Turning Feminist Judgments into Jurisprudence: The Women’s Court of Canada on Substantive Equality

Author:

Réaume Denise1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Toronto

Abstract

The Women’s Court of Canada project is unique in having chosen to focus its rewriting efforts in a specific area of law – constitutional equality cases. This strategy permits an assessment of the WCC jurisprudence to see if it yields a competing ‘theory’ of equality rights that might be used to systematically critique the real jurisprudence and perhaps produce lines of argument capable of redirecting the real law. This effort reveals the pervasive importance of attention to and representation of context to bringing to life the abstract commitments of an account of substantive equality. While not a new discovery, this demonstration of the work context can do across an array of linked cases is illuminating. El proyecto del Tribunal de Mujeres de Canadá (WCC, por su nombre en inglés, Women’s Court of Canada) es único en el sentido de que se ha centrado en reescribir, sobre todo, sentencias de un área específica del derecho – casos de igualdad constitucional –. Esta estrategia permite una valoración de la jurisprudencia del WCC para ver si brinda una "teoría" alternativa de derechos de igualdad que se pueda usar para producir argumentaciones capaces de redirigir el derecho real. Este esfuerzo revela la importancia general de la atención al contexto, y la representación de éste, a la hora de dotar de vida los compromisos abstractos de igualdad sustantiva. Si bien no se trata de una novedad, es esclarecedora esta demostración de lo que el contexto de trabajo puede hacer en un número de casos relacionados.

Publisher

Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law

Subject

Law,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Reference70 articles.

1. Abrams, K., 1991. Hearing the Call of Stories. California Law Review [online], 79 (4), 971-1052. Available from: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol79/iss4/1 [Accessed 18 July 2018].

2. Baines, B., 2000. Law v Canada: Formatting Equality. Constitutional Forum [online], 11 (1-4), 65-73. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.21991/C96M2S [Accessed 18 July 2018].

3. Brodsky, G., and Day, S., 2002. Beyond the Social and Economic Rights Debate: Substantive Equality Speaks to Poverty. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, vol. 14, 185-220.

4. Brodsky, G., et al., 2006. Gosselin v Quebec (Attorney General). Canadian Journal of Women and the Law [online], 18 (1), 189-250. Available from: http://www.thecourt.ca/the-womens-court-of-canada-gosselin-v-quebec-attorney-general-2006-1-w-c-r-193/ [Accessed 24 July 2018].

5. Buckley, M., 2006. Symes v Canada. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law [online], 18 (1), 27-66. Available from: http://www.thecourt.ca/womens-court-symes-v-canada-2006-1-wcr-31/ [Accessed 24 July 2018].

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3