Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 267–288 | Cite as

Protecting Victims of Forced Marriage: Is Age a Protective Factor?

  • Geetanjali Gangoli
  • Khatidja Chantler


This paper explores the UK’s legal interventions in the arena of forced marriage. Three key initiatives have been considered in the last 5 years: creating a specific crime of forced marriage; civil rather than criminal protection for victims; and an increase in the age of entry for non-EU spouses, with a corresponding increase in age for sponsoring such spouses. Our key focus is on the last of these interventions and we draw upon a research study conducted in the UK in 2006/2007 exploring the risks and benefits associated with increasing the age of sponsorship and entry. The UK government’s argument is that the increased maturity which comes from being older acts as a protective factor, thus making it easier to resist forced marriage. This view of maturity gains its saliency from developmental psychology. Here, we critically analyse the construct of age and the link between age and ability to resist forced marriage. We illustrate through the accounts of victims of forced marriage and of stakeholders the difficulties of adopting age as a central organising feature of protection for potential victims of forced marriage.


Age Developmental psychology Forced marriage Human Rights Immigration Resistance 



We would like to thank all the participants in our research study for their valuable and insightful contributions. We would also like to thank all the other researchers involved in our study: Marianne Hester, Bipasha Ahmed, Jasvinder Devgon, Melanie McCarry, Sandhya Sharma, Ann Singleton, Nicole Westmarland, and the anonymous reviewers for their very helpful views and comments. Both authors have made an equal contribution to the article.


  1. Anitha, Sundari, and Aisha Gill. 2009. Coercion, consent and the forced marriage debate in the UK. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batsleer, Janet, Erica Burman, Khatidja Chantler, Shirley Hindene McIntosh, Kamal Pantling, Sophie Smailes, and Sam Warner. 2002. Domestic violence and minoritisation: Supporting women to independence. Manchester: Women’s Studies Research Centre, Manchester Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  3. Brah, Avtar, and Ann Phoenix. 2004. “Ain’t I a woman?” Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s Studies 5: 75–86.Google Scholar
  4. Bristol City Council. 2008. Building the bridge. Accessed 24 January 2009.
  5. Broeke, Stijn, and Joseph Hamed. 2008. Gender gaps in higher education participation: An analysis of the relationship between prior attainment and young participation by gender, socio-economic class and ethnicity (DIUS Report 0814). London: Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.Google Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burman, Erica. 2008. Deconstructing developmental psychology, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Callender, Claire. 2002. The costs of widening participation: Contradictions in New Labour’s student funding policies. Social Policy & Society 1(2): 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chantler, Khatidja. 2006. Independence, dependency and inter-dependence: Struggles and resistances of minoritised women within and on leaving violent relationships. Feminist Review 82: 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chantler, Khatidja, Erica Burman, Janet Batsleer, and C. Bashir. 2001. Attempted suicide and self harm (South Asian women). Manchester: Women’s Studies Research Centre, Manchester Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  11. Clement, Grace. 1996. Care, autonomy and justice: Feminism and the ethic of care. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Steve. 2001. Immigration controls, the family and the welfare state. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  13. Derne, Steve. 1992. Beyond institutional and impulsive conceptions of self: Family structure and the socially anchored real self. Ethos 20(3): 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dworetzky, John, and Nancy Davis. 1989. Human development: A lifespan approach. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Erikson, Erik. 1959. Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2005. Forced marriage—a wrong not a right. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Google Scholar
  17. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2006. Forced marriage: A wrong not a right—summary of responses to the consultation on the criminalisation of forced marriage. London: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.Google Scholar
  18. Freud, Sigmund. 1905/1949. Three essays on the theory of sexuality (trans: James Strachey, 1949). London: Imago Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Gangoli, Geetanjali, Melanie McCarry, and Amina Razak. 2008. Child marriage or forced marriage? South Asian communities in north east England. Children and Society 23: 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Moreno, Claudia, Henrica Jansen, Charlotte Watts, and Mary Ellsberg. 2005. WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  21. Gesell, Arnold. 1954. The first five years of life. London: Metheun.Google Scholar
  22. Gibb, Frances. 2005. Who forces this woman to be married to this man? The Times, 24 May.Google Scholar
  23. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grabham, Emily, Davina Cooper, Jane Krishnadas, and Didi Herman (eds.). 2008. Intersectionality and beyond: Law, power and the politics of location. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  25. Greenfield, Patricia, and Rodney Cocking. 1994. Cross-cultural roots of minority child development. Hillsgate, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Hague, Gill, and Ellen Malos. 2005. Domestic violence: Action for change, 3rd ed. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, Deborah, and Beth Humphries. 2004. Social work, immigration and asylum: Debates, dilemmas and ethical issues for social work and social care practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  28. Hester, Marianne, Khatidja Chantler, and Geetanjali Gangoli. 2008. Forced marriage: The risk factors and the effect of raising the minimum age for a sponsor, and of leave to enter the UK as a spouse or fiancé(e). Bristol and Manchester: School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol and School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  29. Home Office Border and Immigration Agency. 2007. Marriage to partners from overseas: A consulation paper. London: The Home Office.Google Scholar
  30. Home Office UK Border Agency. 2008. Marriage visas: The way forward. Accessed 29 June 2009.
  31. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. 2008. Domestic violence, forced marriage, and “honour”-based violence (Sixth Report of Session 2007–08). London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
  32. Kakar, Sudhir. 1990. Intimate relations: Exploring Indian sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mayall, Berry. 2002. Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nash, Jennifer. 2008. Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review 89: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Office for National Statistics. 2004. Focus on religion. Accessed 29 September 2009.
  36. Ouattara, Mariam, Purna Sen, and Marilyn Thomson. 1998. Forced marriage, forced sex: The perils of childhood for girls. Gender and Development 6(3): 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Patel, Pragna. 2008. Faith in the state? Asian women’s struggles for human rights in the UK. Feminist Legal Studies 16: 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piaget, Jean. 1926. The language and thought of a child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Phillips, Ann, and Moira Dustin. 2004. UK initiatives on forced marriage: Regulation, dialogue and exit. Political Studies 52: 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Razack, Sherene. 2004. Imperilled Muslim women, dangerous Muslim men and civilised Europeans: Legal and social responses to forced marriages. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 129–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robinson, Lena. 2007. Cross cultural child development for social workers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Sanghera, Jasvinder. 2007. Shame. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  43. Sen, Purna. 2005. “Crimes of honour”, value and meaning. In “Honour” crimes, paradigms and violence against women, ed. Lynn Welchman, and Sarah Hossain, 42–63. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  44. Siddiqui, Hannana. 2003. “It wes written in her kismet”: Forced marriage. In From homebreakers to jailbreakers, ed. Rahila Gupta, 67–91. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  45. Siddiqui, Hannana. 2005. “There is no honour in domestic violence, only shame!” Women’s struggles against “honour” crime the UK. In “Honour” crimes, paradigms and violence against women, ed. Lynn Welchman, and Sarah Hossain, 263–281. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  46. Skinner, Burrhus Fredric. 1938. The behaviour of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  47. Trinh, T. Min-ha. 1989. Woman, native, other: Writing postcoloniality and feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vygotsky, Lev. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watson, John. 1930. Behaviourism, rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Welchman, Lynn, and Sarah Hossain (eds.). 2005. “Honour”crimes, paradigms and violence against women. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School for Policy StudiesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social WorkManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations