If We Are to Build It: Global Gender Equality Constitutional Database

25 Aug, 2024

I was particularly impressed by the Global Gender Equality Constitutional Database. The UN Women-led Global Gender Equality Constitutional Database has become an important resource for comparative constitutional law and gender justice. It does what it stands for - pioneering resource for advancing gender justice worldwide. By far, it seems to be one of the most robust repositories at the intersection of constitutional texts and women’s rights. But if we are to truly mainstream gender in legal frameworks, the tools must evolve — from text banks to dynamic instruments of analysis, interpretation, and practice. That shift must be infrastructural, not merely editorial. A gender equality database must be built not as a bookshelf but as a toolkit. Filling the cupboard requires a concerted effort to address all dimensions of gender equality.¹ It requires inclusion of groups stocked with a full range of rights and protections that meets the well-defined needs of the said groups.

While the current database is robust and admirably comprehensive, it still operates largely as a static repository. It catalogs constitutional texts, but offers limited support for interpretation, temporal analysis, or user-defined interaction. Without layers that allow for historical tracking, comparative synthesis, and real-time annotation, its utility for both scholarly and activist communities remains limited. What’s needed is a shift from archival to analytical — from merely preserving texts to actively interrogating them.

Currently, I have a meagre job combing through legal databases to do reductive research and prepare mass reports. But if one were to dream and think I had the opportunity to participate in developing this database, I would try a lot of things out.

To begin with, of course, history. A timeline tool. It will track the historical evolution of gender equality provisions within constitutions. This timeline will highlight key amendments, revisions, or the introduction of new provisions over time, offering a clear view of how gender equality in legal frameworks has progressed in different countries.

Next, would-be trend analysis feature with a comparative base. Users will track and predict shifts in constitutional provisions over time. This could significantly increase the database's utility for those engaged in comparative legal research and advocacy as it can have a side-by-side comparison tool that will allow users to compare specific constitutional provisions from different countries side by side. An amendment/adoption alert system that notifies users of new amendments or changes to gender-related constitutional provisions in real-time. This feature could be crucial for activists, policymakers, and researchers who need to stay informed about legal developments as they happen and looking to understand how different nations approach similar issues.

This one's a bit tricky, because I have not thought this through but, thematic comparisons. An option to generate results that compile and contrast constitutional provisions related to specific themes such as "Women's Right to Property," "Reproductive Rights," or "Gender-Based Violence" across various countries and how are they affecting one another. I am not so sure on this because, the grundnorm is tied to politics and ethics of framers. And, even if one were to enter into the minds of the makers of one constitution with suggested keys², it is often drenched with regional and moral ideologies.

Another long-term, perhaps ambitious, idea is to develop a side-by-side judicial interpretation annotation system, which would serve as a case law database to demonstrate how rights for women have been achieved through judicial interpretation or intervention and how these provisions are applied or interpreted in practice. My inspiration for this idea was the ICC Case Law Database. I was also thinking of integration of expert commentary or legal interpretations of key constitutional provisions, offering deeper insights into the intent and implications of the laws but not sure about this as of now.

A toolkit that would analyze trends and develop best practices toolkit or build a roadmap for infant constitutions. This will be connected to constitutional provisions with, of course, CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and cross-referenced to practical applications of constitutional frameworks, in courts, legislation, and policy. Another feature would be to offer model constitutional provisions or language that countries can adopt or adapt during constitutional drafting processes and modules on how to draft, analyze, and advocate for gender-sensitive constitutional provisions. These models could be based on the most effective and inclusive provisions identified in the database that would mainstream the gender in constitutions.

When it comes to dashboards, I prefer it to be user centric. Allowing users to customize their personalized dashboards where they can save searches, track specific constitutional provisions, or monitor amendments in real time. They can also have interactive versions of constitutions where users can click on specific articles to see related gender equality provisions, their interpretations, and linked case laws. A database of this kind should serve multiple publics: the scholar writing on comparative constitutionalism, the student searching for precedent, the policymaker drafting gender provisions, and the activist negotiating legislative reforms on the ground. Designing with only one of these groups in mind undermines the real-world utility of the tool. Accessibility must go beyond multilingual search bars — it must reflect the lived, material conditions of legal access. Interoperability with open legal data standards and API-based accessibility could enable external researchers, civic technologists, and open-government platforms to plug into the database — enhancing reach without compromising governance. ³

Of course, such a project is not without complexity. Constitutional interpretation is rarely neutral, and the embedding of gender-sensitive language into law does not guarantee progressive outcomes. Moreover, building a database with accurate, timely legal updates, jurisdiction-specific interpretations, and language localization is a non-trivial task. It would require not only technical infrastructure but a politically insulated governance model — something that ensures independence, but also responsiveness to the pace of global constitutional change.

There are precedents worth learning from: the OECD Gender Data Portal, UCL’s Constitute Project, and the Human Rights Index provide fragments of what this database could integrate. But no single tool yet maps constitutional text, interpretation, change, and use through a gendered lens.

At a time when gender justice is increasingly contested — both overtly and through legislative backchannels — constitutional literacy is not optional. It is a civic imperative. A global constitutional database rooted in gender justice is not just an academic project; it is an infrastructural intervention. It is a method of preserving rights, documenting erasures, and creating transnational solidarity through legal visibility. If we are to build it, we must build it with care, with foresight, and above all, with an understanding that constitutional text is never just text — it is terrain⁴.

Any such platform must also reckon with issues of data ownership, legal sovereignty, and jurisdictional boundaries. Constitutional data, though often publicly accessible, is still embedded within national frameworks that may resist external interpretation or universalizing frameworks. The question becomes: who curates? Who updates? Who decides which amendments are significant, or which judicial interpretations are included? The database must be transparent not only in content but also in editorial methodology.

The architecture of the database must also account for linguistic diversity. Too often, legal resources center English or French at the expense of constitutional texts written, debated, and lived in other languages. A gender justice constitutional database that ignores the semantic politics of translation risks flattening meaning and misrepresenting intent. Local idioms, cultural markers, and regionally resonant terms around gender and rights must be preserved rather than overwritten by global legal language.

A final concern — and perhaps one of the more difficult to operationalize — is that of gender plurality. Much of comparative constitutional work still operates within a framework that sees "gender" as a proxy for "women," and "women" as a stable, legally legible category. But what about constitutions that erase or criminalize trans identities? What about intersex recognition? Or non-binary existence? Any database committed to gender justice must be prepared to engage with the full spectrum of gendered experience, even when constitutions refuse to name it.

A project of this scale must not only be built but also governed with intention. Questions around its maintenance, funding, accessibility, and editorial independence are not peripheral — they are foundational. A global gender database cannot be housed within a single academic institution or governmental body. It should be distributed, community-moderated, and informed by an advisory collective drawn from legal scholars, activists, translators, technologists, and constitutional experts from across regions. Its credibility will depend on how it balances authority with accountability.

A static archive shows what has been written. A living database reveals what is being rewritten, recontested, and reclaimed. The future of gender equality depends not only on what constitutions say — but on how we read them, and who we let read along with us.

P.S.: This post is a part of an ongoing reflection on digital legal infrastructures and feminist legal theory.⁵ It draws from personal research experiences and imagined futures in the space of law and design. I welcome conversation, critique, and collaboration from anyone interested in constitutional design, legal infrastructure, and gender justice. If you're working on similar tools or thinking through comparable frameworks — feel free to reach out. These ideas are not a roadmap, but a proposal — imagined from the outside-in.