28
EMPOWERING WOMEN
One example concerns how “silence” is interpreted. If rights are extended to certain groups (such as religious or ethnic groups), does the principle apply to other groups (such as women), even if that group is not explicitly identified? In a general provision of nondiscrimination, can the principle be interpreted to imply nondiscrimination on the basis of gender? Another example relates to the interpretation of a “fair distribution of assets between spouses,” which could be seen as an even division or as one based entirely on relative monetary contributions to acquiring the assets. In many countries, in such instances judges’ rulings fill the interpretive gap in the statutes, binding future decisions on the same subject. (See, for example, the Echaria case in Kenya, described in chapter 3.) The fact that judges have issued widely differing interpretations of similarly worded statutes, even in the same country (as discussed in chapter 3), signals a note of caution regarding the importance of precedents in some countries. Precedents can be overruled. Some of the different interpretations can reflect changes in the composition of judges in a court over time or evolutions in legal philosophy or even a lack of access to earlier decisions. It is also true that some judges are not above being influenced illicitly in their decisions. Although shifting precedents can make it harder to measure the impact of a specific provision, they can also open another avenue for helping change how provisions are applied. In every country, legislation can change the content of the law. But where precedent plays a larger role, activists can help push for more favorable rulings. Precedents can, however, also be set in ways that restrict women’s rights further—and overturning them can make it harder to secure future rulings that are more favorable to women. It is not that a greater role for precedents inherently favors or disfavors women; it is that assessing how well economic rights are protected in practice needs to consider precedents. The role of precedents is not incorporated into the database. Instead, a section in chapter 3 examines the role of precedents and how changing interpretations affect the way de jure rights are applied in practice. The database classifies de jure economic rights based solely on the language of the provisions, in order to ensure that the analysis interprets the same language the same way across countries, to avoid having to address countries in which the applicable case law could not be found, and to prevent a country’s classification from changing with a new ruling on the same provision.
Standing Countries provide different rules on who has standing to challenge statutes or regulations. It is beyond the scope of this study to look at all the provisions of administrative law. Instead, the focus is on the ability of individuals to challenge the constitutionality of statutes. In most of the common law systems and about half of the civil law countries, individual parties affected by a statute can