This article analyses the jurisprudence on domestic violence in international refugee and human rights law. It identifies and offers an original response to shortcomings in both bodies of law. Drawing on the work of Michelle Madden Dempsey, its focus is on domestic violence in its ‘strong’ sense: violence that sustains or perpetuates patriarchy. Decisions on women’s claims for international protection from domestic violence have generated strands of case law which contradict each other, as well as the Refugee Convention’s object and purpose. Decision makers have delineated overly restrictive social groups and ignored, identified, or imputed a range of political opinions. A disproportionate focus on ‘private’ motives has also obscured the nexus between persecution and the Convention ground(s). Similarly, issues left unresolved by the European Court of Human Rights have resulted in the European Convention on Human Rights’ prohibition of discrimination being applied inconsistently, and recently, not at all, in cases involving domestic violence. These deficiencies are traced to a lack of conceptual and legal clarity as to the nature of domestic violence. A response is offered that understands such violence as political and discriminatory. The article concludes by arguing that victims of domestic violence, properly understood, have experienced unlawful discrimination and are members of the ‘simple’ particular social group of ‘women’. It also answers calls within the literature for gender-sensitive approaches to the political opinion ground, offering an analysis that recognizes women’s resistance to violence, including in cases where commitments to gender equality are not expressed. Overall, the article contributes an improved understanding of domestic violence that could be relied on to ground principled decision making on discrimination, persecution, and the Convention grounds.

中文翻译：

---

抵制家庭暴力

本文分析了国际难民法和人权法中关于家庭暴力的判例。它确定了这两个法律体系的缺陷并提出了独到的回应。借鉴米歇尔·马登·登普西的作品，它的重点是“强烈”意义上的家庭暴力：维持或延续父权制的暴力。关于妇女要求国际保护免遭家庭暴力的决定产生了一系列相互矛盾的判例法，也与《难民公约》的目标和宗旨相矛盾。决策者对社会群体的划分过于严格，并忽视、识别或归咎于一系列政治观点。对“私人”动机的过分关注也掩盖了迫害与公约理由之间的联系。同样，欧洲人权法院未解决的问题导致《欧洲人权公约》禁止歧视的规定不一致，最近在涉及家庭暴力的案件中根本没有得到适用。这些缺陷可追溯到家庭暴力的性质缺乏概念和法律明确性。所提供的回应将此类暴力视为政治和歧视。文章最后指出，正确理解的家庭暴力受害者经历了非法歧视，并且是“简单”的特定社会群体“女性”的成员。它还回应了文献中对政治舆论领域采取性别敏感方法的呼吁，提供了承认妇女对暴力的抵抗的分析，包括在没有表达对性别平等的承诺的情况下。总体而言，这篇文章有助于加深对家庭暴力的理解，可以据以基于歧视、迫害和《公约》理由做出原则性决策。