Between Cultural Relativism and International Human Rights: The Case of Female Genital Mutilation.

Abstract

Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting has recently been placed inside the scope of international and regional human rights law. Even though an international convention that bans FGM/C has never been adopted by the international community, there are regional treaties that prohibit the practice. Older human rights instruments do not specifically mention FGM/C, but they mention women’s right to not be subject to violence. Nevertheless, FGM/C is today a still widespread practice: the UN estimates that around 200 million girls have undergone the practice worldwide. Even if FGM/C is a recognized human rights issue, it still frequent: the practice is often considered a social or religious norm. Is it possible for international law to interfere with such a traditional practice? Proponents of the universality of human rights have to confront themselves with advocates of cultural relativism, critical of the Western eradication efforts. Can the international community seek to eradicate a practice considered to be harmful to women, but rooted in traditional cultures? This thesis attempts to show that, in the case of FGM/C, the protection of fundamental rights, such as women’s physical integrity, can prevail over other human rights, such as the rights to culture and religious freedom. It does not intend to assert that the Western point of view is superior to those of other cultures, rather that international law can be a tool to prevent physical and psychological harm to women and girls.