Czechia’s Rejection of the Istanbul Convention Complies with International Law, Says Ordo Iuris in Opinion for the UN

The CEDAW procedure and the limits of the UN Committee’s authority

The Ordo Iuris Institute submitted an opinion to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in connection with the ongoing procedure for assessing the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by the Czech Republic. This mechanism entails analyzing periodic reports submitted by States Parties and taking into account the views of non-governmental organizations, which are intended to supplement or verify the information presented by governments. The purpose of the procedure is to prepare recommendations for countries. However, as Ordo Iuris emphasizes, the CEDAW Committee does not have the authority to create new norms of international law or to impose on countries solutions that are contrary to their constitutional identity.

In the case of the Czech Republic, some non-governmental organizations challenged the decision not to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, better known as the Istanbul Convention. In their view, the lack of ratification implies having insufficient protection of women from violence. At the same time, calls are being made to expand the legal permissibility of abortion, in particular by ensuring broader access to abortion for migrant women and non-residents (women residing abroad), which is presented as an alleged requirement arising from Article 12 of the CEDAW Convention.

The Istanbul Convention as an ideological instrument

Ordo Iuris experts point out that this narrative is misleading. The Czech Republic has effective national mechanisms for preventing violence against women (including criminal law provisions that have been tightened in recent years), national action plans to combat domestic violence, and an extensive network of shelters and crisis intervention centers. The failure to ratify the Istanbul Convention therefore does not mean a lack of protection for women, but rather a deliberate decision not to introduce into the domestic legal order a document of an explicitly ideological nature.

Ordo Iuris emphasizes that the fundamental objection to the Istanbul Convention concerns the definition of “gender” contained therein and the assumptions according to which the traditional roles of women and men are alleged to be the source of violence against women. The Convention obliges states to eliminate them at a systemic level through education and public policies, adopting the concept of conflict between the sexes. According to the Ordo Iuris’s experts, such an approach leads to undermining the family, which in international law is recognized as the natural and fundamental unit of society, requiring special protection by the state.

An analysis of the practice of implementing the Istanbul Convention shows that its ideological elements are inextricably linked to the monitoring mechanisms. Reports and recommendations of GREVIO (a Council of Europe body that monitors the implementation of the Convention) regularly call on States Parties to implement a gender perspective in law, education, and public life, leading to lasting cultural and legal changes that are often at odds with the constitutional identity of individual countries. Ordo Iuris points out that opposition to the Istanbul Convention is also evident in the international arena—the document has faced criticism in various countries, including from left-wing and feminist circles, which have highlighted imprecise definitions, a threat to sovereignty, and a lack of evidence of its greater effectiveness compared to domestic measures.

The “right to abortion” does not exist

The second key issue addressed in the opinion is abortion. Ordo Iuris firmly opposes attempts to interpret the CEDAW Convention as a basis for establishing the so-called right to abortion or for recognizing it as part of the protection of women’s health. The Ordo Iuris Institute’s experts recall that documents adopted within the UN system—in particular, the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action and the Beijing Platform for Action—unequivocally call on countries to reduce the number of abortions and to take measures to help women avoid abortion. Abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning nor as a tool for realizing women’s rights.

Ordo Iuris emphasizes that no binding international law instrument establishes a right to abortion, whereas the right to life is subject to universal protection, including in the prenatal phase.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to life of every human being, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child mentions the need to ensure that the child is afforded appropriate legal protection both before and after birth. Abortion does not constitute medical treatment, but rather the deliberate ending of the life of an unborn child, which should be taken into account in any reliable legal analysis.

Instead of expanding access to abortion, Ordo Iuris recommends developing comprehensive support systems for pregnant women and mothers in difficult life circumstances, including mothers of children with disabilities, single mothers, and women experiencing health and psychological consequences following an abortion. Ordo Iuris’ experts also emphasize the need to respect the conscience clause of health care workers and to promote adoption as a real alternative.

In its opinion, Ordo Iuris calls on the CEDAW Committee to refrain from making recommendations that would violate the sovereignty of the Czech Republic, its constitutional identity, and its system of values. The Committee—as the Ordo Iuris Institute emphasizes — has only advisory powers and should respect the fact that matters concerning the protection of life and the regulation of abortion remain within the exclusive competence of national legislators.

“Attempts to use the CEDAW Convention to pressure states into ratifying the Istanbul Convention or expanding the legal ability to perform abortions constitute an example of ideological reinterpretation of international law. Such actions go beyond the Committee’s mandate and undermine the principle of state sovereignty on which the entire human rights protection system is based,” notes Julia Książek of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.

See also:

• Most violence against women occurs in countries that have adopted the Istanbul Convention – latest EU report
• There is no international consensus in favor of the Istanbul Convention. Ordo Iuris memorandum for MPs
• Abortion Access Is Not a Human Right—and Here’s Why

Source of cover photo: Adobe Stock