This article interrogates whether and how the concept of ‘patriarchy’ is used by UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies (treaty bodies) and special procedures to interpret state obligations to respect and ensure women’s human rights. There are two key points that arise out of this study: first, that several treaty bodies and special procedures purposely and consistently use the concept of ‘patriarchy’ when discussing women’s human rights, and second, that although not all treaty bodies and special procedures have referred to the terms ‘patriarchy’ or ‘patriarchal’, an examination of those that have reveals a marked difference in how the terms are used by treaty bodies when compared with special procedures. While treaty bodies render the meaning of ‘patriarchy’ as being synonymous with certain harmful practices, such as female-genital mutilation (FGM), special procedures utilise ‘patriarchy’ as a system of power, permeating every facet of society. In this article I will argue that the current state of dissonance between the understandings of ‘patriarchy’ by treaty bodies and special procedures creates an unnecessary ambiguity that does nothing to advance gender equality. Furthermore, utilising a nuanced understanding of patriarchy, as articulated by intersectional and anti-essentialist feminist scholars, would potentially equip treaty bodies and special procedures for more meaningful interpretation of rights themselves, and greater protection of women’s human rights.

本文询问联合国人权条约监督机构（条约机构）和特别程序是否以及如何使用“父权制”的概念来解释国家尊重和确保妇女人权的义务。这项研究得出了两个关键点：首先，一些条约机构和特别程序在讨论妇女人权时有目的地并始终如一地使用“父权制”的概念；其次，尽管并非所有条约机构和特别程序都具有“父权制”的概念。提到“父权制”或“父权制”一词，对那些与特殊程序相比在条约机构使用方式上有显着差异的研究进行了审查。虽然条约机构将“父权制”的含义视为某些有害习俗的代名词，诸如残割女性生殖器官（FGM）之类的特殊程序利用“父权制”作为一种权力系统，渗透到社会的各个方面。在本文中，我将争辩说，条约机构对“父权制”的理解与特殊程序之间的不协调状态造成了不必要的歧义，无助于促进性别平等。此外，利用交叉和反必要主义的女权主义学者所表达的对父权制的细微差别，将有可能为条约机构和特别程序提供装备，以便对权利本身进行更有意义的解释，并更好地保护妇女人权。在本文中，我将争辩说，条约机构对“父权制”的理解与特殊程序之间的不协调状态造成了不必要的歧义，无助于促进性别平等。此外，利用交叉和反必要主义的女权主义学者所表达的对父权制的细微差别，将有可能为条约机构和特别程序提供装备，以便对权利本身进行更有意义的解释，并更好地保护妇女人权。在本文中，我将争辩说，条约机构对“父权制”的理解与特殊程序之间的不协调状态造成了不必要的歧义，无助于促进性别平等。此外，利用交叉和反必要主义的女权主义学者所表达的对父权制的细微差别，将有可能为条约机构和特别程序提供装备，以便对权利本身进行更有意义的解释，并更好地保护妇女人权。