Advertisement

Gender Justice in Multilateral Negotiations: The Case of SGBV in the Rome Statute and in the ICC

  • Simone WisotzkiEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studien des Leibniz-Instituts Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung book series (SLIHSFK)

Abstract

In the negotiations of the Rome Statute, the “gender battle” became synonymous for a series of justice conflicts concentrating on a norm to criminalize sexual gender-based violence (SGBV). The book chapter identifies the crucial justice conflicts during the negotiations that led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), analyzes their consequences for the way in which the SGBV norm was finally established by the Rome Statute, and concludes by asking how such conflicts have affected implementation efforts. Sexual gender-based violence has escaped sanctions at the international realm for a long time. Based on progress achieved during the war tribunals on Rwanda (ICTR) and Yugoslavia (ICTY), this finally changed with the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court (ICC). During the negotiations in Rome, civil society organizations relied on justice arguments in order to push for an individualization of sexual gender-based crimes. As feminist lawyers were not satisfied with the ways in which sexual violence had been defined in the statutes of the two war tribunals on Rwanda (ICTR) and Yugoslavia (ICTY), they now aimed at “doing justice” to the victims by seeking to widen the definition and pushing for forms of retributive justice. Some states were sympathetic to their positions and also supported stricter rules strengthening the individual rights of victims. Such efforts were met with resistance by other states which led to serious conflicts during the negotiations at Rome. In order to reach an agreement in spite of such justice conflicts, compromises were made which inhibit the implementation of ICC norms on behalf of the victims of sexual violence.

References

  1. Aoláin, F. N., Haynes, D. F., & Cahn, N. (2011). Criminal justice for gendered violence and beyond. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 425–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajpai, K. (2003). Indian conceptions of order and justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva, and Neo-liberal. In R. Foot, J. Gaddis, & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Order and justice in international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beardsworth, R. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and international relations theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bedont, B. & Hall-Martinez, K. (1999). Ending impunity for gender crimes under the International Criminal Court. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 65, 65–85.Google Scholar
  6. Benedetti, F., Bonneau, K., & Washburn, J. L. (2014). Negotiating the International Criminal Court. Leiden: Martin Nihoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benford, R. B., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bensouda, F. (2014). Gender justice and the ICC. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(4), 538–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, C., & Du Plessis, M. (2005). The international criminal court and victims of sexual violence. South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(3), 241–258.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, B. S. (2002). Unilateralism, multilateralism, and the international criminal court. In S. Patrick & S. Forman (Eds.), Center on international cooperation studies in multilateralism. Multilateralism and US foreign policy: Ambivalent engagement (pp. 323–345). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, C. (1992). International relations theory. New normative approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2004). The preventive use of force: A cosmopolitan institutional proposal. Ethics & International Affairs, 18(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, D. (2011). Performing legal order: Some feminist thoughts on international criminal law. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter, R. C. (2006). Recognizing gender-based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security Dialogue, 37(1), 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carpenter, C. R. (2007). Recognizing gender-based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security Dialogue, 37(1), 83–103.Google Scholar
  17. Chappell, L. (2014). “New”, “Old” and “Nested” institutions and gender justice outcomes: A view from the international criminal court. Politics and Gender, 10(4), 572–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chertoff, E. (2017). Prosecuting gender-based persecution: The Islamic state at the ICC. The Yale Law Journal, 126(4), 908–1241.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, D. K., & Nordas, R. (2014). Sexual violence in armed conflict: Introducing the SVAC dataset 1989–2009. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Copelon, R. (2000). Gender crimes as war crimes: Integrating crimes against women into international criminal law. McGill Law Journal, 46(1), 218–240.Google Scholar
  21. Corser, M. (2011). Enhancing women’s rights and capabilities: An intersectional approach to gender-based violence prevention (Rapoport Center Human Rights Working Paper Series No. 1). https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/27716/1-2011CorserEnhancingWomensRightsandCapabilities.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.
  22. Davis, L. (2018). Reimaging justice for gender-based crimes at the margins: New legal strategies for prosecuting ISIS crimes against women and LGBTIQ persons. William & Mary Journal of Women & the Law, 24(3), 513–558.Google Scholar
  23. de Brouwer, A.-M. (2005). Supranational criminal prosecution of sexual violence: The ICC and the practice of the ITCY and the ITCR. Antwerpen: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  24. de Guzman, M. M. (2011). Giving priority to sex crime prosecutions: The philosophical foundations of a feminist agenda. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Guzman, M. M. (2012). An expressive rationale for the thematic prosecution of sex crimes. In M. Bergsmo (Ed.), Thematic prosecution of international sex crimes (pp. 11–44). Bejing: Torkel Opsal Academic EPublisher.Google Scholar
  26. Deitelhoff, N. (2009). Grenzen der Verständigung? Kulturelle Fragmentierung im Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats. In N. Deitelhoff & J. Steffek (Eds.), Was bleibt vom Staat? Demokratie, Recht und Verfassung im globalen Zeitalter (pp. 187–220). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  27. Deitelhoff, N., & Müller, H. (2005). Theoretical paradise: Empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies, 31(1), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dixon, R. (2002). Rape as a crime in international humanitarian law: Where to from here? European Journal of International Law, 13(3), 697–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Douglas, L. (2001). The memory of judgement: Making law and history in the trials of the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dörrmann, K. (2003). War crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, with a special focus on the negotiations on the elements of crimes. In A. von Bogdandy & R. Wolfrum (Eds.), Max Planck yearbook of United Nations law, 7, 341–407.Google Scholar
  31. Duffield, M. (2001). Global governance and the new wars. The merging of development and security. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  32. Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing international society: A history of the english school. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ellis, M. (2007). Breaking the silence: Rape as an international crime. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 38(2), 225–247.Google Scholar
  34. Engle, K. (2018). A genealogy of the centrality of sexual violence to gender and conflict. In F. N. Aoláin, N. Cahn, D. F. Haynes, & N. Valji (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Erb, N. E. (1998). Gender-based crimes under the draft statute for the permanent international criminal court. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 29(2), 401–436.Google Scholar
  36. Ertürk, Y. (2007). Intersections between culture and violence against women. Report of the special rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequence. United Nations Generals Assembly/Human Rights Council, A/HRC/4/34, 17 January 2007.Google Scholar
  37. Evans, G., & Sahnoun, M. (2002). The responsibility to protect. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice. Reimaging political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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(3), 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Halley, J. (2008–2009). Rape at Rome: Feminist interventions in the criminalization of sex-related violence in positive international criminal law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30(1), 1–123.Google Scholar
  41. Hechler, S. (2016). Prosecuting Islamic state members for sexual and gender-based crimes committed against Yazidi women and girls. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25(3), 595–626.Google Scholar
  42. Hofmann, G., & Wisotzki, S. (2014). Global governance efforts in tension between humanitarian concerns and statist sovereignty rights. International Negotiation, 19(3), 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hutchings, K. (2010). Global ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. International Committee of the Red Cross. (1863). Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). Resource document. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/110. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.
  46. International Criminal Court. (2002). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.
  47. International Criminal Court. (2005). Alleged crimes (non-exhaustive list). International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/uganda/ongwen/pages/alleged-crimes.aspx. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.
  48. International Criminal Court. (2012). ICC-01/04-01/06. Situation in the democratic Republic of the Congo in the case of the prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2012_07409.PDF. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.
  49. International Criminal Court. (2014). ICC-01/04-01/07. The situation in the democratic Republic of the Congo in the case of the prosecutor v. Germain Katanga. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2015_04025.PDF. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.
  50. International Criminal Court. (2015). ICC-01/04-02/12. The situation in the democratic Republic of the Congo. The prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/ngudjolo/Documents/ChuiEng.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.
  51. Jackson, R. H. (2003). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Koenig, A. K., Lincoln, R., & Groth, L. (2011). The jurisprudence of sexual violence. A working paper of the sexual violence and accountability project. Human Rights Center, University of California Berkeley. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Jurisprudence-of-Sexual-Violence-SV-Working-Paper.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2018.
  53. Lewis, D. A. (2009). Unrecognized victims: Sexual violence against men in conflict settings under international law. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 27(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
  54. Lu, C. (2000). The one and many faces of cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 8(2), 244–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lynch, M. (2000). The dialogue of civilizations and international public spheres. Millennium, 29(2), 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mibenge, C. S. (2013). Sex and international tribunals. The erasure of gender from the war narrative. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  57. Miller, D. (2005). Global egalitarianism. The Journal of Ethics, 9(1/2), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moshan, B. S. (1998). Women, war, and words: The gender component in the permanent international criminal court’s definition of crimes against humanity. Fordham International Law Journal, 22(1), 154–184.Google Scholar
  60. Müller, H. (1994). Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 1(1), 15–44.Google Scholar
  61. Müller, H. (2007). Internationale Verhandlungen, Argumente und Verständigungshandeln. Verteidigung, Befunde, Warnung. In P. Niesen & M. Herborth (Eds.), Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik (pp. 199–223). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  62. Müller, H. (2011). Justice in international diplomacy (PRIF Working Papers, 8). Frankfurt a. M.: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. http://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/downloads/PRIF_WP_08.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2013.
  63. Müller, H. (2013). Justice and peace: Good things do not always go together. In M. Diawara, M. W. Doyle, R. Forst, S. Kadelbach, M. Lutz-Bachmann, & C. Lynch (Eds.), Justice and peace. Interdisciplinary perspectives on a contested relationship. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  64. Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice. Studies in security and international affairs. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nagel, T. (2005). The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 115–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Office of the Prosecutor. (2014). Policy paper on sexual and gender-based crimes. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Policy-Paper-on-Sexual-and-Gender-Based-Crimes–June-2014.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.
  67. Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics, 103(1), 48–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Purdy, J. (2005). The new liberal imperialism: Assessing the argument. In C. Barry & T. Pogge (Eds.), Global institutions and responsibilities. Achieving global justice (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sandholtz, W. (2008). Explaining international norm change. In W. Sandholtz & K. W. Stiles (Eds.), International norms and cycles of change (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shapcott, R. (2010). International ethics. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  73. Skjelsbaek, I. (2012). The political psychology of war rape. Studies form Bosnia and Herzegovina. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spees, P. (2003). Women’s advocacy in the creation of the international criminal court: Changing the landscapes of justice and power. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(4), 1233–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Walzer, M. (2006). Sphären der Gerechtigkeit. Ein Plädoyer für Pluralität und Gleichheit. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  76. Wheeler, N. J. (1992). Pluralist or solidarist conceptions of international society. Millennium, 21(3), 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wiener, A. (2009). Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Women’s Caucus. (1999). Report of the November–December 1999 ICC prepcom. WC archive. http://www.iccwomen.org/icc/pc199912/report.htm. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.
  79. Women’s Caucus. (2000). Report of March 2000 ICC prepcom. WC archive. http://www.iccwomen.org/icc/pc200003/report.htm. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.
  80. Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice. (2014). Report on the 10-Year Review Conference of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court, 31 May–11 June, Kampala/Uganda. The Hague.Google Scholar
  81. Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women Studies, 13(3), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK)Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations