Women and Justice: Keywords


Avon Global Center 2013 Women and Justice Conference Report (2014)

Acid violence, Gender discrimination, Female genital mutilation or female genital cutting, Harmful traditional practices, Gender violence in conflict, Forced and early marriage, Gender-based violence in general

In December 2013, the Avon Global Center hosted its annual conference in New York, NY on "State Responsibility to End Violence Against Women: The Due Diligence Principle and the Role of Judges."

Avon Global Center 2012 Women and Justice Conference Report (2013)

Statutory rape or defilement, Sexual violence and rape, Gender-based violence in general

In December 2012, the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice hosted its annual conference. The topic for 2012 was addressing sexual violence against girls in Southern Africa.

UNIFEM: Progress of the World's Women (2009)

Gender-based violence in general

This UNIFEM Report focuses on the urgent need to strengthen accountability to women.


Sustainable Development (2011)

Gender-based violence in general

By Sandra Day O'Connor & Kim K. Azzarelli. 44 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 1 (2011). Copyright 2011 by the Cornell International Law Journal.

Judging Women (2011)

Gender discrimination, Gender-based violence in general, Employment discrimination

By Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati, Mirya Holman, & Eric A. Posner. 8 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 504-532 (2011).

Access to International Criminal Justice for Victims of Violence Against Women Under International Family Law (2009)

Gender-based violence in general

Mohamed Y. Mattar, 23 EMORY INT'L L. REV. 141 (2009).

Domestic Case Law

Susan Couch v. Attorney-General (2008)

Gender-based violence in general

The plaintiff, Ms. Couch, was seriously injured when William Bell robbed her place of employment. William Bell was a parolee under the supervision of the Probation Service. Ms. Couch claimed that the Probation Service failed to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of William Bell, leading to her injuries. The Court of Appeals dismissed her claim on the basis that the Probation Service owed no duty of care to her. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that the Probation Service owes a duty of care to victims of criminal assault by parolees under its supervision. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly rejected a so-called “sufficient proximity” rule, stating that the Probation Service owes a duty of care only to plaintiffs who are members of an identifiable class that is at particular risk of harm by parolees. The Supreme Court also held that the Probation Service is not vicariously liable for the actions of its parolees.