COMMUNICATIVE ACTION AND THE ISTANBUL CONVENTION
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION AND THE ISTANBUL CONVENTION

Summary/Abstract: This paper links the Theory of Communicative Action and the Istanbul Convention to scrutinize the rationality behind this human rights treaty. It analyzes whether arguing could occur within the Istanbul Convention and whether it provides the framework conditions for argumentative rationality. It finds that the Istanbul Convention has the potential for arguing, which it needs as it does not have any power to enforce the provisions outlined in the Convention nor to sanction dissent. For ratifying state parties, the Istanbul Convention does provide a framework for argumentative rationality by compromising a common lifeworld, the inclusion of the public sphere, and resembling an ideal speech situation. Furthermore, the theory of Communicative Action also explains dissent in the form of non-ratification of or withdrawal from the Convention. Considering some Council of Europe member states’ ideological backlash to the Convention, this paper finds that these countries are not part of the common lifeworld that equates human rights with women’s human rights.

• Details
• Contents