Theoretical perspectives
Firstly, it is important to note that there is disagreement both in political debate and in research about how honour-based violence and oppression, as well as its causes and underlying mechanisms, should be understood, which also has implications for which solutions are considered most appropriate. In 2010, the National Centre for Knowledge on Men’s Violence Against Women at Uppsala University in Sweden presented the report Honour-based Violence – a Knowledge and Research Report focusing on Swedish research on honour-based violence and oppression as well as arranged marriages and forced marriages. The report also includes influential international research. The report shows that in Swedish research on honour-based violence and oppression, three theoretical perspectives have emerged that present different explanatory models for the emergence of honour-based violence and oppression – the distinctiveness or cultural perspective, the gender power perspective and the intersectional perspective. Although it has been almost 15 years since the report was presented, this division is still relevant and can serve as a way of structuring different approaches to the subject. In addition to representing theoretical perspectives, they can also be identified in contemporary political and legal practices, i.e. how the problem is understood in different countries and the consequences this has for the strategies chosen to combat honour-based violence and oppression.
One of the most central questions concerns whether honour-based violence and oppression should be regarded as a distinct phenomenon or as a form of men’s violence against women, violence in close relationships or gender-based violence. Proponents of a distinctiveness or cultural perspective assert that honour-based violence and oppression is motivated by and expressed in the cultural norms and values of ethnic minorities. They argue that honour-based violence is a distinct phenomenon that differs from other forms of violence (men’s violence against women). The cultural perspective also focuses on potential conflicts that arise within families, between parents and children, and the surrounding community (traditional conservative norms versus liberal values regarding sex, marriage, abortion, etc.)
In response to the cultural perspective, advocates of a gender power perspective argue that honour-based violence and oppression should be understood as a form of men’s violence against women based on global patriarchal structures. Proponents of this perspective are critical of the use of culture as an explanatory model, as it is only applied in relation to cultures identified as ‘Others’ and tends to present honour-based violence and oppression as more severe and significantly different from violence perpetrated by Western men. From a gender power perspective, it is more important and tenable to analyse the similarities between honour-based violence and oppression and men’s violence against women. Honour should be understood as one of many strategies used to legitimise men’s control and power over women. Even in cases where women in a family perpetrate violence in the name of honour, it is linked to the superior position of men.
An intersectional perspective, on the other hand, constitutes a holistic societal analysis of honour-based violence and oppression that encompasses a variety of power structures (including gender power structures) and their interaction. An intersectional analysis is used to highlight the multitude of vulnerabilities to honour-based violence and oppression based on gender, class, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender identity and sexuality. Proponents of an intersectional perspective argue that there should also be a focus on analysing the treatment of victims of violence and the consequences of measures against honour-based violence and oppression.
Previous research on honour-based violence and oppression has raised several important questions about how honour-based violence and oppression and its causes should be understood. Should it be treated separate from or together with other forms of violence? And how should work against honour-based violence and oppression be conducted in a non-discriminatory way?
Nordic study 2020
In 2020, the consulting firm Rambøll conducted a study of strategies and initiatives for preventing negative social control and honour-based violence and oppression in the Nordic countries on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers. The aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of strategies and legislation and the organisation of work in the region. The study presents a summary of how the terms ‘negative social control’ and ‘honour-based violence’ are used. These terms are examined in relation to other terms such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘violence against women’. The 2020 study shows that the use of different terms and how they relate to the area of men’s violence against women varies across the Nordic countries. It also shows how this affects strategic work and the policy areas in which honour-based violence and oppression are positioned: violence against women, violence in close relationships or integration. The study also highlights differences in how work against honour-based violence and oppression is organised at a strategic level in the Nordic countries. According to the study, Denmark and Norway are taking direct measures focusing on honour-based violence and negative social control and have specific national-level specific strategies focused on honour-based violence and oppression. Strategic work in Sweden, Finland and Iceland, on the other hand, is characterised by more indirect measures. Honour-based violence is included in broader strategic initiatives, which encompass work to combat men’s violence against women and violence in close relationships.
In Denmark and Norway, negative social control and honour-based violence are included in the scope of violence in close relationships, while Finland, Iceland and Sweden include honour-based violence and oppression in the scope of men’s violence against women and violence in close relationships. Men’s violence against women is a broader area that includes both interpersonal violence (violence in close relationships) and structural violence (patriarchal structures and norms as well as violence against women in public spaces).
In addition, work against honour-based violence in Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland is included in the area of integration, with a focus on ethnic minorities and closed religious communities. According to the study, there is a degree of ambiguity in Sweden in terms of how the problem is viewed by different actors: as belonging to the area of integration or as a separate area. The study noted that Sweden’s official steering documents contained no explicit references to immigrant groups or ethnic minorities.
The study also highlights organisational differences in how preventive work, outreach and intervention efforts are organised. Different countries place varying degrees of emphasis on these three areas, and there are varying degrees of coordination between strategic work and practical measures, as well as between the actors involved. This study will tie in with the results presented in the 2020 study, which focused on the use of concepts and problem formulations.
The Istanbul Convention and Grevio reviews
The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) is an international convention that aims to combat violence against women and violence in close relationships. The Convention has been ratified by all Nordic countries. The purpose of the Convention is to protect women and girls against all forms of violence, including honour-based violence and oppression, and to prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence. The Convention establishes that violence against women is an expression of unequal power relations. According to the Istanbul Convention, honour-based violence and oppression are understood as a form of gender-based violence.
Honour and honour-based violence are addressed in the Convention in the following context: The preamble states that “crimes committed in the name of so-called ‘honour’…constitute a serious violation of the human rights of women and girls.” Furthermore, Article 12 states that Parties to the Convention “shall ensure that culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be considered as justification for any acts of violence covered by the scope of [the] Convention.” Article 42 states that “Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that, in criminal proceedings initiated following the commission of any of the acts of violence covered by the scope of [the] Convention, culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be regarded as justification for such acts. This covers, in particular, claims that the victim has transgressed cultural, religious, social or traditional norms or customs of appropriate behaviour.” In other words, all parties are encouraged to prohibit any attempts to justify crimes on the basis of so-called honour.
The Council of Europe’s expert group GREVIO serves as the monitoring mechanism for the Istanbul Convention and is tasked with regularly reviewing the compliance of countries that have acceded to the Convention. The following section summarises GREVIO’s reviews of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in relation to honour-based violence.
Denmark was reviewed in 2017 in a so-called Baseline Evaluation Report. The general criticism concerned Denmark’s gender-neutral approach to issues of violence, which results in less specialist support for women only. According to the review, gender-based violence has been replaced by gender-neutral concepts and terminology, such as ‘bi-directional violence’, ‘negative social control’ (a concept that only seems to apply to people with immigrant backgrounds) and the use of the term ‘patient’ or ‘client’ instead of ‘woman’. In relation to honour-based violence, GREVIO writes that Denmark’s action plans present an understanding of “honour-related conflicts and negative social control” that is not based on a gendered understanding of violence. GREVIO believes that approaches that focus on culture rather than gender power relations obscure the root causes of honour-based violence as a form of gender-based violence to which women are subjected because they are women, not just because they belong to a particular ethnic group. This prevents a broader perspective on the various manifestations of violence against women. It can also contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes about ethnic minorities that results in them being discriminated against.
Furthermore, GREVIO notes that responsibility for the various national action plans is divided between the Ministry of Justice, Department of Gender Equality within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Integration and Immigration (violence in close relationships) and the Ministry of Immigration and Integration (honour-based violence). Without any obvious links and structures for cooperation, such coexistence of different national action plans can easily lead to fragmentation and the division of policies that can stand in the way of consensus and continuity in the work against violence. GREVIO also criticises Danish media coverage for its tendency to portray incidents of violence against women in a sensationalist manner, attributing violence to a particular migrant community or trivialising violence by referring to it as a ‘family tragedy’. These problematic portrayals of violence risk obscuring the power dynamics behind violence and its gendered nature. This criticism is not directed at the state’s work to combat violence, but it is nevertheless relevant to raise in relation to the problem itself.
Finland’s work against violence was reviewed in 2019. GREVIO notes and criticises a similar tendency to that seen in Denmark, namely gender neutrality in relation to issues of violence, which runs counter to Finland’s strong political tradition of working for equality between men and women. GREVIO writes: “Without an in-depth understanding of the gendered nature of all forms of violence against women, underlying issues of power and control and its impact on victims, investigations and case-building will be lacking in quality.” GREVIO has also requested that violence against ethnic minorities and women with migrant backgrounds be given greater prominence, for example through studies of violence and special initiatives. GREVIO also states that the gendered nature of violence should be emphasised, including in cases of honour-based violence.
Iceland’s work to combat violence against women was reviewed in 2022. GREVIO urges Iceland to promote awareness-raising campaigns and conduct research on forms of violence that are currently less explored in Iceland, such as stalking, female genital cutting, forced marriage, forced sterilisation, forced abortion and violence in the name of ‘honour’. In Iceland, there were no specific steering documents or action plans for combating these forms of violence. GREVIO acknowledges that the lack of specific steering documents is due to the relatively low frequency of incidents and reporting, but at the same time notes that this may have a negative impact on women belonging to migrant groups. Another criticism raised concerns the lack of measures to combat intersectional discrimination, to which women with a migrant background, for example, are exposed or at risk of exposure.
Norway underwent a review in 2022, the same year as Iceland. In its review, GREVIO criticises Norway’s approach to dealing with negative social control, violence in the name of so-called honour, forced marriage and female genital cutting from a cultural perspective. GREVIO writes: “negative social control, violence related to ‘honour’, forced marriage and female genital mutilation which appears to regard the issue as a cultural one instead of adopting a gendered understanding of violence committed in the name of ‘honour’”. GREVIO welcomes Norway’s efforts to address the issue of honour-based violence but believes that approaching the problem from the view of culture and integration risks overlooking the root causes of honour-based violence. It may also contribute to reinforcing stereotypes of ethnic minorities. GREVIO opposes the construction of violence in the name of honour and violence that occurs within families with migrant backgrounds as different phenomena. Another criticism raised concerns the tendency towards a gender-neutral approach to the problem of violence, both in the private and public domains. This renders the gender equality perspective invisible in relevant laws, steering documents, data, etc.
Sweden was reviewed in 2018. On the one hand, it is praised for clearly recognising the gendered nature of violence in its steering documents, measures and educational materials. On the other hand, it is noted that comprehensive political measures taken to combat violence against women sometimes fail to cover certain groups, namely women belonging to national minorities, women with disabilities, women with migrant backgrounds and other women who are exposed to intersectional discrimination. GREVIO also writes that criticism has been levelled at the discourse on honour-based violence and how it is reflected in key steering documents and material used by schools. ‘Honour-related’ value systems and their consequences for girls and boys seem to be discussed exclusively in relation to people born outside Sweden and as something that only occurs among non-ethnic Swedes. As a result, preventive work within the school system is criticised for singling out ethnic minorities. The focus is more on children’s membership of a collective than on more comprehensive attempts to identify children who may be exposed to violence and control or witness to violence in the home.
In November 2024, the first thematic review of Sweden was published, titled Building trust by delivering support, protection and justice. In its review, GREVIO welcomes Sweden’s new legislation in the area, including the criminalisation of honour-based violence and oppression. However, the committee expresses concern about the ethnic perspective that dominates the country’s work against honour-based violence and oppression. Among other things, they criticise the association of honour-based violence with specific groups of migrants that are perceived as patriarchal, which risks contributing to the marginalisation of minorities. Furthermore, the significance of patriarchal structures in relation to other forms of violence against women is undermined due to a gender-neutral perspective on violence.
In summary, the Istanbul Convention, together with the GREVIO review committee, asserts that honour-based violence is a form of gender-based violence and that the gendered nature of this violence risks being obscured when focus is directed on culture as the root cause. At the same time, a gender-based understanding does not exclude the need for specially targeted measures for different groups. GREVIO welcomes the fact that several countries are all separately addressing the problem of honour-based violence but is critical of integration perspectives and the portrayal of honour-based violence as something that only occurs among ethnic minorities. A key development observed in several countries is the tendency to adopt a gender-neutral approach to violence against women. The dominant cultural understanding of honour-based violence is linked to and can be seen as an expression of this development. Honour-based violence is considered patriarchal, while other forms of violence against women are presented as gender-neutral.
Delimination
Due to the study’s aims and methodology, certain limitations need to be clarified. Firstly, it does not identify cases that can be viewed as successful examples or effective methods. Given that it is based on a critical policy analysis, it is beyond the scope of this study to investigate or measure strategies and initiatives that produce the best results. Such an assessment would require a different study design, for example involving the collection of statistical data and conducting of interviews.
Secondly, although the study covers several countries and autonomous regions, it does not aim to compare between them how work is conducted.
At the same time, different countries and autonomous regions will be related to each other based on the questions being answered. As previously noted, the scope of material varies between the different countries and autonomous regions, which also makes comparison difficult.
As stated, the study material consists of various types of documents, such as national strategies, action plans and steering documents for authorities. By its very nature, such material is subject to change based on political and legal developments. Therefore, a time limit was set for the collection of material. The collection of material took place during spring, ending in August 2024. Processing and analysis were carried out during the autumn of 2024. As such, any changes made to existing material or new material published after August 2024 is not included in the scope of the report.