Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Justice and Peace

  • 240 Accesses

Abstract

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

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other schools of thought are, for example, discourse ethics, ethics of war and peace, feminist ethics or post-colonial theory. For an even broader overview see Shapcott (2010) or Hutchings (2010).

  2. 2.

    Within the debate of cosmopolitanism different strands have emerged. For the purpose of this paper I mainly rely on the positions of moral cosmopolitanism which are founded on the idea of a “common human community” (Shapcott 2010, p. 15). Other variants include institutional, normative and legal cosmopolitanism (Beardsworth 2011, pp. 29 ff.).

  3. 3.

    A similar debate on the question of the adequate domain of justice and the range of its principles can be identified within IR theories. The English School in particular articulates the tension between statist sovereignty norms and human rights concerns (Jackson 2003; Dunne 1998; Wheeler 1992, p. 477; Bull 1977). Solidarist and pluralist schools of thought within the English School differ, for example, on the question of forcefully intervening in conflicts. Proponents of liberal internationalism argue even more openly for forcefully intervening in conflicts if severe human rights violations have been acknowledged (Buchanan and Keohane 2004, p. 4 f.; Evans and Sahnoun 2002, p. 101).

  4. 4.

    The term “intersectionality” was introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) discussing black women’s employment in the US (Yuval-Davis 2006, p. 194).

  5. 5.

    The intersectional understanding of SGBV in armed conflicts and post-conflict situations closely resembles Johan Galtung’s concept of structural violence.

  6. 6.

    Article 37 of the Lieber Code reads as follows: The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them, religion and morality; strictly private property; the persons of the inhabitants, especially those of women; and the sacredness of domestic relations (See ICRC 1863).

  7. 7.

    Interestingly enough, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, established by the US to sue leaders of the Japanese Empire, contained no reference to such crimes in its Charter. Only a few leaders were found guilty of sexual violence under the category of failure to prevent atrocities at the command level. These convictions stood in stark contrast to the failure to prosecute on behalf of more than 200,000 “comfort women” detained in camps by the Japanese government (Ellis 2007, p. 228).

  8. 8.

    A crucial element of procedural justice—the principle of consensus—allowed a small group to achieve a crucial weakening of the text of the Rome Statute. To reach compromise, the majority of states had to give into the concerns of the few states which disliked aspects of gender justice.

  9. 9.

    See Article 17 (1) (d), International Criminal Court (2002).

  10. 10.

    In the case of Mudacumura the arrest warrant is still pending, while the Mbarushimana case was closed in December 2011 as the Pre-Trial Chamber I could not agree on the charges against the accused. For the Ngudjolo case see International Criminal Court (2015).

  11. 11.

    Investigations are taking place in the following countries: Uganda, the DRC, the CAR, Kenya, Sudan (Darfur), Libya, Mali and Cote d’Ivoire. Five of them (Uganda, DRC, the CAR, the CAR II and Mali) were referred to the respective countries in their capacities as ICC States Parties. Sudan and Libya were referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council.

  12. 12.

    “The additional charges related to attacks on the Pajule IDP camp, the Odek IDP camp and the Abok IDP camp. The expanded charges against Dominic Ongwen also include sexual and gender-based crimes committed from 2002 to 2005 in Sinia Brigade—forced marriage, rape, torture, sexual slavery, and enslavement—and the conscription and use of children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities from 2002 to 2005, in Sinia Brigade” (ICC 2005).

References

  • Aoláin, F. N., Haynes, D. F., & Cahn, N. (2011). Criminal justice for gendered violence and beyond. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 425–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajpai, K. (2003). Indian conceptions of order and justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva, and Neo-liberal. In R. Foot, J. Gaddis, & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Order and justice in international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beardsworth, R. (2011). Cosmopolitanism and international relations theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedont, B. & Hall-Martinez, K. (1999). Ending impunity for gender crimes under the International Criminal Court. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 65, 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benedetti, F., Bonneau, K., & Washburn, J. L. (2014). Negotiating the International Criminal Court. Leiden: Martin Nihoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R. B., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensouda, F. (2014). Gender justice and the ICC. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 16(4), 538–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, C., & Du Plessis, M. (2005). The international criminal court and victims of sexual violence. South African Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(3), 241–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. S. (2002). Unilateralism, multilateralism, and the international criminal court. In S. Patrick & S. Forman (Eds.), Center on international cooperation studies in multilateralism. Multilateralism and US foreign policy: Ambivalent engagement (pp. 323–345). Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. (1992). International relations theory. New normative approaches. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A., & Keohane, R. O. (2004). The preventive use of force: A cosmopolitan institutional proposal. Ethics & International Affairs, 18(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. (2011). Performing legal order: Some feminist thoughts on international criminal law. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, R. C. (2006). Recognizing gender-based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security Dialogue, 37(1), 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, C. R. (2007). Recognizing gender-based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security Dialogue, 37(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, L. (2014). “New”, “Old” and “Nested” institutions and gender justice outcomes: A view from the international criminal court. Politics and Gender, 10(4), 572–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chertoff, E. (2017). Prosecuting gender-based persecution: The Islamic state at the ICC. The Yale Law Journal, 126(4), 908–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Nordas, R. (2014). Sexual violence in armed conflict: Introducing the SVAC dataset 1989–2009. Journal of Peace Research, 51(3), 418–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copelon, R. (2000). Gender crimes as war crimes: Integrating crimes against women into international criminal law. McGill Law Journal, 46(1), 218–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corser, M. (2011). Enhancing women’s rights and capabilities: An intersectional approach to gender-based violence prevention (Rapoport Center Human Rights Working Paper Series No. 1). https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/27716/1-2011CorserEnhancingWomensRightsandCapabilities.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  • Davis, L. (2018). Reimaging justice for gender-based crimes at the margins: New legal strategies for prosecuting ISIS crimes against women and LGBTIQ persons. William & Mary Journal of Women & the Law, 24(3), 513–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brouwer, A.-M. (2005). Supranational criminal prosecution of sexual violence: The ICC and the practice of the ITCY and the ITCR. Antwerpen: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Guzman, M. M. (2011). Giving priority to sex crime prosecutions: The philosophical foundations of a feminist agenda. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 515–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Guzman, M. M. (2012). An expressive rationale for the thematic prosecution of sex crimes. In M. Bergsmo (Ed.), Thematic prosecution of international sex crimes (pp. 11–44). Bejing: Torkel Opsal Academic EPublisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deitelhoff, N. (2009). Grenzen der Verständigung? Kulturelle Fragmentierung im Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats. In N. Deitelhoff & J. Steffek (Eds.), Was bleibt vom Staat? Demokratie, Recht und Verfassung im globalen Zeitalter (pp. 187–220). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deitelhoff, N., & Müller, H. (2005). Theoretical paradise: Empirically lost? Arguing with Habermas. Review of International Studies, 31(1), 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. (2002). Rape as a crime in international humanitarian law: Where to from here? European Journal of International Law, 13(3), 697–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, L. (2001). The memory of judgement: Making law and history in the trials of the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörrmann, K. (2003). War crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, with a special focus on the negotiations on the elements of crimes. In A. von Bogdandy & R. Wolfrum (Eds.), Max Planck yearbook of United Nations law, 7, 341–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffield, M. (2001). Global governance and the new wars. The merging of development and security. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing international society: A history of the english school. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, M. (2007). Breaking the silence: Rape as an international crime. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 38(2), 225–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, K. (2018). A genealogy of the centrality of sexual violence to gender and conflict. In F. N. Aoláin, N. Cahn, D. F. Haynes, & N. Valji (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erb, N. E. (1998). Gender-based crimes under the draft statute for the permanent international criminal court. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 29(2), 401–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertürk, Y. (2007). Intersections between culture and violence against women. Report of the special rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequence. United Nations Generals Assembly/Human Rights Council, A/HRC/4/34, 17 January 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G., & Sahnoun, M. (2002). The responsibility to protect. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice. Reimaging political space in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. (2011). First-class crimes, second-class justice. Cumulative charges for gender-based crimes at the international criminal court. International Criminal Law Review, 11(3), 529–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halley, J. (2008–2009). Rape at Rome: Feminist interventions in the criminalization of sex-related violence in positive international criminal law. Michigan Journal of International Law, 30(1), 1–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hechler, S. (2016). Prosecuting Islamic state members for sexual and gender-based crimes committed against Yazidi women and girls. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25(3), 595–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, G., & Wisotzki, S. (2014). Global governance efforts in tension between humanitarian concerns and statist sovereignty rights. International Negotiation, 19(3), 487–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, K. (2010). Global ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross. (1863). Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). Resource document. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/110. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  • International Criminal Court. (2002). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.

  • International Criminal Court. (2005). Alleged crimes (non-exhaustive list). International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/uganda/ongwen/pages/alleged-crimes.aspx. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  • International Criminal Court. (2012). ICC-01/04-01/06. Situation in the democratic Republic of the Congo in the case of the prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2012_07409.PDF. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.

  • International Criminal Court. (2014). ICC-01/04-01/07. The situation in the democratic Republic of the Congo in the case of the prosecutor v. Germain Katanga. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2015_04025.PDF. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.

  • International Criminal Court. (2015). ICC-01/04-02/12. The situation in the democratic Republic of the Congo. The prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/ngudjolo/Documents/ChuiEng.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.

  • Jackson, R. H. (2003). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, A. K., Lincoln, R., & Groth, L. (2011). The jurisprudence of sexual violence. A working paper of the sexual violence and accountability project. Human Rights Center, University of California Berkeley. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/The-Jurisprudence-of-Sexual-Violence-SV-Working-Paper.pdf. Accessed 13 Sep 2018.

  • Lewis, D. A. (2009). Unrecognized victims: Sexual violence against men in conflict settings under international law. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 27(1), 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C. (2000). The one and many faces of cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 8(2), 244–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2000). The dialogue of civilizations and international public spheres. Millennium, 29(2), 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mibenge, C. S. (2013). Sex and international tribunals. The erasure of gender from the war narrative. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2005). Global egalitarianism. The Journal of Ethics, 9(1/2), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moshan, B. S. (1998). Women, war, and words: The gender component in the permanent international criminal court’s definition of crimes against humanity. Fordham International Law Journal, 22(1), 154–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. (1994). Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 1(1), 15–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. (2007). Internationale Verhandlungen, Argumente und Verständigungshandeln. Verteidigung, Befunde, Warnung. In P. Niesen & M. Herborth (Eds.), Anarchie der kommunikativen Freiheit. Jürgen Habermas und die Theorie der internationalen Politik (pp. 199–223). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H. (2011). Justice in international diplomacy (PRIF Working Papers, 8). Frankfurt a. M.: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. http://www.hsfk.de/fileadmin/downloads/PRIF_WP_08.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2013.

  • Müller, H. (2013). Justice and peace: Good things do not always go together. In M. Diawara, M. W. Doyle, R. Forst, S. Kadelbach, M. Lutz-Bachmann, & C. Lynch (Eds.), Justice and peace. Interdisciplinary perspectives on a contested relationship. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice. Studies in security and international affairs. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (2005). The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 115–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of the Prosecutor. (2014). Policy paper on sexual and gender-based crimes. International Criminal Court (ICC). https://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/OTP-Policy-Paper-on-Sexual-and-Gender-Based-Crimes–June-2014.pdf. Accessed 18 Sep 2018.

  • Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics, 103(1), 48–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J. (2005). The new liberal imperialism: Assessing the argument. In C. Barry & T. Pogge (Eds.), Global institutions and responsibilities. Achieving global justice (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. (2000). Let’s argue: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandholtz, W. (2008). Explaining international norm change. In W. Sandholtz & K. W. Stiles (Eds.), International norms and cycles of change (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shapcott, R. (2010). International ethics. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjelsbaek, I. (2012). The political psychology of war rape. Studies form Bosnia and Herzegovina. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spees, P. (2003). Women’s advocacy in the creation of the international criminal court: Changing the landscapes of justice and power. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(4), 1233–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (2006). Sphären der Gerechtigkeit. Ein Plädoyer für Pluralität und Gleichheit. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, N. J. (1992). Pluralist or solidarist conceptions of international society. Millennium, 21(3), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, A. (2009). Enacting meaning-in-use: Qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies, 35(1), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Women’s Caucus. (1999). Report of the November–December 1999 ICC prepcom. WC archive. http://www.iccwomen.org/icc/pc199912/report.htm. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.

  • Women’s Caucus. (2000). Report of March 2000 ICC prepcom. WC archive. http://www.iccwomen.org/icc/pc200003/report.htm. Accessed 3 Feb 2015.

  • Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice. (2014). Report on the 10-Year Review Conference of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court, 31 May–11 June, Kampala/Uganda. The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women Studies, 13(3), 193–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Simone Wisotzki

Authors
  1. Simone Wisotzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Wisotzki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Caroline Fehl

  2. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Dirk Peters

  3. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Simone Wisotzki

  4. Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF/HSFK), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Jonas Wolff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wisotzki, S. (2019). Gender Justice in Multilateral Negotiations: The Case of SGBV in the Rome Statute and in the ICC. In: Fehl, C., Peters, D., Wisotzki, S., Wolff, J. (eds) Justice and Peace. Studien des Leibniz-Instituts Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25196-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation