Assessing the EU’s legal challenges in ratifying the Istanbul convention

Abstract

This dissertation tackles the legal hurdles facing the European Union in ratifying the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention – a landmark human rights treaty on the prevention of violence against women and domestic violence. The Convention is an unprecedented gender-focused and binding instrument that deals comprehensively with such crimes while highlighting their link to harmful gender stereotypes. Unfortunately, the EU's conclusion of the Convention as a mixed agreement has been embroiled in tension and discord among Member States, some of whom hold views that differ significantly from the liberal mainstream EU norm. The controversy surrounding the EU's accession to the Convention raises crucial questions about competences, procedures, and political disagreements that are central to the EU's role as an international actor. To understand the reasons for this lack of consensus, the research compares the Istanbul Convention to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which enjoys support from all EU MSs, unlike the Istanbul Convention. By analysing the similarities and differences between these two treaties, the dissertation sheds light on why the EU's ratification process has faced such strong roadblocks. The research studies the decision taken by the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the EU to conclude the agreement without obtaining consensus at Council level, marking a departure from established practice. This decision reflects a commitment to uphold the legal procedure of Qualified Majority Voting, and the dissertation examines the EU's ability to ratify the Convention without the common accord of all Member States. By delving into the legal complexities and political dynamics that have hindered the EU's ratification of the Istanbul Convention, this dissertation highlights the significance of this issue and its broader implications for human rights and gender equality.