Chapter XII Final clauses | Article 75 Signature and entry into force

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

📌 Navigation:
← Article 74 | All Articles | Article 76 →

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

Article 75 – Signature and entry into force

1 This Convention shall be open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe, the non-member States which have participated in its elaboration and the European Union.

2 This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

3 This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of

a period of three months after the date on which

10 signatories, including at least eight member States of the Council of Europe, have expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.

4 In respect of any State referred to in paragraph

1 or the European Union, which subsequently expresses its consent to be bound by it, the Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of

a period of three months after the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.
[Source: CETS No. 210, Article 75]

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

v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review

Issues Identified:

No significant textual issues identified in initial review.

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 74 | All Articles | Article 76 →

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.