Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forced Pregnancy as a Crime Against Humanity and a War Crime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reproductive Violence and International Criminal Law

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 29))

Abstract

The ICC Statute is the first international criminal legal instrument to recognize a separate crime of forced pregnancy, both as a crime against humanity and a war crime. The inclusion of the crime was the result of controversial negotiations, and its definition is complex and restrictive. This chapter details the negotiating history of the crime and proposes an interpretation of its elements, which is guided by the protected value of reproductive autonomy and informed by the international human rights framework pertaining to the protection of reproductive human rights. It argues that an explicit criminalization of different manifestations of gender-based and particularly reproductive violence is important and necessary. This is because such an approach surfaces the unique harm suffered by the victims and ensures that the underlying conduct is conceptualized as a criminal act deserving investigation and prosecution as a crime under international law.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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, Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, Judgment, 4 February 2021, ICC-02/04-01/15 (Ongwen 2021), paras 2717–2729, 3056–3062; ICC, Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 23 March 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15 (Ongwen 2016), paras 96–101, counts 58–59. See generally Grey 2019, pp 171–178.

  2. 2.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, paras 205–208; Ongwen 2016, above n 1, paras 111–115. Charges with respect to a third victim-witness, P-198, were originally brought but later withdrawn by the prosecution, see para 128.

  3. 3.

    Cited after ICC, Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, Common Legal Representative of Victims’ Closing Brief, 28 February 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15, para 102. See Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2070.

  4. 4.

    ICC, Prosecutor v Ongwen, Transcript, 13 September 2017, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-104-Red2-ENG WT, p 16.

  5. 5.

    ICC, Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief, 6 September 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15 (Ongwen Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief 2016), para 512.

  6. 6.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2717.

  7. 7.

    Most notably, see United States Military Tribunal Nuernberg, The United States of America v Ulrich Greifelt et al., Judgment, 10 March 1948, Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals.

  8. 8.

    Commission of Experts 1994, para 248.

  9. 9.

    See also Grey 2017, pp 921–922; Koenig and Askin 2000, p 15.

  10. 10.

    See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.3.3.1.

  11. 11.

    Goldstein 1993, p 4.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p 17.

  13. 13.

    See also Carpenter 2000b, pp 446–447.

  14. 14.

    See Bassiouni and McCormick 1996, pp 18–20; Bresnick 1995, pp 124–127; Healey 1995–1996, p 370; Helsinki Watch 1993, p 21. See also Fisher 1996.

  15. 15.

    See Chinkin 1994, p 326; Tompkins 1995, pp 866, 877.

  16. 16.

    See also Weiß 2001, p 136.

  17. 17.

    Copelon 1994, pp 247, 263.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., pp 248, 252, 256, 263.

  19. 19.

    Allen 1996, p 97.

  20. 20.

    See e.g. ibid., pp 97, 138–140.

  21. 21.

    MacKinnon 1993, p 73; MacKinnon 1994, p 16.

  22. 22.

    MacKinnon 1994, p 13.

  23. 23.

    MacKinnon 1993, p 76. See also Durham and O’Byrne 2010, p 44; Toy-Cronin 2010, p 585.

  24. 24.

    MacKinnon 1993, pp 62, 78. See also Eriksson 2000, p 322; Rubio-Marín 2012, p 75.

  25. 25.

    Moshan 1998, pp 163–164.

  26. 26.

    Ray 1997, pp 808–810.

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Askin 1997, pp 402–403; Carpenter 2000a; D’Costa and Hossain 2010, pp 343–345; Eriksson 2000, p 420; Green et al. 1994, pp 185–189; Rimmer 2010, p 109; Women in the Law Project 1994, pp 95, 97.

  28. 28.

    Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 720. Similarly Ambos 2013b, p 102.

  29. 29.

    Ambos 2013b, p 102; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 720.

  30. 30.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017b, para 18.

  31. 31.

    Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Prosecutor v Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan and Ieng Thirith, Closing Order, 15 September 2010, 002/19-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ (Nuon et al. Closing Order 2010), para 1445. In the judgment, the term “enforced procreation” appears only in a summary of the Closing Order, Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Prosecutor v Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan, Judgment, 16 November 2018, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC). See also Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.4.4.

  32. 32.

    See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.2.1.

  33. 33.

    On the “genocidal rape debate”, see Chap. 4, Sect. 4.2.2.1.

  34. 34.

    Goldstein 1993.

  35. 35.

    Copelon 1994, p 256.

  36. 36.

    Green et al. 1994, pp 186–189. See similarly Women in the Law Project 1994, p 97.

  37. 37.

    American Bar Association, Task Force on War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia 1993, p 15.

  38. 38.

    Fisher 1996, p 93.

  39. 39.

    Allen 1996, pp 123–132.

  40. 40.

    Askin 1997, pp 398–399, 402–403. See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.5.3.

  41. 41.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.1.9.

  42. 42.

    ICC, Prosecutor v Ongwen, Transcript, 6 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-26-ENG ET WT, p 33.

  43. 43.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.1.9.

  44. 44.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.2.

  45. 45.

    See United Nations Human Rights Council 2015, paras 30–43.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., paras 31, 38. See also Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict Zainab Hawa Bangura Condemns the Use of Sexual Violence as a Tactic of War and Terror by Boko Haram, 26 May 2015, https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/press-release/un-special-representative-of-the-secretary-general-on-sexual-violence-in-conflict-zainab-hawa-bangura-condemns-the-use-of-sexual-violence-as-a-tactic-of-war-and-terror-by-boko-haram/ (accessed 24 October 2020), referring to forced impregnation.

  47. 47.

    See United Nations Human Rights Council 2015, para 43.

  48. 48.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.1.4.

  49. 49.

    See Sanni and Ukomadu, Nigerian Police Free 19 Women and Girls From Lagos “Baby Factory”: Statement, Reuters, 30 September 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-captives-babies/nigerian-police-free-19-women-and-girls-from-lagos-baby-factory-statement-idUSKBN1WF205 (accessed 24 October 2020).

  50. 50.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.

  51. 51.

    Grey forthcoming, p 12.

  52. 52.

    Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 25 June 1993, II para 38.

  53. 53.

    Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, 15 September 1995 (Beijing Declaration), Platform for Action paras 11, 114, 132.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., Platform for Action para 11, see also para 135.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., Platform for Action para 142(c).

  56. 56.

    Beijing+5, 9 June 2000, Further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, para 19.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., Further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, para 96(d).

  58. 58.

    United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1995, para 5; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1996, para 5; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1997a, para 4; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1998a, para 4; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1999, paras 5–6; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 2001, para 11; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 2002, para 15; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 2003, para 15; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 2004, para 16; United Nations Commission on Human Rights 2005, para 18.

  59. 59.

    United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1998b, para 13, very similarly United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1997b, para 13.

  60. 60.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 1994, para 22.

  61. 61.

    On the establishment of the ICC, see generally Ambos 2018, § 6 marginal nos 22–23; Schabas 2016, pp 12–27.

  62. 62.

    See Grey 2019, pp 112–113.

  63. 63.

    See Robinson 2000, p 93; von Hebel and Robinson 1999, p 117.

  64. 64.

    United Nations General Assembly 1989; see also Schabas 2016, pp 12–13.

  65. 65.

    United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1995b.

  66. 66.

    See United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1995a.

  67. 67.

    See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.4.3.3.

  68. 68.

    Association Internationale de Droit Pénal et al. 1995, p 24.

  69. 69.

    United Nations General Assembly 1995.

  70. 70.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1996a.

  71. 71.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1998b.

  72. 72.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1996a, para 98.

  73. 73.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1996b, p 68.

  74. 74.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997a.

  75. 75.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997b.

  76. 76.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997f.

  77. 77.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997c.

  78. 78.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997d.

  79. 79.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997e.

  80. 80.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 73; Glasius 2006, p 88.

  81. 81.

    See Hall 1998, p 333.

  82. 82.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1997g.

  83. 83.

    Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice 1997. See also Glasius 2006, p 88; Halley 2008, p 88.

  84. 84.

    See Glasius 2006, p 81; Grey 2019, p 103.

  85. 85.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, pp 66–67; Durham 2001, pp 826–833; Oosterveld 1999, pp 38–39; Pace and Schense 2000, p 719.

  86. 86.

    See Grey 2019, pp 99–100.

  87. 87.

    See Chappell 2016, pp 35–36; Glasius 2006, pp 79–80.

  88. 88.

    Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice 1997, p 31.

  89. 89.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 73.

  90. 90.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1998a.

  91. 91.

    See Kuschnik 2009, p 355.

  92. 92.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 73.

  93. 93.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1998b.

  94. 94.

    United Nations General Assembly 1998. See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 61.

  95. 95.

    See Grey 2019, p 99.

  96. 96.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal nos 64–66.

  97. 97.

    See ibid., marginal no 67.

  98. 98.

    The extent to which war crimes in non-international armed conflicts should be included at all was, however, still disputed.

  99. 99.

    See Bedont 1999, p 199. On the Rome negotiations, see generally Chappell 2016, pp 95–96; Grey 2019, pp 108–110.

  100. 100.

    Besides the Holy See, the following delegations opposed the inclusion of forced pregnancy: Bahrain, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Kuwait, Libya, Malta, Nicaragua, Oman, Paraguay, Poland, Philippines, Russia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela; see Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 74, footnote 42.

  101. 101.

    See e.g. United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998a, p 160 (Libya, United Arab Emirates), p 162 (Kuwait). See also Drake 2012, p 607; Grey 2017, p 919; Kuschnik 2009, p 354.

  102. 102.

    Tauran, The Defence of Life in the Context of International Policies and Norms, 11 February 2000, footnote 25, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20000211_tauran-acdlife_en.html (accessed 24 October 2020).

  103. 103.

    See e.g. ibid.; United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998a, pp 148, 163 (Saudi Arabia), p 166 (Iran); Wilkins and Reynolds 2006, p 139. See also Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 721; Drake 2012, p 607; Grey 2017, p 919; Grey 2019, p 108; Koenig and Askin 2000, p 14; Schwarz 2019, p 258.

  104. 104.

    Holy See 1998.

  105. 105.

    See also Grey 2019, p 108.

  106. 106.

    Bedont 1999, p 197.

  107. 107.

    United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998a, pp 148, 163.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., p 160.

  109. 109.

    See Chappell 2016, p 96; Roach 2005, pp 148–149.

  110. 110.

    See Glasius 2006, pp 82–84; Grey 2019, pp 104–105; Pace and Schense 2000, p 719.

  111. 111.

    See Bedont 1999, p 197; Steains 1999, p 366. See also Robinson 1999, p 53, footnote 63.

  112. 112.

    United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998a, p 332.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., p 346.

  114. 114.

    United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998b, p 19.

  115. 115.

    See Glasius 2006, pp 79–82.

  116. 116.

    International Commission of Jurists 1998, pp 9–10. According to Askin, the Women’s Caucus delegates were divided on whether the term “forced” or “enforced” pregnancy should be used, see Askin 1999a, p 46, footnote 43.

  117. 117.

    Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice 1998.

  118. 118.

    See Glasius 2006, p 89; Graditzky 1999, p 205; Joseph 2008, p 83.

  119. 119.

    Delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998.

  120. 120.

    Delegations in favour of the crime included: Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Canada, Croatia, Estonia, India, Mexico, The Netherlands, Nigeria, Rwanda, Slovenia, Sudan, Turkey, and the United States; see Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 74, footnote 43.

  121. 121.

    See Steains 1999, p 366.

  122. 122.

    United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998c.

  123. 123.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1998b, p 20.

  124. 124.

    United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998b, p 6.

  125. 125.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 74; Halley 2008, pp 88–89. An interview with a Holy See representative after the Rome Conference illustrates why such a definition was deemed necessary. In a striking exaggeration, he stated: “If that term, ‘forced pregnancy,’ had been left to stand alone, without being defined further, it would have been extremely dangerous. It could have been used to condemn the husband who persuades his wife not to interrupt her pregnancy; it could have been used against laws that prevent abortion after a certain number of weeks. The Pope himself speaking against abortion from his study window could have been incriminated!”, see Bardazzi, War: A One-Way Adventure, Traces, November 2002, archivio.traces-cl.com/nov02/waraone.htm (accessed 24 October 2020).

  126. 126.

    Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, Priority Concerns: Respecting War Crimes, Article B, cited after Halley 2008, p 89.

  127. 127.

    See Steains 1999, pp 367–368.

  128. 128.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 722.

  129. 129.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 74. See also Steains 1999, p 368.

  130. 130.

    See Schwarz 2019, p 258; Steains 1999, p 368.

  131. 131.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July 2002) (ICC Statute), Article 9(1).

  132. 132.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 236. See also Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.2.

  133. 133.

    Documentations of the sessions are available at Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, https://legal.un.org/icc/prepcomm/prepfra.htm (accessed 24 October 2020).

  134. 134.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999a.

  135. 135.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999b.

  136. 136.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999c. The Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice agreed with this proposal, see Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice 1999.

  137. 137.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999d.

  138. 138.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999g.

  139. 139.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999e, p 71.

  140. 140.

    See La Haye 2000, p 194.

  141. 141.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999f.

  142. 142.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 2000a.

  143. 143.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 2000b.

  144. 144.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999h.

  145. 145.

    See La Haye 2000, pp 194–195; Rückert and Witschel 2001, p 85.

  146. 146.

    See Dörmann 2003, p 330, footnote 5.

  147. 147.

    See Grey 2019, pp 116–117; La Haye 2000, pp 194–195.

  148. 148.

    See Dörmann 2003, p 330, footnote 5.

  149. 149.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 2000c, p 13, footnote 20.

  150. 150.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 2000d. See also La Haye 2000, p 195; Rückert and Witschel 2001, p 85.

  151. 151.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article (7)(1)(g)-4, no. 1; Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-4, no. 1; Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-4, no. 1. All provisions include further elements on the respective contextual element.

  152. 152.

    See ICC Elements of Crimes, General Introduction para 6.

  153. 153.

    See Rückert and Witschel 2001, p 85.

  154. 154.

    See ICC Elements of Crimes, General Introduction para 7.

  155. 155.

    Grey 2019, p 117.

  156. 156.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.1.1.

  157. 157.

    See Zulficar 1994–1995, p 1025. See also Fleishman 2000, pp 283–289.

  158. 158.

    See Berro Pizzarossa 2018, p 7; Zulficar 1994–1995, pp 1027–1028.

  159. 159.

    See Berro Pizzarossa 2018, p 7; Copelon 2000, p 236. However, see also Berro Pizzarossa 2018, p 7; Zulficar 1994–1995, pp 1027–1028, pointing out various nuances and differences in the positions.

  160. 160.

    See also Berro Pizzarossa 2018, p 7.

  161. 161.

    Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court 1998a.

  162. 162.

    See Joseph 2008, p 82; Steains 1999, p 366.

  163. 163.

    See Bedont 1999, p 197, stating that the inclusion of the act of impregnation was not contested and that it could still be covered by the provision even though it is not explicitly mentioned. See also Steains 1999, p 366.

  164. 164.

    Bedont 1999, p 197.

  165. 165.

    Ibid.

  166. 166.

    Steains 1999, p 366.

  167. 167.

    Askin 1997, pp 402–403.

  168. 168.

    According to Halley, this modification originated from a Women’s Caucus proposal, see Halley 2008, p 89.

  169. 169.

    Askin 1999b, p 55, footnote 58. See also Koenig and Askin 2000, p 14.

  170. 170.

    See Arsanjani 1999, p 31; Kuschnik 2009, p 355.

  171. 171.

    The Women’s Caucus had originally proposed a much broader definition of the crime and was apparently dissatisfied with the result. See Halley 2008, pp 89, 104; Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice 1999.

  172. 172.

    See also Grey 2017, pp 921–922; Koenig and Askin 2000, p 15; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1078.

  173. 173.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.3.3.1.

  174. 174.

    Rückert and Witschel 2001, p 84.

  175. 175.

    United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court 1998a, p 160.

  176. 176.

    Ibid., p 162.

  177. 177.

    Tauran, above n 102.

  178. 178.

    See Askin 1997, pp 398–403; Copelon 1994, pp 256, 261; Fisher 1996, p 93; Goldstein 1993, pp 22–24; Green et al. 1994, p 237; Helsinki Watch 1993, pp 21–22.

  179. 179.

    See also Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.1.2.

  180. 180.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(g), Article 8(2)(b)(xxii), Article 8(2)(e)(vi).

  181. 181.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(g)-1, no. 1, Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-1, no. 1, Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-1, no. 1.

  182. 182.

    See also Grey 2017, p 928.

  183. 183.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(f).

  184. 184.

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

  185. 185.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(h).

  186. 186.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(k).

  187. 187.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(ii).

  188. 188.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(iii).

  189. 189.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(b)(x).

  190. 190.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(b)(xxi).

  191. 191.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(b)(xxii).

  192. 192.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(c)(i).

  193. 193.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(c)(ii).

  194. 194.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(e)(vi).

  195. 195.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(e)(xi).

  196. 196.

    See generally with regard to both rape and forced pregnancy Eriksson 2000, pp 368–404.

  197. 197.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(c).

  198. 198.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(e).

  199. 199.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(f).

  200. 200.

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

  201. 201.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(h).

  202. 202.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(k).

  203. 203.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(ii).

  204. 204.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(iii).

  205. 205.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(vii).

  206. 206.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(b)(xxi).

  207. 207.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(b)(xxii).

  208. 208.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(c)(i).

  209. 209.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(c)(ii).

  210. 210.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(e)(vi).

  211. 211.

    Cook and Cusack 2011, p 39.

  212. 212.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2722, referring to the principle of fair labelling.

  213. 213.

    Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Annex to the Agreement by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 8 August 1945 (IMT Charter), Article 6(c); see Askin 1997, p 142; Bassiouni 2011, p 425; De Brouwer 2005, p 7; Möller 2001, p 285; Schwarz 2019, p 104; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1065.

  214. 214.

    IMT Charter, above n 213, Article 6(b); see Schwarz 2019, p 104.

  215. 215.

    Copelon 2000, p 234. See also Grey 2019, pp 103–104.

  216. 216.

    Copelon 2000, p 234. See also Grey 2019, pp 103–104.

  217. 217.

    See Rückert and Witschel 2001, p 81. With regard to forced marriage, see Bunting and Ikhimiukor 2018. See also Grey forthcoming, p 17, highlighting “the ‘expressive’ power” of treating reproductive violence as crimes under international law.

  218. 218.

    See e.g. deGuzman 2012; Drumbl 2007, pp 173–179; Epik 2017, pp 149–152; Werkmeister 2015, pp 272–347.

  219. 219.

    See also Ambos 2017, p 40; Bunting and Ikhimiukor 2018.

  220. 220.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, preamble para 3. Similarly, see Eriksson 2000, p 480; Grey 2017, p 927; Oosterveld 2013, p 235.

  221. 221.

    See also Grey 2017, p 927. With regard to forced marriage, see also Bunting and Ikhimiukor 2018, asserting that a distinct crime of forced marriage should be added to the ICC Statute in the light of the unique harm suffered by the victims.

  222. 222.

    Copelon 1994, p 247. See also Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.3.

  223. 223.

    Oosterveld 2011, pp 138–139. It is worth noting that Oosterveld referred only to labelling a certain type of conduct as “forced marriage” in the context of the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts. However, her analysis was limited to the legal framework of the Special Court for Sierra Leone de lege lata.

  224. 224.

    Grey 2017, p 905.

  225. 225.

    In the context of forced marriage, see Bunting and Ikhimiukor 2018; Oosterveld 2011, pp 139–141.

  226. 226.

    See also Raab and Hobbs 2018.

  227. 227.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 68(3).

  228. 228.

    See also Rubio-Marín 2012, p 85.

  229. 229.

    See also Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2.3.

  230. 230.

    See also Rubio-Marín 2012, p 85.

  231. 231.

    See also Rubio-Marín 2009, p 81: “[V]iolations of women’s reproductive rights are not typically included or conceptualized as separate violations, even though they represent harms that are unique and distinct from those that result from other forms of sexual violence.”

  232. 232.

    See Eriksson 2000, p 480.

  233. 233.

    Similarly Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2722. See also Boon 2000, p 665; Cryer et al. 2019, p 251; Schwarz 2019, p 257; Soh 2006, p 329.

  234. 234.

    See Oosterveld 2011, pp 138–139.

  235. 235.

    See also Raab and Hobbs 2018.

  236. 236.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.2.3.

  237. 237.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017b, para 18.

  238. 238.

    Bassiouni 2011, p 430, footnote 370. Similarly, see Green et al. 1994, p 237: “[Rape with an intent to impregnate] must be recognized as a distinct or aggravated offense against the lives, integrity and dignity of women as humans”; Salzmann 1998, p 367: “a gap that requires an amendment”.

  239. 239.

    Grey 2017, p 928.

  240. 240.

    Ibid., p 928, footnote 152.

  241. 241.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.1.2.

  242. 242.

    A notable exception is the CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation no. 30, which lists forced impregnation along with forced termination of pregnancy and forced sterilization as forms of conflict-related gender-based violence which amount to human rights violations, see United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2013b, para 34. However, in General Recommendation no. 35, the Committee does not mention forced impregnation and instead refers to forced pregnancy and forced continuation of pregnancy as examples for violations of women’s sexual and reproductive rights, see United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017b, para 18.

  243. 243.

    Koenig and Askin 2000, p 14, footnote 50.

  244. 244.

    See also Kuschnik 2009, pp 355–356, though with reference to both pregnancy and childbirth.

  245. 245.

    In fact, the first conviction of forced pregnancy concerned two victims who both carried the pregnancies to term during the confinement, see Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 3057; ICC, Prosecutor v Ongwen, Transcript, 22 January 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-21-Red2-ENG WT (Ongwen Transcript 2016), pp 48, 51.

  246. 246.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2717.

  247. 247.

    ICC, Prosecutor v Ongwen, Transcript, 7 December 2016, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-27-ENG ET WT, p 14. See also Ongwen Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief 2016, above n 5, para 512, and ICC, Prosecutor v Dominic Ongwen, Prosecution Closing Brief, 24 February 2020, ICC-02/04-01/15, para 162: “These girls and women had no reproductive autonomy.”

  248. 248.

    Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 99.

  249. 249.

    Ongwen Transcript 2016, above n 245, p 47.

  250. 250.

    Laverty 2018. See also De Vos 2019, p 399.

  251. 251.

    See also Laverty 2018.

  252. 252.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.4.2. In this context, see also Ambos 2015, developing a “combined Rechtsgut-harm theory” of international criminal law.

  253. 253.

    See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.1.2.

  254. 254.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, preamble para 3.

  255. 255.

    See also Ambos 2013a, pp 304–315; Laverty 2018.

  256. 256.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.1.4.

  257. 257.

    Laverty 2018. Similarly Grey 2017, p 925.

  258. 258.

    See Joseph 2008, p 84. See also, though somewhat misleadingly and only in relation to the act of confinement as such, Boon 2000, p 660.

  259. 259.

    See Kuschnik 2009, p 357.

  260. 260.

    See Biehler 2015, p 229 (personal autonomy in the sense of freedom to decide whether or not to bear a child, in combination with bodily integrity); Chinkin 2009, pp 77–78 (“women’s autonomy and bodily integrity”).

  261. 261.

    Grey 2017.

  262. 262.

    See also Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1077, stating that the core of the crime is the violation of reproductive, not sexual, autonomy.

  263. 263.

    Copelon 1994, p 263.

  264. 264.

    Boon 2000, p 655.

  265. 265.

    Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 453. See also Eriksson 2000, p 480.

  266. 266.

    See Ambos 2015, pp 319–320.

  267. 267.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(h) and Article 7(2)(g).

  268. 268.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(j) and Article 7(2)(h).

  269. 269.

    Drake 2012, pp 616–618.

  270. 270.

    Ibid., p 605.

  271. 271.

    See also Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, Prosecutor v Ao An and Yim Tith, Consolidated Decision on the Requests for Investigative Action Concerning the Crime of Forced Pregnancy and Forced Impregnation, 13 June 2016, 004/07-09-2009-ECCC-OCIJ (Ao An and Yim Tith Decision on Investigative Requests 2016), para 69, limiting the analysis to the first intent alternative (which was indeed likely not present in the context of Cambodia, as opposed to the former Yugoslavia) and completely ignoring the second alternative.

  272. 272.

    See also Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 453.

  273. 273.

    In this regard, though not specifically in the context of the crime of forced pregnancy, see the Prosecutor’s opening statement in 2016, above n 42, p 35: “There is a whole category of other victims: the children born in captivity resulting from these forced marriages, who sometimes face hostility and taunts as a result of their parentage”. See also DeLaet 2007, pp 131–136; Dowds 2019, pp 232–233; Neenan 2018.

  274. 274.

    The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court 2016, para 3, footnote 6.

  275. 275.

    See especially Carpenter 2000a; Weiß 2001, pp 136–137.

  276. 276.

    Daniel-Wrabetz 2007, p 36.

  277. 277.

    See Neenan 2018. In the case against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, an Expert Report recommended the inclusion of children born of rape specifically as victims of the crime of rape and thus as beneficiaries of reparations, see ICC, Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Expert Report, 20 November 2017, ICC-01/05-01/08-3575-Anx-Corr2-Red, paras 48, 102; see also Dowds 2019, pp 231–232. However, since the ICC Appeals Chamber overturned Bemba’s conviction in 2018 (ICC, Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Appeals Judgment, 8 June 2018, ICC-01/05-01/08 A), the reparations proceedings had to be terminated, ICC, Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Final Decision on the Reparations Proceedings, 3 August 2018, ICC-01/05-01/08.

  278. 278.

    See Neenan 2018.

  279. 279.

    See also ibid.

  280. 280.

    Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 515.

  281. 281.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1).

  282. 282.

    E.g. ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 8(2)(a)(i), no. 4, Article 8(2)(c)(i), no. 4.

  283. 283.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, paras 2723–2724; Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 99.

  284. 284.

    See also Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 725; Schwarz 2019, p 264.

  285. 285.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2723; Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 99.

  286. 286.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, art 7(2)(f).

  287. 287.

    See also Chinkin 2009, p 77; Odio-Benito 2005, pp 165–166.

  288. 288.

    On the difference between sex and gender, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.3.1.

  289. 289.

    See also Askin 1997, p 275, qualifying that pregnancy-related crimes are female-specific because men cannot get pregnant “at this stage of technology”.

  290. 290.

    See generally Adamietz 2011, pp 29–47: “Transgender” describes persons whose gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth; “intersex” describes a variety of conditions in which a person’s anatomy does not fit within the male/female binary.

  291. 291.

    See Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 553, pointing out that this is the reason why the Swiss Criminal Code uses the formulation “person of female sex” (“Person weiblichen Geschlechts”) instead of “woman”.

  292. 292.

    See also Boon 2000, p 659; Joseph 2008, p 83; Short 2003, p 524.

  293. 293.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.3.5.2.

  294. 294.

    See Boon 2000, p 660; Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal nos 553–554.

  295. 295.

    See Askin 2005, p 144: “Even if the woman bears, keeps and loves the child born of the rape, she was still the victim of forced pregnancy.”

  296. 296.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102; Boon 2000, pp 660–661; Buehler 2002, p 163; Schwarz 2019, p 260. See also Askin 1999b, p 55, footnote 58, and Kuschnik 2009, p 355, asserting that the use of the term “forced” instead of “enforced” implies violence, threat of violence, and coercion.

  297. 297.

    As a crime against humanity: ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(g); ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(g)-1. As a war crime: ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxii) and Article 8(2)(e)(vi); ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-1 and Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-1.

  298. 298.

    ICTR, Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu, Judgment, 2 September 1998, ICTR-96-4-T (Akayesu 1998), paras 598, 688. See generally Adams 2013, pp 312–313; Dowds 2020, pp 89–91; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 56; MacKinnon 2006; Schomburg and Peterson 2007, p 132; Schwarz 2019, pp 176–181.

  299. 299.

    Akayesu 1998, above n 298, para 596.

  300. 300.

    Ibid., para 688.

  301. 301.

    Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 56; Schwarz 2019, pp 179–180.

  302. 302.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v Anto Furundžija, Judgment, 10 December 1998, IT-95-17/1-T (Furundžija 1998). See generally Adams 2013, pp 313–314; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 674; Dowds 2020, pp 91–93; Schomburg and Peterson 2007, p 133; Schwarz 2019, pp 181–184.

  303. 303.

    Furundžija 1998, above n 302, para 185.

  304. 304.

    Ibid., para 180.

  305. 305.

    See Schwarz 2019, p 184.

  306. 306.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković, Judgment, 22 February 2001, IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T (Kunarac et al. 2001), paras 436–460. See generally Adams 2013, pp 314–317; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal nos 681–686; Dowds 2020, pp 94–97; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 57; Schomburg and Peterson 2007, pp 133–136; Schwarz 2019, pp 184–191; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1069.

  307. 307.

    Kunarac et al. 2001, above n 306, para 457. On the use of the term “sexual autonomy”, see Grewal 2012, pp 379–380.

  308. 308.

    Kunarac et al. 2001, above n 306, para 460: “where such sexual penetration occurs without the consent of the victim”.

  309. 309.

    Ibid., para 458.

  310. 310.

    See La Haye 2000, pp 186–190.

  311. 311.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(g)-1, no. 2; Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-1, no. 2; Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-1, no. 2. See Adams 2013, p 331; Schwarz 2019, pp 210–213.

  312. 312.

    See also Grey 2019, p 118; Schwarz 2019, p 212.

  313. 313.

    As specified in ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(g)-1, no. 1; Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-1, no. 1; Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-1, no. 1.

  314. 314.

    See ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 7(1)(g)-1, no. 2; Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-1, no. 2; Article 8(2)(e)(vi)-1, no. 2.

  315. 315.

    ICC, Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment, 21 March 2016, ICC-01/05-01/08, para 105: “The Chamber notes that the victim’s lack of consent is not a legal element of the crime of rape under the Statute.” Similarly ICC, Prosecutor v Germain Katanga, Judgment, 7 March 2014, ICC-01/04-01/07, para 965: “The Chamber notes that, save the very specific situation of a person whose ‘incapacity’ was ‘tak[en] advantage of’, the Elements of Crimes do not refer to the victim’s lack of consent, and therefore this need not be proven.” See also Schwarz 2019, pp 213–217.

  316. 316.

    See Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, opened for signature 11 May 2011, CETS no. 210 (entered into force 1 August 2014), Article 36. See also Platform of Independent United Nations and Regional Expert Mechanisms on Violence Against Women and Women’s Rights, Absence of Consent Must Become the Global Standard for Definition of Rape, 25 November 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25340 (accessed 24 October 2020).

  317. 317.

    See e.g. ICTY, Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač and Zoran Vuković, Appeals Judgment, 12 June 2002, IT-96-23-A and IT-96-23/1-A (Kunarac et al. 2002), para 130 (“[I]t is worth observing that the circumstances […] that prevail in most cases charged as either war crimes or crimes against humanity will be almost universally coercive. That is to say, true consent will not be possible.”); Akayesu 1998, above n 298, para 688 (“coercion may be inherent in certain circumstances, such as armed conflict or the military presence”). See also Schomburg and Peterson 2007, pp 138–140.

  318. 318.

    See Biehler 2015, pp 188–191; Schomburg and Peterson 2007, p 138; Schwarz 2019, pp 229, 261; Zimmermann and Geiß 2018, marginal no 151.

  319. 319.

    See also Schwarz 2019, pp 229–230.

  320. 320.

    See also Dowds 2020, p 148.

  321. 321.

    See Grewal 2012.

  322. 322.

    Dowds 2020, p 169.

  323. 323.

    See also Engle 2005, pp 803–806.

  324. 324.

    See Grewal 2012, p 393; Schwarz 2019, p 261.

  325. 325.

    See Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2725. See also Boon 2000, p 661; Markovic 2007, p 442.

  326. 326.

    See Boon 2000, p 661; Buehler 2002, p 163; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 725; Paul 2008, p 190. See also Goldstein 1993, p 4, footnote 7.

  327. 327.

    See Bedont 1999, pp 198–199; Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 74; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 727.

  328. 328.

    See Boon 2000, p 661; Buehler 2002, p 163. See also Goldstein 1993, p 4: “Forcible removal of a woman’s IUD or contraceptive implant, or destruction of other means of birth control or access to birth control, would constitute evidence of intent to impregnate.”

  329. 329.

    De Vos 2016.

  330. 330.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 726; Schwarz 2019, p 259.

  331. 331.

    See Bedont 1999, p 197; Lobato 2016, p 7. See also this chapter, Sect. 5.3.5.2.

  332. 332.

    Chinkin 2009, p 77.

  333. 333.

    Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 720. See also Ambos 2013b, p 102; Koenig and Askin 2000, p 14, footnote 50. This assertion was also cited by the Office of the Prosecutor in its Pre-Trial Brief, see Ongwen Prosecution’s Pre-Trial Brief 2016, above n 5, para 512, footnote 1339.

  334. 334.

    Short 2003, p 512.

  335. 335.

    See Schwarz 2019, p 259.

  336. 336.

    See Biehler 2015, p 229; Buehler 2002, p 163; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 725; De Brouwer 2005, p 146; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 138; Meseke 2004, p 227; Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 561; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1077. Differently Kuschnik 2009, pp 356–357, who requires that the perpetrator cumulatively impregnated and confined the woman, but does not give any reasons for this assertion.

  337. 337.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017b, para 18.

  338. 338.

    See Boon 2000, p 662; Markovic 2007, p 442, footnote 24.

  339. 339.

    ICC Elements of Crimes, Article 8(2)(a)(vii)-2, no. 1.

  340. 340.

    Boon 2000, p 662.

  341. 341.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102; Buehler 2002, p 162; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 137; Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 558. See also Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2724.

  342. 342.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999a, p 6.

  343. 343.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 726; De Brouwer 2005, p 145; Schwarz 2019, p 261. See also Buehler 2002, p 162, deeming it sufficient when the forcibly impregnated woman is practically hindered to leave because she is surrounded by enemy territory.

  344. 344.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102; Boon 2000, p 662; Schwarz 2019, p 260.

  345. 345.

    See also Boon 2000, pp 662–663; Markovic 2007, p 442, both referring to when the woman is “thought to be pregnant”.

  346. 346.

    See Boon 2000, p 662; Buehler 2002, p 162.

  347. 347.

    Ongwen Transcript 2016, above n 245, p 49.

  348. 348.

    See also Schwarz 2019, pp 262–263.

  349. 349.

    Buehler 2002, p 162.

  350. 350.

    See Center for Reproductive Rights, The World’s Abortion Laws, https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws (accessed 24 October 2020).

  351. 351.

    See Belluck, What is Late-Term Abortion? Trump Got it Wrong, New York Times, 6 February 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/health/late-term-abortion-trump.html (accessed 24 October 2020).

  352. 352.

    See Short 2003, p 510, footnote 44.

  353. 353.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 89; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1045. See also Hall and Stahn 2016, marginal no 50, pointing to the period of time as one element of a case-by-case assessment of severity.

  354. 354.

    See Schwarz 2019, pp 262–263.

  355. 355.

    See also Boon 2000, pp 662–663; De Brouwer 2005, pp 145–146. Similarly Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 560, who only exclude “Bagatellfälle” (insignificant cases).

  356. 356.

    Markovic 2007, pp 447–448.

  357. 357.

    Ambos 2013b, p 102; Buehler 2002, p 162; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 726; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 137. See also Schwarz 2019, p 262.

  358. 358.

    Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 137, footnote 840, citing United Nations Economic and Social Council 1988, para 42: “It is international law and not domestic law which ultimately determines whether a certain practice may be regarded as ‘lawful’.”

  359. 359.

    Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 726.

  360. 360.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(e).

  361. 361.

    Ibid., Article 7(2)(d).

  362. 362.

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

  363. 363.

    See Hall and Stahn 2016, marginal no 51. See also Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1046.

  364. 364.

    This approach was also put forward by the Ongwen Trial Chamber, see Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2724, footnote 7179.

  365. 365.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 8(2)(a)(vii).

  366. 366.

    See Dörmann 2016, marginal no 157; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal nos 1326–1328.

  367. 367.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 726.

  368. 368.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 726; Schwarz 2019, p 262. Similarly Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 559.

  369. 369.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(e).

  370. 370.

    Ibid., Article 8(2)(a)(vii).

  371. 371.

    See generally Gardam and Jarvis 2001, pp 65–68.

  372. 372.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.1. In particular, see United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2016, paras 11–21; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 1999, para 31(b).

  373. 373.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 544.

  374. 374.

    See also Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 99 (“required that the perpetrator knows that the woman is pregnant and that she has been made pregnant forcibly”); Schwarz 2019, pp 263–264.

  375. 375.

    See Schwarz 2019, p 264; Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 576. But see also Kuschnik 2009, p 358, who seems to argue that general knowledge that unprotected sexual intercourse may lead to a pregnancy could be sufficient. However, Kuschnik’s reference to Askin 1997, p 399, is misleading, because Askin actually stated that “[g]eneral knowledge that rape may possibly result in pregnancy is not sufficient to infer intent” and also because the ICC Statute had not been adopted at the time of her writing.

  376. 376.

    See also Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 555.

  377. 377.

    See Markovic 2007, p 445.

  378. 378.

    See particularly Kunarac et al. 2002, above n 317, para 130.

  379. 379.

    On the subjective requirements regarding normative circumstantial elements, see generally Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 552.

  380. 380.

    See ibid., marginal no 569.

  381. 381.

    Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 727; Global Justice Center 2018, p 6; Grey 2017, p 925.

  382. 382.

    Boon 2000, p 663; Buehler 2002, p 163; De Brouwer 2005, p 146; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 139; Soh 2006, p 321.

  383. 383.

    See also Drake 2012, pp 618, 619, 622, and Lobato 2016, p 26, using both terms interchangeably.

  384. 384.

    Ongwen 2016, above n 1, paras 98–100; Ongwen 2021, paras 2726–2727.

  385. 385.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102.

  386. 386.

    See Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 577.

  387. 387.

    Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 99.

  388. 388.

    See also Markovic 2007, p 444; Schwarz 2019, p 265. However, see also Soh 2006, p 320, mistakenly requiring “knowledge that the woman or women were forcibly made pregnant for the purpose of ‘affecting the ethnic composition […]’”.

  389. 389.

    Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 100; confirmed in Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2728.

  390. 390.

    Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court 1999e, p 71.

  391. 391.

    On the reasons for rejecting the proposed element, see Dörmann 2003, p 330, footnote 5. See also this chapter, Sect. 5.3.3 and 5.3.4.

  392. 392.

    Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 578.

  393. 393.

    See Schabas 2016, p 629; Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 540.

  394. 394.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102.

  395. 395.

    See Ambos 2018, § 7 marginal no 66.

  396. 396.

    See also Swiss Criminal Code, Article 264a(1)(g); Austrian Code of Crimes, Section 321a(3) no. 4.

  397. 397.

    See Boon 2000, p 663; Buehler 2002, p 163; Joseph 2008, pp 83–84; Markovic 2007, p 443.

  398. 398.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.5.4.

  399. 399.

    See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.2.4.1.

  400. 400.

    See Boon 2000, p 663; Buehler 2002, p 163; Drake 2012, p 619; Schwarz 2019, p 264; Short 2003, pp 525–526.

  401. 401.

    See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.6.3.

  402. 402.

    Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 727.

  403. 403.

    Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 579: “[f]ördern der eigenen ethnischen Gruppe oder aber das Zurückdrängen derjenigen des Opfers”. Following this, see also Schwarz 2019, p 265: “sowohl das Zurückdrängen der Opfergruppe als auch die Stärkung der ethnischen Gruppe des Täters bzw. der Täterin”.

  404. 404.

    See Boon 2000, p 665; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 139; Schwarz 2019, p 265.

  405. 405.

    See Bedont 1999, pp 198–199.

  406. 406.

    See Bedont and Hall-Martinez 1999, p 74.

  407. 407.

    See Biehler 2015, p 228; Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 727; Cryer et al. 2019, p 251; De Brouwer 2005, p 146.

  408. 408.

    See Boon 2000, p 665; Buehler 2002, p 163; Markovic 2007, p 443.

  409. 409.

    See also Boon 2000, p 665.

  410. 410.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102; Boon 2000, p 665; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 139; Lobato 2016, p 26; Schwarz 2019, p 266.

  411. 411.

    Markovic 2007, p 443.

  412. 412.

    Ambos 2013b, p 102; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 139.

  413. 413.

    Askin 2005, p 144.

  414. 414.

    Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 101. Similarly Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2727.

  415. 415.

    See Schwarz 2019, p 266.

  416. 416.

    See also Markovic 2007, p 443.

  417. 417.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2728; Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 100. See also Askin 2005, p 144.

  418. 418.

    Lobato 2016, p 26: “[T]he crime against humanity of forced pregnancy entails the widespread and systematic violation of women’s reproductive rights under international law. Therefore, the added intent of carrying out other grave violations of international law is self-referential, as it does not establish an ulterior motivation that goes beyond the normal intent regarding the actus reus.”

  419. 419.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(g).

  420. 420.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(k).

  421. 421.

    For the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts see Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal nos 1115–1116, for the crime against humanity of any other form of sexual violence see Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 1080, with further references. See also Schwarz 2019, p 266.

  422. 422.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 727.

  423. 423.

    See Schwarz 2019, p 265. On the principle of legality generally, see Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal nos 135–140.

  424. 424.

    (German) Code of Crimes Against International Law, Section 7(1) no. 6, see also Deutscher Bundestag 2002, p 21; Gropengießer and Kreicker 2003, p 131; Meseke 2004, p 290; Satzger 2002, pp 129–130; Werle 2018, marginal no 90; Swiss Criminal Code, Article 264a(1)(g), see also Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 581.

  425. 425.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal nos 135–137.

  426. 426.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.3.3.3.

  427. 427.

    See Boon 2000, p 666; Markovic 2007, p 445; Schwarz 2019, pp 258, 263; Steains 1999, p 368. See also Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2721.

  428. 428.

    See Cryer et al. 2019, p 251.

  429. 429.

    See Ambos 2013b, p 102.

  430. 430.

    See also Kuschnik 2009, p 357.

  431. 431.

    See Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 724.

  432. 432.

    See Biehler 2015, p 229; Global Justice Center 2018, p 6; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 140; Schwarz 2019, p 263; Soh 2006, p 328.

  433. 433.

    See also Boon 2000, p 666; Kuschnik 2009, p 257; Schwarz 2019, p 263.

  434. 434.

    See United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2014. See also the data compiled and updated at Center for Reproductive Rights, The World’s Abortion Laws, https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws (accessed 24 October 2020).

  435. 435.

    See also Boon 2000, p 666.

  436. 436.

    Kuschnik 2009, pp 357–358.

  437. 437.

    Bedont 1999, p 198.

  438. 438.

    See Bitti 2015, pp 434–436; Grover 2014, p 118.

  439. 439.

    See generally Zampas and Gher 2008, pp 280–284. See also Global Justice Center 2018, pp 7–8.

  440. 440.

    Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, opened for signature 11 July 2003 (entered into force 25 November 2005) (Maputo Protocol), Article 14(2)(c).

  441. 441.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.1.

  442. 442.

    United Nations Human Rights Committee 2018b, para 8.

  443. 443.

    United Nations Human Rights Committee 2012a, para 15; United Nations Human Rights Committee 2012b, para 13; United Nations Human Rights Committee 2018a, para 15(a).

  444. 444.

    United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2016, paras 28, 45.

  445. 445.

    Ibid., paras 28, 34, 40.

  446. 446.

    Ibid., para 10.

  447. 447.

    Ibid., para 59.

  448. 448.

    United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2001, para 55; United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2004, para 53; United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2008, para 46; United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2014, para 22 (not limited to rape).

  449. 449.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 1999, para 31(c); United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017b, para 29(c)(i).

  450. 450.

    United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2018.

  451. 451.

    See e.g. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2013a, para 32(g); United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2014, para 36(a); United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2015, para 51(e); United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017a, para 39; United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2018b, para 39(a).

  452. 452.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2011, para 8.15. The Committee also explicitly called upon Peru to decriminalize abortion when the pregnancy results from rape, para 9.2(c).

  453. 453.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2018a, paras 60, 72.

  454. 454.

    Ibid., para 65.

  455. 455.

    United Nations Human Rights Council 2016, para 43.

  456. 456.

    See e.g. United Nations Committee Against Torture 2013a, para 28; United Nations Committee Against Torture 2013b, para 23; United Nations Committee Against Torture 2016, para 40(b).

  457. 457.

    United Nations General Assembly 2019, para 81(q).

  458. 458.

    Maputo Protocol, above n 440, Article 14(2)(c).

  459. 459.

    African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2014, para 37.

  460. 460.

    Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2008, para 7.2.

  461. 461.

    Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 2017, p 11.

  462. 462.

    European Court of Human Rights, Tysiąc v Poland, Judgment, 20 March 2007, no. 5410/03; European Court of Human Rights, A., B., and C. v Ireland, Grand Chamber Judgment, 16 December 2010, no. 25579/05; European Court of Human Rights, R.R. v Poland, Judgment, 26 May 2011, no. 27617/04; European Court of Human Rights, P. and S. v Poland, Judgment, 30 October 2012, no. 57375/08; see also Oja and Yamin 2016, pp 72–73.

  463. 463.

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, IACHR Urges All States to Adopt Comprehensive, Immediate Measures to Respect and Protect Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights, 23 October 2017, https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2017/165.asp (accessed 24 October 2020). In response to this statement, the United States withdrew funds from the Commission, see Castaldi, Partial U.S. Sanctions on Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Oxford Human Rights Hub, 2 August 2019, https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/partial-u-s-sanctions-on-inter-american-commission-on-human-rights/ (accessed 24 October 2020).

  464. 464.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 250. See also Arsanjani 1999, pp 28–29; Bitti 2015, pp 433–443; deGuzman 2016, marginal no 51; Schabas 2016, p 530.

  465. 465.

    Grover 2014, pp 115–116.

  466. 466.

    Ibid., p 115.

  467. 467.

    However, see also Markovic 2007, p 448, who claimed that the deferential clause in Article 7(2)(f), sentence 2 trumps the requirement of consistency with internationally recognized human rights under Article 21(3) of the ICC Statute, above n 131.

  468. 468.

    See Biehler 2015, p 229; Global Justice Center 2018, p 6; Hall et al. 2016, marginal no 140; Schwarz 2019, p 263; Soh 2006, p 328.

  469. 469.

    United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2017b, para 29(c)(i). See also United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2018.

  470. 470.

    Bedont 1999, p 198. Following her: De Brouwer 2005, p 146; Grey 2017, p 921. See also Cottier and Mzee 2016, marginal no 727.

  471. 471.

    Vest and Sutter 2014, marginal no 556: “Aneignung der Reproduktionsfähigkeit des Opfers zum Zweck der ethnischen Verschiebung”.

  472. 472.

    United Nations Human Rights Committee 2018b, para 8.

  473. 473.

    See e.g. ibid.

  474. 474.

    See e.g. Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 2017, p 11; Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 2008; United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women 2018; United Nations General Assembly 2019, para 81(q).

  475. 475.

    ICC Statute, above n 131, Article 7(1)(c).

  476. 476.

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

  477. 477.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(h).

  478. 478.

    Ibid., Article 7(1)(k).

  479. 479.

    Bedont 1999, p 198.

  480. 480.

    Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 99.

  481. 481.

    Cryer 2005, p 258.

  482. 482.

    See generally Drake 2012.

  483. 483.

    See Cryer 2005, p 258, stating the intent requirement is “dangerously close to a discriminatory intent unnecessary for a ‘murder-type’ crime against humanity”.

  484. 484.

    See also Grey 2019, p 111. See generally Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.5.

  485. 485.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2127; Ongwen 2016, above n 1, para 100.

  486. 486.

    See also Global Justice Center 2018, pp 5–10, demanding that the deferential clause in Article 7(2)(f), sentence 2 of the ICC Statute should not be reproduced in the envisaged Convention on Crimes Against Humanity.

  487. 487.

    Ongwen 2021, above n 1, para 2721.

  488. 488.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.5.7.2.

  489. 489.

    See this chapter, Sect. 5.5.7.1.

  490. 490.

    Wilkins and Reynolds 2006, p 142.

  491. 491.

    Nevertheless, and independently from the criminalization of forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity and a war crime, an obligation to change such restrictive laws exists under international human rights law.

  492. 492.

    See Global Justice Center 2018, p 5 See also Markovic 2007, p 447 (“‘state action’ exception”).

  493. 493.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 21.

  494. 494.

    See also Markovic 2007, pp 447–448.

  495. 495.

    Akayesu 1998, above n 298, para 507; ICTY, 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, paras 64, 94.

  496. 496.

    Kunarac et al. 2001, above n 306, para 342, see also paras 583, 654.

  497. 497.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v Radoslav Brđanin, Judgment, 1 September 2004, IT-99-36-T, para 1011.

  498. 498.

    Statute of the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in the Courts of Dili, Regulation no. 2000/15 on the Establishment of Panels With Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, 6 June 2000 (Statute of the Special Panels), Section 5.1(g) (crimes against humanity), Section 6.1(b)(xxii) and (e)(vi) (war crimes).

  499. 499.

    Law no. 05/L-053 by the Assembly of Republic of Kosovo on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, 3 August 2015, Article 13(1)(g) (crimes against humanity), Article 14(1)(b)(xxii) and (d)(vi) (war crimes).

  500. 500.

    Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, opened for signature 27 June 2014 (Malabo Protocol), Article 28C(1)(g) and (h) (crimes against humanity), Article 28D(b)(xxiii) and (e)(vi) (war crimes).

  501. 501.

    Agreement Between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2178 UNTS 137, 16 January 2002, Article 2(g).

  502. 502.

    Statute of the Special Panels, above n 498, Section 5.2(e).

  503. 503.

    Malabo Protocol, above n 500, Article 28C(2)(f).

  504. 504.

    Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu, Appeals Judgment, 22 February 2008, SCSL-2004-16-A, para 190. See also the evidence reproduced in the trial judgment, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Prosecutor v Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu, Judgment, 20 June 2007, SCSL-04-16-T, paras 1080–1081, 1091, 1097, 1113–1114, 1184. See also Schwarz 2019, pp 254–255.

  505. 505.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.4.4.

  506. 506.

    Ao An and Yim Tith Decision on Investigative Requests 2016, above n 271, paras 8, 11.

  507. 507.

    Ibid., para 31. See also Grey forthcoming, p 31, criticizing this decision.

  508. 508.

    Nuon et al. Closing Order 2010, above n 31, para 1445.

  509. 509.

    Ibid., paras 842–860, 1442–1447.

  510. 510.

    See Chappell 2016, pp 181–186.

  511. 511.

    For an overview, see Global Justice Center 2018, p 7.

  512. 512.

    (German) Code of Crimes Against International Law, Section 7(1) no. 6: “Wer im Rahmen eines ausgedehnten oder systematischen Angriffs gegen eine Zivilbevölkerung […] in der Absicht, die ethnische Zusammensetzung einer Bevölkerung zu beeinflussen, eine unter Anwendung von Zwang geschwängerte Frau gefangen hält, […] wird […] mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren […] bestraft.“

  513. 513.

    See Cassese and Gaeta 2013, p 107.

  514. 514.

    See Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 210.

  515. 515.

    Ibid., marginal no 208.

  516. 516.

    See ibid., marginal no 196.

  517. 517.

    See Cassese and Gaeta 2013, p 107.

  518. 518.

    ICTY, Prosecutor v Radislav Krstić, Judgment, 2 August 2001, IT-98-33-T, para 541; see also Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal no 202.

  519. 519.

    United Nations Security Council 2019, para 4.

  520. 520.

    See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.4.2.

  521. 521.

    International Law Commission 2019, Article 2(1)(g).

  522. 522.

    Ao An and Yim Tith Decision on Investigative Requests 2016, above n 271, paras 39–81.

  523. 523.

    Ibid., paras 46–47.

  524. 524.

    ICC, Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 30 September 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07, para 448; see also Werle and Jeßberger 2020, marginal nos 1115–1117 with further references.

  525. 525.

    Ao An and Yim Tith Decision on Investigative Requests 2016, above n 271, paras 66–77.

  526. 526.

    Cryer 2005, p 258.

References

  • Adamietz L (2011) Geschlecht als Erwartung: Das Geschlechtsdiskriminierungsverbot als Recht gegen Diskriminierung wegen der sexuellen Orientierung und der Geschlechtsidentität. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Adams A (2013) Der Tatbestand der Vergewaltigung im Völkerstrafrecht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2014) General Comment no. 2 on Article 14.1 (a), (b), (c) and (f) and Article 14.2 (a) and (c) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen B (1996) Rape Warfare: The Hidden Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2013a) Punishment Without a Sovereign? The Ius Puniendi Issue of International Criminal Law: A First Contribution Towards a Consistent Theory of International Criminal Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33:293–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2013b) Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol 2: The Crimes and Sentencing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2015) The Overall Function of International Criminal Law: Striking the Right Balance Between the Rechtsgut and the Harm Principles. Criminal Law and Philosophy 9:301–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2017) Genocide (Article 28B), Crimes Against Humanity (Article 28C), War Crimes (Article 28D) and the Crime of Aggression (Article 28M). In: Werle G, Vormbaum M (eds) The African Criminal Court. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 31–55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2018) Internationales Strafrecht: Strafanwendungsrecht, Völkerstrafrecht, Europäisches Strafrecht, Rechtshilfe, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association, Task Force on War Crimes in Former Yugoslavia (1993) Report on the International Tribunal to Adjudicate War Crimes Committed in the Former Yugoslavia. American Bar Association, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arsanjani MJ (1999) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The American Journal of International Law 93:22–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin KD (1999a) Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Criminal Law Forum 10:33–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askin KD (1999b) Women and International Humanitarian Law. In: Askin KD, Koenig DM (eds) Women and International Human Rights Law, vol 1. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 41–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin KD (2005) The Jurisprudence of International War Crimes Tribunals: Securing Gender Justice for Some Survivors. In: Durham H, Gurd T (eds) Listening to the Silences: Women and War. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 126–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Association Internationale de Droit Pénal, Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali and Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law (1995) Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court – Alternative to the ILC-Draft: Siracusa-Draft, Siracusa/Freiburg. https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/39a534/pdf/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Bassiouni MC (2011) Crimes Against Humanity: Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bassiouni MC, McCormick M (1996) Sexual Violence: An Invisible Weapon of War in the Former Yugoslavia. DePaul University, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedont B (1999) Gender-Specific Provisions in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. In: Lattanzi F, Schabas WA (eds) Essays on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, vol 1. Il Sirenze, Ripa di Fagnano Alto, pp 183–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedont B, Hall-Martinez K (1999) Ending Impunity for Gender Crimes Under the International Criminal Court. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 6(1):65–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Berro Pizzarossa L (2018) Here to Stay: The Evolution of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in International Human Rights Law. Laws 7:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biehler A (2015) Das Vergewaltigungsverbot im bewaffneten Konflikt. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitti G (2015) Article 21 and the Hierarchy of Sources of Law Before the ICC. In: Stahn C (ed) Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 411–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon K (2000) Rape and Forced Pregnancy Under the ICC Statute: Human Dignity, Autonomy, and Consent. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 32:625–675

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnick RO (1995) Reproductive Ability as a Sixth Ground of Persecution Under the Domestic and International Definitions of Refugee. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 21:121–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehler C (2002) War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide: The Crime of Forced Pregnancy in the Nascent System of Supranational Criminal Law. Nemesis 18:158–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunting A, Ikhimiukor IK (2018) The Expressive Nature of Law: What We Learn From Conjugal Slavery to Forced Marriage in International Criminal Law. International Criminal Law Review 18:331–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter RC (2000a) Forced Maternity, Children’s Rights and the Genocide Convention: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Genocide Research 2:213–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter RC (2000b) Surfacing Children: Limitations of Genocidal Rape Discourse. Human Rights Quarterly 22:428–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A, Gaeta P (2013) International Criminal Law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell LA (2016) The Politics of Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court: Legacies and Legitimacy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (1994) Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women in International Law. European Journal of International Law 5:326–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (2009) Gender-Related Violence and International Criminal Justice. In: Cassese A (ed) The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 75–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of Experts (1994) Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Annex to UN Doc. S/1994/674

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook RJ, Cusack S (2011) Gender Stereotyping: Transnational Legal Perspectives. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Copelon R (1994) Surfacing Gender: Re-Engraving Crimes Against Women in Humanitarian Law. Hastings Women’s Law Journal 5:243–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Copelon R (2000) Gender Crimes as War Crimes: Integrating Crimes Against Women Into International Criminal Law. McGill Law Journal 46:217–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottier M, Mzee S (2016) Article 8. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2017) Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Europe: Issue Paper. https://rm.coe.int/women-s-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights-in-europe-issue-pape/168076dead. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Cryer R (2005) Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Robinson D, Vasiliev S (2019) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Costa B, Hossain S (2010) Redress for Sexual Violence Before the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh: Lessons From History, and Hopes for the Future. Criminal Law Forum 21:331–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel-Wrabetz J (2007) Children Born of War Rape in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In: Carpenter RC (ed) Born of War: Protecting Children of Sexual Violence Survivors in Conflict Zones. Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, pp 21–39

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brouwer A-MLM (2005) Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence: The ICC and the Practice of the ICTY and the ICTR. Intersentia, Antwerp/Tilburg

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vos D (2016) Can the ICC Prosecute Forced Contraception? https://me.eui.eu/dieneke-de-vos/blog/can-the-icc-prosecute-forced-contraception/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • De Vos D (2019) Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-Based Violence at the International Criminal Court. In: Shepherd LJ (ed) Handbook on Gender and Violence. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 395–413

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • deGuzman MM (2012) An Expressive Rationale for the Thematic Prosecution of Sex Crimes. In: Bergsmo M (ed) Thematic Prosecution of International Sex Crimes. Torkel Opsahl Academic Publisher, Beijing, pp 11–57

    Google Scholar 

  • deGuzman MM (2016) Article 21. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLaet D (2007) Theorizing Justice for War Babies. In: Carpenter RC (ed) Born of War: Protecting Children of Sexual Violence Survivors in Conflict Zones. Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, pp 128–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Delegation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1998) Discussion Paper. https://legal-tools.org/en/doc/dd58b8/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Deutscher Bundestag (2002) Bundestags-Drucksache 14/8524. https://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/14/085/1408524.pdf. Accessed 24 October 2020

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dörmann K (2016) Article 8. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowds E (2019) Children Born of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict: The International Criminal Court. Ecological Environments and Human Development, Children & Society 33:226–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowds E (2020) Feminist Engagement With International Criminal Law: Norm Transfer, Complementarity, Rape and Consent. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake AM (2012) Aimed at Protecting Ethnic Groups or Women? A Look at Forced Pregnancy Under the Rome Statute. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 18:595–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Drumbl MA (2007) Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Durham H (2001) Women and Civil Society: NGOs and International Criminal Law. In: Askin KD, Koenig DM (eds) Women and International Human Rights Law, vol 3. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 819–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham H, O’Byrne K (2010) The Dialogue of Difference: Gender Perspectives on International Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 92:31–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle K (2005) Feminism and its (Dis)Contents: Criminalizing Wartime Rape in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The American Journal of International Law 99:778–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epik A (2017) Die Strafzumessung bei Taten nach dem Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson MK (2000) Reproductive Freedom: In the Context of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher SK (1996) Occupation of the Womb: Forced Impregnation as Genocide. Duke Law Journal 46:91–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman R (2000) The Battle Against Reproductive Rights: The Impact of the Catholic Church on Abortion Law in Both International and Domestic Arenas. Emory International Law Review 14:277–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardam JG, Jarvis MJ (2001) Women, Armed Conflict and International Law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasius M (2006) The International Criminal Court: A Global Civil Society Achievement. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Global Justice Center (2018) Submission to the International Law Commission: The Need to Integrate a Gender-Perspective Into the Draft Convention on Crimes Against Humanity. https://www.globaljusticecenter.net/blog/19-publications/1011-submission-to-the-international-law-commission-the-need-to-integrate-a-gender-perspective-into-the-draft-convention-on-crimes-against-humanity. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Goldstein AT (1993) Recognizing Forced Impregnation as a War Crime Under International Law: A Special Report of the International Program. The Center for Reproductive Law & Policy, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Graditzky T (1999) War Crime Issues Before the Rome Diplomatic Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. U. C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 5:199–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Green J, Copelon R, Cotter P, Stephens B (1994) Affecting the Rules for the Prosecution of Rape and Other Gender-Based Violence Before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: A Feminist Proposal and Critique. Hastings Women’s Law Journal 5:171–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal K (2012) The Protection of Sexual Autonomy Under International Criminal Law: The International Criminal Court and the Challenge of Defining Rape. Journal of International Criminal Justice 10:373–396

    Article  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 (2019) Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Court: Practice, Progress and Potential. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropengießer H, Kreicker H (2003) Grundlagen der Strafverfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen: Deutschland. In: Eser A, Kreicker H (eds) Nationale Strafverfolgung völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen, Band 1: Deutschland. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 21–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover L (2014) Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall CK (1998) The Fifth Session of the UN Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. The American Journal of International Law 92:331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall CK, Powderly J, Hayes N (2016) Article 7. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall CK, Stahn C (2016) Article 7. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey SA (1995–1996) Prosecuting Rape Under the Statute of the War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 21:327–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki Watch (1993) War Crimes in Bosnia-Hercegovina, vol II. Human Rights Watch, New York/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Holy See (1998) Intervention at the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=459. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • International Commission of Jurists (1998) Definition of Crimes: ICJ Brief no. 1 to the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court. https://www.legal-tools.org/en/doc/9fd889/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • International Law Commission (2019) Report of the International Law Commission: Seventy-First Session: 29 April–7 June and 8 July–9 August 2019, General Assembly Official Records, Seventy-Fourth Session, Supplement no. 10 (A/74/10), Chap. IV

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph JH (2008) Gender and International Law: How the International Criminal Court Can Bring Justice to Victims of Sexual Violence. Texas Journal of Women and the Law 18:61–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig DM, Askin KD (2000) International Criminal Law and the International Criminal Court Statute: Crimes Against Women. In: Askin KD, Koenig DM (eds) Women and International Human Rights Law, vol 2. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 3–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuschnik B (2009) Der Gesamttatbestand des Verbrechens gegen die Menschlichkeit: Herleitungen, Ausprägungen, Entwicklungen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • La Haye E (2000) Article 8(2)(b)(xxii)-Rape, Sexual Slavery, Enforced Prostitution, Forced Pregnancy, Enforced Sterilization, and Sexual Violence. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, vol 2: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, pp 184–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty C (2018) What Lies Beneath? The Turn to Values in International Criminal Legal Discourse. EJIL:Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-lies-beneath-the-turn-to-values-in-international-criminal-legal-discourse/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Lobato M (2016) Forced Pregnancy During the Khmer Rouge Regime: Acknowledging Forced Pregnancy as a Distinct Crime in the ECCC Proceedings. Cambodian Human Rights Action Coalition, Phnom Penh

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon CA (1993) Crimes of War, Crimes of Peace. UCLA Women’s Law Journal 4:59–86

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon CA (1994) Rape, Genocide, and Women’s Human Rights. Harvard Women’s Law Journal 17:5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon CA (2006) Defining Rape Internationally: A Comment on Akayesu. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 44:940–958

    Google Scholar 

  • Markovic M (2007) Vessels of Reproduction: Forced Pregnancy and the ICC. Michigan State Journal of International Law 16:439–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Meseke S (2004) Der Tatbestand der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit nach dem Römischen Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofes: Eine völkerstrafrechtliche Analyse. Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller C (2001) Sexuelle Gewalt im Krieg. In: Hasse J, Müller E, Schneider P (eds) Humanitäres Völkerrecht: Politische, rechtliche und strafgerichtliche Dimensionen. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 280–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Moshan BS (1998) Women, War, and Words: The Gender Component in the Permanent International Criminal Court’s Definition of Crimes Against Humanity. Fordham International Law Journal 22:154–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Neenan J (2018) The Role of the ICC in Protecting the Rights of Children Born of Rape in War. EJIL:Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-role-of-the-icc-in-protecting-the-rights-of-children-born-of-rape-in-war/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Odio-Benito E (2005) Sexual Violence as a War Crime. In: Fernández Sánchez PA (ed) The New Challenges of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts: In Honour of Professor Juan Antonio Carrillo-Salcedo. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 163–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Oja L, Yamin AE (2016) “Woman” in the European Human Rights System: How is the Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights Constructing Narratives of Women’s Citizenship? Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 32:62–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterveld V (1999) The Making of a Gender-Sensitive International Criminal Court. International Law Forum Du Droit International 1:38–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterveld V (2011) Forced Marriage and the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Legal Advances and Conceptual Difficulties. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 2:127–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oosterveld V (2013) Evaluating the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Gender Jurisprudence. In: Jalloh CC (ed) The Sierra Leone Special Court and its Legacy: The Impact for Africa and International Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 234–259

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pace W, Schense J (2000) The Coalition of the International Criminal Court at the Preparatory Commission. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, vol 2: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, pp 705–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (2008) Access to Safe and Legal Abortion in Europe, Resolution 1607 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul A (2008) Kritische Analyse und Reformvorschlag zu Art. II Genozidkonvention. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999a) Proposal Submitted by the United States of America: Draft Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/DP.4/Add. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999b) Proposal Submitted by Spain: Working Paper on Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/DP.9/Add.2

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999c) Proposal Submitted by Costa Rica, Hungary and Switzerland on Certain Provisions of Article 8 para. 2 (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: (viii), (x), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvi), (xxi), (xxii), (xxvi), UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.8

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999d) Proposal Submitted by Colombia: Comments on the Proposal by the Delegations of Costa Rica, Hungary and Switzerland Concerning Article 8, Paragraph 2 (b) of the Rome Statute (PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.8), UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.16

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999e) Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its Second Session (26 July –13 August 1999), UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999f) Comments by Colombia on Document PCNICC/1999/WGEC/RT.6 Proposed by the Coordinator, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.30

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999g) Proposal Submitted by Canada and Germany on Article 7, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.36

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (1999h) 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, UN Doc. PCNICC/1999/WGEC/DP.39

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (2000a) Comments by Colombia on the Elements of Crimes in Article 7 in Document PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGEC/DP.2

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (2000b) Comments by Colombia Regarding the Elements of Crimes of Article 8 (2) (b), 8 (2) (c) and 8 (2) (e) in Document PCNICC/1999/L.5/Rev.1/Add.2, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/WGEC/DP.4

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (2000c) Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its Fourth Session (13–31 March 2000), Annex III: Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/L.1/Rev.1/Add.2

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (2000d) Report: Part II: Finalized Draft Text of the Elements of Crimes, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1996a) Report, Volume I, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-First Session, Supplement no. 22 (A/51/22)

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1996b) Report, Volume II, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-First Session, Supplement no. 22A (A/51/22)

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997a) Draft Consolidated Text: Crimes Against Humanity, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.5

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997b) Draft Consolidated Text: War Crimes, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.2

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997c) Informal Working Paper on War Crimes: Addendum, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.7/Add.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997d) Informal Working Paper on War Crimes, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.8

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997e) Proposal Submitted by the Holy See, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/DP.12

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997f) War Crimes, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/WG.1/CRP.9

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1997g) Decisions Taken by the Preparatory Committee at its Session Held From 1 to 12 December 1997, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1997/L.9/Rev.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1998a) Proposal Submitted by the Holy See, UN Doc. A/AC.249/1998/DP.13

    Google Scholar 

  • Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Court (1998b) Report, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/2

    Google Scholar 

  • Raab A, Hobbs S (2018) Forced Relationships: Prosecutorial Discretion as a Pathway to Survivor-Centric Justice. Opinio Juris. https://opiniojuris.org/2018/09/13/forced-relationships-prosecutorial-discretion-as-a-pathway-to-survivor-centric-justice/. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Ray AE (1997) The Shame of It: Gender-Based Terrorism in the Former Yugoslavia and the Failure of International Human Rights Law to Comprehend the Injuries. The American University Law Review 46:793–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Rimmer SH (2010) Gender and Transitional Justice: The Women of East Timor. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roach SC (2005) Arab States and the Role of Islam in the International Criminal Court. Political Studies 53:143–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (1999) Defining “Crimes Against Humanity” at the Rome Conference. The American Journal of International Law 93:43–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson D (2000) Article 7(1)(g)-Crime Against Humanity of Rape, Sexual Slavery, Enforced Prostitution, Forced Pregnancy, Enforced Sterilization, or Any Other Form of Sexual Violence of Comparable Gravity. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, vol 2: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, p 93

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio-Marín R (2009) The Gender of Reparations in Transitional Societies. In: Rubio-Marín R (ed) The Gender of Reparations: Unsettling Sexual Hierarchies While Redressing Human Rights Violations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio-Marín R (2012) Reparations for Conflict-Related Sexual and Reproductive Violence: A Decalogue. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law 19:69–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Rückert W, Witschel G (2001) Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity in the Elements of Crimes. In: Fischer H, Kreß C, Lüder SR (eds) International and National Prosecution of Crimes Under International Law: Current Developments. Arno Spitz GmbH, Berlin, pp 59–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzmann TA (1998) Rape Camps as a Means of Ethnic Cleansing: Religious, Cultural, and Ethical Responses to Rape Victims in the Former Yugoslavia. Human Rights Quarterly 20:348–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2002) Das neue Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – Eine kritische Würdigung. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2002:125–132

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Peterson I (2007) Genuine Consent to Sexual Violence Under International Criminal Law. The American Journal of International Law 101:121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz A (2019) Das völkerrechtliche Sexualstrafrecht: Sexualisierte und geschlechtsbezogene Gewalt vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Short JMH (2003) Sexual Violence as Genocide: The Developing Law of the International Criminal Tribunals and the International Criminal Court. Michigan Journal of Race & Law 8:503–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Soh SEJ (2006) Forced Pregnancy: Codification in the Rome Statute and its Prospect as Implicit Genocide. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 4:311–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Steains C (1999) Gender Issues. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, vol 1: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London, pp 357–390

    Google Scholar 

  • The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (2016) Policy on Children. https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/20161115_OTP_ICC_Policy-on-Children_Eng.PDF. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Tompkins TL (1995) Prosecuting Rape as a War Crime: Speaking the Unspeakable. Notre Dame Law Review 70:845–891

    Google Scholar 

  • Toy-Cronin BA (2010) What is Forced Marriage? Towards a Definition of Forced Marriage as a Crime Against Humanity. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 19:539–590

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1995a) Informal Paper Submitted by the Bureau: Substantive Law and Jurisdiction. https://legal-tools.org/doc/f09f54. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1995b) Report, General Assembly Official Records, Fiftieth Session, Supplement no. 22 (A/50/22)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1995) Resolution 1995/85 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1995/85

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1996) Resolution 1996/49 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1996/49

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1997a) Resolution 1997/44 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1997/44

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1997b) Resolution 1997/78 on Rights of the Child, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1997/78

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1998a) Resolution 1998/52 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1998/52

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1998b) Resolution 1998/76 on Rights of the Child, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1998/76

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1999) Resolution 1999/42 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1999/42

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2001) Resolution 2001/49 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2001/49

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2002) Resolution 2002/52 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2002/52

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2003) Resolution 2003/45 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2003/45

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2004) Resolution 2004/46 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2004/46

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commission on Human Rights (2005) Resolution 2005/41 on Elimination of Violence Against Women, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2005/41

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee Against Torture (2013a) Concluding Observations on Kenya, UN Doc. CAT/C/KEN/CO/2

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee Against Torture (2013b) Concluding Observations on Poland, UN Doc. CAT/C/POL/CO/5-6

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee Against Torture (2016) Concluding Observations on the Philippines, UN Doc. CAT/C/PHL/CO/3

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001) Concluding Observations on Nepal, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.66

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2004) Concluding Observations on Chile, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.105

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2008) Concluding Observations on Costa Rica, UN Doc. E/C.12/CRI/CO/4

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2014) Concluding Observations on El Salvador, UN Doc. E/C.12/SLV/CO/3-5

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2016) General Comment no. 22 (2016) on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), UN Doc. E/C.12/GC/22

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1994) General Recommendation no. 21: Equality in Marriage and Family Relations, General Assembly Official Records, Forty-Ninth Session, Supplement no. 38 (A/49/38)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1999) General Recommendation no. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health), General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-Fourth Session, Supplement no. 38 (A/54/38/Rev.1)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2011) Communication no. 22/2009: Views Adopted by the Committee at its Fiftieth Session, 3 to 21 October 2011, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2013a) Concluding Observations on Angola, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/AGO/CO/6

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2013b) General Recommendation no. 30 on Women in Conflict Prevention, Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/30

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2014) Concluding Observations on Peru, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/PER/CO/7-8

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2015) Summary of the Inquiry Concerning the Philippines, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2017a) Concluding Observations on El Salvador, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/SLV/CO/8-9

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2017b) General Recommendation no. 35 on Gender-Based Violence Against Women, Updating General Recommendation no. 19, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/35

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2018a) Inquiry Concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2018b) Concluding Observations on Palestine, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/PSE/CO/1

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (2018) Guaranteeing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights for all Women, in Particular Women With Disabilities: Joint Statement by the Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDStatements.aspx. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014) Abortion Policies and Reproductive Health Around the World

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998a) Official Records (Volume II), UN Doc. A/CONF.183/13 (Vol. II)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998b) Proposal Submitted by the United States of America, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.10

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (1998c) Article 5 Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court: Crimes Against Humanity – Recommendations of the Coordinator, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/C.1/L.44

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Economic and Social Council (1988) Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. P. Kooijmans, Pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1987/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1988/17

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (1989) Resolution 44/39, UN Doc. A/RES/44/39

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (1995) Resolution 50/46, UN Doc. A/RES/50/46

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (1998) Resolution 52/160, UN Doc. A/RES/52/160

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2019) Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences on a Human Rights-Based Approach to Mistreatment and Violence Against Women in Reproductive Health Services With a Focus on Childbirth and Obstetric Violence, UN Doc. A/74/137

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Committee (2012a) Concluding Observations on the Dominican Republic, UN Doc. CCPR/C/DOM/CO/5

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Committee (2012b) Concluding Observations on the Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/C/PHL/CO/4

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Committee (2018a) Concluding Observations on Guatemala, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GTM/CO/4

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Committee (2018b) General Comment no. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Council (2015) Violations and Abuses Committed by Boko Haram and the Impact on Human Rights in the Countries Affected: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/67

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Rights Council (2016) Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, UN Doc. A/HRC/31/57

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Security Council (2019) Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2019/280

    Google Scholar 

  • Vest H, Sutter U (2014) Art. 264a lit. g. In: Vest H, Ziegler AR, Lindenmann J, Wehrenberg S (eds) Die völkerstrafrechtlichen Bestimmungen des StGB: Kommentar zu Art. 101, 259, 260bis und 264–264n. Dike/Nomos, Zürich/Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hebel H, Robinson D (1999) Crimes Within the Jurisdiction of the Court. In: Lee RS (ed) The International Criminal Court, vol 1: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London, pp 79–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiß N (2001) Vergewaltigung und erzwungene Mutterschaft als Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Kriegsverbrechen und Genozid: Wie beurteilen sich diese Vorfälle aus der Perspektive der Kinder, die gewaltsam gezeugt wurden? MenschenRechtsMagazin 2001:132–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Werkmeister A (2015) Straftheorien im Völkerstrafrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werle G (2018) § 7 Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. In: Joecks W, Miebach K (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch: Band 8: Nebenstrafrecht III, Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jeßberger F (2020) Völkerstrafrecht, 5th edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins RG, Reynolds J (2006) International Law and the Right to Life. Ave Maria Law Review 4:123–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Women in the Law Project (1994) No Justice, No Peace: Accountability for Rape and Gender-Based Violence in the Former Yugoslavia. Hastings Women’s Law Journal 5:91–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice (1997) Recommendations and Commentary for December 1997 PrepCom on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, United Nations Headquarters December 1–12, 1997 (on file with author)

    Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice (1998) The Crime of Forced Pregnancy. iccwomen.org/wigjdraft1/Archives/oldWCGJ/icc/iccpc/rome/forcedpreg.html. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice (1999) Recommendations and Commentary for the Elements Annex: Submitted to the July 26 – August 13 1999 Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. iccwomen.org/wigjdraft1/Archives/oldWCGJ/icc/iccpc/071999pc/elements.html. Accessed 24 October 2020

  • Zampas C, Gher JM (2008) Abortion as a Human Right: International and Regional Standards. Human Rights Law Review 8:249–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A, Geiß R (2018) § 8 Völkerstrafgesetzbuch. In: Joecks W, Miebach K (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch: Band 8: Nebenstrafrecht III, Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Zulficar M (1994–1995) From Human Rights to Program Reality: Vienna, Cairo, and Beijing in Perspective. American University Law Review 44:1017–1036

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Germany

    Tanja Altunjan

Authors
  1. Tanja Altunjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Altunjan, T. (2021). Forced Pregnancy as a Crime Against Humanity and a War Crime. In: Reproductive Violence and International Criminal Law. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 29. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-451-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-451-8_5

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-450-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-451-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation