Comparing Whose Laws? Interrogating Biases in Comparative Law and Scholarship Through the Lens of Domestic Violence Workplace Leave

Vijeyarasa, R

Comparing Whose Laws? Interrogating Biases in Comparative Law and Scholarship Through the Lens of Domestic Violence Workplace Leave

Vijeyarasa, R

Permalink

Publisher:: Kluwer Law International
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 2024, 40, (Issue 2), pp. 249-274
Issue Date:: 2024-06-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted versionAdobe PDF (486.5 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Vijeyarasa, R https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4581-4924
dc.date.accessioned	2024-11-22T07:25:38Z
dc.date.available	2024-11-22T07:25:38Z
dc.date.issued	2024-06-01
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 2024, 40, (Issue 2), pp. 249-274
dc.identifier.issn	0952-617X
dc.identifier.issn	0952-617X
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/182087
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p> <jats:italic>This article invites comparative scholars to reflect on the biases that bury legislative good practice. These biases and their consequences are demonstrated through the example of paid workplace leave for victims of domestic violence, comparing laws enacted between the Philippines’ reforms in 2004 and more recent developments in New Zealand (2018) and Australia (2022). Three reasons for these legislative biases are offered, the foremost being an English language ‘imperialism’ where good practice legislation from Spain and Latin America has been overlooked. Second, a global ‘gender equality bias’ has framed global North nations – particularly traditionally- influential Nordic ones – as world leaders, while ignoring other even highly ranked global South countries. Finally, international feminist scholarship has inadvertently fostered a perception of the global South as lacking women-centred law reform from which other jurisdictions can learn. To support these claims, in Part 3, three models for workplace leave for victims of violence are examined, a review that takes us from the Philippines and Spain to eight Spanishspeaking jurisdictions, valuable models enacted before these English-speaking nations that have been deemed legislative ‘leaders’ in this domain. This article urges scholars of comparative law to see the potential for meaningful findings to be drawn from cross-border, multi-linguistic comparisons, requiring an active consciousness of the biases that must be overcome.</jats:italic> </jats:p>
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Kluwer Law International
dc.relation	The trustee for THE TRAWALLA FOUNDATION TRUST
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.54648/ijcl2024010
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1503 Business and Management, 1801 Law
dc.subject.classification	3505 Human resources and industrial relations
dc.subject.classification	4801 Commercial law
dc.subject.classification	4803 International and comparative law
dc.title	Comparing Whose Laws? Interrogating Biases in Comparative Law and Scholarship Through the Lens of Domestic Violence Workplace Leave
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	40
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management
utslib.for	1801 Law
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-11-22T07:25:37Z
pubs.issue	Issue 2
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	40
utslib.citation.issue	Issue 2

Abstract:

This article invites comparative scholars to reflect on the biases that bury legislative good practice. These biases and their consequences are demonstrated through the example of paid workplace leave for victims of domestic violence, comparing laws enacted between the Philippines’ reforms in 2004 and more recent developments in New Zealand (2018) and Australia (2022). Three reasons for these legislative biases are offered, the foremost being an English language ‘imperialism’ where good practice legislation from Spain and Latin America has been overlooked. Second, a global ‘gender equality bias’ has framed global North nations – particularly traditionally- influential Nordic ones – as world leaders, while ignoring other even highly ranked global South countries. Finally, international feminist scholarship has inadvertently fostered a perception of the global South as lacking women-centred law reform from which other jurisdictions can learn. To support these claims, in Part 3, three models for workplace leave for victims of violence are examined, a review that takes us from the Philippines and Spain to eight Spanishspeaking jurisdictions, valuable models enacted before these English-speaking nations that have been deemed legislative ‘leaders’ in this domain. This article urges scholars of comparative law to see the potential for meaningful findings to be drawn from cross-border, multi-linguistic comparisons, requiring an active consciousness of the biases that must be overcome.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/182087