Emory International Law Review


This Article hypothesizes on the reasons behind India¿s Declaration to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Article 5(a) as a manifestation of the intensive compliance deadlock over its due diligence obligation which castigates traditional, cultural attitudes as responsible for gender-based violence. A qualitative analysis of two historical moments when India was confronted with an empirical conflict of the CEDAW¿s due diligence obligation: the sati of Roop Kanwar in 1987 and the Shah Bano judgment in 1985, even prior to its CEDAW accession in 1993 is undertaken, to argue that the rational choice theory of voting and elections perfectly explains non-compliance. This Article contests the position that norms are epiphenomenal and makes the case that only a study of gendered compliance alters the epistemological lens. This finding implies norms could be rationally restructured to make it in nations¿ interest to comply, simultaneously contesting the post-positivist feminist IR contention that eschews the relevance of the mainstream discipline.