Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Efficiency of Intersectionality: Labelling the Benefits of a Rights-Based Approach to Interpret Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes

  • Published:
Human Rights Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

International criminal law (ICL) has traditionally overlooked sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and struggles to understand it. Prosecutions have been largely inefficient and not reflective of gender harms. The Rome Statute requires interpreting SGBV as a social construction (article 7(3)), in consistency with international human rights law (IHRL) and without discrimination (article 21(3)). There is, however, little guidance to implement these approaches. This article argues that intersectionality, an IHRL-based approach that reveals compounded discrimination, is an efficient tool to interpret SGBV and, therefore, should be integrated in ICL. The article traces the origins of intersectionality in feminism and its recognition by IHRL dealing with violence against women. It establishes the applicability of intersectionality in ICL that it demonstrates with a comparative analysis of the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases. The findings show that intersectionality suits ICL’s specific needs which allows labelling and explaining some of those contributions throughout the judicial process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Notes

  1. Emphasis added.

  2. See, however, relevant progress made by the Yogyakarta Principles (March 2006 and November 2017) and decisions such as Flamer-Caldera v Sri Lanka (CEDAW/C/81/D/134/2018) 24 March 2022.

  3. See regional jurisprudence, ECtHR, Opuz v. Turkey, Judgment, Application no. 33401/02 (June 9, 2009) paras 180, 191, 200; IACtHR, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Judgment (16 Nov 2009) para 401.

  4. Emphasis added.

  5. E.g., GR26 on women migrant workers, CEDAW/C/2009/WP.1/R (Dec. 5, 2008).

  6. Emphasis added.

  7. Gonzales Lluy et al. v Ecuador (IACtHR Judgment) (1 September 2015) para 290; B.S. v Spain (ECtHR Judgment) application nº 47,159/ 08 (24 July 2012) paras 62–63; Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal (ECtHR Judgment) application no. 17484/15 (25 July 2017); E.I.P.R and INTERIGHTS v. Egypt (African Commission on Human and People’s Rights Communication) 323/06 (16 December 2011) paras 152,165–166.

  8. Also adopting an intersectional approach, Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/3 (Oct. 15, 2019).

  9. Emphasis added.

  10. E.g., Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga (Decision on Interim Release) ICC-01/04-01/07-3405-tENG, (1 October 2013) paras. 27 and 62.

  11. The Policy “acknowledges the social construction of gender and the accompanying roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes assigned to women and men, and girls and boys” para 15.

  12. The Kunarac Trial Chamber corrected this approach considering state capacity irrelevant, para 470.

  13. Emphasis in the original.

  14. The Pre-Trial Chamber also established jurisdiction, see Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-02/06 (9 June 2014) para 79.

  15. See, The Paris Principles, February 2007, and The Cape Town Principles, 30 April 1997.

  16. Ntaganda was found guilty as a direct perpetrator of murder as a war crime and as a crime against humanity and of persecution as a crime against humanity. He was convicted as an indirect perpetrator for all the remaining crimes.

References

  • Atiba-Davies G, Nwoye L (2022) Children, gender, and international criminal justice. In: Rosenthal I (ed) Gender and International Criminal Law, OUP, 127–156

  • Bartlett K (1990) Feminist legal methods. Harvard Law Review. 103 (4), 836 - 837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunger Y et al (2019) The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. In: Hodson L, Lavers T (eds) Feminist Judgments in International Law, Hart, 409–444

  • Bueno-Hansen P (2017) The emerging LGBTI rights challenge to transitional justice in Latin America. International Journal of Transitional Justice 0: 1–20

  • Butler J (1986) Sex and gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s second Sex. Yale French Studies 72, 35–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler J (1990) Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of Identity. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler J (1998) Subjects of sex/gender/desire. In: Phillips A (ed) Feminism and Politics, OUP

  • Campbell M (2015) CEDAW and women’s intersecting identities: A pioneering new approach to intersectional discrimination. Revista Direito Gv, Sao Paulo 11, 479-504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caprioli M (2005) Primed for violence: The role of gender inequality in predicting internal conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 49(2): 161–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEDAW Committee, Joint GR/general comment 31 of the CEDAW and Nº18 of the CRC on harmful practices, CEDAW/C/GC/31/CRC/C/GC/18 (2014)

  • CEDAW Committee, Inquiry Report on Canada, CEDAW/C/OP.8/CAN/1 (2015)

  • CEDAW Committee, GR33 on women’s access to justice, CEDAW/C/GC/33 (2015)

  • CEDAW Committee, GR35 on violence against women updating GR19, CEDAW/C/GC/35 (2017)

  • CEDAW Committee, GR37 on gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change, CEDAW/C/GC/37 (2018)

  • CEDAW Committee GR19 on violence against women (1992)

  • CEDAW Committee GR26 on women migrant workers, CEDAW/C/2009/WP.1/R (2008)

  • CEDAW Committee GR28 on the core obligations of States Parties, CEDAW/C/GC/28 (2010)

  • CEDAW Committee GR30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, CEDAW/C/GC/30 (2013)

  • CEDAW Committee GR38 on trafficking in women and girls in the context of global migration, CEDAW/C/GC/38 (2020)

  • CEDAW Committee GR39 on indigenous women and girls, CEDAW/C/GC/39 (2022)

  • Charlesworth H (1995) Feminist critiques of international law and their critics. Third World Legal Studies 13: 1-16

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth H, Chinkin C (1993) The gender of jus cogens. Human Rights Quarterly 1: 63-76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw K (1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of race and sex, University of Chicago Legal Forum 1:139- 167

    Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241-1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Guzmán M (2018) An expressive rationale for the thematic prosecution of sex crimes. In: Bergsmo M (ed) Thematic prosecution of international sex crimes, Torkel Opsahl, Brussels, 11-44

    Google Scholar 

  • ECtHR, Volodina v Russia (Judgment) Application nº 41261/17 (2019)

  • Eisend M, Rößner A (2022) Breaking gender binaries, Journal of Advertising, 51(5) 557-573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry E, van Sliedregt E (2020) Targeted groups, rape and dolus eventualis, Journal of International Criminal Justice 18: 701-721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emma I (2019) The other side of article 21(3) coin: Human rights in the Rome Statute and the limits of article 21(3) Leiden Journal of International Law 32: 837–850

  • Flax J (1987) Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs 12: 621-643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman M (2012) Article 16. In Freeman M, Chinkin C, Rudolf B (eds) The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, A commentary. OUP, chapter 8

  • Goy et al (2016) Contextualizing sexual violence and linking it to senior officials. In Brammertz S, Jarvis M (eds) Prosecuting conflict-related sexual violence at the ICTY, OUP, 220-261

    Google Scholar 

  • Heathcote G, Zichi P (2021) Feminist methodologies. In Deplano R, Tsagourias N (eds) Research methods in international law, Edward Elgar, 458-473

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller K (2017) ICC Appeals Chamber says a war crime does not have to violate IHL. Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2017/06/15/icc-appeals-chamber-holds-a-war-crime-does-not-have-to-violate-ihl/ . Accessed 8 December 2023

  • hooks b (2010) Understanding patriarchy. Louisville Anarchist Federation

  • ICC Elements of crimes (2011)

  • ICC-OTP (2014) Policy paper on sexual and gender-based crimes

  • ICC-OTP (2022) Policy on the crime of gender persecution

  • IIIM (2022) Gender strategy and implementation plan. https://iiim.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Gender-Strategy-Implementation-AbridgedEnglish.pdf . Accessed 23 December 2022

  • Jarvis M, Gardam J (2022) The gendered framework of International Humanitarian Law and the development of International Criminal Law. In Rosenthal I (ed) Gender and International Criminal Law, OUP 47–73

  • Kapur R (2002) The tragedy of victimization rhetoric. Harvard Human Rights Journal 15: 1-38

    Google Scholar 

  • Karen E (2020) The grip of sexual violence in conflict. Stanford Studies in Human Rights

  • MacKinnon C (1982) Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory, Signs 7: 515-544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A (2020) Intersectionality: Explaining SGBV interlinked with terrorism and other international crimes. Journal of Human Trafficking, Enslavement and Conflict-Related Sexual Violence 1: 2, 135-161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maucec G (2021). Law development by the International Criminal Court as a way to enhance the protection of minorities. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 12: 42-83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty C (1988) Under Western eyes. Feminist Review 30: 61-88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Inquiry Final Report (2021) Reclaiming Power and Place

  • O´Donohue J, Grey R (2022) Gender inclusivity in the International Criminal Court’s first reparations proceedings. In Rosenthal I et al (eds) Gender and International Criminal Law, OUP, 291–345

  • O´Rourke C (2022) Fragmentation fears or interaction opportunities? In Rosenthal I et al (eds) Gender and International Criminal Law, OUP, 347–386

  • O´Rourke C et al (2021) The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and sexual orientation and gender Identity: Workshop Report. Transitional Justice Institute

  • Oosterveld V (2005) The definition of “Gender” in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Harvard Human Rights Journal 18: 55-84

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterveld V (2023) Recognizing the Complexity of Gender in the Crime Against Humanity of Persecution’, Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/87303/recognizing-the-complexity-of-gender-in-the-crime-against-humanity-of-persecution/ Accessed 7 December 2023

  • Otto D (2005) Disconcerting ‘masculinities’: Reinventing the gendered subject(s) of International Human Rights Law. In Manji A, Buss D (eds) International Law: modern feminist approaches, Hart, 105–129

  • Otto D (2022) Is International Criminal Law particularly impervious to feminist reconstruction? In Rosenthal I et al (eds) Gender and International Criminal Law, OUP, 387–414

  • Pinto-Soares P (2012) Tangling human rights and International Criminal Law. Criminal Law Forum 23:161–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Furundzija (Trial Judgment) IT-95–17-I (10 December 1998)

  • Prosecutor v Alekovski (Appeals Judgment) IT-95–14/1-A (24 March 2000)

  • Prosecutor v. Kunarac & Radomir Kovac (Trial Judgment) IT-96–23-T & IT-96–23/1-T (22 February 2001)

  • Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanović (Interlocutory decision on the Joint challenge to jurisdiction) IT-01–47-PT (27 November 2002)

  • Prosecutor v. Katanga (Trial Judgment) ICC-01/04–01/07 (7 March 2014)

  • Prosecutor v. Al Hassan (Rectificatif à la Décision relative à la confirmation des charges) ICC-01/12–01/18 (30 septembre 2019).

  • Prosecutor v. Abd-Al-Rahman (Corrected version of ‘Decision on the confirmation of charges, 9 July 2021) ICC-02/05–01/20–433 (23 November 2021)

  • Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Appeals Judgment on the Second decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction) ICC-01/04–02/06 OA5 (15 June 2017)

  • Prosecutor v. Ntaganda (Trial Judgment) ICC-01/04–02/06 (8 July 2019)

  • Prosecutor v Kani (Decision on the confirmation of charges) ICC-01/14–01/21 (9 December 2021)

  • Prosecutor v Kupreškić (Trial Judgment) IT-95–16-T (14 January 2000)

  • Prosecutor v Lubanga (Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for leave to reply. Separate opinion of Judge Georghios M. Pikis) ICC-01/04–01/06 (12 September 2006)

  • Prosecutor v Lubanga (Trial Judgment) ICC-01/04–01/06–2842 (5 April 2012). Separate and dissenting opinion of Judge Odio Benito

  • Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Transcript) ICC-01/04–02/06-T-10-Red-ENG (13 February 2014)

  • Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Second decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction) ICC-01/04–02/06 OA5 (4 January 2017)

  • Prosecutor v. Ntaganda (Sentencing Judgment) ICC-01/04–02/06 (7 November 2019)

  • Prosecutor v Ntaganda (Reparations Order) ICC-01/04–02/06 (8 March 2021)

  • Prosecutor v Ntaganda (First Decision on the Trust Fund for Victims’ Draft Implementation Plan for Reparations) ICC-01/04–02/06–2860-Conf, ICC-01/04–02/06 (30 August 2023)

  • Prosecutor v. Ongwen (Amici Curiae Observations on the Rome Statute’s definition of ‘forced pregnancy’ by Dr Rosemary Grey, Global Justice Center, Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice and Amnesty International) ICC-02/04–01/15 A A2, 23 December 2021

  • Prosecutor v Ongwen (Sentence) ICC-02/04–01/15 (6 May 2021)

  • Prosecutor v RUF (Sentencing Judgement) SCSL-04–15-T (8 April 2009)

  • Prosecutor v Tadic (Appeals Judgment) IT-94–1-A (15 July 1999)

  • Prosperi L (2017) The ICC Appeals Chamber was not wrong (but could have been more right) in Ntaganda, Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2017/06/27/33178/ Accessed 8 December 2023

  • Rees M, Chinkin C (2016) Exposing the gendered myth of post conflict transition: The transformative power of economic and social rights. Journal of International Law and Politics 48: 1211-1226

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (2008) The Identity Crisis of International Criminal Law. Leiden Journal of International Law 21: 925–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 2002, UNTS. 90.

  • Rules of Procedure and Evidence. 2002 (ICC-ASP/1/3 and Corr.1)

  • SáCouto, Susana et al. 2020. Collective criminality and sexual violence: Fixing a failed approach, Leiden Journal of International Law 33: 207-241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samara K (2002). Gender Equality and its impact on Sexual and Gender Based Violence. Refugee Survey Quarterly: 21, 30–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa L (2017) Intersectionality in the human rights legal framework on violence against women. CUP

  • Swaine A, O´Rourke C (2015) Guidebook on CEDAW General Recommendation Nº 30 and the UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security, UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2015/Guidebook-CEDAW-General-Recommendation-30-Women-Peace-Security-en.pdf . Accessed 7 December 2023

  • UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Beijing + 5 Political Declaration and Outcome (1995)

  • van Sliedrecht E, Weißer, B (2022) The Ntaganda Case and International Criminal Liability at the ICC. Journal of International Criminal Justice 20: 1-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Viseur Sellers P (2017) Ntaganda: Re-Alignment of a paradigm. International Institute of Humanitarian Law 1–17

  • Wagner A (2021) Beyond intersectionality: Embracing a decolonial feminism, Meeting of Minds, https://meetingofmindsuk.uk/realreads/beyond-intersectionality-embracing-a-decolonial-feminism/ Accessed 7 December 2023

  • Woodward K et al. 2009. Poststructuralism/poststructuralist geographies, International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography, 397–407

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain

    Ana Martin

Authors
  1. Ana Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Martin.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The author has no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, A. The Efficiency of Intersectionality: Labelling the Benefits of a Rights-Based Approach to Interpret Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes. Hum Rights Rev 25, 1–24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-024-00714-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-024-00714-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation