particular country” as is “amply demonstrate[d]” by Cedaw).

⁵³ See, e.g., Tribunal Constitucional del Perú [TC] [Constitutional Court of Peru] Nov. 9, 2007, Gaceta Constitucional, tomo Ii, febrero de 2008, página 89 (Peru) (CEDAW mentioned as one of several relevant international instruments, but used more as a basis for criticising the legislature than as justification for finding for the plaintiff); Sapana Pradhan v. Prime Minister, Writ No. 064-Ws-0011 of 2065 (S. Ct. Nepal 2008) (rather than declaring the provision ultra vires, the Court took a pragmatic approach and issued a directive order to the Prime Minister and to the Council of Ministers asking them to see that the provisions are consistent with Cedaw); Dhungana v. Nepal, Writ No. 3392 of 2050, 6 N.K.P. 2052 at 462 (S. Ct. Nepal 1993). In Dhungana, the Forum for Women, Law and Development, citing CEDAW (which had the status of national law in Nepal), asked the Supreme Court of Nepal to overturn a law that gave preference to males regarding ancestral property inheritance. Instead of striking down this law directly, the Court ordered the government to pass legislation within one year to rectify the situation. See also Pant v. Nepal government, Writ No. 917 of 2064, 138 I.L.R. 500 (S. Ct. Nepal 2007) (ordering the establishment of a government committee to study same-sex marriage, taking into account experience in other countries, and an analysis of international human rights instruments).

⁵⁴ See Austl. Competition and Consumer Comm’n v P.T. Garuda Indonesia (No. 9) [2013] FCA 323, ¶ 47 (Austl.) (treating international law as law was essential in order “to accept its inherent legal nature, its domestic legal consequences, the practicality of it being dealt with as legal material and the qualification of domestic courts to engage in such an exercise. These matters mark it out as qualitatively different to foreign law.”) There are contrasting examples, however, where the Court clearly emphasizes the international aspect of norms rather than their international legal aspect, for example, citing CEDAW and the Bejing Declaration together: Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, supra note 44; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra (1999) 1 S.C.C. 759 (India); Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India).

⁵⁵ Goodman, Ryan & Jinks, Derek, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, 54 Duke L.J. 621 (2004)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Id. at 630.

⁵⁷ There is significant support for such a hypothesis. See, e.g., Slaughter, A New World Order, supra note 32, at 65–103; Slaughter, Global Community, supra note 32; Slaughter, Judicial Globalization, supra note 32; Slaughter, Typology, supra note 32. For examples of such a practice in particular areas, see Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, The Search for the One, True Meaning..., in The Limits of Transnational Law: Refugee Law, Policy Harmonization and Judicial Dialogue in the European Union 204, 218 (Guy S. Goodwin-Gill & Héléne Lambert eds., 2010) (refugees); Benvenisti, supra note 9, at 252 (phenomenon discernible in three areas: the judicial review of global counterterrorism measures, the protection of the environment in developing countries, and the status of asylum seekers in destination countries); see also Reinisch, August, The International Relations of National Courts: A Discourse on International Law Norms on Jurisdictional and Enforcement Immunity, in The Law of Internationalrelations: Liberamicorumhanspeter Neuhold 289, 293–97 (Reinisch, August & Kriebaum, Ursula eds., 2007)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See, e.g., van Alebeek, Rosanne & Nollkaemper, André, The Netherlands, in The Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations in Domestic Courts 179, 205 (Reinisch, August ed., 2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

⁵⁹ Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties arts. 31–33, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

⁶⁰ But see S. Afr. Const., 1996, § 39 (stating that courts “may consider foreign law” when interpreting the Bill of Rights).

⁶¹ Examples outside the CEDAW context include, for example, Canadian cases citing foreign case law indecisions involving international law issues. See Bastarache, Michel, The Globalisation of the Law and the Work of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Highest Courts and Globalisation 41, 49 (Muller, Sam & Richards, Sidney eds., 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² See, e.g., Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, Judicial Globalisation: Supreme Court of India, in Highest Courts and Globalisation, supra note 61, at 67, 84 (“[T]he Indian Supreme Court has begun to see itself as an international court that is actively engaged in an international dialogue. It is not only looking out towards the international sphere for sources of obligations, but also access to other national jurisdictions for inspiration and guidance on the meaning and application of international norms.”).

⁶³ Linos, supra note 38.

⁶⁴ Eyal Benvenisti & Olga Frishman, Comparative Reasoning and the Democratization of International Law, in Comparative International Law, supra note 1. An earlier article provides extensive examples in support of this proposition, as well as hypotheses why such cooperation takes place. See Eyal Benvenisti & George W. Downs, Going Global to Preserve Domestic Accountability: The New Role of National Courts, in Highestcourtsand Glo Balisation, supra note 61, at 163. See also Jeremy Waldron, “Partly Laws Common to All Mankind”: Foreign Law in American Courts (2012).

⁶⁵ See, e.g., Bringinge Quality Home, Implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 18 (Ilana Landsberg-Lewis ed., 1998).

⁶⁶ Guy Canivet, Trans-judicial Dialogue in a Global World, in Highest Courts and Globalisation, supra note 61, at 21.

⁶⁷ Benvenisti & Downs, supra note 64, at 181.

⁶⁸ Resnik, Judith, Comparative (In)equalities: Cedaw, the Jurisdiction of Gender, and the Heterogeneity of Trans national Law Production, 10 Int’l J. Const. L. 531, 544 (2012)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Donders, Yvonne & Donders, Yvonne & Vleugel, Vincent, Universality, Diversity and Legal Certainty: Cultural Diversity in the Dia logue between CEDAW and States Parties 36 (Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 2014-40)Google Scholar (“In the practice of CEDAW, limited constructive interaction with the states parties takes place. Other than (some times) ‘noting’ or’welcoming’ some efforts by the state party, the Committee and the state party donot fully engage in a two-way dialogue”).

⁷⁰ But see Jacomb v Austl. Mun. Admin. Clerical & Services Union [2004] FCA 1250 (Austl.); Prakash v. Narayan [2000] Fjhc 144 (FIJI) (High Court of Fiji referred to Indian and Australian court decisions in support of its use of international human rights instruments, including Cedaw); Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, supra note 54 (Supreme Court of India similarly referred to an Australian court decision for the same reason).

⁷¹ Choice Damiso & Julie Stewart, Zimbabwe and CEDAW Compliance: Pursuing Women’s Equality in Fits and Starts, in Women’S Human Rights, supra note 3, at 469.

⁷² Marjolein van den Brink, The CEDAW After All These Years: Firmly Rooted in Dutch Clay?, in Women’S Human Rights, supra note 3, at 495, 501.

⁷³ AB v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (2007) 162 FCR 528 (Austl.); Aldridge v Booth [1988] FCA 170 (Austl.); Hall v A. & A. Sheiban Pty. Ltd. [1989] FCA 72 (Austl.); see also Andrew Byrnes, The Implementation of the CEDAW in Australia: Success, Trials, Tribulations and Continuing Struggle, in Women’Shuman Rights, supra note 3, at 323.

⁷⁴ In an Osaka High Court judgment (Osaka Saikō Saibansho, Sept. 26, 1991, no. 1884, 602 Rodohanrei 72) the plaintiff referred to the Convention in these terms, but the Court did not address the issue. However, in a more recent case (Tokyo Chiho Saibansho [Tokyo Dist. Ct.] May 29, 2013, 2196 Hanreijiho 67; appealed to Tokyo High Court, Mar. 28, 2014 (not yet reported)), the Courts did consider whether a practice based on the Civil Code violated Cedaw. Although they denied the existence of the violation of the Cedaw, it would seem probable that the Court considered that CEDAW could no longer be ignored because of its status as a human rights norm. I am grateful to Akiko Ejima for this reference.

⁷⁵ Rajapaksha v. Attorney General, supra note 51; Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections, supra note 49; Constitutional Court [Const. Ct.], 97 Hun-Ka12, supra note 52; State v. Bechu, supra note 52; Amparo en Revisión 300/2012, supra note 49; Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, supra note 44; L v. C [2007], supra note 49; Yemshawv. Hounslow London Borough Council, [2011] UKSC 3, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 433 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K.) (changing approach to definition of domestic violence); Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet, supra note 52.

⁷⁶ Fornah v. Sec’y of State for the Home Dep’t, [2007] 1 A.C. 412, 459 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K.) (“In other words, the world has woken up to the fact that women as a sex may be persecuted in ways which are different from the ways in which men are persecuted and that they may be persecuted because of the inferior status accorded to their gender in their home society.”).

⁷⁷ Madhu Mehra, India’s CEDAW Story, in Women’s Human Rghts, supra note 3, at 385, 408.

⁷⁸ E.g., Pengadilan Tinggi Jakarta [PTJ] [Jakarta High Court], Putusan No. 651/PDT/1988/PT.DKI (Indon.).

⁷⁹ E.g., Mehmood v. State (1999) PLD (Lahore) 494 (Pak.).

⁸⁰ Englehart, Neil A. & Miller, Melissa K., The CEDAW Effect: International Law’s Impact on Women’s Rights, 13 J. Hum. Rts. 22, 38 (2014)Google Scholar (CEDAW “appears to be something of an anomaly in the international human rights treaty regime.”); id. at 23 (emphasizing the greater ambition of Cedaw, even when compared with other human rights treaties).

⁸¹ Hill, Daniel W. Jr., Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior, 72 J. Pol. 1161, 1172 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸² Refworld, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category, LEGAL,, CASELAW,,,0.html (last visited July 23, 2015) (this site, containing over 7,000 judicial decisions from a large number of jurisdictions, is maintained by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees).

⁸³ James Hathaway, About RefLaw, Reflaw, http://www.reflaw.org/reflaw (last visited July 23, 2015) (“The University of Michigan, in cooperation with the International Association of Refugee Law Judges, launched refugeecaselaw.org in 1999 to ‘fill the void’ at a time when the Unhcr did not operate a full caselaw database. Even after Unhcr’s Refworld collection ultimately came to include refugee caselaw, its search interface was generally found to be inadequate to the needs of judges, lawyers, scholars and others who wished to be able to perform structured and targeted searches for cases of a specific type. In the result, refugeecaselaw.org was maintained alongside Refworld to facilitate such research. Following UNHCR’s fundamental retooling of its caselaw collection, it became evident that there was no longer a need for refugeecaselaw.org to continue operating in its previous capacity.”).

⁸⁴ Duncan, William, Judicial Co-operation and Communication in the Context of the Hague Conventions, in High Est Courtsand Globalisation (Muller, Sam & Richards, Sidney eds., 2010) 59, 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar (noting how the free avail ability on the Internet of decisions by courts in jurisdictions party to the Hague Convention of 1980 on Child Abduction has facilitated transnational judicial dialogue).

⁸⁵ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature Mar. 30, 2007, 2515 UNTS 3.

⁸⁶ It is hoped that the results of a forthcoming study of the implementation of Crpd by Lisa Waddington and Anna Lawson may throw some greater light on this, and the other issues highlighted.