Skip to main content

The Making and Unmaking of Feminicidio/Femicidio Laws in Mexico and Nicaragua


By Paulina García-DelMoral, University of Guelph and
Pamela Neumann, Bucknell University 


Since 2010, eighteen Latin American countries have passed laws criminalizing femicidio (femicide) or feminicidio (feminicide). Femicidio refers to the misogynous killing of women by men. Extending this definition, feminicidio emphasizes the complicity of the state in such violence by tolerating its impunity. Feminist activists across the region have played a critical role in these efforts to hold states accountable for gendered violence, often through the mobilization of international human rights law in the supranational arenas of the UN and Inter-American systems.

Yet our article “The Making and Unmaking of Feminicidio/Femicidio Laws in Mexico and Nicaragua” shows how the domestic impact of feminists’ legal activism varies depending on states’ investment in achieving international legitimacy through a commitment to human rights. By comparing the law-making process in Mexico and Nicaragua, we argue that states’ acceptance of the legitimacy of supranational entities like the UN and the Inter-American systems evolves in response to changing domestic political conditions and the influence of feminist activists within state institutions. We thus add greater theoretical specificity to the concept of ‘legitimacy’ by showing that it is neither static nor linear, but rather the product of the dynamic interaction between civil society, states, and supranational institutions.

Our comparative analysis focuses on (1) the interaction between shifting local political conditions and supranational opportunities and (2) the position of feminist actors vis-à-vis the state and its gender regime in the making of feminicidio/feminicidio laws in Mexico and Nicaragua in the context of transnational feminist activism. Given Mexico’s investment in human rights as a measure of its international legitimacy, the criminalization of feminicidio resulted from a successful naming and shaming campaign by local feminist actors linked to litigation in various supranational arenas, and the intervention of feminist federal legislators. Nevertheless, the subsequent weak enforcement of the law constitutes its unmaking. Nicaragua’s government has both rejected the legitimacy of supranational human rights institutions and marginalized feminists within the state apparatus. The codification of femicidio resulted from the state’s selective responsiveness to feminist demands, but this legislative achievement was undone by the increased centralization of political power and a conservative religious backlash. In sum, we show that states’ decision to enact legislation on feminicidio/femicidio is contingent on their acceptance of supranational authority as legitimate, which can vary at distinct moments in time given evolving domestic political and legal conditions, including its gender regime.

By shedding light on the fragility of gender as a legal-political category, especially in conservative gender regimes, our analysis has potential implications beyond Latin America for understanding the dismantling of feminist legal gains linked to international human rights law. One particularly noteworthy example is the Trump administration’s recent move to eliminate domestic violence as grounds for asylum claims. Like recent battles over femicidio/feminicidio laws in Latin America, the U.S.’ acceptance of women’s asylum claims based on domestic violence also stemmed in part from transnational feminist human rights activism. Yet in accepting these claims, the US was able to position itself as a protector of racialized women from ‘violent’ foreign states while denying its own complicity in soaring rates of gendered violence, including domestic violence, in other parts of the world.[1]  Such violence is inextricably linked to the US’ history of military and economic intervention across the globe.   

Though historical, the U.S. rejection of the legitimacy of supranational authority has become more entrenched under Trump, as has the backlash against feminism within and outside state institutions. This dynamic arguably represents a double denial of the state’s complicity in gendered violence: first, by continuing to see such violence as the problem of other states; and second, by now refusing women’s exercise of human rights to flee this violence. Applying our framework to this policy shift, we can observe how the U.S.’ gender regime and its failure to ratify international instruments on women’s human rights narrows the political opportunities available to feminist activists, American and otherwise, to hold the US accountable for gendered violence within and outside its borders.  


[1] McKinnon, Sara L. (2017) Gendered Asylum: Race and Violence in U.S. Law and Politics. Champaign, IL: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Popular posts from this blog

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…

Submit Your Papers to Law & Society Review!

Rebecca L. Sandefur

 The Law and Society Association and the whole field of law and society research owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, and Margot Young, for their work as Editors of Law & Society Review.As incoming Editor, I am grateful to them for their stewardship of the journal, their generous support of authors and aspiring authors, and their innovations to the Review, including this blog.
The incoming Editorial Board has begun receiving new manuscripts as they are submitted. Jon Gould, Robert Lawless, Elizabeth Mertz, Jennifer Robbennolt and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve have generously agreed to serve in this role. Together with participation from the Editorial Advisory Board -- a group deeply appreciated and too numerous to list here -- these scholars’ contributions expand the expertise of the journal’s editorial office across disciplines, methods, theoretical traditions, and regions of the world. Danielle McClellan continues to steady the ship …

TASER Technology and Police Officers’ Understanding and Use of Force

Michael Sierra-Arévalo
Rutgers University-Newark

The TASER--a weapon that uses electric current to incapacitate a subject by causing complete neuromuscular incapacitation--is ubiquitous among U.S. police officers. Spurred by pressure to reduce the lethality of police force, this force technology it is now used by more than 17,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Proponents of TASERs are quick to point out that research shows that most TASER deployments do not result in serious injury or death, and that TASERs provide officers with a useful, less-than-lethal alternative to their firearms. TASER critics, in turn, emphasize that even if TASERs are rarely lethal, 50,000 volts cause excruciating pain, fear, and psychological distress. They further emphasize that the TASER, like any weapon, can still be misused by police officers.

Though a large body of research examines police force, little is known about how officers make their use-of-force decisions in light of this new, less-than-lethal t…