From “iron fists” to digital traps: How contemporary legal policies bypass international gender standards

Thirty years after the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA), the treatment of women and girls within the criminal justice system remains a critical area where international law clashes with national practice. This article looks at how the implementation of UN frameworks, including the BPfA, the Beijing Rules, and the Bangkok Rules, are applied to women and girls in conflict with the law in the United States, Honduras, and El Salvador. By reflecting on data from research projects conducted between 2015 to date, this study demonstrates in particular that UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Chapter IV C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) are not effectively applied to women and girls. The findings reveal significant contradictions between international standards and lived realities when it comes to contemporary phenomena such as gangs and digital crimes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Current Sociology
Published
2026-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921261453561
Primary Topic
Gender, Feminism, and Media
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From “iron fists” to digital traps: How contemporary legal policies bypass international gender standards

Michelle Lyttle Storrod, Ellen Van Damme
Current Sociology
Gender, Feminism, and Media
article

From “iron fists” to digital traps: How contemporary legal policies bypass international gender standards

Michelle Lyttle Storrod, Ellen Van Damme
article en

Abstract

Thirty years after the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA), the treatment of women and girls within the criminal justice system remains a critical area where international law clashes with national practice. This article looks at how the implementation of UN frameworks, including the BPfA, the Beijing Rules, and the Bangkok Rules, are applied to women and girls in conflict with the law in the United States, Honduras, and El Salvador. By reflecting on data from research projects conducted between 2015 to date, this study demonstrates in particular that UN Standards and Norms regarding the least possible use of institutionalization (BPfA Chapter IV C & D, Beijing Rule 19 & Bangkok Rule 2.1) and the elimination of discrimination (BPfA Rule 24, Beijing Rule 26.4, and Bangkok Rule 1) are not effectively applied to women and girls. The findings reveal significant contradictions between international standards and lived realities when it comes to contemporary phenomena such as gangs and digital crimes.

Current Sociology
Widener University (US), KU Leuven (BE)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Gender, Feminism, and Media
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.