Feminist jurisprudence 

: The
Feminist Judgment Project (FJP)

Pr AM O’Connell
Department of Languages
Feminist Judgments, From Theory to Practice, ed. by
Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, Erika Rackley (Hart
Publishing, 2010)

2
2 key questions
Is it possible to be both a judge AND a feminist ?
●

If so, what might feminist judging look like ?

●

3
FJP rules
●
Cases (all from England & Wales) had to be
significant for feminist legal scholarship
●
Sources used were publically available at the time of
the original decisions, observing precedents
Using style and format of judgments
●

4
About the 23 judgments
●
Most are additional judgments in the original cases
(ex : dissenting opinions), some are leading
judgments in fictional appeals, all are appellate cases
●
Areas of law : administrative/contract/criminal/
constitutional/discrimination/employment/equity/evidence/family/housing/
HR/ international (public+private), medical, migration, property, practice &
procedures

5
Key objectives
●
Determining to which extent the case could/should
have been decided differently, while still being subject
to the same legal and constitutional constraints as
bind appellate judges
●
Persuasiveness depends on the strength of the
arguments, one’s values and political convictions
applied, whether these are feminist or not

6
Is feminist judging permissible ?
●
The question itself illustrates a gender bias since :
–Judges (women or men) refer to the same rules and
practices ;
–The judge’s own approach to the law cannot be
eliminated (neutrality= a fiction)
–Diversity of minds & of experience enrich the law

7
What might feminist judging look
like ?
●
Asking the woman question
Including women
●

Challenging gender bias

●

Contextualisation and particularity

●

●
Remedying injustices, improving women’s lives, promoting substantive
equality
Drawing on feminist legal scholarship to inform decisions
●