Feminists and religious conservatives across the globe have increasingly turned to courts in their battles over abortion. Yet while a significant literature analyzes legal mobilization on abortion issues, it tends to focus predominantly on domestic scenarios. In this article, we consider the effects of this contentious engagement of pro-choice and anti-abortion movements in international human rights fora, asking what happens to social movement claims when they reach international human rights courts. We answer the question through a detailed description of a single case, Gretel Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica, decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2012 but with ongoing repercussions for abortion rights, given its authoritative interpretation of embryonic right to life. Through our analysis of Artavia Murillo, we show how legal mobilization before international human rights courts moderates social movement claims within the legal arena, as rivals respond to one another and argue within the frame of courts’ norms and language.
Family law reform in Sudan: competing claims for gender justice between sharia and women’s human rights
Samia El Nagar, Liv Tønnessen
What causes Latin America’s high incidence of adolescent pregnancy?
Camila Gianella, Marta Rodriguez de Assis Machado, Angelica Peñas Defago
Counter-mobilization against child marriage reform in Africa
Ragnhild Louise Muriaas, Liv Tønnessen, Vibeke Wang
The Battle over abortion rights in Brazil's state arenas, 1995-2006
Marta Rodriguez de Assis Machado and Debora Alves Machiel
Health and Human Rights Journal
Discrete Moves and Parallel Tracks: Gender Politics in post-2001 Afghanistan
Gender, Governance and Islam
Seksuell vold skremmer ikke Sudans kvinner fra gatedemonstasjoner
“I’m against all of the laws of this regime”: What Sudan’s women want
Samia al-Nagar and Liv Tønnessen