Write On! Chinese Univ. Hong Kong

unnamed 3

This installment of Write On!, our periodic compilation of calls for papers, includes calls to submit papers to The Chinese Univ. of Hong Kong, as follows:

► The Chinese University of Hong Kong is calling for paper proposals for its conference on “Gender, Sexuality, and Justice: Resilience in Uncertain Times”, to be held on December 7-8, 2018 at the university in Hong Kong. This conference aims to examine issues of gender, sexuality, and justice as they intersect within social contexts. Individual papers or panel proposals should be sent to genderconference2018@cuhk.edu.hk by August 1, 2018. For more information, click here.

Advertisements

Work On! European Univ. Institute & AU Washington College of Law

Work On! is an occasional item about workshops, roundtables, and other fora that do not necessarily include publication:

unnamed.pngEuropean University Institute‘s School of Transnational Governance invites you to participate in its seminar: Executive Training on Gender and Media, taking place in Florence, Italyon September 26-28, 2018. This Executive Training Seminar brings together leading academics and practitioners to provide participants with the latest facts, figures, ideas and analysis about gender-based discrimination in traditional and digital media. Deadline to apply is: August 3, 2018. For more information, click here.

►American University Washington College of Law’sunnamed (1).png Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law is currently accepting applications for the LL.M. in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. This master’s program is the only LL.M. program in International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in the United States to offer a hybrid curriculum of its kind in a U.S. law school. AUWCL has built a significant reputation in this field and it is highly recognized around the world. Its unique location in Washington D.C. offers unparalleled opportunities to legal professionals from the U.S. and around the world. Get more information here. This program is currently accepting applications for the Spring 2019 semester. The deadline to apply is December 1st, 2019.

 

U.N. Sanctions Can Help Stop Rape in War

Sexual violence is clearly prohibited in peacetime and wartime, both by international human rights law and the lex specialis international humanitarian law. Despite these prohibitions, sexual violence remains prevalent in many modern conflicts. Furthermore, it continues to be used intentionally by government forces and militias as a weapon in order to achieve military or political objectives. As seen in Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria and the DCR, sexual violence is used effectively to terrorize, forcibly displace, ethnically cleanse, and control civilian populations seen as the “enemy”- at the cost of women and girls.

In 2008 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) issued a groundbreaking resolution (1820) that threatened the use of targeted sanctions against individuals ordering, tolerating or engaging in sexual violence as a weapon of war. Sanctions, foreseen in article 41 of the UN Charter, are one of two coercive powers that the Security Council holds under Chapter VII. Through the threat of coercive measures, the UNSC thus affirmed its ability and willingness to place meaningful restraints on sexual violence in conflict.

This was a groundbreaking and welcomed move. Designation criteria relying on international human rights and humanitarian norms have the potential to reinforce legal frameworks on prevention and accountability. Indeed, targeting political and military commanders with sanctions can create an incentive to stop deliberately ordering or implicitly tolerating sexual violence committed by their soldiers. Sanctions can compel commanders to change behavior and exercise better control over troops.

But ten years after the UNSC first threatened sanctions, where are we in practice? This question drove Georgetown University’s Institute for Women, Peace and Security to investigate whether the Security Council actually translated its threat of sanctions into concrete action.

We studied 8 sanctions regimes in countries characterized by continuing armed conflict and massive human-rights violations, including the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war: Central African Republic, the Congo, Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen. Our report finds that sanctions have great potential, but are largely underutilized and implemented ineffectively.

Unfortunately, the inclusion of sexual violence in sanctions regimes is not consistent, nor is it timely. Some sanctions regimes do not once mention sexual violence as part of the designation criteria – despite evidence of widespread use (such as in Sudan). Some regimes include references to sexual violence, but only decades after the first violations were reported (such as in Somalia). Moreover, follow-up of the threat of sanctions with concrete designations of individuals is often neither timely nor reflective of the main perpetrators. Failure to act on the threat of sanctions actually gives perpetrators permission and incentive for brutality, because it gives them confidence that no meaningful rebuke will follow. Continue reading

Introducing Sophie Huvé

sophie_headshotIt is our great pleasure to introduce our new IntLawGrrls contributor Sophie Huvé!

Sophie is the 2017-2018 Hillary Rodham Clinton Law Fellow with the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. She received her LLM in international legal studies at Georgetown University Law Center, with a certificate in international human rights. Before coming to Georgetown Law, Sophie interned with the UN Security Council Affairs Division, where she worked on the UN sanctions regimes and published a book on Russia’s foreign policy toward the United Nations. She graduated with a master’s degree in international public law and international organizations from Sorbonne Paris I University.

Heartfelt welcome!

Debating the Istanbul Convention in Lithuania: The Term ‘Gender’ is not Alien

Istanbul Convention_Pixabay.png

(Pixabay)

In June 2018, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite submitted to the national parliament the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence — known as the Istanbul Convention — for ratification. Entered into force in 2014, the Convention provides a comprehensive set of policy and legal measures to prevent and prosecute violence against women and protect the survivors.

Yet the treaty is bound to face political opposition, as demonstrated by the earlier parliament’s decision to put on hold its ratification. The main reason for the delay was the use of the term ‘gender’ in the Istanbul Convention. In accordance to Article 3c, ‘gender’ means ‘socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men’. The term is central to the Convention since it depicts violence against women as gender-based. In other words, it views gender violence as a consequence of power inequalities between men and women, which are rooted in sociocultural norms. The critics in Lithuania assert that the concept of ‘gender’ is unfamiliar to national law. It is further argued that the treaty challenges binary sex system and paves the way to the recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

This post, however, asserts that the concept of ‘gender’ has been long present in national law consequent to the country’s entry into two international treaties, 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Relatedly, existent gender obligations are highlighted, including those owed to LGBT people.

CEDAW: promoting gender equality

The ruling Lithuanian Farmers and Greens Union party previously suggested that CEDAW, which Lithuania ratified in 1994, provided a sufficient framework to tackle violence against women. As a treaty dedicated to the elimination of discrimination against women, it is absent of the term ‘gender’ and is believed to overlap with the Istanbul Convention.

 Such arguments are defective. CEDAW does not contain a specific provision on violence against women. It is true that CEDAW uses the term ‘sex’, not ‘gender’; in substance, however, CEDAW is in alignment with the Istanbul Convention insofar both treaties require the state parties to undertake measures altering proscribed gender roles. For instance, CEDAW mandates the state parties:

 ‘To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (Article 5a).

 ‘To eliminate ‘any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim’ (Article 10c).

 Appreciation of sociocultural factors is also evident in general recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the treaty monitoring body. General Recommendation 28, for example, stipulates that ‘although the Convention only refers to sex-based discrimination . . . [it] covers gender-based discrimination against women. The term ‘gender’ refers to socially constructed identities, attributes and roles for women and men’. The addition of ‘gender’ to the Committee’s documents does not conflict with CEDAW. On the contrary, it provides the name to the addressed social dimension of inequality between women and men. The name, which entered a vocabulary of international law only in 1990s, after CEDAW was made. 

 The genie is out of the bottle: just as resistance to the concept of ‘gender’ due to its newness appears to be ungrounded, so does the belief that Lithuania does not have commitments to LGBT persons seems to be false. As Article 1 of CEDAW demonstrates, the treaty is a non-discrimination instrument targeting ‘any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing . . . of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field’. It may therefore be applicable, for example, to lesbians whose rights to marriage, health care and employment are adversely affected owing to heteronormative impositions.

The Rome Statute and the pioneer legal definition of ‘gender’

The Rome Statute may seem to have little relevance to the debates surrounding the Istanbul Convention and violence against women. It established a permanent international criminal court which has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals over the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Yet for the purpose of this article, the Rome Statute significant, since it was the first international treaty to define ‘gender’. Its ratification by Lithuania in 2003 demonstrates that the country encountered the term; and was presented the opportunity to engage the concept through its translation.

In accordance to Article 7(3) of the Rome Statute, ‘gender’ refers to the ‘two sexes, male and female, within the context of society’. This rather peculiar conceptualisation has a clear deterministic foundation: it acknowledges only two sexes, male and female. As I contended elsewhere, it may consequently exclude intersex individuals who are neither female nor male: they possess a combination of male and female genitalia, or have ambiguous genitalia.

The phrase ‘within the context of society’, meanwhile, enables the ICC to consider contextual factors, including gender roles, social attitudes, and sexual orientation. Article 7(3) has the scope of accommodating LGBT persons since most of them identify themselves as either male or female, yet they tend to experience discrimination due to non-adherence to heterosexual norms. The social construction of gender has also been highlighted by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor. Its 2014 Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes explains that the definition of ‘gender’ ‘acknowledges the social construction of gender, and the accompanying roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes assigned to women and men, and to girls and boys’. Alas, the sociological component is lost in the Lithuanian translation of Article 7(3); in effect, it conflates ‘gender’ with ‘sex’.

So the Istanbul Convention would neither introduce the term ‘gender’ nor impose the requirement of LGBT-inclusive gender equality — both have been part of Lithuanian international responsibilities. It would, however, assist the country in addressing the root causes of gender-based violence, criminalise the latter adequately, and implement victim-centred protection and support measures.

Introducing Laura Nacyte

LBW-1.jpgIt is our great pleasure to introduce our new IntLawGrrls contributor Laura Nacyte.

Laura holds a BA (Hons) in Political Science from Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania, and an MSc in Global Security from the University of Glasgow. Her academic interests revolved around gender inequality and social justice issues; in researching them, she utilised interdisciplinary — political, legal and sociological — perspectives. She finalised the MSc studies with the dissertation “The Copenhagen School Meets International Law: Has the International Criminal Court Impeded the Securitisation of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence?

Following graduation, she has been actively involved in the third sector. She has participated in the Standing Safe Campaign, My Body Back Clinic, and Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis. She is currently based at Rape Crisis Scotland, and continues to work as a helpline volunteer at Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis.

Laura has contributed to a number of blogs: Engenderings (for example, see here), Sexual Violence  Research Initiative (see here), Justice in Conflict (see here), and AContrario (see here). She can be contacted at lnacyte@gmail.com.

Heartfelt welcome!

How women and girls who survived Boko Haram have gone from one nightmare to another in Nigeria

Bama Hospital camp

Women in Bama Hospital camp in north-east Nigeria, December 2015. (Gbemiga Olamikan)

While there has been international outrage following Boko Haram’s abduction of women and girls in north-east Nigeria, there has been little awareness or condemnation of the abusive behaviour of the Nigerian armed forces – despite the fact that they have been committing war crimes and potential crimes against humanity against Boko Haram survivors.

This blog highlights some of our findings in a recently released Amnesty International report, “They betrayed us”, as well as related developments since. The report documents how thousands of women and girls in north-east Nigeria who lived under Boko Haram’s brutal rule have since been subjected to gendered forms of violence and abuse by those responsible for protecting them.

Attacked instead of protected

In 2014, Boko Haram took control of large swathes of north-east Nigeria. From early 2015, the Nigerian military intensified its operations against the armed group, and has since recaptured much of this area. The military then established so-called “satellite camps” for internally displaced people from areas that had been under Boko Haram control in the key towns they recaptured.

By mid-2016, over 200,000 people were living in these camps; many thousands more have arrived since.  However, many of the IDPs had not chosen to come to the satellite camps at all. While some were fleeing Boko Haram, others had fled after the military indiscriminately attacked their rural communities, opening fire, burning down homes, and ordering everyone to leave. Some told us they were hoping to be rescued from Boko Haram when they were attacked by the military. Others told us that they had been taken to the camps by the security forces against their will.

The forced displacement across scores of villages do not appear to have been sufficiently targeted to be in line with any imperative military reasons and the violent nature in which they were conducted suggest they did not appear to be designed to ensure civilians’ security. Instead, these acts appear to constitute a war crime.

Families separated

The military subjected everyone arriving in the satellite camps to a “security screening”. Many (in some locations, almost all) men and boys perceived to be of “fighting age” were arbitrarily detained and taken away to military detention facilities where thousands remain. One result was that the satellite camps have been made up of disproportionate numbers of women and their dependents, with few civilian men.

Confined and left to die

In the satellite camps, women and their dependents have been denied information on their loved ones in detention and subject to severe movement restrictions.

From late 2015 until mid/late 2016, when humanitarian aid finally scaled up, thousands of people – mostly women and their dependents – died from lack of food, water and healthcare while confined in the camps. By confining people to camps in such conditions, those responsible may have committed the war crime of murder.

While the food security situation has improved in most of the satellite camps since mid-2016, there are still massive gaps in assistance provided, and women face gender-based discrimination accessing assistance and livelihood opportunities.

Sexual violence

Members of the military and the allied militia have subjected women and girls in the satellite camps to sexual violence. Women who were near-starving were often forced to be the ‘girlfriends’ of the soldiers or militia members in order to access food. Even now, sexual exploitation continues to thrive in a context of impunity, near-confinement and deprivation.

The coercive circumstances that soldiers and militia members created and took advantage of negates any consent that may have apparently been given by women succumbing to be their ‘girlfriends’. Those responsible thus committed the war crime of rape even where physical force was not used or threatened. In some cases, women who refused sex were also raped by security forces using physical force or threats.

Continue reading