Sentencias con perspectiva de género sin un criterio común: ¿Un desacierto predecible?

Argentina has a vast regulatory framework that guarantees legal equality, but making this principle a reality requires concrete actions. In this regard, integrating a gender perspective into the justice administration system is a fundamental step to avoid reproducing inequalities. Through the development of an own database, this study aims to analyze the votes of judges in provincial high courts in decisions with a gender perspective, as compiled by the Office of Women of the National Supreme Court of Justice. In the absence of a Protocol for Judging with a Gender Perspective at both the national and subnational levels, this study seeks to evaluate, using the Supreme Court Protocol of Mexico as a measurement criterion, how judges ultimately argue their decisions when claiming to have a gender perspective in their judgments. It is intended to demonstrate that what ultimately happens is that these rulings have favorable results for women, but not an argumentation with a gender perspective. Through the analysis of 564 votes in 143 judgments, it was found that only half of them use the gender perspective as an argumentative tool. Furthermore, the profile of the judges was proposed as an explanatory factor for these results, finding that young female judges are more likely to incorporate the gender perspective in their argumentation. This evidence supports the need to develop a protocol with a gender perspective that maximizes Argentine legislation and addresses the needs and demands of justice operators themselves.

Recommended citation: Gayraud, M. F. (2023). Sentencias con perspectiva de género sin un criterio común: ¿Un desacierto predecible?. [Tesis de maestría. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella]. Repositorio Digital Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Download Paper