In a recent article in this journal, James Christensen, Tom Parr and David Axelsen argue that millionaire salaries are unjust and women have no grounds of fairness to unjust salaries in parity with men. They accept that disrespect is expressed toward women when they are paid less than men because of their gender. Their argument largely replicates a similar argument developed earlier by Anca Gheaus. By drawing on the distinction between ideal and nonideal theory, we argue that Christensen et al. and Gheaus hold women to unacceptably high standards of justice and arguably higher standards than men are held to.

This essay addresses tensions within political philosophy between group rights, which allow historically marginalized communities some self-governance in determining its own rules and norms, and the rights of marginalized subgroups, such as women, within these communities. Community norms frequently uphold patriarchal structures that define women as inferior to men, assign them a subordinate status within the community, and cut them off from the individual rights enjoyed by women in other sections of society. As feminists point out, the capacity for voice and exit cannot be taken for granted, for community norms may be organized in ways that deny women any voice in its decision-making forums as well as the resources they would need to survive outside the community. This essay draws on research among the Gond, an indigenous community in India, to explore this debate. Given the strength of the forces within the community militating against women’s capacity for voice or exit, the question motivating our research is: Can external organizations make a difference? We explore the impacts of two external development organizations that sought to work with women within these communities in order to answer this question.

The 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza in Bangladesh brought global visibility to the human rights abuses experienced by women workers in the garment sector. As the spotlight on this incident dims, the need to hold the fashion sector accountable remains. In this article, we suggest that greater accountability could be achieved through the application of a human rights-informed understanding of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to promote gender justice in the sector. By drawing on international women’s rights law and sustainable fashion, we demonstrate how sustainability and gender justice are intimately connected, and illustrate what role the SDGs can play in promoting sustainable outcomes that are gender-just. The article unpacks concepts such as sustainability, the circular economy, social responsibility, and ethical fashion, and places the experiences of women workers within this context. Its principal contribution is a set of six requirements to ensure a gender perspective to the fashion industry’s role in implementing the SDGs.

In recent years, much public attention has been devoted to the existence of pay discrepancies between men and women at the upper end of the income scale. For example, there has been considerable discussion of the ‘Hollywood gender pay gap’. We can refer to such discrepancies as cases of millionaire inequality. These cases generate conflicting intuitions. On the one hand, the unequal remuneration involved looks like a troubling case of gender injustice. On the other, it’s natural to feel uneasy when confronted with the suggestion that multi-millionaires are somehow being paid inadequately. In this paper, we consider two arguments for rectifying millionaire inequality, clarifying their appeal but also identifying the obstacles that each will have to surmount in order to succeed.

Rationing health care by ordeals is likely to have different effects on women and men, and on distinct groups of women. I show how such putative effects of ordeals are relevant to achieving gender justice. I explain why some ordeals may disproportionately set back women’s interest in discretionary time, health and access to health care, and may undermine equality of opportunity for positions of advantage. Some ordeals protect the interests of the worse-off women yet set back the interests of better-off women in equal opportunities. I suggest how we can use ordeal design to advance particular aims of gender justice.

Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been heralded as a success story for gender justice, in practice prosecutions of sexual and gender-based crimes (SGBC) have often ended with acquittal at the court. Gender studies in international relations explain the lack of successful SGBC prosecutions by looking to the influence of older gender biases in international law, which preclude the successful implementation of the novel Rome Statute provisions criminalizing SGBC. This article suggests that “forgetting” the gender justice norm insufficiently explains the outcome of the ICC's SGBC prosecutions. The article argues that ICC judges “remembered” another norm of criminal justice, long forgotten in international trials – strict compliance with the personal culpability principle – which has resulted in tension between different visions of justice in the court's practice: delivering substantive justice for SGBC victims v. safeguarding the defendant's rights by upholding criminal law principles.

Digital financial-inclusion platforms have gained increasing attention as instruments for economic growth that also contribute to development goals such as poverty reduction and gender equality. One of the most acclaimed digital financial platforms to date is M-Pesa (M for mobile, pesa is Swahili for money) in Kenya – a mobile-phone-enabled money-transfer service realised via a public–private partnership between the UK's Department for International Development, Vodafone and its local partner, Safaricom. Since its launch in 2007, M-Pesa has grown at a phenomenal rate and it is now used by over 70 per cent of the Kenyan population. Bringing together socio-legal enquiry, feminist political economy analysis and post-colonial literature, this paper discusses M-Pesa's inclusionary regulatory arrangements and examines their implications for gender equality. It shows that, while these arrangements contribute to including women in the formal financial system, they fail to adopt the redistributive measures necessary to address the gendered socio-economic disadvantages that cause and reproduce financial exclusion.

Over the past two decades, constructivist International Relations (IR) scholars have produced substantial knowledge on the diffusion and adoption of global norms, emphasising the role of Western norm entrepreneurs in constructing and promoting new norms to passive, generally non-Western, norm takers. An emergent literature on norm dynamics unsettles this narrative of linear progress, highlighting the agency of diverse actors, including the agency of non-Western norm entrepreneurs, in normative change. This article contributes to this recent norm research by exploring the normative agency of local actors in the Turkish context, who have actively engaged in normative contestation over the meaning of gender equality. More specifically, the article reveals the crucial role of a pro-government, conservative women's organisation in subverting global gender equality norms and in promoting a local norm of ‘gender justice’ as an alternative. The article furthers research on norm contestation by analysing the discursive strategies and justifications local norm makers have adopted in the Turkish context upon encountering norms that challenged their normative beliefs and practices. Finally, the article critically engages with postsecular feminism, highlighting the agency of a religiously informed, conservative women's organisation as a non-Western norm entrepreneur.

The growing influence of transnational process, institutions and policy communities has contributed to the emergence of a global public policy that is distinct (although not separate) from the national process of policy-making. In this context gender equality and gender mainstreaming have become dominant policy and political narratives for addressing gender injustice. The focus of this paper is on developing the conceptual and theoretical links between global policy paradigms and gender equality and incorporating multi-scalarity, translation and disjuncture into our understanding of the ways in which policies are made, processed and enacted. The discussion begins by extending Hall's concept of policy paradigm as a nationally bounded entity and highlighting the transnational processes and institutions contributing to the emergence of a global policy paradigm and global policy space. It then goes on to highlight the fluidity of policy paradigms and the importance of moving beyond the focus on techno-managerial “order” as the essence of the policy paradigm and indicators of change and instead to bring into sharper focus disjuncture and tensions.

This article addresses conflicts and negotiations about gender equality and diversity within the European public sphere (EPS). It aims to explore the specific constraints and possibilities for realizing gender equality and justice from the transnational European context. Research illustrates that the European Union (EU) approach to gender equality has strengthened the transnational space of mobilization and given actors new possibilities to negotiate about multiple inequalities and direct their claims at different levels. This has at the same time led to a diversification of women's claims and conflicts about the meanings and framings of gender equality and diversity within the EPS. This is illustrated by case studies of the framing of gender equality and ethno-national diversity by political actors in the European Women's Lobby and the European Parliament. The article proposes that the multilevel EU polity can be interpreted as a unique case for reframing justice in a globalized world.