Gender stereotypes continue to profoundly impact criminal law adjudication despite CEDAW's explicit requirement that state actors refrain from stereotyping and eradicate gender stereotypes. This comparative study of provocation jurisprudence from three Asian jurisdictions—India, Malaysia, and Singapore—employs a feminist lens to explore the negative and positive obligations of domestic criminal courts when dealing with gender stereotypes pursuant to CEDAW's transformative commitments. It argues that these courts should not only avoid gender stereotypes but also actively contest such stereotypes in judicial decisions by employing gender-informed explanations of harm, representing women in a dignified and rights-based manner, and adopting interpretations of the law that delegitimize stereotyping.

尽管消除对妇女歧视委员会明确要求国家行为者避免陈规定型观念并消除性别陈规定型观念，但性别陈规定型观念继续对刑法裁决产生深远影响。这项对来自三个亚洲司法管辖区（印度、马来西亚和新加坡）的挑衅判例的比较研究采用女权主义视角来探讨国内刑事法院在根据《消除对妇女一切形式歧视公约》的变革性承诺处理性别陈规定型观念时的消极和积极义务。它认为，这些法院不仅应避免性别陈规定型观念，而且还应在司法裁决中积极反对这种陈规定型观念，方法是采用基于性别的伤害解释，以有尊严和基于权利的方式代表妇女，并采用使陈规定型观念不合法的法律解释。