Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Consolidating International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: Protection from Gender-Based Violence Against Women in Non-International Armed Conflict

  • Article
  • Published:
Netherlands International Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic discussion on the adequacy of international law, in particular international humanitarian law (IHL), to protect women from and to respond to gender-based violence against women (GBVAW) has so far omitted a detailed discussion on the law applicable in non-international armed conflict (NIAC). This article reviews the scope of international law, in particular IHL applicable to NIAC and international human rights law (IHRL), on the protection of women from GBVAW, firstly aiming to fill this lacuna in the literature on GBVAW and secondly in an examination as to whether the law on GBVAW in NIAC adequately protects women from GBVAW in NIAC. This analysis is performed distinctly for sexual violence, non-sexual violence, and women in detention. In applying the substance of the law regarding GBVAW under IHL and IHRL to the legal framework on the mutual application of IHL and IHRL in armed conflict, this article finds that IHL applicable to NIAC and IHRL generally may be interpreted harmoniously in substance regarding sexual violence and partially on non-sexual violence and detention. The consolidation of these regimes thus in theory results in a stronger and wider scope of protection from GBVAW. However, this protection may be limited in practice due to challenges in meeting due diligence in conflict and limited human rights responsibility for non-State parties to the conflict.

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

Notes

  1. Meron (1993), p. 424.

  2. Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee), ‘General Recommendation 19’ (29 January 1992), UN Doc. A/47/38 (CEDAW General Comment 19).

  3. Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (adopted 9 June 1994), 33 ILM 1534 (Belém do Pará Convention); Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (adopted 11 July 2003), A-266363 (Maputo Protocol); Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (adopted 11 May 2011), CETS No. 210 (Istanbul Convention).

  4. UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on women and peace and security’ (5 October 2022), S/2022/740, para. 40.

  5. UNSC Res. 1325 (31 October 2000), S/RES/1325.

  6. Ibid., para. 2.

  7. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, IT-94-1-AR72 (Tadić Decision), para. 70.

  8. Sivakumaran (2012), p. 165.

  9. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadić, Judgment, 7 May 1997, IT-94-1-T (Tadić Judgment), para. 562.

  10. Sivakumaran (2012), pp. 2–3.

  11. See among many others: Vijeyerasa (2020); Swaine (2015); Edwards (2010); Gardam and Charlesworth (2000).

  12. See among many others: Durham and Murphy (2022); O’Rourke (2020); Gardam (2018); Durham and O’Byrne (2010); Bennoune (2006); Lindsey (2004); Krill (1985).

  13. O’Rourke (2020), pp. 15–16.

  14. This article adopts the following definitions of ‘gender’, ‘sex’ and ‘women’. Gender and sex are defined similarly by the ICRC, ICC and academic literature: ‘the culturally expected behaviour of men and women based on roles, attitudes and values ascribed to them on the basis of their sex’. Sex refers to ‘biological and physical characteristics’. ‘Women’ is the preferred term to encapsulate both sex and gender grounds (see: Lindsey (2004), p. 7; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998), 2187 UNTS 3 (ICC Statute), Art. 7(3); Durham and O’Byrne (2010), p. 31; Edwards (2010), p. 13; Lindsey (2001), p. 35).

  15. CEDAW Committee, ‘General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence, updated general recommendation No. 19’ (26 July 2017), CEDAW/C/GC/35 (CEDAW General Comment 35), para. 9.

  16. See: UNGA Res. 61/143 ‘Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence Against Women’ (19 December 2006), A/RES/61/143, Art. 3.

  17. UNGA Res. 48/104 ‘Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women’ (adopted 23 February 1994), UN Doc. A/RES/48/104 (DEVAW), Art. 1.

  18. Edwards (2010), p. 21.

  19. CEDAW General Comment 19, para. 6.

  20. Lindsey (2001), p. 21.

  21. Ibid., pp. 35–36.

  22. ICC, Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-based Crimes (Office of the Prosecutor 2014), p. 3.

  23. Gardam and Jarvis (2001), pp. 23 and 31.

  24. See: Maputo Protocol, Art. 1(j).

  25. ICTR, Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgment, 2 September 1998, ICTR-96-4 (Akayesu Judgment), paras. 686–688.

  26. Ibid., para. 688.

  27. ICC Statute, Arts. 7(1) (g) and 8(e) (vi).

  28. Gaggioli (2014), pp. 505–506.

  29. Barrow (2010), pp. 222–225; Bennoune (2006), p. 368.

  30. CEDAW Committee, ‘General Comment No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations’ (18 October 2013), CEDAW/C/GC/30 (CEDAW Committee General Comment 30), para. 34.

  31. Durham and Murphy (2022), p. 379.

  32. Bennoune (2006), p. 368.

  33. Ashdown and James (2010), p. 123.

  34. This review relies on primary sources of international law according to Art. 38(1) Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute), in particular treaty law and customary law, including authoritative interpretations thereof by official bodies.

  35. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War (adopted 12 August 1949), 75 UNTS 287 (Geneva Convention IV), Art. 3(1).

  36. Sivakumaran (2012), p. 314.

  37. Sivakumaran (2012), p. 9.

  38. Chapeau to Common Article 3; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (adopted 8 June 1977), 1125 UNTS 609 (AP II), Art. 1(1).

  39. ICTY Tadić Decision, para. 70.

  40. Sivakumaran (2012), p. 155.

  41. AP II, Art. 1(1).

  42. ICJ, Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 219; ICTY Tadić Decision, paras. 98 and 117.

  43. ICC Statute, Art. 8(c) and (e).

  44. Henckaerts (2010), pp. 435 and 437.

  45. Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck (2005) (CIHL Study).

  46. ICRC, Commentary to Article 3 of 2020 to the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of Geneva, 12 August 1949, https://ihldatabases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Comment.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=31FCB9705FF00261C1258585002FB096 (accessed 23 January 2023) (2020 Commentary to GC III), para. 587.

  47. Ibid., para. 737.

  48. Ibid.

  49. ICRC, Commentary of 1987 to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AA0C5BCBAB5C4A85C12563CD002D6D09&action=openDocument (accessed 23 January 2023) (1987 Commentary to AP II), paras. 4517, 4530, 4539.

  50. Arms Trade Treaty (adopted 2 April 2013), 3013 UNTS 269 (ATT), preamble and Arts. 6(3), 7(1) and 7(4).

  51. Arms Trade Treaty, ‘Treaty Status’, https://thearmstradetreaty.org/treaty-status.html?templateId=209883 (accessed 30 April 2023).

  52. ICC, Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-based Crimes (Office of the Prosecutor 2014), p. 20.

  53. CIHL Study, p. 323.

  54. Ibid., p. 431.

  55. Ibid., p. 475.

  56. ICTY Tadić Judgment, para. 573.

  57. Ibid.

  58. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Appeal Judgment, 12 June 2002, IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A (Kunarac Appeal Judgment), para. 58.

  59. Darcy (2014), p. 176.

  60. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Delalić et al. (generally referred to as the Čelebići prison camp Judgment), Judgment, 16 November 1998, IT-96-21-T (hereinafter: Čelebići Judgment), para. 477.

  61. ICTR Akayesu Judgment, para. 688; ICTY Čelebići Judgment, paras. 478–479; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment, 10 December 1998, IT-95-17/1-T (Furundžija Judgment), para. 185.

  62. ICTR Akayesu Judgment, para. 686.

  63. ICTY Furundžija Judgment, paras. 183–186.

  64. Ibid., paras. 596, 688; ICTY Čelebići Judgment, para. 495.

  65. ICTY Kunarac Appeal Judgment, para. 150.

  66. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Prlić, Judgment, 29 May 2013, IT-04-74-T, para. 116.

  67. ICTY Čelebići Judgment, para. 496; ICTY Furundžija Judgment, para. 171.

  68. ICTY Furundžija Judgment, para. 267.

  69. Askin (2003), p. 332.

  70. ICTY Furundžija Judgment, para. 186.

  71. O’Rourke (2020), p. 67.

  72. SCSL, Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, Appeal Judgment, 22 February 2008, SCSl-2004–16-A, paras. 187–202.

  73. ICTR, Prosecutor v. Bagosora, Judgment, 18 December 2008, ICTR-98-41-Y, para. 2266.

  74. 2020 Commentary to GC III, para. 738.

  75. ICTR Akayesu Judgment, para. 688.

  76. Ibid.

  77. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Judgment, 22 February 2001, IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A (Kunarac Judgment), paras. 542–543.

  78. Furundžija Judgment, para. 272.

  79. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kvočka, Judgment, 2 November 2001, IT-98-30/1-T (Kvočka Judgment), para. 173.

  80. Pillay (2003), pp. 685 and 687.

  81. ICTR Akayesu Judgment.

  82. Pillay (2003), p. 686.

  83. Gaggioli (2014), p. 518.

  84. CIHL Study, Rule 1.

  85. 2020 Commentary to GC III, paras. 628–629.

  86. CIHL Study, Rule 2.

  87. ATT, see n. 50.

  88. ICTY Furundžija Judgment, para. 186.

  89. See amongst others: Durham and Murphy (2022); Gardam (2018); Gardam and Jarvis (2000).

  90. See the discussion (albeit related to IHRL) on how the public/private distinction operates to the detriment of women: Charlesworth and Chinkin (1993), pp. 69–74.

  91. Swaine (2015), p. 777.

  92. 1987 Commentary to AP II, para. 4584.

  93. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (adopted 12 August 1949), 75 UNTS 287 (Geneva Convention III), Arts. 25, 29, 97 and 108; Geneva Convention IV, Arts. 76, 82, 85 and 124.

  94. AP II, Arts. 5(3) jo. 4(1).

  95. Ibid., Art. 5(3).

  96. See for periodic country updates to the review since 2005: ICRC, IHL Databases, Customary IHL—Practice relating to rule 119 Accommodation for Women Deprived of Their Liberty, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule119 (accessed 10 April 2023).

  97. CIHL Study, p. 431.

  98. Krill (1985), p. 342.

  99. Sivakumaran (2012), pp. 1–2.

  100. See: Durham and Murphy (2022), p. 378.

  101. Duffy (2020), p. 19.

  102. CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 15.

  103. CEDAW General Comment 19, para. 7(c).

  104. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979), 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW), Art. 1.

  105. CEDAW General Comment 19, paras. 1 and 6.

  106. UNGA, ‘Report by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences on the adequacy of the international legal framework on violence against women’ (19 July 2017), A/72/134, para. 59.

  107. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Opuz v. Turkey, Judgment, 9 June 2009, Appl. No. 33401/02 (ECtHR Opuz v. Turkey); Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Maria da Penha v. Brazil, Judgment, 16 April 2001, IACHR Case 12.051, Report No. 54/01 (IACHR Maria da Penha v. Brazil).

  108. CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 16.

  109. Beijing Platform for Action and Declaration (adopted 4-15 September 1995), UN Doc. A/CONF. 177/20 (Beijing Declaration), paras. 44 and 135.

  110. See n. 3.

  111. CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 2. For further discussion, including why some doubt that the customary status holds true for all manifestations of GBVAW, see: Schabas (2021), pp. 140–141; De Vido (2018); UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo’ (28 May 2014), A/HRC/26/38, para. 68.

  112. Bélem do Pará Convention, Art. 7; Istanbul Convention, Art. 5; DEVAW, Art. 4(c); CEDAW General Comment 19, para. 9; UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk’ (20 January 2006), E/CN.4/2006/61 (Ertürk Due Diligence Report).

  113. Edwards (2010), p. 279; Cook (1993), p. 241. The State is also responsible for acts and omissions of its organs and its agents in respect of the infliction of GBVAW—which is attributable to the State—in violation of the obligations laid down under IHRL. See: CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 22.

  114. IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, 29 July 1988, IACtHR Ser C No. 4 (IACtHR Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras), para. 172.

  115. Ibid. For a discussion on the consequences of international responsibility for due diligence violations related to GBVAW (in particular domestic violence): Ferstman (2021).

  116. CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 24(b).

  117. Ertürk Due Diligence Report, para. 29.

  118. For a comprehensive discussion: Schabas (2021), p. 140.

  119. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966), 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR).

  120. HRCtee, ‘General Comment No. 28’ (29 March 2000), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 (HRCtee General Comment 28), para. 8.

  121. IACtHR, González et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico, Judgment, 16 November 2009, IACtHR Serie C No. 205 (IACtHR Case of González et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico).

  122. Ibid., para. 118.

  123. Ibid., para. 109.

  124. Ibid., para. 282.

  125. Ibid.

  126. Ibid., para. 283.

  127. IACtHR Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, para. 174. See also: International Law Association (ILA) Study Group on Due Diligence in International Law, ‘Due Diligence in International Law—First Report’ (7 March 2014), in: ILA Report of the Seventy Sixth Conference (Washington 2014) (ILA 2014), p. 11.

  128. ICJ, Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzogovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 430.

  129. ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168 (ICJ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo), paras. 173–176, 178–179.

  130. ECtHR, Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russian Federation, Judgment, 8 July 2004, Appl. No. 48787/99 (ECtHR Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russia), para. 312.

  131. ECtHR, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Judgment, 7 January 2010, Appl. No. 25965/04, paras. 272–309.

  132. CEDAW General Comment 35, paras. 2 and 16; IACHR, Raquel Martín de Mejía v. Peru, Judgment, IACHR Case No. 10.970, Report No. 5/96 (1996) p. 186; ECtHR, M.C. v. Bulgaria, Judgment, 4 December 2003, Appl. No. 39272/98 (ECtHR M.C. v. Bulgaria).

  133. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984), 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT), Art. 1.

  134. ICTY Čelebići Judgment, para. 495.

  135. Committee Against Torture, Mrs A. v. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Decision, 2 August 2019, Communication No. 854/2017 CAT (Committee Against Torture Mrs A. v. Bosnia & Herzegovina), paras. 7.3 and 7.4.

  136. ECtHR, Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment, 25 September 1997, Appl. No. 23178/94.

  137. Ibid., para. 86.

  138. IACtHR, Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, Judgment, 31 August 2010, IACtHR Ser C No. 216, paras. 118–121.

  139. IACHR Raquel Martín de Mejía v. Peru, p. 185.

  140. ECtHR M.C. v. Bulgaria, para. 153.

  141. McGlynn (2009), p. 565.

  142. HRCtee General Comment 28, para. 11.

  143. CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 18.

  144. UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment’ (5 January 2016), A/HRC/31/57 (Méndez Report), para. 40.

  145. ECtHR Opuz v. Turkey; Sosa et al. (2019), p. 944.

  146. Edwards (2010), pp. 216–217.

  147. Méndez Report, para. 58.

  148. ECtHR Opuz v. Turkey, para. 191.

  149. ECtHR Opuz v. Turkey; IACHR Maria da Penha v. Brazil; ECtHR, Talpis v. Italy, Judgment, 2 March 2017, Appl. No. 41237/14 (ECtHR Talpis v. Italy).

  150. Edwards (2010), in general.

  151. HRCtee, ‘General Comment No. 21’ (1992), UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol I), p. 202, para. 3.

  152. UNGA Res. 65/229 ‘United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders’ (16 March 2011), A/RES/65/229 (Bangkok Rules), Rule 1.

  153. HRCtee General Comment 28, para. 15.

  154. IACtHR, Miguel Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment, 25 November 2006, IACtHR Ser C No. 160 (IACtHR Miguel Castro Prison v. Peru), paras. 303–308.

  155. Ibid.

  156. UNGA Res. 70/175 ‘United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners’ (17 December 2015), A/RES/70/490 (Nelson Mandela Rules), Rules 11(a), 28, 52(1), 81.

  157. Bangkok Rules, Rules 5, 6, 10.

  158. Méndez Report, paras. 18–30.

  159. IACtHR Miguel Castro Prison v. Peru, para. 303.

  160. UNGA Res. 2675(XXV) ‘Basic Principles for the Protection of Civilian Populations in Armed Conflict’ (9 December 1970), A/RES/2675(XXV).

  161. Duffy (2020), p. 19.

  162. Cassimatis (2007), p. 628.

  163. ICTY Tadić Decision, para. 70.

  164. HRCtee, Burgos Lopez v. Uruguay, 29 July 1981, Communication No. 52/1979 (HRCtee Burgos Lopez v. Uruguay); ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136 (ICJ Wall Opinion), para. 109; ICJ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, paras. 216 and 179; ECtHR, Al Skeini v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 7 July 2011, Appl. No. 55721/07, para. 136.

  165. See: Duffy (2020).

  166. HRCtee Burgos Lopez v. Uruguay, para. 12.3. See also the case law referred to in n. 164.

  167. CIHL Study, p. 303; UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, ‘International Legal Protection of Human Rights in Armed Conflict’ (United Nations 2011), HR/PUB/11/01.

  168. Duffy (2020), p. 39.

  169. Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1883.

  170. ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226, para. 25. See also: Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1895.

  171. ICJ Wall Opinion, para. 106.

  172. ICJ Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, paras. 216–219.

  173. CIHL Study, p. 302.

  174. HRCtee, ‘General Comment No. 31’ (26 May 2004), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 11.

  175. See: Cerna (2011), p. 3.

  176. ECtHR, Georgia v. Russia II, Judgment, 21 January 2021, Appl. No. 38263/08, paras. 126 and 141–143.

  177. ECtHR, Hassan v. United Kingdom, Judgment, 16 September 2014, Appl. No. 29750/09, para. 77.

  178. Duffy (2020), p. 19.

  179. Ibid., p. 72.

  180. International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ (13 April 2006), UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, para. 37.

  181. Duffy (2020), p. 81.

  182. Ibid., pp. 77, 81.

  183. Ibid., p. 83.

  184. ICCPR, Art. 9.

  185. Ibid., Art 4(1).

  186. HRCtee, ‘General Comment No. 29’ (31 August 2001), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, para. 3.

  187. ICTY Kunarac Judgment, para. 467.

  188. See: ECtHR Hassan v. United Kingdom.

  189. Hathaway et al. (2012), p. 1911.

  190. Common Article 3; CIHL Study, Rule 139.

  191. Heffes (2022), p. 265; Blázquez Rodríguez (2018); Henckaerts and Wiesener (2013); Clapham (2006).

  192. See for example: UNSC Res. 2459 (15 March 2019), S/RES/2459 (2019), Art. 26.

  193. See for example: UNSC Res. 2467 (23 April 2019), S/RES/2467, Art. 1.

  194. CEDAW General Comment 30, para. 16; CEDAW General Comment 35, para. 25.

  195. See: Heffes (2022), p. 278; Henckaerts and Wiesener (2013), p. 157.

  196. Duffy (2020), pp. 41 and 43.

  197. ECtHR Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russia, para. 333.

  198. Mitchell (2005), p. 219; Askin (2003); Ntombizozuko (2016), p. 112.

  199. Gaggioli (2014), p. 521.

  200. Ibid., p. 532.

  201. ICTY Čelebići Judgment, paras. 466, 481–488; ICTY Kunarac Appeals Judgment, paras. 182–185; ECtHR Rantsev v. Cyprus & Russia, para. 142; ECtHR M.C. v. Bulgaria, para. 163.

  202. ICTY Čelebići Judgment; ICTY Kvočka Judgment. See also: ICC Statute, Art. 28(a)(ii); CIHL Study, Rule 153.

  203. ECtHR Talpis v. Italy, para. 101.

  204. Durham and Murphy (2022), pp. 371–372; Gardam and Jarvis (2001), pp. 17–18.

  205. ICTY Tadić Judgment, para. 573.

  206. See: Matthews (2013, p. 640.

  207. HRCtee General Comment 28, para. 15.

  208. Lindsey (2001), p. 164.

  209. CIHL Study, Rule 121.

  210. Ashdown and James (2010).

  211. Bangkok Rules, Rule 33(1).

  212. ILA 2014, above n. 127, p. 11.

  213. IACtHR Case of González et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico.

  214. See: Berkes (2018).

  215. UNGA Res. 60/147 ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (16 December 2005), A/RES/60/147 (Basic Principles), Principle 4.

  216. CIHL Study, Rule 158.

  217. ICC Statute, Art. 17(2).

  218. CIHL Study, Rule 159 (Amnesties).

  219. Altunjan (2021), p. 889.

  220. ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Appeal Judgment, 15 December 2022, ICC-02/04-01/15, paras. 1012–1024.

  221. ICC, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Decision on the Charges, 13 November 2019, ICC-01/12-01/18, Count 13.

  222. CIHL Study, pp. 549–550.

  223. Basic Principles, Principle 15.

  224. See: ICCPR, Art. 2(3); CAT, Art. 14.

  225. Basic Principles, Principle 11.

  226. CIHL Study, Rule 150 (Reparation), p. 546.

  227. See, for example, the submission of the complainant in Committee Against Torture Mrs A. v. Bosnia & Herzegovina, para. 2.9. Statutes of limitations are however annulled through the international nature of the crime and (where relevant) the jus cogens nature of torture. See: Basic Principles, Principle 6; Committee Against Torture Mrs A. v. Bosnia & Herzegovina, para. 7.5; CIHL Study, Rule 160 (Statute of Limitations).

  228. This is confirmed in case law by human rights courts and UN treaty bodies and also laid down in the 2005 Basic Principle 18.

  229. Ibid., 2005 Basic Principle 15.

  230. Ashdown and James (2010), pp. 139–140.

  231. Gardam (2018), pp. 44–45.

  232. Gardam (2018); Durham and Murphy (2022).

  233. The limited scope of the definition given to GBVAW, excluding social, economic and cultural manifestations of GBVAW in this article, should be noted.

  234. Lindsey (2001), p. 213.

  235. See: Goldscheid and Liebowitz (2015), p. 301.

  236. Krill (1985); Lindsey (2001); Gaggioli (2014).

  237. See n. 3.

  238. See also: UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences’ (13 June 2017), A/HRC/35/30.

  239. UNSC Res. 2467 (23 April 2019), S/RES/2467, Arts. 3, 14, 16 and 17.

  240. Wood (2009), p. 131.

  241. See also: CEDAW Committee, General Comment No. 30, para. 16.

  242. See also: Durham and Murphy (2022).

  243. UNSC Res. 1325 (31 October 2000), S/RES/1325, Art. 10.

References

  • Altunjan T (2021) The International Criminal Court and sexual violence: between aspirations and reality. Ger Law J 22:878–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashdown J, James M (2010) Women in detention. Int Rev Red Cross 92(877):123–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askin K (2003) Prosecuting wartime rape and other gender-related crimes under international law: extraordinary advances, enduring obstacles. Berkeley J Int Law 21(2):288–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow A (2010) UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820: constructing gender in armed conflict and international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 92:221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennoune K (2006) Do we need new international law to protect women in armed conflict. Case West Reserve J Int Law 38:363–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes A (2018) The standard of ‘due diligence’ as a result of the interchange between the law of armed conflict and general international law. J Confl Secur Law 23(3):433–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blázquez Rodríguez P (2018) Does an armed group have an obligation to provide reparations to its victims? Construing an obligation to provide reparations for violations of international humanitarian law. In: Summers J, Gough A (eds) Non-state actors and international obligations. Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 406–428

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cassimatis A (2007) International humanitarian law, international human rights law, and fragmentation of international law. Int Comp Law Q 56:623–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerna C (2011) The history of the inter-American system’s jurisprudence as regards situations of armed conflict. Int Hum Legal Stud 2:3–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth H, Chinkin C (1993) The gender of jus cogens. Hum Rights Q 15:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2006) Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cook R (1993) Women’s international human rights law: the way forward. Hum Rights Q 15(1):230–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darcy S (2014) Judges, law and war: the judicial development of international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Vido S (2018) The prohibition of violence against women as customary international law? Remarks on the CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35. Diritti Umani e Diritto Internazionale 12(2):379–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy H (2020) Trials and tribulations: co-applicability of IHL and human rights in an age of adjudication. In: Bohrer Z, Dill J, Duffy H, Peters M (eds) The law applicable to armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 15–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Durham H, Murphy V (2022) Taking the next steps on sexual and gender-based violence in international humanitarian law: embracing complementarity and mainstreaming gender. In: Kolb R, Gaggioli G, Kilibarda P (eds) Research handbook on human rights and humanitarian law: further reflections and observations. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 362–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham H, O’Byrne K (2010) The dialogue of difference: gendered perspectives on international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 92(877):31–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards A (2010) Violence against women under international human rights law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferstman C (2021) Do guarantees of non-recurrence actually help to prevent systemic violations? Reflections on measures taken to prevent domestic violence. Neth Int Law Rev 68(3):387–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaggioli G (2014) Sexual violence in armed conflicts: a violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Int Rev Red Cross 96(894):503–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J, Charlesworth H (2000) Protection of women in armed conflict. Hum Rights Q 22:148–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J, Jarvis M (2000) Women and armed conflict: the international response to the Beijing Platform for Action. Columbia Hum Rights Law Rev 32:1–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J, Jarvis M (2001) Women, armed conflict and international law. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J (2018) The silences in the rules that regulate women during times of armed conflict. In: Ní Aoláin FN et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of gender and conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldscheid J, Liebowitz D (2015) Due diligence and gender violence: parsing its power and its perils. Cornell Int Law J 48:301–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway O et al (2012) Which law governs during armed conflict? The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law. Minn Law Rev 96:1883–1943

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffes E (2022) International human rights law and non-state armed groups: the (de)construction of an international legal discourse. In: Kolb R, Gaggioli G, Kilibarda P (eds) Research handbook on human rights and humanitarian law: further reflections and observations. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 265–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J (2010) Customary international humanitarian law: taking stock of the ICRC study. Nordic J Int Law 78:435–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law. ICRC, Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts J, Wiesener C (2013) Human rights obligations of non-state armed groups: a possible contribution to customary international law? In: Kolb R, Gaggioli G (eds) Research handbook on human rights and humanitarian law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 146–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Krill F (1985) The protection of women in international humanitarian Law. Int Rev Red Cross 249:337–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey C (2001) Women facing war: ICRC study on the impact of armed conflict on women. ICRC Women and War, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey C et al (2004) Addressing the needs of women affected by armed conflict: an ICRC guidance document. ICRC Women and War, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews H (2013) The interaction between international human rights law and international humanitarian law: seeking the most effective protection for civilians in non-international armed conflicts. Int J Hum Rights 17(5–6):633–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn C (2009) Rape, torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. Int Comp Law Q 58:565–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meron T (1993) Rape as a crime under international humanitarian law. Am J Int Law 87(3):424–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell D (2005) The prohibition of rape in international humanitarian law as a norm of jus cogens: clarifying the doctrine. Duke J Comp Int Law 15:219–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntombizozuko D (2016) The jus cogens nature of the prohibition of sexual violence against women in armed conflicts and state responsibility. Stellenbosch Law Rev 27(1):112–135

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke C (2020) Women’s rights in armed conflict under international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pillay N (2003) The rule of international humanitarian law in redressing crimes of sexual violence. In: Vohrah L et al (eds) Man’s inhumanity to man: essays on international law in honour of Antonio Cassesse. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 685–692

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schabas W (2021) The customary international law of human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumaran S (2012) The law of non-international armed conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa L et al (2019) Protection against violence: the challenges of incorporating human rights standards to procedural law. Hum Rights Q 41:939–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaine A (2015) Beyond strategic rape and between the public and private: violence against women in armed conflict. Hum Rights Q 37(3):755–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vijeyarasa R (2020) CEDAW’s General Recommendation No. 35: a quarter of a century of evolutionary approaches to violence against women. J Hum Rights 19(2):153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood E (2009) Armed groups and sexual violence: when is wartime rape rare? Polit Soc 37(1):131–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Johanna Trittenbach, thesis supervisor, for her guidance. The author also thanks her anonymous reviewers for the feedback on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden, The Netherlands

    Ingeborg de Koningh

Authors
  1. Ingeborg de Koningh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingeborg de Koningh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

This article is based on the thesis submitted for the partial fulfilment of the LLM in Public International Law at Leiden University, the Netherlands. This thesis received an honourable mention in the François Prize of the Royal Netherlands Society of International Law (Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht).

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

de Koningh, I. Consolidating International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: Protection from Gender-Based Violence Against Women in Non-International Armed Conflict. Neth Int Law Rev 70, 87–120 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00236-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00236-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation