Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ICC’s Role in Countering Patriarchal Claims in Reproductive Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Criminal Law—A Counter-Hegemonic Project?

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 31))

  • 317 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses the impact of the Ongwen case in changing the patriarchal fear of criminalising forced pregnancy as a means of achieving reproductive autonomy. On 4 February 2021, the ICC’s Trial Chamber IX pioneered international criminal jurisprudence by convicting a defendant, for the first time with charges of forced marriage as an inhumane act and forced pregnancy. Although the crime of forced pregnancy is explicitly listed in the ICC Statute, its narrow definition is the reflection of the patriarchal fear of its criminalization as a means of interfering with national laws on abortion. The chapter analyses the negotiations of the Elements of Crimes, the ICC Statute provisions and other related discussions on the gendered nature of this crime, and the intersecting grounds that motivate its commission. The author argues that the ICC has a prominent role in addressing states’ attempts to limit the right to reproductive autonomy as explicitly depicted in its drafting history. In doing so, the chapter introduces the feminist strategy of norm transfer in order to explore how legal standards created at the level of international criminal law make their way into domestic contexts. Finally, the chapter evaluates the effect that the Ongwen judgement can have on domestic reproductive justice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ICC press release, 4 February 2021, Dominic Ongwen declared guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Uganda. ICC-CPI-20210204-PR1564, https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=pr1564. Accessed 2 February 2022.

  2. 2.

    Altunjan 2021, p. 2.

  3. 3.

    Markovic 2008, p. 443.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    ICC Statute Article 7(2)(f) defines forced pregnancy as ‘the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other violations of international law’.

  6. 6.

    Amnesty International 2020, p. 23.

  7. 7.

    ICC, Trial Chamber IX, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, 4 February 2021, ICC-02/04-01/15, para 2717.

  8. 8.

    Dowds 2019, p. 57.

  9. 9.

    Grey 2017, p. 906.

  10. 10.

    Through a critical approach to the discursive construction of sex and gender, it is possible to ensure that trans individuals are not denied their reproductive rights. In order to challenge the traditional reliance on gender and sexuality hierarchies based on biology, victims of the crime of forced pregnancy should include all parents no matter what their biological sex, gender identity or sexual orientation is. For further discussion, see Karaian 2013; Sørlie 2018; Rosenblum et al. 2010.

  11. 11.

    Baumeister 2018.

  12. 12.

    International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (Geneva Convention I); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (Geneva Convention II); Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (Geneva Convention III); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (Geneva Convention IV).

  13. 13.

    Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (Protocol I), and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (Protocol II).

  14. 14.

    Gardam and Jarvis 2001, pp. 96–97.

  15. 15.

    IV Geneva Convention, Article 27.

  16. 16.

    O’Byrne 2011, p. 499.

  17. 17.

    Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, S/Res/827, UN SCOR 48th session, 3217th meeting (1993).

  18. 18.

    Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, S/Res/955, UN SCOR 49th session, 3453rd meeting (1994).

  19. 19.

    ICTY Statute, Article 5(c); ICTR Statute, Article 3(c).

  20. 20.

    ICTY Statute, Article 5(f); ICTR Statute, Article 3(f).

  21. 21.

    ICTY Statute, Article 5(i); ICTR Statute, Article 3(i).

  22. 22.

    ICTY Statute, Article 2(c); ICTR Statute, Article 4(c).

  23. 23.

    ICTR Statute, Article 4(h).

  24. 24.

    Brady 2012, p. 75.

  25. 25.

    ICTY Trial Judgement, Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., 16 November 1998, IT-96-21-T.

  26. 26.

    Boon 2001, p. 628.

  27. 27.

    UN Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the UN Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), 3 May 1993, UN Doc. S/25704.

  28. 28.

    Boon 2001.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., p. 656; Grey 2017, p. 908.

  30. 30.

    ICTY Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, Review of the Indictments Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 11 July 1996, IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61.

  31. 31.

    Grey 2017, p. 916.

  32. 32.

    ICTR Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, 2 September 1998, ICTR-96-4-T, para 507.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para 121.

  34. 34.

    Grey 2017, p. 918.

  35. 35.

    Killean 2015, p. 332.

  36. 36.

    Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-sixth session, 2 May–22 July 1994, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-ninth session, Supplement No. 10, UN Doc. A/49/10 (1994), pp. 29–140.

  37. 37.

    Cassese et al. 2002, p. 3; Bassiouni and Schabas 2005, p. 40.

  38. 38.

    Benedetti et al. 2013, p. 115.

  39. 39.

    UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Addendum Part II, Finalized draft text of the Elements of Crimes, 2 November 2000, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2.

  40. 40.

    UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, 2 November 2000, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1.

  41. 41.

    Steains 1999.

  42. 42.

    Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999; Halley 2008.

  43. 43.

    Baumeister 2018, p. 25.

  44. 44.

    UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Proposal Submitted by Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and United Arab Emirates Concerning the Elements of Crimes Against Humanity, Article 7(1)(b), UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.39 (1999).

    In addition to the Arab block, the Women’s Caucus and the International Committee of the Red Cross and the delegations of Colombia and the US drove the ICC negotiations. The Women’s Caucus became active in the ICC negotiations of sexual and reproductive crimes to ensure that they were appropriately addressed from a gender perspective. The ICRC’s participation was motivated by its role as the guardian and expert of international humanitarian law. Colombia was aware that it might fall to be investigated by the ICC. Therefore, it had an interest in shaping the definitions of crimes its citizens might be accused of. The US insisted on defining the crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC as it was concerned about its national sovereignty and the prosecution of its own citizens.

  45. 45.

    Hall et al. 2016, p. 274.

  46. 46.

    Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, paras 11, 33, 83; Preparatory Committee Meeting, 17 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.4, paras 63, 66; Steains 1999, p. 367.

  47. 47.

    Steains 1999, p. 367.

  48. 48.

    Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.8, para 83; Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court, Recommendations and Commentary for December 1997; UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, December 1997, Recommendation 7.

  49. 49.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its second session (26 July–13 August 1999), 18 August 1999, PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, p. 71.

  50. 50.

    Dörmann et al. 2003, p. 330.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 330.

  52. 52.

    Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, para 72; Preparatory Committee Meeting, 17 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.3, para 32.

  53. 53.

    Steains 1999, p. 366.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Cottier and Mzee 2016, p. 500.

  56. 56.

    Grey 2017, p. 919; Bedont 1999, p. 191.

  57. 57.

    Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p. 74.

  58. 58.

    Rome Conference Official Records, Vol. II, p. 148, x 32; and p. 166, x 72.

  59. 59.

    Halley 2008, p. 104.

  60. 60.

    La Haye 2001, p. 193.

  61. 61.

    UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, para 72; Preparatory Committee Meeting, 17 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.3, para 32.

  62. 62.

    Article 7(2)(f) of the ICC Statute.

  63. 63.

    Schabas 2016, p. 191.

  64. 64.

    Chappell 2008, p. 154.

  65. 65.

    ICC, Elements of Crime, Article 7(1)(g)-4, para 1; Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-4, para 1; Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-4, para 1.

  66. 66.

    Chinkin 2009, p. 77.

  67. 67.

    ICC, Elements of Crimes, Articles 7(1)(g)-4 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-4 of the ICC Statute, para 1.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(g)-1(2).

  69. 69.

    UN Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/IJAdd.1 (2000), rule 70(a).

  70. 70.

    Amnesty International 2020, p. 9.

  71. 71.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, 23 March 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-red, paras 96–101.

  72. 72.

    Boon 2001, p. 662.

  73. 73.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, 23 March 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-red, para 99.

  74. 74.

    Amnesty International 2020, pp. 10–11.

  75. 75.

    ICC, Elements of Crimes, Articles 7(1)(g)-4 and 8(2)(e)(vi)-4 of the ICC Statute, para 1.

  76. 76.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, 23 March 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-red, paras 96–101.

  77. 77.

    Amnesty International 2020, p. 18.

  78. 78.

    Boon 2001, p. 665.

  79. 79.

    ICC Statute, Preamble, Articles 1 and 5. See also Boon 2001, p. 665.

  80. 80.

    ICC, Trial Chamber IX, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, 4 February 2021, ICC-02/04-01/15, para 101.

  81. 81.

    Amnesty International 2020, p. 20.

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    Boon 2001, p. 660.

  84. 84.

    Amnesty International 2020, p. 24.

  85. 85.

    ICC, Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842.

  86. 86.

    ICC, Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Prosecution’s closing brief, 1 July 2002, ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red, para 205. The Prosecutor held that female children in Lubanga’s armed group were sexually assaulted by their commanders in the camp. As a result. unwanted pregnancy occurred and abortion was an option only if the commanders decided so.

  87. 87.

    ICC, Trial Chamber I, The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, para 630.

  88. 88.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Situation in Darfur, The Sudan, Annex A, Public Redacted Version of the Prosecutor’s Application under Article 58, 14 July 2008, ICC-02/05-157-AnxA, paras 121 and 200.

  89. 89.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, 4 March 2009, ICC-02/05-01/09-3; Second Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest, 12 July 2010, ICC-02/05-01/09-94.

  90. 90.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Public Redacted Version of the Amended Document Containing the Charges, 30 March 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-395-Anx3, para 39.

  91. 91.

    Green 2011, p. 530.

  92. 92.

    UN Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to resolutions 1653 (2006) and 1663 (2006), 29 June 2006, UN Doc. S/2006/478.

  93. 93.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Warrant of arrest for Dominic Ongwen, Situation in Uganda, 8 July 2005, ICC-02/04-01/05-57. The prosecutor originally charged Ongwen with only three counts of crimes against humanity (murder, enslavement, and inhuman acts) and four counts of war crimes (murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally attacking a civilian population, and pillaging).

  94. 94.

    ICC, Prosecution’s submission of the document containing the charges, the pre-confirmation brief, and the list of evidence, 21 December 2015, ICC-02/04-01/15.

  95. 95.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, 22 January 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-21-Red2-ENG, p. 50, lines 2–20.

  96. 96.

    ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, 23 March 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., paras 96–101.

  98. 98.

    ICC, Trial Chamber IX, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Trial Judgment, 4 February 2021, ICC-02/04-01/15.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., para 2728.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., para 2729.

  101. 101.

    Amnesty International 2020, p. 17.

  102. 102.

    ICC, Trial Chamber IX, The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Trial Judgment, 4 February 2021, ICC-02/04-01/15, para 2717. The reasoning of the Court was extracted from human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., para 2725.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., para 2722.

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Kather and Nassar 2021.

  107. 107.

    Some scholars have categorised as reproductive crimes: sexual assault which affects reproductive capacity, forced impregnation, forced loss of pregnancy, forced sterilization, genocidal rape, forced maternity, and the mutilation of reproductive organs. See Askin 1997, pp. 397–403.

  108. 108.

    Oosterveld 2018, p. 448.

  109. 109.

    Grey 2017, p. 907.

  110. 110.

    Ibid.

  111. 111.

    Altunjan 2021, p. 2.

  112. 112.

    Grey forthcoming, p. 5.

  113. 113.

    Markovic 2008, p. 445.

  114. 114.

    O’Rourke 2013, p. 16.

  115. 115.

    Dowds 2019, p. 16.

  116. 116.

    Grewal 2010, p. 57; Dowds 2019, p. 11.

  117. 117.

    Dowds 2019, p. 54.

  118. 118.

    ICC Statute, Article 17.

  119. 119.

    Office of the Prosecutor 2003, p. 3.

  120. 120.

    Tillier 2013, p. 509.

  121. 121.

    Ellis 2009, p. 81.

  122. 122.

    Moreno-Ocampo 2011, p. 21.

  123. 123.

    Kleffner 2006, p. 310.

  124. 124.

    Office of the Prosecutor 2003, p. 7.

  125. 125.

    Stahn 2011, p. 3.

  126. 126.

    Office of the Prosecutor 2003, p. 5.

  127. 127.

    Dowds 2019, p. 65.

  128. 128.

    Ní Aoláin 2014.

  129. 129.

    Dowds 2019, p. 75.

  130. 130.

    Kapur 2016, p. 77.

  131. 131.

    Ní Aoláin 1997, p. 901.

  132. 132.

    Dowds 2019, p. 75.

  133. 133.

    Steains 1999, p. 366.

  134. 134.

    Grey 2017, p. 909.

  135. 135.

    Dowds 2019, pp. 70–71 and 77–80.

  136. 136.

    Dowds 2019, p. 74.

References

  • Altunjan T (2021) Reproductive Violence and International Criminal Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2020) Forced Pregnancy: A Commentary on the Crime in International Criminal Law, 30 June 2020. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior53/2711/2020/en/. Accessed 28 May 2021

  • Askin KD (1997) War Crimes Against Women: Prosecution in International War Crimes Tribunals. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC, Schabas W (2005) The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court, 1st edn. Transnational Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister H (2018) Sexualised Crimes, Armed Conflict and the Law: The International Criminal Court and the Definitions of Rape and Forced Marriage. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedont B (1999) Gender-Specific Provisions in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: Lattanzi F, Schabas W (eds) Essays on the Rome Statute: Vol. 1. Sirente

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedont B, Hall-Martinez K (1999) Ending Impunity for Gender Crimes Under the International Criminal Court. Brown Journal of World Affairs 6: 65–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti F et al. (2013) Negotiating the International Criminal Court: New York to Rome, 1994–1998. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon K (2001) Rape and Forced Pregnancy Under the ICC Statute: Human Dignity, Autonomy, and Consent. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 32: 625–675

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady H (2012) The Power of Precedents: Using the Case Law of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals and Hybrid Courts in Adjudicating Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes at the ICC. Australian Journal of Human Rights 18: 75–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A et al. (eds) (2002) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell L (2008) Women’s Rights and Religious Opposition: The Politics of Gender at the International Criminal Court. In: Abu-Laban Y (ed) Gendering the Nation State: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives. UBC Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (2009) Gender-related Violence and International Criminal Law and Justice. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottier M, Mzee S (2016) Paragraph 2(b)(xxii): Rape and Other Forms of Sexual Violence. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörmann K et al. (2003) Elements of War Crimes Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - Sources and Commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowds E (2019) Feminist Engagement with International Criminal Law: Norm Transfer, Complementarity, Rape and Consent. Bloomsbury Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis M (2009) International Justice and the Rule of Law: Strengthening the ICC Through Domestic Prosecutions. Hague Journal of the Rule of Law 1: 79–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam JG, Jarvis M (2001) Women, Armed Conflict and International Law. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Green L (2011) First-Class Crimes, Second-Class Justice: Cumulative Charges for Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Law Review 11: 529–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal K (2010) Rape in Conflict, Rape in Peace: Questioning the Revolutionary Potential of International Criminal Justice for Women’s Human Rights. Australian Feminist Law Journal 33(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey R (2017) The ICC’s First ‘Forced Pregnancy’ Case in Historical Perspective. Journal of International Criminal Justice 15: 905–930

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey R (forthcoming) Reproductive Crimes in International Criminal Law. In: Rosenthal I et al. (eds) Gender and International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall CK, Ambos K, Hayes N, van den Herik L, Powderly J, Stahn C (2016) Article 7. Crimes against Humanity. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Halley J (2008) Rape at Rome: Feminist Interventions in the Criminalisation of Sex-Related Violence in Positive International Criminal Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 30: 1–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur A (2016) The Value of International-National Interactions and Norm Interpretation in Catalysing National Prosecution of Sexual Violence. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaian L (2013) Pregnant Men: Repronormativity, Critical Trans Theory and the Re(conceive)ing of Sex and Pregnancy in Law. Social & Legal Studies 22: 211–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kather A, Nassar A (2021) The Ongwen Case: A Prism Glass for the Concurrent Commission of Gender-Based Crimes. Völkerrechtsblog, 15 March 2021, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/the-ongwen-case-a-prism-glass-for-the-concurrent-commission-of-gender-based-crimes/. Accessed 6 June 2021

  • Killean R (2015) An Incomplete Narrative. Journal of International Criminal Justice 13: 331–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleffner J (2006) Complementarity as a Catalysts for Compliance. In: Kleffner J, Kor G (eds) Complementarity Views on Complementarity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • La Haye E (2001) Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-4 Forced Pregnancy. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational, New York, p 193

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovic M (2008) Vessels of Reproduction: Forced Pregnancy and the ICC. Michigan State Journal of International Law 16: 439–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Ocampo L (2011) A Positive Approach to Complementarity: The Impact of the Office of the Prosecutor. In: Stahn C, El Zeidy M (eds) The International Criminal Court and Complementarity – From Theory to Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ní Aoláin F (1997) Radical Rules: The Effects of Evidential and Procedural Rules on the Regulation of Sexual Violence in War. Albany Law Review 60: 883–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Ní Aoláin F (2014) Gendered Harms and Their Interface with International Criminal Law. Int Feminist J Polit 16(4):622–646

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Byrne K (2011) Beyond Consent: Conceptualising Sexual Assault in International Criminal Law. International Criminal Law Review 11: 495–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Prosecutor (2003) Informal Expert Paper. The Principle of Complementarity in Practice. ICC

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterveld V (2018) The ICC Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes: A Crucial Step for International Criminal Law. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 24(3), 443

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke C (2013) International Law and Domestic Gender Justice: Why Case Studies Matter. In: Fineman MA, Zinsstag E (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Transitional Justice: From International and Criminal to Alternative Forms of Justice. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum D, Ben-Asher N, Case MA, Emens E (2010) Pregnant Man? A Conversation. Yale J Law Feminism 22:207

    Google Scholar 

  • Schabas WA (2016) The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørlie A (2018) Governing (Trans)Parenthood. The Tenacious Hold of Biological Connection and Heterosexuality. In: Otto D (ed) Queering International Law: Possibilities, Alliances, Complicities, Risks. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahn C (2011) Taking Complementarity Seriously: On the Sense and Sensibility of “Classical”, “Positive” and “Negative” Complementarity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steains C (1999) Gender Issues. In: Lee RS (ed), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, Boston, pp 357–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillier J (2013) The ICC Prosecutor and Positive Complementarity: Strengthening the Rule of Law? International Criminal Law Review 13: 507–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, Women (2000) Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict: United Nations Response. Published to Promote the Goals of the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, April 1998

    Google Scholar 

Other Documents

  • Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Against Dominic Ongwen, Ongwen (ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red), Pre-Trial Chamber II, 23 March 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest Against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09-3), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 4 March 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee Meeting, 18 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.5, paras 11, 33, 83; Preparatory Committee Meeting, 17 June 1998, A/CONF.183/C.1/SR.4, paras 63, 66

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecution’s Final Brief, Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red), Trial Chamber I, 1 July 2002, p. 205

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecution’s Submission of the Document Containing the Charges, the Pre-confirmation Brief, and the List of Evidence (ICC-02/04-01/15), 21 December 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Akayesu, 2 September 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4, paras. 598, 688

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. Trial, 16 November 1998, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Judgement, Case No IT-96-21

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Against Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red, 23 March 2016, paras. 96–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Trial Judgment Trial Chamber IX, (ICC-02/04-01/15), 4 February 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/ 06-2842, 14 March 2012 (Lubanga Trial Judgment), para. 630

    Google Scholar 

  • Public Redacted Version of the Prosecutor’s Application Under Article 58, Bashir (ICC-02/05-157-AnxA), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 14 July 2008, paras. 121 and 200

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Resolutions 1653 (2006) and 1663 (2006) (S/2006/478), UN Doc. S/2006/478, 29 June 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Second Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest, Bashir (ICC-02/05-01/09-94), Pre-Trial Chamber I, 12 July 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Transcript, Ongwen (ICC-02/04-01/15-T-21-Red2-ENG), Pre-Trial Chamber II, 22 January 2016, 50, Lines 2 to 20

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations, Fourth World Conference on Women, The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women 84, para. 135 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N.GAOR (2013) World Conference on Human Rights, pt. 2, para. 38, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Lawyer, Bogotá, Colombia

    Angie K. García Atehortúa

  2. International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Angie K. García Atehortúa

Authors
  1. Angie K. García Atehortúa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angie K. García Atehortúa .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Juristische Fakultät, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Florian Jeßberger

  2. Juristische Fakultät, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Leonie Steinl

  3. Juristische Fakultät, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Kalika Mehta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

García Atehortúa, A.K. (2023). The ICC’s Role in Countering Patriarchal Claims in Reproductive Justice. In: Jeßberger, F., Steinl, L., Mehta, K. (eds) International Criminal Law—A Counter-Hegemonic Project?. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 31. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-551-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-551-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-550-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-551-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation