Feminist legal theory exposes how laws and institutions have historically reproduced patriarchal power and gender-based violence. Within international law, the principle of due diligence has become a key framework for redefining state responsibility, requiring not only the punishment of individual perpetrators but also the prevention and redress of structural forms of harm. Through a feminist and intersectional lens, due diligence moves beyond formal compliance to demand institutional accountability grounded in situated knowledge. This perspective envisions justice as a transformative process that compels states to confront the cultural and epistemic hierarchies sustaining violence and to reconstruct legal practices toward genuine gender-sensitive governance.
AngeletN. (2024, July 30). Due diligence in international law: From environmental and economic law to migrant protection. Verfassungsblog. https://doi.org/10.59704/a031c298c59a57fb
3.
AntonsdóttirH. F. (2020). Injustice disrupted: Experiences of just spaces by victim-survivors of sexual violence. Social & Legal Studies, 29(5), 718–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663919896065
4.
ArendtH. (1970). On violence. Harcourt, Brace & World.
5.
AssisM. P. (2017). Violence against women as a translocal category in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Revista Direito e Práxis, 8(2), 144–1507. https://doi.org/10.12957/dep.2017.28032
6.
BalajorshariS. M.MahmoudiA. (2022). Combating domestic violence against women according to the judicial precedent of the European Court of Human Rights. International Studies Journal, 19(2), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.22034/isj.2022.357174.1893
Bourke-MartignoniJ. (2009). The history and development of the due diligence standard in international law and its role in the protection of women against violence. In Due diligence and its application to protect women from violence (pp. 3–40). Brill/Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004162938.i-300.18
10.
BumillerK. (2020). In an abusive state: How neoliberalism appropriated the feminist movement against sexual violence. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389071
11.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
12.
ButlerJ. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso.
13.
ButlerJ. (2025). Who’s afraid of gender?Penguin Books.
14.
CampbellK. (2016). Gender justice beyond the tribunals: From criminal accountability to transformative justice. American Journal of International Law, 110(3), 375–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398772300009077
15.
CapecchiS.GiusC. (2023). Gender-based violence representation in the Italian media: Reviewing changes in public narrations from femicide to revenge pornography. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(1), 81–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14658/PUPJ-IJSE-2023-1-4.https://ijse.padovauniversitypress.it/2023/1/4
16.
CarbadoD. W.CrenshawK. W.MaysV. M.TomlinsonB. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000349
17.
CarmichaelS.HamiltonC. V. (1967). Black power: The politics of liberation. Vintage.
18.
CharlesworthH.ChinkinC.WrightS. (1991). Feminist approaches to international law. American Journal of International Law, 85(4), 613–645. https://doi.org/10.2307/2203269
19.
ChristieN. (1986). The ideal victim. In FattahE. A. (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system (pp. 17–30). Macmillan.
20.
CourtisC.MalfattiA. (2021). Feminist perspectives on international human rights law. Edward Elgar.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. In Feminist legal theory (pp. 57–80). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5
23.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
24.
DavisA. (2003). Are prisons obsolete?Seven Stories Press.
25.
De VidoS. (2017). The ECtHR Talpis v. Italy judgment challenging the Osman test through the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention. Ricerche giuridiche, 6(2), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429289736-3
De VidoS. (2022). Toward a gender-sensitive due diligence test in domestic violence cases. Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale, 3(2), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.12829/106189
28.
De VidoS. (2024). La Convenzione di Istanbul quale strumento interpretativo del diritto derivato dell’UE in situazioni di violenza contro le donne: la sentenza C-621/21 della CGUE. SIDI Blog.
29.
De VidoS.FrulliM. (2023). Preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence: A commentary on the Istanbul Convention. Edward Elgar.
30.
De VidoS.ValerioF. (2025). The Istanbul Convention in Italy: Legislative activism failing to protect women victims of violence. In BurekW.Sękowska-KozłowskaK.ZimmermannA. (Eds.), The Istanbul Convention in action: Case studies from selected states parties (pp. 57–77). Edward Elgar Publishing.
FanonF. (1961). Les damnés de la terre. François Maspero.
33.
FarquharM. (2021). Structural violence in the queer community: A comparative analysis of international human rights protections for LBTIQ+ people. Inquiries Journal, 13(12).
34.
FinemanM. A. (1995). The neutered mother, the sexual family, and other twentieth century tragedies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315021744
35.
FinemanM. A. (2005). Feminist legal theory. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 13(1), 13–20. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2132233
36.
FirestoneS. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. Morrow.
37.
FoucaultM. (1975). Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Gallimard.
38.
FoucaultM. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité. Vol. 1: La volonté de savoir. Gallimard.
39.
FraserN. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. Routledge.
GransL. (2018). The concept of due diligence and the positive obligation to prevent honour-related violence: Beyond deterrence. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(5), 733–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2018.1454907
GrosserK.TylerM. (2022). Sexual harassment, sexual violence and CSR: Radical feminist theory and a human rights perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 177(1), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04724-w
46.
HanishC. (1970). The personal is political. Notes from the Second Year: Women’s Liberation.
47.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
48.
HarringtonA. R. (2012). Institutionalizing human rights in Latin America: The role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights system. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1980796
49.
hooksb. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. South End Press.
LanovoyV. (2024). Due diligence in international law: A useful renaissance or “all things to all people”?European Journal of International Law, 35(4), 1029–1057. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chae067
52.
LimantėA. (2023). Gender-based violence in international instruments and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003391937
53.
LondoñoP. (2009). Developing human rights principles in cases of gender-based violence: Opuz v. Turkey in the European court of human rights. Human Rights Law Review, 9(4), 657–682. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngp022
54.
LongobardoM. (2020). The relevance of the concept of due diligence for international humanitarian law. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 37(1), 44–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869900.003.0011
55.
MacKinnonC. A. (1987). Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Harvard University Press.
56.
MacKinnonC. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press.
57.
MarchettiM.PalumboL. (2021). Vulnerabilities between legal concepts and social realities. In MarchettiS.PalumboL. (Eds.), Vulnerability in the asylum and protection system in Italy (pp. 82–104). Zenodo.
58.
MarchettiS. (2013). Intersectionality. In BottiC. (Ed.), The ethics of cultural diversity (pp. 133–148). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
59.
McDonaldN. (2019). The role of due diligence in international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(4), 1041–1054. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589319000344
MelossiD.PavariniM. (1977). Carcere e fabbrica: Alle origini del sistema penitenziario. Il Mulino.
62.
MeronT. (2018). The humanization of international law. Martinus Nijhoff.
63.
MillsL. G. (2018). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton University Press.
64.
MkhizeS. P.MaharajP. (2020). Structural violence on the margins of society: LGBT student access to health services. Agenda (Durban, South Africa), 34(2), 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2019.1707000
65.
Office for National Statistics (2023). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk.
OttoD. (2006). Lost in translation: Re-scripting the sexed subjects of international human rights law. In OrfordA. (Ed.), International law and its others (pp. 318–356). Cambridge University Press.
PeroniL. (2020). Violence against women, structural vulnerability, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Lessons for Europe?. Human Rights Law Review, 20(1), 55–83. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509902392.ch-004
72.
Pisillo-MazzeschiR. (1992). The due diligence rule and the nature of the international responsibility of states. German Yearbook of International Law, 35, 9–51. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315242439-12
RudmanA. (2020). The due diligence standard: Opportunities and challenges for protecting women’s rights in international law. International Journal of Human Rights, 24(6), 780–798. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894784.005
77.
SegatoR. (2022). The critique of coloniality: Eight essays. Routledge.
78.
SegatoR. L. (2003). Territory, sovereignty, and crimes of the second state: The perspective of indigenous women. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 12(1), 57–89. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392644-005
79.
SegatoR. L. (2016). La guerra contra las mujeres. Traficantes de Sueños.
80.
SmartC. (1989). Feminism and the power of law. Routledge.
Therrien-TomasK. M. (2021). The powers of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights towards the implementation of gender justice laws at the national level in South America. Bridges: An Undergraduate Journal of Contemporary Connections, 5(1), https://scholars.wlu.ca/bridges_contemporary_connections/vol5/iss1/6
83.
UniSAFE (2022). Gender-based violence and institutional responses: Results from the UniSAFEsurvey. https://unisafe-gbv.eu
84.
ValcoreJ.FradellaH. F.Guadalupe-DíazX., et al. (2021). Building an intersectional and trans-inclusive criminology: Responding to the emergence of “gender critical” perspectives in feminist criminology. Critical Criminology, 29(4), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-021-09590-0
85.
Victim Support Europe (2024). Victims of crime in Europe: Annual report 2024. https://victimsupport.eu.
86.
WagnerC. Z.StaffordN. K. (2022). Developing standards for gender-responsive human rights due diligence. In LewisC.WagnerC. Z. (Eds.), A guide to human rights due diligence for lawyers. Saint Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2022-01. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4017835
87.
WeberM. (1922). Economy and society. University of California Press.
88.
World Health Organization (2024). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2024. https://www.who.int
