Chapter III Prevention | Article 12 General obligations | Riga Revision 1.0

🚧 RIGA REVISION 1.0 [FIRST DRAFT]
Complete analysis using 8-Point Evaluation Framework with systematic gender asymmetry review.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 11 | All Articles | Article 13 →

ORIGINAL TEXT (Istanbul Convention, adopted May 11, 2011)

Article 12 – General obligations

[Original Istanbul Convention article text to be inserted here] [Source: CETS No. 210, Article 12]

8-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Evaluation Criteria: This article is assessed using the following 8 dimensions with proper citation of sources:

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear (circular reasoning, false dichotomies, category errors, equivocation)? Citations required.

2. Legal Clarity: Based on sound logic, is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.

3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? Does it allow legitimate cultural and legal variation? International law sources cited.

4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Are there unintended harms to vulnerable groups? Research evidence cited.

5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for state repression, perpetrator manipulation, false accusations, or selective enforcement? Case studies cited.

6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this? Are resources, infrastructure, and institutional capacity requirements realistic? Implementation data cited.

7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Are there perverse incentives or unforeseen harms? Policy analysis cited.

8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Does it impose specific ideological frameworks? Comparative cultural studies cited.

📚 Source: Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 210, adopted Istanbul, 11 May 2011. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/con…treaty/210

8-POINT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Evaluation Criteria: This article is assessed using the following 8 criteria with proper citation of sources:

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear? Citations required.

2. Legal Clarity: Is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.

3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? International law sources cited.

4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Research evidence cited.

5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for repression, manipulation, or false accusations? Case studies cited.

6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this with realistic resources? Implementation data cited.

7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Policy analysis cited.

8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Comparative studies cited.

🎓 CITATION REQUIREMENTS:
All analyses must include:

Academic sources (peer-reviewed journals, legal scholarship)
Primary sources (legal documents, official reports, case law)
Diverse perspectives (multiple ideological and cultural frameworks)
Implementation data from multiple jurisdictions
Expert opinions from various stakeholder groups

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

Score: -11 (Negative-only scoring: each issue = -1 point)

v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review

Issues Identified:

❌ Undefined mandate (-1)
Text: “eradicate prejudices, customs, traditions”
Issue: Who decides prejudice vs tradition?

❌ Social engineering (-1)
Text: “changes in social and cultural patterns”
Issue: Cultural transformation mandate

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “stereotyped roles”
Issue: Who defines ‘stereotype’?

❌ Cultural exclusion (-1)
Text: “culture…shall not be considered”
Issue: No balancing

❌ Religious exclusion (-1)
Text: “religion…shall not be considered”
Issue: No framework

❌ Delegitimization (-1)
Text: “so-called ‘honour'”
Issue: Scare quotes delegitimize concept

❌ One-way mandate (-1)
Text: “change culture but culture can’t inform”
Issue: Excludes cultural input

❌ Category error (-1)
Text: “prejudices, customs, traditions”
Issue: Conflates different concepts

❌ Undefined term (-1)
Text: “empowerment”
Issue: By whose standard?

❌ False dichotomy (-1)
Text: “traditional = bad”
Issue: No nuance

❌ Gender asymmetry (-1)
Text: “prejudices concerning women”
Issue: Male gender role rigidity not addressed

PROPOSED REVISIONS

Revision principles: Clarity, consistency, cultural sensitivity, sovereignty respect, victim protection, exploitability reduction

Option A: [Gender-symmetric revision with rationale and sources]

Option B: [Alternative approach with rationale and sources]

Option C: [Minimalist revision with rationale and sources]

Each option includes: Legal precedents, implementation feasibility, cultural impact assessment, stakeholder perspectives

💭 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES:
Consider views from: Victim advocacy groups, legal scholars, cultural/religious communities, implementation practitioners, state sovereignty advocates, human rights organizations, gender equality advocates, and others affected by this article.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 11 | All Articles | Article 13 →

About Riga Revision 1.0: Comprehensive article-by-article critique using the 8-Point Evaluation Framework, rigorous technical documentation standards, and multi-stakeholder perspectives. This is a FIRST DRAFT prepared with AI assistance. Version 2.0 and beyond will be prepared by human experts.

Resources: Evaluation Framework | 8 C’s of Technical Writing | All Articles

Disclaimer: This analysis represents critical examination from multiple perspectives and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and qualified legal professionals.