Over the past few decades, international legal frameworks have made significant strides in addressing gender inequality and protecting women’s rights. From the Istanbul Convention to various United Nations treaties discussed in Geneva, the world has seen a growing commitment—at least on paper—to combating gender-based violence and discrimination.
Yet, despite the progress, a surprising number of countries continue to resist the ratification or implementation of key international agreements aimed at safeguarding women. This reluctance raises important questions: What are the reasons behind such resistance, and how does it impact the lives of women in these jurisdictions?
This article explores the political, cultural, and legal barriers to ratifying women’s rights conventions and examines the real-world consequences of inaction.
The Promise of International Frameworks
International conventions play a crucial role in setting legal and ethical standards for the treatment of women worldwide. Some of the most influential agreements include:
- The Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence): Adopted in 2011, it is the first legally binding instrument to create a comprehensive framework to protect women against all forms of violence.
- CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women): Often referred to as the “international bill of rights for women,” this 1979 UN treaty obliges state parties to eliminate discrimination in all areas of life.
- Geneva-based mechanisms like the UN Human Rights Council’s periodic reviews and special rapporteurs often work in conjunction with conventions to monitor compliance and pressure governments to act.
While many countries have signed and ratified these documents, the road from signature to actual implementation is often long and uneven.
Why Do Some Countries Resist Ratification?
There is no single reason why countries hesitate or outright refuse to ratify conventions on women’s rights. The causes are often a complex mix of political ideology, cultural norms, and perceived threats to sovereignty or traditional values.
1. Cultural and Religious Conservatism
In some regions, conventions like the Istanbul Convention are perceived as incompatible with traditional gender roles or religious teachings. Critics argue that the agreements promote “Western values” or undermine family structures.
For instance, several Eastern European countries—including Hungary and Bulgaria—have pushed back against the Istanbul Convention, claiming that it enforces an ideology that conflicts with their national identity or religious norms.
2. Misinterpretation of Gender Concepts
The term “gender” itself has become politicized in some countries. Opponents of conventions often claim that ratifying such agreements will lead to the legal recognition of non-traditional gender identities or same-sex marriage, despite the fact that most conventions do not require such changes.
This has been a particular sticking point in countries like Poland and Slovakia, where political actors have framed the conventions as Trojan horses for “gender ideology.”
3. Fear of International Oversight
Some governments resist ratification out of concern that it will lead to external interference in domestic affairs. Accepting international monitoring mechanisms and being subject to periodic reviews can be seen as a limitation on national sovereignty.
Authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes, in particular, may avoid ratification to shield themselves from international accountability, especially when domestic violence and gender-based discrimination are systemic and politically sensitive.
4. Lack of Political Will
In other cases, there may be no active opposition—just apathy. Women’s rights are often not seen as a political priority, especially in countries facing economic crises, armed conflict, or political instability. Without strong civil society advocacy or public pressure, ratification efforts may stall indefinitely.
What Happens When Ratification Fails?
Failure to ratify or implement women’s rights conventions has direct consequences. It can leave national legal systems without adequate frameworks to prevent violence, provide support for survivors, or ensure equality in areas like employment, healthcare, and education.
Legal Gaps and Inconsistent Protections
Without international standards, countries may lack clear legal definitions of terms like “domestic violence,” “marital rape,” or “gender-based discrimination.” Even when laws exist, enforcement is often inconsistent or symbolic.
Lack of Resources for Victims
Ratified conventions often come with obligations to fund shelters, hotlines, legal aid, and public education campaigns. In countries that have not ratified key agreements, these services are frequently underfunded or nonexistent.
Weakened Civil Society Advocacy
International treaties empower local NGOs and activists to pressure governments using legal arguments grounded in global norms. Without ratification, advocates lose a valuable tool in their fight for justice and reform.
The Broader Impact on International Norms
Resistance to ratification not only harms women within national borders—it also weakens international consensus and momentum. When influential countries opt out or actively denounce treaties, they set a precedent that others may follow.
For example, Turkey’s decision to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention in 2021 sent shockwaves through the international community. As the first country to both sign and leave the treaty, its exit emboldened anti-feminist movements across the region and beyond.
Is There Hope for Change?
Despite setbacks, there are reasons for cautious optimism.
- Grassroots activism continues to grow. Across Eastern Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia, women-led movements are using digital platforms to raise awareness, organize protests, and demand ratification.
- Regional courts and human rights bodies have increasingly held states accountable even without formal ratification. In some cases, domestic courts cite international conventions as interpretive tools for national law.
- Younger generations, especially in urban areas, show higher levels of support for gender equality and international cooperation, suggesting that political winds may shift over time.
Conclusion: Commitment Beyond Signatures
Ratifying an international convention is not a silver bullet—but it sends a powerful signal. It says a country is willing to be held to a standard, to listen, and to improve. When governments refuse to take even that first step, it speaks volumes about their priorities.
In 2025, women’s rights are still contested, and progress remains uneven. But conventions like those born in Istanbul and Geneva remain crucial tools—not only for law, but for hope. The challenge now is to turn international promises into domestic realities, one signature, one law, and one life at a time.