Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Political Studies, International Relations, and Law, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Femicide in Iran—understood as the intentional killing of women on account of their gender, often manifesting as honor killings or domestic-violence-related murders—constitutes one of the most severe forms of gender-based violence and a profound violation of human rights. Despite the growing visibility of such cases and increasing public concern, dominant legal approaches have remained inadequate for explaining the persistence and systemic character of this phenomenon. This article argues that a meaningful understanding of femicide in Iran requires an analytic framework that moves beyond conventional legal reasoning and engages with the deeper philosophical and structural conditions that shape the country’s legal-political order. Legal analyses confined to existing criminal codes and judicial procedures tend to focus on questions of culpability, enforcement gaps, or procedural shortcomings, while often overlooking the historical, ideological, and political foundations that condition both the limits of legal reform and the structural reproduction of gender-based violence.
Drawing on political philosophy, the article situates the problem of femicide within the broader tension between modernity and the legal-political configuration that emerged after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Although the Revolution was articulated through religious language, it was, in important respects, a modernist event that generated far-reaching expectations of social transformation, justice, and equality—including expectations relating to women’s status and rights. Yet the post-revolutionary legal system, grounded in traditional jurisprudential principles and patriarchal interpretations of Islamic law, failed to reconcile these aspirations with its own structural foundations. This misalignment produced a widening gap between the evolving social realities of Iranian society and a legal order anchored in premodern, gender-hierarchical norms. The consequences of this gap are especially visible in the domain of women’s rights and personal security, where the system’s inability to adapt has contributed to an environment in which violence against women is both facilitated and insufficiently addressed.
The article contends that femicide in Iran cannot be reduced to individual criminal acts but must be understood as an expression of deeper contradictions between the ideological premises of the political regime and the socio-legal expectations of a modern society. The persistence of gender-based violence is rooted in a legal order that simultaneously claims modern legitimacy while remaining tethered to premodern structures of authority and value. This tension is particularly evident in the treatment of crimes involving so-called “honor,” in the differential valuation of women’s lives embedded in certain legal provisions, and in the reluctance of the legal-political establishment to adopt comprehensive protective measures for women. As a result, legal discourse that treats femicide as a problem solvable through adjustments to existing laws is inherently limited, as it neglects the structural contradictions that undermine the effectiveness of such reforms.
To illustrate these limitations, the article reviews dominant legal arguments concerning femicide in Iran and identifies their epistemic shortcomings, including an overreliance on textualist interpretations of statutory law, insufficient engagement with sociopolitical contexts, and the assumption that legal reform can succeed without confronting the ideological tensions embedded in the legal system itself. While legal proposals often focus on modifying penalties, redefining categories of homicide, or strengthening enforcement mechanisms, they rarely address the structural barriers that impede implementation or social internalization.
The article then turns to an examination of the Islamic Revolution as a modernist founding moment, highlighting the elements of modern political philosophy—such as popular sovereignty, revolutionary agency, and aspirations to equality—that informed its early discourse. Although these elements were never coherently integrated into the post-revolutionary order, they introduced new expectations that have shaped Iranian society, particularly in recent decades. Within this context, the legal system has intermittently attempted to adapt to the modernist implications of the Revolution’s founding moment, most notably through proposals aimed at strengthening protections for women.
A significant example of this partial and contested adaptation is the “Bill for the Protection of Women Against Violence,” one of the most ambitious legislative attempts to address structural violence against women in Iran. The bill’s prolonged movement through governmental and judicial institutions—and the substantial revisions it underwent—reveals the depth of the structural tensions between modernist demands for gender justice and the traditionalist underpinnings of the legal system. The debates surrounding the bill underscore the persistent conflict between patriarchal jurisprudential interpretations and emerging expectations shaped by social change, global norms, and internal pressures for reform. The bill thus provides a valuable lens for examining the contradictions that obstruct the formation of a coherent legal response to femicide.
Ultimately, the article argues that understanding the persistence of femicide—and the inadequacy of legal reasoning confined to existing frameworks—requires a deeper engagement with the philosophical and structural foundations of the legal system. Addressing femicide demands more than adjusting legal definitions or enhancing penalties; it requires a rethinking of the ideological premises upon which the system is built, particularly with respect to gender, authority, and the relationship between law and social reality. Without confronting these foundational tensions, legal reforms will continue to treat symptoms rather than causes, leaving the structural conditions that enable gender-based violence intact.
The article concludes that any meaningful pursuit of gender justice in Iran must begin with a critical reassessment of the legal-political foundations established after the Revolution. Only by acknowledging and addressing the contradictions between modern social expectations and premodern legal structures can the legal system hope to develop an effective response to femicide. In this sense, the analysis offered here aims not only to critique existing legal approaches but also to contribute to a broader intellectual and political effort to reconceptualize the foundations of justice, equality, and legal authority in contemporary Iran.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)