The Making and Unmaking of Feminicidio/Femicidio Laws in Mexico and Nicaragua

Abstract

This article examines the contested process of law‐making related to the killing of women which resulted in the criminalization of feminicide (feminicidio) and femicide (femicidio) in Mexico and Nicaragua, two countries in which feminists engaged in legal activism to increase state accountability for gendered violence. Through comparative analysis, we demonstrate the importance of (1) the interaction between shifting local political conditions and supranational opportunities and (2) the position of feminist actors vis‐à‐vis the state and its gender regime in shaping regional variation in the making of laws concerning gendered violence. In Mexico, the criminalization of feminicidio resulted from a successful naming and shaming campaign by local feminist actors linked to litigation in various supranational arenas, and the intervention of feminist federal legislators. In Nicaragua, the codification of femicidio resulted from the state's selective responsiveness to feminist demands in a moment of narrow political opportunity within an otherwise highly consolidated regime. We also examine the unmaking of these laws through their perversion in practice (Mexico) and their intentional undermining (Nicaragua) at the hands of the state. Our analysis demonstrates how states' decisions to enact legislation against gendered violence does not occur solely because they are invested in international legitimacy, but also in response to states' shifting acceptance of the legitimacy of supranational authority itself.

Practicing Accountability, Challenging Gendered State Resistance: Feminist Legislators and Feminicidio in Mexico

“…Under the principle of due diligence, the Belém Do Pará Convention imposes positive obligations on states to take action to protect women from violence (García-Del Moral and Dersnah 2014; Rubio-Marín and Estrada-Tanck 2013). The transnational advocacy network used the reports to “name and shame” Mexico, undermining its status in the international community, and to pressure it into changing practices toward gender violence (Aikin Araluce 2011; García-Del Moral and Neumann 2019). As part of this process, activists turned feminicidio into a frame accusing the Mexican state of violating women’s human rights (García-Del Moral 2016).…”

“…In 2009, the Court issued the judgment González and Others “Cotton Fiel” , v. Mexico concerning the sexual murder of three young women, whose mutilated bodies were found in a cotton field in Ciudad Juarez in November 2001, and the local authorities’ fabrication of evidence to solve these crimes. The Court found that through inaction, the Mexican state had violated these women’s rights and urged it to address feminicidio (García-Del Moral and Neumann 2019; Rubio-Marín and Estrada-Tanck 2013). Feminist legislators used the bicameral Equity and Gender Commissions and Special Feminicidio Commission to channel international pressure as leverage to pass the General Law on Women’s Access to a Life Free of Violence and codify feminicidio as a crime (García-Del Moral and Neumann 2019).…”

“…National gender regimes matter in shaping the outcome of activists’ mobilization strategies (Ferree 2006; Friedman 2009). States with conservative gender regimes may prove more resilient to international pressure especially if they do not view international human rights institutions as legitimate, do not seek to improve their rank in international society, and lack a strong women’s policy machinery (García-Del Moral and Neumann 2019). Moreover, the pervasiveness of structural inequality, systemic corruption, and a climate of impunity or an overall lack of state capacity may hamper the enforcement of progressive legislation and policies (Menjívar and Walsh 2016; Staudt 2014).…”

“…References to overt resistance on the part of conservative, mostly male, lawmakers to the introduction of legislation on gender violence are frequent in the literature on feminicide in Latin America. Male legislators have threatened to leave Congress to sabotage a law’s passage and they have argued that such laws discriminate against men or undermine the family (García-Del Moral and Neumann 2019, 472; Menjívar and Walsh 2016, 41). Such resistance is not necessarily surprising.…”

Expressive Power of Anti-Violence Legislation

“… 2 See, e.g., Weldon 2002; Smulovitz 2015; Htun and Weldon 2012; Franceschet 2010; Beer 2017; O'Brien 2015; O'Brien and Walsh 2020; García-Del Moral and Neumann 2019.…”