Definition of gender-based violence_2

• Balancing legal certainty and policy inclusiveness

A recurring issue around Article 10 concerns the balance between legal certainty and institutional policy. Institutions often seek legal certainty to ensure that their policies are clear, predictable, and defensible, particularly in contexts where decisions may be challenged internally or externally. In this sense, concerns about legal certainty relate to how institutional policies align with, and can be defended under, national legal frameworks. In practice, this may lead institutions to favour narrower definitions, even where broader institutional standards would be legally permissible. 

At the same time, institutional policies are not required to mirror criminal law definitions and, in many cases, should not do so. Instead, institutions can rely on their duties of care, equality obligations, and responsibilities as employers and education providers to justify broader definitions of unacceptable conduct. 

• Thresholds, subtle harms, and intent

A related policy dilemma concerns the inclusion of subtle or less visible behaviours, such as microaggressions, gender harassment, or patterns of exclusion. While these behaviours may not meet national legal thresholds for sanction, excluding them from institutional definitions would undermine prevention efforts and fail to capture the realities of gender-based violence in academic settings. The continuum approach embedded in Article 10 is therefore essential for legitimising early intervention and proportionate responses. 

Another key issue relates to intent. Article 10 focuses on harm and impact rather than the alleged perpetrator’s intention. This represents a significant shift for many institutions, where misconduct is often minimised if framed as unintentional, humorous, or culturally specific. From a policy perspective, this shift is necessary to ensure consistent and victim-centred responses.

• National and socio-political environments

There is no single, comprehensive definition of gender-based violence across European national legislations, and the issue is addressed through a patchwork of terms and policies, such as sexism, sexual harassment, discrimination, or workplace misconduct.  

The interpretation and implementation of Article 10 is therefore particularly affected by national legal terminology and frameworks and broader socio-political contexts. In some contexts, particularly in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, the concept of gender-based violence itself may be politically contested or publicly misunderstood. This can create resistance at leadership level and uncertainty among staff and students. 

• Framing strategies and their limits

In such contexts, institutions may need to pay particular attention to how the definition is framed and communicated, without weakening its substance. Anchoring the definition in widely accepted principles such as dignity, equality, non-discrimination, and occupational safety is considered a possible strategy to support institutional buy-in. However, alternative framing has its downsides, as it risks avoiding a more explicit engagement with issues of violence and power. 

• Intersectional inclusion across national contexts

Differences in how sexual orientation and gender identity are addressed across national contexts are also relevant.  

“In [my country], the regulation is binary, focusing on men and women, which directly impacts universities as employers.” [GenderSAFE CoP participant – CEE Circle] 

This, in turn, restricts from the outset how institutions can define and address gender-based violence in a more inclusive way.  

The explicit inclusion of these grounds in Article 10 reflects the Model Policy Framework’s normative ambition and its alignment with European-level standards, even when national legislation may be more restrictive and may impose negotiation and adaptation. 

• Concerns about scope and proportionality

A frequent concern relates to fears of ‘over-inclusiveness’. These concerns take two related forms. On the one hand, institutions may worry that a broad definition could lead to excessive reporting. On the other, there is concern that recognising a wide range of behaviours as gender-based violence could result in responses that are not proportionate to the severity of the conduct. 

With regard to excessive reporting, it is important to note that available evidence consistently points to the persistence of under-reporting of gender-based violence, rather than the opposite. Concerns about over-reporting therefore need to be considered in light of the significant proportion of harm that remains undisclosed. 

At the same time, recognising a behaviour as gender-based violence does not automatically imply severe disciplinary sanctions. Instead, it enables a range of proportionate and context-sensitive responses, including preventive, supportive, and informal measures where appropriate. 

• Consistency and capacity

Another anticipated challenge concerns internal consistency. Adopting a broad definition at policy level, while retaining narrow interpretations in reporting mechanisms or case-handling practices, could undermine trust in the policy and discourage reporting. 

Capacity-building and training are also critical issues. A broad definition requires staff, managers, and decision-makers to be able to recognise different forms of gender-based violence and understand their organisational manifestations. Without sustained training and guidance, Article 10 risks remaining declarative rather than operational. 

References to definitions of gender-based violence in RFO funding requirements or evaluation frameworks can support a shared understanding across institutions and orient them towards zero-tolerance approaches. Such references may encourage alignment around broader, impact-focused definitions and reduce fragmentation in how gender-based violence is framed at the institutional level.

• Ensuring coherence across tools

Ensuring conceptual consistency across institutional tools is a key aspect. This means aligning the definition of gender-based violence in the policy with the language used in reporting forms, internal guidance, case-handling protocols, so that a broad definition adopted at policy level is not unintentionally narrowed in practice. 

• Using the definition as an institutional learning resource

Article 10 should be intended as a reference point in training and prevention activities. When integrated into leadership training, staff development, and bystander initiatives, the definition supports shared understanding and helps institutions collectively reflect on how gender-based violence manifests in their specific academic and organisational contexts.