Why Some Countries Embrace the Istanbul Convention While Others Push Back

Across Europe, the Istanbul Convention — a treaty aimed at combating violence against women — has become a central battleground over gender and sexual equality. Right-wing forces mobilize nationally and transnationally to defend traditional values and oppose so-called “gender ideology,” while progressive actors push back to protect women’s rights. The result is uneven ratification: many states have ratified the Convention, while several have not.

🔎 What Was Examined

Which factors drive states to ratify the Istanbul Convention, and which factors explain non-ratification in Europe?

🧭 How This Was Studied

• Employed qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) across 40 European states to disentangle causal complexity in ratification decisions.
• Unpacked observed causal patterns with four minimalist case studies that illustrate how different combinations of factors produce distinct outcomes.

✅ Key Findings

• Four distinct pathways to ratification were identified:
• Feminist egalitarian norms: strong domestic norms favoring gender equality lead to ratification.
• International conditionality: pressure or incentives from external actors and institutions encourage ratification.
• Pro‑European governments at odds with social opposition: governments oriented toward European integration ratify despite domestic pushback.
• Societal unwillingness to mobilize for conservative religious institutions: when conservative religious actors fail to mobilize, ratification becomes more likely.
• These pathways capture the causal combinations that explain why some states ratify the Convention while others do not.

⚖️ Why It Matters

The analysis reveals the mechanisms linking pro‑gender, anti‑gender, and state actors to concrete policy outcomes. Understanding these pathways clarifies how norms, international leverage, government orientation, and patterns of social mobilization jointly shape whether a gender‑equality treaty is adopted or resisted.