State Feminism and the Implementation of the Istanbul Convention in Croatia and Slovenia

The signing of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) in May 2011 marked a significant milestone in Europe's efforts to combat gender-based violence. Widely regarded as the most comprehensive legal instrument addressing violence against women, the Convention establishes binding obligations across four pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution, and coordinated policies. To date, 39 countries have ratified it. Yet despite its ambitious scope and widespread acceptance, questions remain about whether states are actually implementing the convention. Some countries have passed strong laws and built robust services, while others have done relatively little. This gap raises a key question: what actually drives successful implementation of the Convention? This paper argues that state feminism, specifically, how women's policy agencies and their relationships with women's movements shape how countries actually implement what they've signed. State feminist theory offers competing predictions: some institutionalists argue well-resourced WPAs ensure implementation through bureaucratic capacity; while some critical feminists contend autonomous movements drive change. To examine this, I compare how Croatia and Slovenia have implemented the Istanbul Convention thus far. Croatia and Slovenia provide theoretically strategic cases. Both are post-Yugoslav EU members that have ratified the Convention. However, they differ in their state feminist architecture: Slovenia has established, well-resourced gender equality mechanisms with cross-ministerial reach, while Croatia has weaker WPAs but highly mobilized feminist civil society facing organized conservative opposition. This variation enables assessment of whether institutional capacity or movement strength matters more, and under what conditions each proves effective. Using comparative case analysis, I rely on process tracing to examine implementation by looking at legislative reform, protection infrastructures, prosecution mechanisms, and coordination systems. The analysis draws information pulled from document analysis of GREVIO evaluations and shadow reports produced by NGOs and CSOs, as well as interviews with experts in both countries. This research contributes to state feminist and feminist comparative policy scholarship, while also adding to the growing literature that is examining implementation of gender equality policies.