Feminist judgments in International Law
Professor Kirsten Ketscher, PhD Freya Semanda and PhD Marta Carneiro in Social Rights have contributed to a new important volume ‘Feminist Judgments in International Law’ exploring how key judgments in international law might have differed if feminist judges had sat on the bench.
The volume emergences so-called ‘feminist writing’ that has become one of the most interesting developments in legal methodology. This new perspective has human rights scholars and theoreticians collaborating all around Europe to reassess jurisprudence in light of feminist perspectives. The collection asks ‘could feminist perspectives offer meaningful viable alternatives to international law norms?’ And if so, whether that application results in distinguishable differences in outcomes.
Professor Kirsten Ketscher, PhD Freya Semanda and PhD Carneiro have analyzed the Court of Justice of the European Union case C-537/07 Evangelina Gómez-Limón Sánchez-Camacho v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)’. In the case, the claim before the Court was that calculation of an invalidity pension was discriminatory on grounds of sex. After having given birth to a child Gómez-Limón took part-time work for a period. During this period she attracted a serious eye disease which caused permanent invalidity. Her invalidity pension was calculated on the assumption that she would have continued to work part-time for the rest of her working life. This shadow judgment criticizes this assumption as a stereotyping violation of the principle of gender equality in the European Union.