Skip to main content

Gender Imbalance at the ICC: The Continued Hegemonic Entrenchment of Male Privilege in International Criminal Law

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

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

  • 447 Accesses

Abstract

The ICC, an invaluable part of the international criminal justice landscape has a mixed bag of successes and failures. There are many challenges facing the Court and the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) and one of them is the shocking gender imbalance at the senior levels of the Court and within the ASP. The Independent Expert Review (IER) process, which came about in a bid to improve the Court’s efficiency and effectiveness, produced a voluminous 348-page report released in September 2020. It reveals a number of concerning issues including sexual harassment which is inextricably linked to the chronic staff related gender imbalance at the ICC. Gender imbalance, perpetuated by many factors including hiring practices, entrenches hegemonic ideas related to male privilege at the expense of women. Taking into account the findings of the IER, and other studies this chapter will delve into the gender imbalance and the associated consequences including how the imbalance affects the field as a whole. This chapter will also look at ways to change the imbalance including better recruitment practices, and tenure policies.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee 2021, para 5.

  2. 2.

    This chapter is an expansion of a blog post written by the same author and published on Opinio Juris entitled The ICC’s ‘Boys Club’ Problem, 7 October 2021.

  3. 3.

    Wenzel 2020, p. 8.

  4. 4.

    O’Kane 2020, p. 1.

  5. 5.

    Inman 2021, p. 1.

  6. 6.

    Mudukuti 2021b.

  7. 7.

    IER 2020, para 3.

  8. 8.

    ICC-ASP 2020b, para 5.

  9. 9.

    Advisory Committee on Nomination of Judges at the ICC webpage. https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/ACN/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 24 September 2021.

  10. 10.

    Assembly of States Parties webpage. https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/assembly/Pages/assembly.aspx. Accessed 24 September 2021.

  11. 11.

    ICC-ASP 2020c, para 11.

  12. 12.

    Universitat Pompeu Fabra 2019, p. 1.

  13. 13.

    Miller 2012, p. 1.

  14. 14.

    IER 2020, p. 73.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., para 248, footnote 145.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., para 249.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 249.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para 249.

  19. 19.

    ICC-ASP 2021, para 236.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., para 237.

  21. 21.

    Mudukuti 2021a, p. 1.

  22. 22.

    ICC-ASP 2020b, p. 6.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., para 23.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., para 23.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 40.

  26. 26.

    ICC Statute Article 42(4).

  27. 27.

    ICC Statute Article 36(9).

  28. 28.

    Coalition for the ICC 2020a, p. 2.

  29. 29.

    Open Society Justice Initiative 2019, p. 19.

  30. 30.

    ICC 2017, para 7.

  31. 31.

    Coalition for the ICC 2020b, p. 1.

  32. 32.

    FIDH 2020, p. 1.

  33. 33.

    Coalition for the ICC 2020b, p. 1.

  34. 34.

    Grossman 2011, p. 645.

  35. 35.

    ICC Statute Article 36(8)(a)(iii).

  36. 36.

    ICC Statute Article 43(4).

  37. 37.

    ICC 2013, Rule 12.

  38. 38.

    ICC-ASP 2021, para 179.

  39. 39.

    ICC Presidency webpage. https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/presidency. Accessed 24 September 2021.

  40. 40.

    IER 2020, para 209.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para 205.

  42. 42.

    Sehmer 2015, p. 1.

  43. 43.

    International Labour Organisation n.d.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    IBA 2019, p. 8.

  47. 47.

    Ibid.

  48. 48.

    IER 2020, para 212.

  49. 49.

    ICC-ASP 2013.

  50. 50.

    ICC-ASP 2020a, para 20.

  51. 51.

    Ibid.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    ‘At its twelfth session in 2013, the Assembly of States Parties (Assembly) adopted the operational mandate of the Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM). The Assembly decided that the work and the operational mandate of the IOM would be fully reviewed at its fifteenth session. However, given the lengthy recruitment process for the Head of the IOM, as a result of which the first Head assumed duty only in October 2015, the Assembly had recognized that the review would not be possible at the fifteenth session, in 2016. In order to give the new Head sufficient time to acquire the necessary experience to properly inform the Assembly’s review of its work and operational mandate, the Bureau decided, at its 13 July 2016 meeting, that the review would take place at the seventeenth session of the Assembly in 2018, once a reasonable amount of time had transpired with the IOM being properly staffed.” Ibid., para 1. See ICC-ASP 2020d.

  54. 54.

    IER 2020, paras 285–287.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para 289.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para 305.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., para 294.

  58. 58.

    Thompson 2017, p. 1.

  59. 59.

    Grossman 2011, p. 649.

  60. 60.

    Thompson 2017, p. 1.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    The Prosecutor v Jean-Paul Akayesu Case No. ICTR-96-4-T (1998). https://unictr.irmct.org/sites/unictr.org/files/case-documents/ictr-96-4/trial-judgements/en/980902.pdf. Accessed 24 September 2021.

  64. 64.

    Grossman 2011, p. 649.

  65. 65.

    ICC-ASP 2021, para 210.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., para 211.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., para 202.

  69. 69.

    ICC 2021a.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Leiden University 2021, p. 1.

  72. 72.

    Internship vacancy advertised via Impact Pool (on file with author).

  73. 73.

    ICC 2021b.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Mudukuti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mudukuti, A. (2023). Gender Imbalance at the ICC: The Continued Hegemonic Entrenchment of Male Privilege in International Criminal Law. In: Jeßberger, F., Steinl, L., Mehta, K. (eds) International Criminal Law—A Counter-Hegemonic Project?. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 31. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-551-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-551-5_13

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-550-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-551-5

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics