Uguaglianza e differenza di genere nella riforma del diritto di famiglia: una lettura luhmanniana

La igualdad ante la ley es uno de los derechos fundamentales de las Constituciones modernas. Sin embargo, hay algo más. De hecho podría decirse que los modernos sistemas jurídicos se han ido formando alrededor de la idea de igualdad. El valor de la igualdad parece expresar una manera común de entender las relaciones humanas, especialmente en el caso de la igualdad de género, expresamente mencionado por el artículo de las Constituciones democráticas modernas que se refiere al principio de igualdad ante la ley. El presente estudio trata esa forma específica de igualdad que se caracteriza por la paradoja de querer tratar como igual lo que es diferente, o sea, de hacer distinciones sin discriminar. Con este fin nos referimos al enfoque jurídico y al enfoque político del tema como se encuentran en la reforma del derecho de familia. No es un problema de una específica legislación nacional, sino más bien una versión específica de un problema de nivel general. Se trata de la imposibilidad de construir como indistinguible lo que es diferente. El intento político de reformar el derecho de familia para implementar el principio constitucional de igualdad no consigue resolver el problema. Éste vuelve a aparecer por la imposibilidad que el derecho funcione sin crear diferencias. Al mismo tiempo, surgen problemas nuevos relacionado con formas nuevas de organizar la vida familiar.

The gendered effects of family migration law: contextual interpretation as a possible judicial remedy

At all normative levels, family migration law can disproportionally and negatively affect immigrant women’s rights in this field, producing gendered effects. In some cases, such effects are related to the normative and judicial imposition of unviable family-related models (e.g., the ʻgood mother ̕ the one-breadwinner family, or a rigid distinction between productive and reproductive work). In other cases, they are due to family migration law’s overlooking of the specific needs and difficulties of immigrant women, within their families and in the broader context of their host countries’ social and normative framework.To effectively expose and correct this gender bias, in this article I propose an alternative view of immigrant women’s right to family life, as a cluster of rights and entitlements rather than as a mono-dimensional right. As a theoretical approach, this construction is better equipped to capture the complex experiences of immigrant women in the European legal space, and to shed light on the gendered effects generated not by individual norms but by the interaction of norms that are traditionally assigned to separated legal domains (e.g., immigration law and criminal law). As a judicial strategy, this understanding is capable of prompting a consideration by domestic and supranational courts of immigrant women not as isolated individuals, but as ‘individuals in context’. I shall define this type of approach as ‘contextual interpretation’, understood as the consideration of immigrant women in the broader contexts of their families, their host societies and the normative frameworks applicable to them. Performed in a gendersensitive manner, a contextual judicial interpretation has the potential to neutralize the gendered effects of certain family migration norms. To illustrate these points, I will discuss selected judicial examples offered by the European Court on Human Rights, as well as from domestic jurisdictions of countries with a particularly high incidence of immigrant women (Italy and Spain).

Migrant domestic workers, vulnerability and the law: immigration and employment laws in Cyprus and Spain

The intersection of gender, welfare and immigration regimes has been one of the main focus of a rich scholarship on paid domestic work in Europe. This article brings into the discussion the nexus of employment and immigration law regimes to reflect on the role of legal regulation in structuring and reducing the vulnerability of domestic workers. I analyse this nexus by looking at the cases of Cyprus and Spain, two states falling under the cluster of Southern Mediterranean welfare regimes, that share certain characteristics in terms of immigration regimes, but have substantially different employment law regulation models. The first part sketches the debate on the employment law regulation of domestic work. The second part starts by giving an overview of the immigration regimes of Cyprus and Spain in relation to migrant domestic workers and then proceeds to analyse the two countries’ models and substance of employment law regulation in domestic work. The comparison of these two divergent approaches informs the debate on how the legal regulation of domestic work should be best structured. In Spain there have been recent dynamic legislative changes in the employment law regulation of domestic work. The final part of the article traces these changes and reflects on why such processes have not taken place in Cyprus.