The Impediment of Abduction of the 1983 CIC (c. 1089) in the Context of Forced Marriage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14422/ee.v98.i387.y2023.005Keywords:
autonomy, canon law, coercion, forced marriage, impediment of abductionAbstract
The impediment of abduction regulated in the Code of the Latin Church and in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches contemplates two of the most radical coercive mechanisms to obtain matrimonial consent, abduction and the retention intuitu matrimonii. The present study analyses canon 1089 of the 1983 CIC with the aim of assessing the convenience and opportunity of maintaining this canonical figure. In order to do so, it is necessary to take into account the phenomenology of forced marriage, in terms of its causes, expressive forms of coercion and consequences, as currently described by international norms. Several questions arise in this reflection. Firstly, whether the configuration of the impediment, only in relation to the abducted woman, constitutes discrimination and whether it responds to normative schemes typical of a restorative legal technique; secondly, how the active subject of the ruling norm should be interpreted, taking into account the social and cultural contexts of forced marriage; and, finally, whether from the victims’ experience there is a «safe and free place» that guarantees a minimum threshold of autonomy for the ordinary cessation of the impediment or whether, on the contrary, the set of coercive forces that operate in the unwanted marriage reinforce the presumption of the defect of consent and suggest attending to the process of formation of the nuptial will, integrating the situations of abduction and retention with a view to marriage in the chapter of vis vel metus.
Downloads
References
Acuña Guirola, Sara. “Consideraciones acerca de la regulación del impedimento de rapto”. Ius Canonicum 39 (1999): 739-746. https://doi.org/10.15581/016.39.15797
Alonso Lobo, Arturo, Lorenzo Miguélez Domínguez y Sabino Alonso Morán. Comentarios al Código de Derecho Canónico II. Madrid: BAC, 1963.
Álvarez, Silvina. “El umbral de autonomía. La concepción relacional y la construcción de las opciones”. En Autonomía individual frente autonomía colectiva. Derechos en conflicto, coordinado por Liborio L. Hierro, 53-78. Madrid, 2014.
Anitha, Sundari y Aisha Gill. “Coertion, Consent and the Forced Marriage Debate in the UK”. Feminist Legal Studies 17 (2009): 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-009-9119-4
Aznar Gil, Federico R. Derecho matrimonial canónico. Vol. I: Cánones 1055-1094. Salamanca, 2001.
Bernárdez Cantón, Alberto. Compendio de derecho matrimonial canónico. Madrid, 2006.
Bersini, Francesco. Il dirito canonico matrimoniale. Commento giuridico – teológico – pastorale. Torino, 1994. Cappello, Felix M. Summa Iuris Canonici. Vol. II. Romae, 1951.
Chiappetta, Luigi. Il matrimonio nella nouva legislazione canonica e concordataria. Roma, 1990.
Della Rocca, Fernando. “De ‘locus tutus ac liber’ di cui al Can. 1074 C.J.C”. Il Diritto Eccleciastico 69 (1958): 179-184.
Fornés, Juan. Derecho Matrimonial Canónico. Madrid, 2018.
Gangoli, Geetanjali, Khatidja Chantler, Marianne Hester y Ann Singleton. “Understanding forced marriage: definitions and realities”. En Forced Marriage. Introducing a social justice and human rights perspective, editado por Sundari Anitha, 25-36. London: Zed Books, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350220201.ch-001
Gasparri, Petrus. Tractatus canonicus de matrimonio. Vol. I. Romae, 1932.
Gill, Aisha y Sundari Anitha. “The illusion of protection? An analysis of forced marriage legislation and policy in the UK”. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 31, n.º 3 (2009): 257-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649060903354589
González del Valle, José M.ª Derecho canónico matrimonial según el Código de 1983. Pamplona, 1983.
Heiman, Heather y Jeanne Smoot. Forced Marriage in Immigrant Communities in the United States. 2011 National Survey Results. Baltimore: Tahirih Justice Center, 2011.
Igareda González, Noelia. “Debates sobre la autonomía y el consentimiento en los matrimonios forzados”. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez 47 (2013): 203-219. https://doi.org/10.30827/acfs.v47i0.2164
Igareda González, Noelia. “Matrimonios forzados: ¿otra oportunidad para el derecho penal simbólico?”. InDret, Revista para el análisis del derecho 1 (2015): 1-18. https://indret.com/wp-content/themes/indret/pdf/1101.pdf
Kleinbach, Russell y Gazbubu Babaiarova. “Reducing non consensual bride kidnapping in Kyrgystan”. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences 1, n.º 1 (2013): 50-60.
López Alarcón, Mariano y Rafael Navarro Valls. Curso de derecho matrimonial canónico y concordado. Madrid: Tecnos, 2005.
López Medina, Aurora. “Consecuencias socio-jurídicas de la regulación del rapto en materia matrimonial”. Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado 31 (2013). https://www.iustel.com/v2/revistas/detalle_revista.asp?id_noticia=413033
McKenna Lundberg, Alexandria. “Prosecuting Bride Kidnapping: The Law Isn’t Enough Aligning Cultural Norms with the Law”. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 53, 1, n.º 1 (2021): 475-522.
Montero y Gutiérrez, Eloy. El matrimonio y las causas matrimoniales. Madrid, 1965.
Muldoon, Ryan y Ursula Casabonne. Bride Kidnapping and Women’s Civic Participation in the Kyrigyz Republic, Washington: World Bank Group, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1596/28989
Navarrete, Urbano. “Los impedimentos relativos a la dignidad del hombre: ‘aetas’, ‘raptus’, ‘crimen’”. En Derecho matrimonial canónico. Evolución a la luz del Concilio Vaticano II, 473-488. Madrid: BAC, 2007.
Pellegrino, Piero. “L’impedimento del ratto nell’attuale diritto matrimoniale canonico (can. 1089 CJC E can. 806 CCEO)”. Revista Española de Derecho Canónico 57 (2000): 559-587. https://doi.org/10.36576/summa.6062
Peña García, Carmen. “El matrimonio en el ordenamiento canónico: posibles líneas de reforma legislativa”. Revista Española de Derecho Canónico 70 (2013): 195-227. https://doi.org/10.36576/summa.31341
Poggi, Francesca. “Sobre el concepto de violencia de género y su relevancia para el derecho”. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho 42 (2019): 285-307. https://doi.org/10.14198/DOXA2019.42.12
Psaila, Emma, Vanessa Leigh, Marilena Verbari, Sara Fiorentini, Virginia Dalla Pozza y Ana Gómez. Forced marriage from a gender perspective (Parlamento Europeo – Directorate General for Internal Policies), 2016.
Salat Paisal, Marc. “Derecho penal y matrimonios forzados. ¿Es adecuada la actual política criminal?”. Política Criminal 15, n.º 29 (2020): 386- 405. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33992020000100386
Saldaña Díaz, María Nieves. “Estándares internacionales adoptados por las Naciones Unidas y el Consejo de Europa para combatir la vulneración de los derechos humanos de las mujeres y las niñas en base a prácticas tradicionales nocivas: los matrimonios infantiles tempranos y forzados”. Anuario de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado 32 (2006): 263- 316. https://www.boe.es/biblioteca_juridica/anuarios_derecho/abrir_pdf.php?id=ANU-E-2016-10026300316
Tahirih Justice Center. Falling Through the Cracks. How Laws Allow Child Marriage to Happen in Today’s America. 2017. https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TahirihChildMarriageReport-1.pdf
Torres Rosell, Nuria. “Matrimonio forzado: aproximación fenomenológica y análisis de los procesos de incriminación”. Estudios Penales y Criminológicos 35 (2015): 831-917.
Viladrich, Pedro-Juan. El consentimiento matrimonial. Técnicas de calificación y exégesis de las causas canónicas de nulidad (cc. 1095 a 1107 CIC). Pamplona, 1998.
Villacampa, Carolina y Nuria Torres. “El matrimonio forzado en España. Una aproximación empírica”. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica 17 (2019): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.46381/reic.v17i0.154
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Estudios Eclesiásticos. Revista de investigación e información teológica y canónica
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors in Estudios Eclesiásticos retain the intellectual property rights over their works and grant the journal their distribution and public communication rights, consenting to their publication under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivates 4.0 Internacional. Authors are encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example, on institutional or personal pages, repositories, etc.) respecting the conditions of this license and quoting appropriately the original source.