One of the more controversial aspects of the debate over women's human rights is the question of who defines the substance of these rights. The International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo from September 5-13, 1994, focused the world's attention on the issue of promoting women's equality by expanding the reproductive choices available to women. While many population experts and women's groups in the West viewed the Programme of Action adopted by participant States as a major victory for women's rights, many in the developing world objected to what they considered a Eurocentric model of women's rights.
The following articles present opposing viewpoints as to the definition of women's human rights.
Rachael N. Pine is Director of International Programs and Domestic Legal Projects at The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy. In her previous work with the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, she was Counsel of Record in the United States Supreme Court case of Rust v. Sullivan, which challenged the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy of restricting information about abortion in federally-funded family planning clinics. Her article is adapted from a larger piece, written before the Cairo Conference, which originally appeared in the Fall 1994 issue of Harvard International Review.
Azizah al-Hibri is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Richmond, where she teaches International Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Family Law among other subjects. She has authored many works in the fields of law, philosophy, feminist theory, and human rights. Her essay was written especially for The Human Rights Brief.
| Point/Counterpoint is a regular feature of The Human Rights Brief. The purpose of the section is to encourage meaningful, intellectual discussion on contemporary issues in human rights and humanitarian law through the presentation of two diverse, though not necessarily opposing, opinions on the subject at hand. Commentaries for the Point/Counterpoint section are generally solicited by The Brief; however, the Editorial Board welcomes submissions, comments and suggestions. The newsletter does not facilitate exchange of the authors' compositions prior to publication. The views expressed in the Point/Counterpoint section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Human Rights Brief, the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, or their Directors or staff. |
©Copyright 1994 The Human Rights Brief
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to this Issue's Table of Contents
Return to The Human Rights Brief Home Page