Comparative Domestic Abuse Frameworks
THE FRACTURED STATE
Comparative Domestic Abuse Frameworks and the Global Challenge of Safeguarding Continuity
By Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Across the world, domestic abuse legislation has evolved significantly over the last three decades. Yet despite major progress, one central problem remains:
Domestic abuse is still treated inconsistently across jurisdictions, institutions, and legal systems.
Some countries recognise coercive control as central to abuse.
Others continue to focus primarily on physical violence.
Some operate through unified statutory frameworks.
Others rely upon fragmented state-by-state or province-by-province protections.
The result is a deeply uneven global safeguarding landscape.
This comparative overview explores how different jurisdictions define, criminalise, and operationalise domestic abuse — and why institutional continuity remains one of the defining safeguarding challenges of our time.
SCOTLAND — A STRUCTURALLY INTEGRATED MODEL
Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018
The Scottish framework is widely regarded internationally as one of the most comprehensive legislative approaches to domestic abuse.
Implemented in 2019, the Act recognises domestic abuse as a course of conduct rather than isolated incidents alone. Importantly, it incorporates:
within a single criminal framework.
This marked a major shift away from models focused predominantly upon physical injury.
The Scottish approach reflects a broader understanding that abuse often operates as a pattern of entrapment and control rather than discrete acts of violence.
UNITED STATES — STRONG ADVOCACY, FRAGMENTED STRUCTURE
The United States operates through a highly decentralised legal structure.
Domestic abuse laws vary significantly between states, creating substantial differences in:
definitions,
protection thresholds,
evidential requirements,
criminal penalties,
and recognition of coercive control.
While some states increasingly recognise psychological and coercive abuse, others continue to focus more narrowly upon physical violence.
Federal legislation such as VAWA provides major funding, policy guidance, and support infrastructure, but criminal enforcement largely remains state-based.
This creates variability in survivor protection depending upon jurisdiction.
CANADA — BROAD PROTECTION, LIMITED COERCIVE CONTROL CRIMINALISATION
Canada addresses domestic abuse primarily through:
provincial family law systems,
protection orders,
and sentencing frameworks.
Domestic violence is often treated as an aggravating factor within broader offences rather than as a distinct standalone criminal category.
Although many provinces recognise emotional and financial abuse within civil frameworks, coercive control remains unevenly criminalised nationally.
This can create evidential difficulties where abuse is primarily psychological or behavioural rather than physical.
EUROPEAN FRAMEWORKS — THE ISTANBUL CONVENTION
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence
The Istanbul Convention established a major international safeguarding benchmark by requiring signatory states to address:
prevention,
protection,
prosecution,
and integrated policy coordination.
Many European jurisdictions now recognise coercive or controlling behaviour more explicitly than in previous decades.
However, implementation remains uneven across countries, and operational effectiveness varies significantly depending upon:
institutional culture,
policing practices,
judicial understanding,
and resource allocation.
NEW ZEALAND — BROAD RELATIONAL PROTECTION
Family Violence Act 2018
New Zealand maintains a broad and relational definition of family violence, incorporating:
psychological abuse,
coercive behaviour,
economic abuse,
intimidation,
threats,
The framework recognises that violence within families often extends beyond physical assault and can involve patterns of domination and fear.
AUSTRALIA — NATIONAL DIRECTION, STATE IMPLEMENTATION
Australia combines:
federal family law principles,
state-based domestic violence legislation,
and national safeguarding frameworks.
Most Australian jurisdictions now recognise coercive and controlling behaviour to varying degrees.
However, implementation remains structurally decentralised, producing differences in enforcement, interpretation, and procedural operation between states and territories.
SOUTH AFRICA — BROAD DEFINITIONS, IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998
South Africa introduced one of the earlier comprehensive domestic violence statutes internationally.
The Act includes:
physical abuse,
emotional abuse,
verbal abuse,
economic abuse,
harassment,
stalking,
and property-related abuse.
While the legislative definition is broad, operational challenges remain regarding:
enforcement consistency,
institutional resources,
and survivor access to effective protection.
JAPAN — NARROWER STRUCTURAL RECOGNITION
Japan’s domestic violence framework has expanded gradually, but historically focused more heavily upon:
physical violence,
spousal relationships,
and immediate physical protection.
Recognition of coercive control and non-physical abuse remains comparatively narrower than some Western jurisdictions.
Cultural stigma and barriers to reporting continue to affect operational accessibility for many survivors.
CHINA — DEVELOPING FRAMEWORKS AND URBAN-RURAL DIVIDES
Anti-Domestic Violence Law
China’s national Anti-Domestic Violence Law represented a major legislative development when introduced in 2016.
The law recognises:
physical abuse,
psychological harm,
threats,
and harassment.
However, implementation challenges remain, particularly regarding:
coercive control recognition,
evidential standards,
regional enforcement disparities,
and operational consistency between urban and rural jurisdictions.
THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE: FRAGMENTATION
The core issue across many jurisdictions is not simply whether laws exist.
It is whether:
systems communicate effectively,
institutions operate cohesively,
survivors can navigate procedures safely,
and safeguarding remains continuous across agencies.
The modern safeguarding challenge is increasingly one of integration.
Domestic abuse intersects with:
housing,
healthcare,
banking,
education,
policing,
immigration,
family justice,
and mental health systems.
Where those systems fail to coordinate, protection frequently weakens in practice.
SAFECHAIN™ AND STRUCTURAL CONTINUITY
SAFECHAIN™ proposes an interoperability-based approach to safeguarding infrastructure.
Its central premise is that fragmented systems often produce fragmented outcomes.
The framework therefore focuses upon:
institutional continuity,
procedural coherence,
safeguarding integration,
participation integrity,
and cross-sector communication.
As domestic abuse increasingly becomes recognised internationally as a multidimensional pattern rather than isolated incidents alone, future safeguarding models may depend less upon isolated legislation and more upon how effectively institutions connect in practice.
“They tried to bury me.
The system tried to erase me.
So I built a system that could never forget me.”
— Samantha Avril-Andreassen
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All rights reserved.
SAFECHAIN™ is a conceptual safeguarding infrastructure and policy framework authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen. Reproduction or implementation of this framework without permission is prohibited. Version 1.0.