Human Rights Quarterly

ABSTRACT:

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.