Agenda, Janet Benshoof, Keynote Address delivered at The Third Annual Law Summit at the NYU School of Law, titled, “Women in Conflict: Gender, Violence, and Peacekeeping," on February 20th, 2015.
Akila Radhakrishnan, Legal Director of the Global Justice Center, responds to an article in the New York Times, “Three Years of Strife and Cruelty Put Syria in Free Fall” that describes three years of conflict without mentioning the use of rape as a weapon of war.
Akila Radhakrishnan and Kristina Kallas publish an article in Ms. Magazine, titled "The Cruelest Weapon" on how the US denies abortions to women raped in war.
The Security Council has found that the endemic use of rape in war for military advantage – which is primarily targeted against women and girls – is a military tactic that presents a threat to global peace and security. Despite concerted global efforts over the last two decades to end its use, rape as a tool of war continues undeterred. This article links the intransigent use of strategic rape with states’ failure to treat it as an unlawful tactic of war under the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that regulate the 'means and methods of war’. Embedding strategic rape under IHL’s weapons framework will increase its stigmatization, a critical factor in stopping the use of abhorrent weapons or tactics in war. Other potential benefits include the opening up of civil and criminal accountability frameworks and others which provide restitution and reparations for war rape victims. This article focuses on the role of all states in enforcing the weapons framework and it calls for states to undertake an impact and injuries assessment of strategic rape under the Article 36 weapons review process.
GJC writes open letter to Commissioner Georgieva of the European Commission in response to her September 8, 2014 letter explaining the European Union's position on abortion and the Geneva Conventions.
The European Union's Duty Under International Humanitarian Law to Ensure Non-Discriminatory Medical Care to Women and Girls Raped in Armed Conflict, Including Access to Safe Abortion Services
Excerpts of EU, International, and National Laws, Policies & Practices Relevant to this Duty
There is a global consensus that the mass rape of girls and women is routinely used as a tactic or “weapon” of war in contemporary armed conflicts.1 Despite two decades of intense global efforts, rape used as a tactic of war continues undeterred. This is not surprising: rape is a cheap, powerful, and effective tool for military forces to use to kill and mutilate women and children, force pregnancy, terrorize families and communities, demoralize enemy forces, and accomplish genocide.
Rape used to further military objectives or the strategic aims of a conflict (“strategic rape”), constitutes a prohibited tactic or method of warfare under international humanitarian law.
The last two decades have seen a dramatic transformation in the Security Council’s (Council) role in advancing and enforcing international humanitarian law (IHL). The changing nature of armed conflict, the universal acceptance of human rights, the calcification of certain precepts of international law into jus cogens, and advances in international law have all redefined the limits of state sovereignty and influenced the modern understanding of the Council’s mandate under the United Nations Charter (Charter).
Within this new paradigm, the Council has made protecting civilians in armed conflict central to its duty to maintain international peace and security. As part of this effort, the Council has passed a series of resolutions addressing the impact of armed conflict on women and the use of sexual violence in conflict (Women, Peace and Security Series, WPS Series).2 Despite these efforts, the resolutions have failed to achieve one of the Council’s main goals – ending sexual violence perpetrated against women in armed conflicts around the world.
The chapter, Women, Peace and Security, in the forthcoming publication, Security Council in the Age of Human Rights, examines the Council’s actions in the WPS Series against its duties to act under the evolving imperatives of IHL, in particular those rules considered jus cogens. The chapter argues that the Council has a duty to take stronger and more effective measures to address sexual violence against girls and women in armed conflict, in order to successfully deter its use.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 27, 2012
[NEW YORK, NY] - The Global Justice Center applauds the resolution passed by the Socialist International Women congress on "rape as a weapon or tactic of armed conflict."
This document outlines some of Myanmar/Burma’s (hereinafter “Burma”) obligations under international law, and demonstrates the ramifications of these obligations. Burma’s obligations under international law have greatly increased due to the advances in international law and the enforcement of states obligations over the last fifteen years.
International law mandates that states either act or refrain from acting in certain ways, and provides remedies for state breaches. The framework of Burma’s obligations arise from four interrelated bodies of international law: international human rights and other treaty law, including the United Nations (UN) Charter; customary international law, including the laws of state responsibility; international humanitarian law; and international criminal law.
The 2008 Constitution Breaches Myanmar/Burma’s Binding Obligations under International Law Including the United Nation’s Charter
The 2008 Constitution Establishes a Civilian Government Without Full Sovereign Powers
Under the 1947 Constitution, in place when Burma applied for United Nation (UN) membership in 1948, Burma was a sovereign state. The Union of the Republic of Myanmar, as established under the 2008 Constitution (the “Constitution”), is not a sovereign state as defined by international law. A “sovereign” state must have supreme power to make laws that are applicable to all institutions and citizens of the state “without accountability” to any other body. To be considered a sovereign state, the civilian government must have “paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration” as well as be the person or body of persons which has no political superior.
The Constitution is unlike any in the world in that it grants the Defense Forces complete autonomy and supremacy over the civilian government.No branch of the “sovereign” state (consisting of the legislative, executive and judicial branches) may exercise oversight over the military. The Constitution reserves 25% of Parliamentary seats for the military and Constitutional amendments require more than 75% majority for passage. This essentially reserves a veto over Constitutional amendments for the military. The civilian government under these limitations does not have full sovereign powers as defined by international law.
The UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (July 2-27) will conclude this week in New York, and member states and NGOs are scrambling to include last-minute changes and amendments to the document before the final is submitted to a vote by member states. The Treaty itself has taken years to draft and includes input from civil society groups as well as governments and intergovernmental organizations. The push for such an agreement was initiated by NGO’s and civil society groups concerned with the proliferation of weapons and the role that arms producers play in perpetuating armed conflicts in some of the poorest nations in the world. The fact that the Conference is taking place at all is a testament to the hard work and dedication not of governments or politicians, but of groups representing individuals and civilians who suffer most from the unmitigated international weapons trade.
Proponents of a strong ATT face significant obstacles in their quest to limit the international arms trade. The monetary value of the global arms market is estimated at $60 billion per year and many powerful states run highly lucrative arms industries that serve to enrich governments and elite officials both financially and in terms of political power and influence. Originally, the United States and other large countries expressed support for a strong treaty that included clear language prohibiting the export of arms to countries or governments with a history of using such weapons against their own populations or in the face of evidence that the weapons may be used for non-defensive purposes. Over the past two weeks, however, many states have begun to pull back their support for strong language and meaningful regulations.
While many were confident of the treaty language early in the Conference proceedings, there have been growing attempts to weaken the treaty’s language to a degree many find unacceptable. This is a troubling trend as it suggests that states may not be able to ultimately agree on treaty conditions and that members may ultimately fail to pass the treaty at all. States and NGOs that are proponents of a strong ATT argue that no treaty would be better than a weak treaty that fails to address the real concerns and dangers implicit in the international weapons trade. Further increasing the likelihood that member states will fail to pass an ATT is the fact that the United States ensured early in the process that any vote on an ATT must be voted for unanimously by all member states in order to take effect. Given these difficult circumstances, it looks to be increasingly unlikely that the UN will be able to agree on any meaningful ATT before the Conference comes to a close on Friday.
Post by: Adrian Lewis