This article takes a closer look at intimate partner violence (IPV) and its semantical, political, and legal interactions with crisis and crisis discourse. Starting from the fact that IPV has been called a “shadow pandemic” and a “hidden crisis”, the article conceptualizes two parallel phenomena: how the COVID-19 pandemic — and crises in general — impact on IPV by exacerbating vulnerabilities and how crisis discourse has been mobilized to argue for a responsive state and strong positive obligations to combat and reduce IPV. The article then draws a parallel between crisis discourse and vulnerability reasoning, analyzing how vulnerability has played a similar role within the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and led the latter to develop a consistent strand of case law concretizing states’ positive obligations. The article also takes a critical stance, examining the risks of crisis discourse and vulnerability when viewed through a crisis lens. To counter these risks, it argues for a nuanced, structural, and dynamic understanding of vulnerability and a focus on resilience-building institutions and mechanisms. Within the ECtHR case law, this signifies elaborating upon the already existing positive obligations, including by taking inspiration from the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention). Such an approach is necessary to leave behind the emergency time usually associated with crises and work toward lasting structural change.

本文仔细研究了亲密伴侣暴力 (IPV) 及其与危机和危机话语的语义、政治和法律相互作用。从 IPV 被称为“影子流行病”和“隐藏危机”的事实出发，本文概念化了两个平行现象：COVID-19 大流行以及一般危机如何通过加剧脆弱性对 IPV 产生影响，以及危机话语如何影响 IPV。已被动员起来主张建立一个积极响应的国家并承担打击和减少 IPV 的强有力的积极义务。然后，文章将危机话语和脆弱性推理进行了比较，分析了脆弱性如何在欧洲人权法院（ECtHR）的判例法中发挥着类似的作用，并导致后者制定了一系列一致的判例法，具体化了国家的积极的义务。文章还采取批判立场，从危机的角度审视危机话语的风险和脆弱性。为了应对这些风险，它主张对脆弱性进行细致入微、结构性和动态的理解，并关注复原力建设机构和机制。在欧洲人权法院判例法中，这意味着对现有的积极义务进行了详细阐述，包括从《欧洲委员会预防和打击暴力侵害妇女行为和家庭暴力公约》（《伊斯坦布尔公约》）中汲取灵感。这种方法对于摆脱通常与危机相关的紧急时期并努力实现持久的结构性变革是必要的。