Level III
Chapter 8
Writing
IC3
IC3 | TIF | IT | TOEFL | Best Answer
Language Lessons
Assessment
Topic: Development Partners / Đối tác phát triển
Guiding Question: How do the changes wrought in development processes change gender roles?
|
Câu hỏi hướng dẫn: Các thay đổi định hình trong quá trình phát triển ảnh hưởng đến vai trò của giới như thế nào? |
Skills:
In this chapter you will do these things:
English Language Skills:
- Aspirations & Inspiration
- Freewriting: Women’s Aspirations and Inspirational Women
- Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language
- Writing: Inspirational Women
Vietnamese Language Skills:
- Writing about Development in Your Community
IC3 Skills: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women:
To Ratify or Not to Radify
Intercultural Communicative Competence
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): To Ratify or Not to Ratify
Gathered here are bits and pieces of information and opinion having to do with The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Read through the materials and spend some time journaling or freewriting about your response to what you reading here. Select portions of your writing to form a response to share with others in other countries. You may want to clarify your country’s position and explain to others why your country has taken the action it has to ratify or not to ratify this convention created by the UN General Assembly. Feel free to add more research and contribute more information. All this should be done in the spirit of deeper cross-cultural understanding.
|
Overview of the Convention http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/ The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), (found at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm) adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination. The Convention defines discrimination against women as "...any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." By accepting the Convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including:
The Convention provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women's equal access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life -- including the right to vote and to stand for election -- as well as education, health and employment. States parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Convention is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations. It affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children. States parties also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women. Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. They are also committed to submit national reports, at least every four years, on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations. |
Reservations Grow Over UN Women's Treaty
http://web.archive.org/web/20040423160533/http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/mar98/unwomen.html
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS Mar 15 (IPS) - A U.N. body dealing with women's rights is seriously concerned at the growing list of formal reservations lodged by member states - even as they sign and ratify an international treaty to eliminate gender discrimination.
Of the 161 countries ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, about 44 have said they will not implement certain provisions of the treaty on political, constitutional, cultural or religious grounds.
Some of the countries that have ratified the Convention have objected to Article 2 which compels them to enter into a contractual obligation with the United Nations to take all necessary measures to ensure equality of women.
''If a country enters a reservation on the very basis of the convention - which guarantees the general principle of equality - then it really becomes a matter of concern,'' says Salma Khan of Bangladesh, head of the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). ''So when you enter a reservation on Article 2, you are violating and nullifying the whole concept and sense of the Convention.''
Equally strong objections, she says, have also been raised against Article 16, which concerns equality in family life.
Angela King, U.N. Special Adviser on Gender Issues, says despite 161 ratifications, ''there was no cause for complacency since the Convention remained plagued by a large number of reservations'. Ratification, she points out, had not necessarily meant policy and legal changes in some states parties.
Under-Secretary-General Mary Robinson, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said two of her priorities this year would be a campaign for the universal ratification of the Convention and the removal of substantive reservations.
Adopted by the General Assembly in December 1979, the Convention has been described as ''the most comprehensive, legally binding treaty on women's human rights.'' The first 16 Articles call on states to take appropriate measures to ensure women's civil, political, economic and cultural rights, and their legal equality.
The rights of women to take part in the political and public life of their countries, and to perform all functions at all levels of government are also guaranteed by the Convention. The treaty also calls for eliminating discrimination in the field of education, employment, health and other areas of economic and social life.
The 44 countries expressing ''reservations'' and ''objections'' to the some of the Articles in the Convention include Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom and Venezuela.
The United States, which signed the Convention in July 1980, has not ratified it because of right-wing Congressional opposition to a treaty what is virtually a Bill of Rights for Women. But there are several Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman, Qatar, Sudan, Syria and the United Arab Emirates, which have neither signed nor ratified the Convention. They have ignored the Convention -- in its entirety.
Khan said that some of the opponents of the treaty cite ethnic, cultural and religious reasons for their objections. Most of the Islamic countries, including Egypt, have said that they are only willing to comply with Article 2 ''provided such compliance does not run counter'' to Islamic Sharia laws.
Algeria has said it is prepared to apply the provisions of Article 2 ''on condition they do not conflict with the provisions of the Algerian Family Code.''
Australia has pointed out that it is presently not in a position to take measures, as required by the Convention, to introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits throughout Australia.
Singapore says that in the context of its multi-racial and multi-religious society - ''and the need to respect the freedom of minorities to practice their religious and personal laws'' - it reserves the right not to apply certain provisions of the Convention where compliance with these provisions would be contrary to religious and personal laws.
India , while agreeing with the principle of compulsory registration of marriages, says that ''it is not practical in a vast country like India with its variety of customs, religious and level of literacy.''
The rash of reservations has evoked strong reactions from human rights and women's organizations. The 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing reiterated the need for all 185 member states to ratify the Convention.
''We demand the universal ratification of the Convention and the removal of all limiting reservations, as the Beijing Platform directs, by the year 2000,'' a coalition of women's organizations said last week. The coalition, which included the Women's Right Division of Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Women Lawyers, said that all governments must outlaw discrimination against women, ''in line with their international human rights obligations.''
The European Union said last week that it ''remains seriously concerned at the number of reservations'' by State Parties to the Convention ''which are incompatible with its object and purpose.''
Speaking on behalf of the EU, Britain's Joan Ruddock said that according to the Convention itself, ''such reservations are not permitted and should be withdrawn.''
''The European Union calls on states to formulate their reservations as precisely and as narrowly as possible, and in accordance with international treaty law,'' she told the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women which concluded a two-week meeting Friday. Furthermore, Ruddock said, member states should review the reservations they have made with a view to their early withdrawal. (END/IPS/td/mk/98)
|
Countries That Have Not Ratified CEDAW http://www.endabuse.org/programs/international/cedaw.pdf 23 countries have not consented to promote and protect the equal rights of women using CEDAW:
*Non-member state of the United Nations (S) Signed, not ratified or acceded |
Women's Bill 'Unites' Iran and US
By Kambiz Fattahi
Story from BBC NEWS: Washington
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6922749.stm
2007/07/31
For more than 27 years, America and Iran have rarely seen eye-to-eye on anything.
So, how is it that these archrivals have a similar position, albeit for very different reasons, on a key women's rights convention?
Iran and the US are two of only eight countries that have not joined the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Supporters call CEDAW an international "bill of rights" for women.
"This treaty deals with the most basic rights for women and girls, including access to basic medical care, legal redress against violence, and access to education," says Sarah Albert, co-chair of the Working Group for Ratification of CEDAW.
The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women is meeting until 10 August at UN headquarters in New York to review reports on the situation of women in 15 of the 185 countries that are party to the convention.
Under Iran's previous president, Mohammad Khatami, the parliament passed a bill in favour of joining CEDAW.
But it was vetoed by Iran's powerful Guardian Council, an appointed body of six clerics and six jurists. The Council stated that the bill contradicted Islamic principles.
Of course, the US does not have a Guardian Council but its system of checks and balances can lead to long delays in implementing policy.
Incompatible
Former US President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention in 1980, but the Senate has yet to ratify it. In 1994, a group of senators blocked its passage.
Despite a 2002 attempt to revive it, the convention remains stalled in the Senate.
It is like the old colonialism... here you have the UN...saying to countries you have to do things my way. You have to do things in the way of Western nations
Dr Janice Crouse
Beverly Lahaye Institute
America is the only Western industrial democracy that has not ratified CEDAW.
"The opposition to the treaty is small but very vocal. It surrounds the issue of sovereignty. Opponents have argued that the US Constitution would be usurped if we were to ratify it," says Ms Albert.
Iran 's opposition to CEDAW has deeper roots.
Mehrangiz Kar, an Iranian human rights lawyer based at Harvard, says that the Iranian legal system is inherently incompatible with CEDAW.
"The Iranian government is based upon Islam, and its constitution states that laws cannot contradict the Sharia. Given that the Sharia does not consider men and women's rights as equal, its joining the Convention would be problematic."
But most Muslim nations have joined the Convention - even Saudi Arabia, whose constitution is the Koran and where women do not enjoy equality with men, has signed and ratified the Convention.
'Utopian wish-list'
In both the US and Iran, female opponents of international agreements like CEDAW have similar arguments.
Dr Janice Crouse of the conservative Beverly LaHaye Institute has called the treaty "a thinly disguised utopian wish-list".
"It is like the old colonialism. That has certainly been discredited in history, but here you have the UN taking up the same kinds of principles and saying to countries you have to do things my way. You have to do things in the way of Western nations," Dr Crouse said in an interview posted on Concerned Women for America's website.
Conservatives like Dr Crouse also condemn CEDAW for loosening abortion regulations, although the State Department described the Convention as "abortion neutral."
Some high-ranking women within the Iranian government also reject treaties like CEDAW, which they see as a "failed Western model."
Zohreh Tabibzadeh Nouri, chief of Iran's Centre for Women and Family Affairs, has said that Iran will not ratify CEDAW so long as she is in charge.
Formerly known as the Centre for Women's Affairs, it was renamed under the conservative president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"The changing of the name illustrates the current government's expectation that women's principal role in society should be that of housewives and mothers,"" says Asiyeh Amini, journalist and women's rights activist in Iran.
Influence
It is unlikely that the current governments in Tehran and Washington will ratify CEDAW.
The Bush administration has been reviewing the treaty for a couple of years but it is not high on the treaty ratification priority list to be sent to the Senate.
"At this time this administration is not seeking the ratification of any human rights treaty," says Sarah Albert.
Neither is the Iranian government. In fact, several women's rights activists have received jail sentences and police have broken up their public gatherings in Tehran.
Meanwhile in Washington, women's political influence has never been stronger. A top presidential contender is a woman. The Speaker of the House is a woman, so is the Secretary of State.
There is optimism among supporters that CEDAW could gain public support as candidates seek to attract women voters in the upcoming presidential campaigns. - - - =
|
http://ncwdi.igc.org/html/CEDAW-Iran.html
|
CEDAW in Iran Feb. 7, 1998 
UNIFEM: CEDAW Southeast Asia Program
Vietnam —Country Snapshot
http://unifem-eseasia.org/projects/Cedaw/countryprogramme_vietnam.html
Many gender equality efforts are implemented by the Vietnam Women’s Union, a mass organisation for women, that conducts programs aimed at promoting women’s equality with men. A National Plan for the Advancement of Women establishes a target for increasing women’s representation in elected bodies, and the government has also adopted a procedure to monitor legislation to ensure conformity with international treaty law. While the government does not have a Women’s Ministry, it has a National Committee for the Advancement of Women established in 1993 to implement the National Plan of Action developed for the Fourth World Conference for Women in Beijing.
The Committee commended the Government for its allocation of resources to eradicate poverty and achieve economic growth with social equity, thus creating an enabling environment for the implementation of the Convention. The Committee also noted the progress achieved and the relatively high ranking of Vietnam in the UNDP human development index and gender development index.
However, there is a marked gap between the extensive de jure protections for women’s equality included in family and labor laws and the reality for women on the ground. Most Vietnamese women are self-employed or work at home. Those who are part of the labor market tend to be concentrated in slow-growth industries with unstable, low wages. Women tend to have fewer professional qualifications than men, and suffer from illiteracy at higher rates. Domestic violence and abuse of women associated with male child preference are widespread. Marital rape is not penalized, and trafficking is reportedly increasing.
The Committee recommended that the State party monitor the implementation of legal provisions that guarantee women de jure equality so as to ensure that they benefit women de facto. It recommended gender-sensitization and training programmes for law-enforcement, judicial and health personnel and others responsible for the implementation of legislation, so that women's de facto enjoyment of equality will be guaranteed. The Committee also recommended that the Government take urgent and wide-ranging measures, including targeted educational programmes, the revision of curricula and textbooks, and mass media campaigns, to overcome traditional stereotypes regarding the role of women and men in the society. Since there are no national NGOs in Vietnam, programme activities are aimed at strengthening government’s capacity to implement guarantees for women’s equality under CEDAW, including equality guarantees in relation to employment and the need to end trafficking. Approaches such as capacity building for local governmental structures and working with existing women’s equality machineries, including the Vietnam Women’s Union, will be the most likely approaches, alongside the use of popular education.
Workshop on CEDAW for chief justices and high court officials, 29-31 March 2007, Danang, Vietnam / 15-17 May 2007, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
The Supreme Court of Vietnam and UNIFEM co-organized three-day workshops (in Danang and in Ho Chi Minh City) on CEDAW for chief justices and high court officials including vice chief justice of the Supreme People’s Court, members of the Committee for the Advancement of Women in the Supreme Court, directors of all departments and chief justices of all the five specialized courts, chief justice of provincial courts and chief justices of selected district courts.
These workshops aim to increase the awareness and deepen understanding of women’s human rights under CEDAW by the judiciary, for application of substantive equality and state obligation principle of CEDAW in court decision and issuances.
Participating in the workshop in the central port city of Danang were 150 High Court officials, including all provincial chief justices, key judges and chief justices of national specialized courts. Participants learnt about the CEDAW Convention and its Protocol, as well as Vietnam’s new law on gender equality which will be promulgated in July 2007. In addition, a Plan of Action for the Advancement of Women in the national court system for 2007-2010 was launched at the Danang workshop. A similar workshop for high court officials was held in Ho Chi Minh City during 15-17 May.
These training contributed to efforts to creating a nationwide network of women's human rights chief justices/judges who will play the leading role on protection of women's human rights and promotion of gender equality in Vietnam. This is in response to rising demand for a judiciary that is not only independent, fair and just, but also one that does not discriminate on account of gender.
First Ever Vietnam Shadow report to CEDAW is underway, 9 September 2006
To further facilitate the presenting of a thoroughly reflective and comprehensive report to the CEDAW Committee, the Vietnam shadow report to CEDAW is underway in Vietnam. It will focus on six current issues pertaining to Vietnamese women that NGO’s should be responsible for reporting transparently and accurately on in the Shadow Report. Each subject will be researched and written about by a sub-group of organizations led and supervised by an elected leading organisation. Additional activities will be organized such as coordination workshops, training on report methodology, consultancy and advocacy workshops to assist in the effective dissemination of this report.
The activity is expected to conclude by the first quarter of 2007, just in time for the preparation of presenting before the CEDAW conference in New York in 2007.
The CEDAW Debate in the U.S.
|
From a Conservative Women’s Organization Women for Faith and Family http://www.wf-f.org/CEDAW.html
|
From WEDO for Women Engaging Globally, a collaborative project of the Center for Women Policy Studies, the League of Women Voters, and the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO http://www.wedo.org/files/CEDAW%20Factsheet.pdf “Ratification of CEDAW could help to advance political and economic equality for women in the U.S., as women in this country have not yet achieved full equality. Moreover, ratification of CEDAW is essential if the U.S. is to continue to be seen as a global leader in human rights.” From American Bar Association (The leading national bar association for United States attorneys) Fear vs. Fact The United States is a world leader in the promotion of women's rights, particularly in giving meaning to the principle of the equality of women and men. Nevertheless, the U.S. has not ratified the authoritative document that sets comprehensive standards on women's equality, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Although as of November 1999, 165 countries had ratified this Convention, the U.S. remains in the company of countries like Iran and the Sudan, where women's rights are in a deplorable state. In part, hesitancy to ratify this important document stems from unfounded fears associated with the implementation of CEDAW in the U.S. These fears are addressed below: FEAR: U.S. ratification of CEDAW would give too much power to the international community with the provisions of the Convention superseding U.S. federal and state law. FACT: As with many international agreements, countries can express "reservations, understandings and declarations" in cases where there are discrepancies between the international convention or treaty and domestic law. For the most part, U.S. law complies with the requirements of the Convention and the Convention is compatible with the principles of the U.S. Constitution. And, where any differences do exist, the Convention calls for appropriate measures to be taken to progressively promote the principle of nondiscrimination. CEDAW grants no enforcement authority to the United Nations. FEAR: Ratifying CEDAW would authorize individuals to file an avalanche of lawsuits to enforce it. FACT: As the treaty would be considered by the Senate it would not authorize any lawsuit not already authorized by U.S. law. Full implementation of CEDAW's standards over time could increase U.S. protections against discrimination, but this would require separate action by Congress and the Administration subject to U.S. checks and balances and consistent with all U.S. constitutional protections. FEAR: "Discrimination" is too broadly defined in CEDAW and its implementation in the U.S. would result in unwise laws and "frivolous" lawsuits. FACT: CEDAW's definition of discrimination includes both discrimination which is intentional and that which is the result of laws, policies, and practices which, when applied, have the impact of discriminating against women. U.S. law already governs discrimination in private and public employment, prohibiting policies and practices that unintentionally burden women greater than men. Regardless, claims in the U.S. related to sex discrimination are not subjected to the same "strict scrutiny" standards applied to claims of race discrimination. Thus, full legislative implementation of CEDAW could help to rectify these discrepancies in U.S. law over time. Because there has been no flurry of frivolous lawsuits since U.S. ratification of the UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), there is no reason to expect them upon U.S. ratification of CEDAW either. FEAR: CEDAW can be used to destroy the traditional family structure in the U.S. by redefining "family" and the respective roles of men and women. FACT: CEDAW does not, and would not, seek to regulate any constitutionally protected interests with respect to family life. Both CEDAW and the U.S. Constitution recognize the restraints of any governing authority to interfere with an individual's most basic decisions regarding family. CEDAW simply urges State Parties "to adopt education and public information programmes, which will eliminate prejudices and current practices that hinder the full operation of the principle of the social equality of women." How best to implement this obligation would be considered by the U.S. authorities consistent with the protections of the U.S. constitution. FEAR: Implementation of CEDAW would usurp the proper role of parents in child-rearing. FACT: CEDAW simply calls for a recognition of the "common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children" and maintains that "the parents' common responsibility [is] to promote what is in the best interest of the child." The U.S. Constitution limits the power of government to interfere in certain private matters such as decisions by parents concerning the upbringing of their children. CEDAW implementation would not change this fact. Moreover, determining a child's "best interest" is a matter which U.S. courts consider already in extreme cases involving violence, abuse, abandonment, and neglect. FEAR: CEDAW may discourage or eliminate single-sex schools and/or force local school districts to "gender neutralize" school textbooks and programs. FACT: CEDAW does not require the prohibition of single-sex education, but, does encourage States Parties to support co-education as well as other types of education which may achieve the aim of educational equality. This language is particularly meant to address the needs of many countries which, unlike the U.S., have yet to develop educational programs which are accessible to both young girls and boys. In terms of its application to the U.S., CEDAW would encourage the development of equal educational material, whether taught in single-sex or mixed schools, but it does not prohibit single sex schools. FEAR: CEDAW supports abortion through its promotion of access to "family planning." FACT: Actually, CEDAW does not address the matter of abortion and, according to the U.S. State Department is "abortion neutral." Many countries in which abortion is illegal--such as Ireland, Burkina Faso and Rwanda--have ratified CEDAW. FEAR: U.S. ratification of CEDAW might be used to sanction same-sex marriages. FACT: The Convention makes clear that it is aimed only at discrimination that is directed specifically against women. A same-sex marriage claim would include a charge that both men and women who want to marry individuals of their own sex are being discriminated against. There is no provision in the Convention that would compel the U.S. Congress to pass same-sex marriage laws in order to comply.
|
Signatures and Accessions/Ratifications to the Optional Protocol
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/sigop.htm
State Parties: 90
as of 27 November 2007
Participant |
Signature |
Ratification, Accession (a), Succession (d) |
Participant |
Signature |
Ratification, Accession (a), Succession (d) |
Albania |
23 June 2003 (a) |
Liechtenstein |
10 Dec 1999 |
24 Oct 2001 |
|
Andorra |
9 July 2001 |
14 Oct 2002 |
Lithuania |
8 Sept 2000 |
5 Aug 2004 |
Angola |
1 Nov 2007 (a) |
Luxembourg |
10 Dec 1999 |
1 July 2003 |
|
Antigua and Barbuda |
5 June 2006 (a) |
Madagascar |
7 Sept 2000 |
||
Argentina |
28 Feb 2000 |
20 March 2007 |
Malawi |
7 Sept 2000 |
|
Armenia |
14 Sept2006 (a) |
Maldives |
13 Mar 2006 (a) |
||
Austria |
10 Dec 1999 |
6 Sept 2000 |
Mali |
5 Dec 2000 (a) |
|
Azerbaijan |
6 June 2000 |
1 June 2001 |
Mauritius |
11 Nov 2001 |
|
Bangladesh |
6 Sept 2000 |
6 Sept 2000 |
Mexico |
10 Dec 1999 |
15 Mar 2002 |
Belarus |
29 Ap 2002 |
3 Feb 2004 |
Mongolia |
7 Sept 2000 |
28 Mar 2002 |
Belgium |
10 Dec 1999 |
17 June 2004 |
Montenegro |
23 Oct 2006 (d) |
|
Belize |
9 Dec 2002 (a) |
Namibia |
19 May 2000 |
26 May 2000 |
|
Benin |
25 May 2000 |
Nepal |
18 Dec 2001 |
15 June 2007 |
|
Bolivia |
10 Dec 1999 |
27 Sept 2000 |
Netherlands |
10 Dec 1999 |
22 May 2002 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina |
7 Sept 2000 |
4 Sept 2002 |
New Zealand |
7 Sept 2000 |
7 Sept 2000 |
Botswana |
21 Feb 2007 (a) |
Niger |
30 Sept 2004 (a) |
||
Brazil |
13 Mar 2001 |
28 June 2002 |
Nigeria |
8 Sept 2000 |
22 Nov 2004 |
Bulgaria |
6 June 2000 |
20 Sept 2006 |
Norway |
10 Dec 1999 |
5 Mar 2002 |
Burkina Faso |
16 Nov 2001 |
10 Oct 2005 (a) |
Panama |
9 June 2000 |
9 May 2001 |
Burundi |
13 Nov 2001 |
Paraguay |
28 Dec 1999 |
14 May 2001 |
|
Cambodia |
11 Nov 2001 |
Peru |
22 Dec 2000 |
9 Apr 2001 |
|
Cameroon |
7 Jan 2005 (a ) |
Philippines |
21 Mar 2000 |
12 Nov 2003 |
|
Canada |
18 Oct 2002 (a) |
Poland |
22 Dec 2003 (a) |
||
Chile |
10 Dec 1999 |
Portugal |
16 Feb 2000 |
26 Apr 2002 |
|
Colombia |
10 Dec 1999 |
23 Jan 2007 |
Republic of Korea |
18 Oct 2006 (a) |
|
Cook Islands |
27 Nov 2007 (a) |
Republic of Moldova |
28 Feb 2006 (a) |
||
Costa Rica |
10 Dec 1999 |
20 Sept 2001 |
Romania |
6 Sept 2000 |
25 Aug 2003 |
Croatia |
5 June 2000 |
7 Mar 2001 |
Russian Federation |
8 May 2001 |
28 July 2004 |
Cuba |
17 Mar 2000 |
San Marino |
10 Sept 2005 (a) |
||
Cyprus |
8 Feb 2001 |
26 Apr 2002 |
Sao Tome and Principe |
6 Sept 2000 |
|
Czech Republic |
10 Dec 1999 |
26 Feb 2001 |
Senegal |
10 Dec 1999 |
26 May 2000 |
Denmark |
10 Dec 1999 |
31 May 2000 |
Serbia |
31 July 2003 (a) |
|
Dominican Republic |
14 Mar 2000 |
10 Aug2001 |
Seychelles |
22 July 2002 |
|
Ecuador |
10 Dec 1999 |
5 Feb 2002 |
Sierra Leone |
8 Sept 2000 |
|
El Salvador |
4 Apr 2001 |
Slovakia |
5 June 2000 |
17 Nov 2000 |
|
Finland |
10 Dec 1999 |
29 Dec 2000 |
Slovenia |
10 Dec 1999 |
23 Sept 2004 |
France |
10 Dec 1999 |
9 June 2000 |
Solomon Islands |
6 May 2002 |
|
Gabon |
5 Nov2004 (a) |
South Africa |
18 Oct 2005 (a) |
||
Georgia |
30 July 2002 |
Spain |
14 Mar 2000 |
6 July 2001 |
|
Germany |
10 Dec 1999 |
15 Jan 2002 |
Sri Lanka |
15 Oct 2002 (a) |
|
Ghana |
24 Feb 2000 |
St. Kitts and Nevis |
20 Jan 2006 (a) |
||
Greece |
10 Dec 1999 |
24 Jan 2002 |
Sweden |
10 Dec 1999 |
24 Apr 2003 |
Guatemala |
7 Sept 2000 |
9 May 2002 |
Switzerland |
15 Feb 2007 |
|
Guinea-Bissau |
12 Sept 2000 |
Tajikistan |
7 Sept 2000 |
||
Hungary |
22 Dec 2000 |
Thailand |
14 June 2000 |
14 June 2000 |
|
Iceland |
10 Dec 1999 |
6 Mar 2001 |
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
3 Apr 2000 |
17 Oct 2003 |
Indonesia |
28 Feb 2000 |
Timor-Leste |
16 Apr2003 (a) |
||
Ireland |
7 Sept 2000 |
7 Sept 2000 |
Turkey |
8 Sept 2000 |
29 Oct 2002 |
Italy |
10 Dec 1999 |
22 Sept 2000 |
Ukraine |
7 Sept 2000 |
26 Sept 2003 |
Kazakhstan |
6 Sept 2000 |
24 Aug 2001 |
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
17 Dec 2004 (a) |
|
Kyrgyzstan |
22 July 2002 |
United Republic Of Tanzania |
12 Jan 2006 (a) |
||
Lesotho |
6 Sept 2000 |
24 Sept 2004 |
Uruguay |
9 May 2000 |
26 July 2001 |
Liberia |
22Sept 2004 |
Vanuatu |
17 May 2007 (a) |
||
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya |
18 June 2004 |
Venezuela |
17 Mar 2000 |
13 May 2002 |
Taking It Further (Journal Writing, Extra Assignments, Special Explorations, Creative Endeavors):
Best Answers to Guiding Question: This section will be the same in the Listening/Speaking and Reading books chapter 8. This may be posting answers online and sharing answers cross-culturally.
Guiding Question: How do the changes wrought in development processes change gender roles?
|
Câu hỏi hướng dẫn: Các thay đổi định hình trong quá trình phát triển ảnh hưởng đến vai trò của giới như thế nào? |
