have supported rhetoric of hordes, deluges, and waves that assumed disruption, chaos, and fear – and aggression, signified by the crowds of males. Refugees were an unexpected consequence of the war and had emerged as a ‘liminal figure who threatened social stability partly by virtue of the sheer number of displaced persons, but also because the refugee was difficult to accommodate within conventional classification such as assigned people to a specific social class’ ( Gatrell, 2014 ). Having fled violence or persecution, refugees were not the same as immigrants who
The book explores the relationship between violence against women on one hand, and the rights to health and reproductive health on the other. It argues that violation of the right to health is a consequence of violence, and that (state) health policies might be a cause of – or create the conditions for – violence against women. It significantly contributes to feminist and international human rights legal scholarship by conceptualising a new ground-breaking idea, violence against women’s health (VAWH), using the Hippocratic paradigm as the backbone of the analysis. The two dimensions of violence at the core of the book – the horizontal, ‘interpersonal’ dimension and the vertical ‘state policies’ dimension – are investigated through around 70 decisions of domestic, regional and international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies (the anamnesis). The concept of VAWH, drawn from the anamnesis, enriches the traditional concept of violence against women with a human rights-based approach to autonomy and a reflection on the pervasiveness of patterns of discrimination (diagnosis). VAWH as theorised in the book allows the reconceptualisation of states’ obligations in an innovative way, by identifying for both dimensions obligations of result, due diligence obligations, and obligations to progressively take steps (treatment). The book eventually asks whether it is not international law itself that is the ultimate cause of VAWH (prognosis).
. Read literally, Section 8 could be viewed as endorsing a system of voluntary donation delivering an ethical source of bodies regardless of social class. Better educated people might be more willing to follow Bentham’s example and permit dissection of their bodies in the cause of medical science. Richardson shows that in practice voluntary donations were so rare that in the first ten years after the
traces of them in literature and in popular idioms. Bruna Bianchi argued that DV is ‘widespread in all social classes and cultural contexts, invisible, silenced, condoned, often the object of complacent humour which crystallised in popular idioms, songs and nursery rhymes.’69 As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century feminists started to fight against stereotypes that depict women as vulnerable, incapable of taking autonomous decisions and completely dependent on their husbands or male relatives. Stereotypes are persistent because, for all that feminists