Discriminatory Legal Systems
Recently women have been heavily involved in protests in Egypt. This was true as well in 2011, but when the 2012 Constitution came out it had as little gender equality as the laws it was replacing.
At what point in the process did it become okay to silence the voices of women?
“[President] Morsi had promised an increasing role for women and Copts. The Constitution came after that with nothing! … Women’s rights have been linked to religion and not to the needs of Egyptian women,” - Azza Suleiman, an Egyptian lawyer working to stop violence against women, said in an Amnesty International Report when interviewed.
She also condemned the opposition’s reaction: “They say it’s because there are more important issues to deal with at the moment. As if women’s problems are not as important!”
In 2012, the new government failed to deliver on its promises of democracy. Women were not equally represented (only two female members in the 36-member Cabinet). No tangible action was taken on gender issues. Authorities announced a stricter sexual harassment law in October 2012 and again in February 2013, but failedto pass it both times. Without women equally represented in the government, there was little motivation to act on gender equality issues – though women protested the unfairness from the outside. An Alliance of Women’s Groups called for gender equality in the new constitution in July, but thus far there has been little sign of movement on this issue.
The Global Justice Center knows that, where there is a constitution that excludes women and ignores the processes of justice, unrest is bound to follow. Our Burma Law Project seeks to challenge the same constitutional suppression of women’s voices in Burma. Gender parity in power is key to long-term stabilization in both of these transitioning democracies.
Amina Agami, an Egyptian woman who works with NGOs protecting human rights, said in the same Amnesty International Report that the 2012 Constitution “…does not care about women, as if they do not exist.” She also said that the Constitution could potentially provide for child marriage, and “The Constitution does not give women any chance to be at the parliament, ministry of justice or any other positions like that.”
GJC knows that to have a functioning democratic state the laws holding it together must be just. It is not possible to have such laws while women’s rights are ignored.
In the recent 2013 protests, women have been repeatedly silenced with sexual harassment while trying to exercise their right to peaceful protest. On the single day of June 30th, 46 sexual assaults were reported from Tahrir Square. The attacks on protesters have reached such levels that Amnesty International recently began a petition calling on Egypt to end sexual violence against women protesters. Consider also that 99.3% of Egyptian women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in their lifetimes.
This wide-scale suppression of Egyptian women’s voices is unacceptable. Egypt cannot move in any positive direction if Egyptian women are unable to exercise their political voice freely and unmolested.
In the next few weeks, Egypt needs to keep in mind gender equality and equal participation in government because without it a just and democratic system will never be reached. GJC aims to increase women’s roles in governments internationally. As our logo demonstrates, women make up 51% of the world’s population, but the global average for women in government is only 19.7%. We are working to close this gap, because only then will we have true representative democracy. Women must be allowed to have an equal and respected role in government changes in Egypt. While we wait to see when and if Egypt will hold democratic elections again, one thing is clear: The party thatultimately gains power in Egypt must make women’s rights a priority.
Girls and women in Kenya recently made history when the High Court of Kenya delivered a favorable outcome to a constitutional challenge in which 160 girls between the ages of 3 and 17 sued the Kenyan government for failing to protect them from being raped.
The girls brought the action under Section 22(1) of the Kenyan constitution, which provides that “Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.” The Kenyan criminal code contains laws that protect against rape, however they are not enforced and as a result rape has been on the rise. The petitioners accused the police of “neglect, omission, refusal and/or failure…to conduct prompt, effective, proper and professional investigations” into sexual violence complaints.
The High Court agreed with the petitioners, saying that the police had “unlawfully, inexcusably and unjustifiably” failed to respond to reports of sexual abuse in Kenya. It said police inaction and lack of enforcement has created a “climate of impunity” that shows perpetrators they can commit crimes of sexual violence and not be punished. The Court found that the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms had been violated, not only under the Kenyan Constitution but also according to international law. The Court found police inaction to violate fundamental rights that are protected by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court also considered international cases that demonstrate a consensus that states may be held accountable for failing to properly respond to sexual violence because they have a duty “to protect all citizens from violence and ensure their security of person.”
Two days after the victory, several people contacted Fiona Sampson, the Toronto attorney who worked on the case. They wanted to use the case as a model in other countries for fighting impunity in the context of sexual violence, a problem that is hardly limited to Kenya.
For the women in Burma, for example, the problem of impunity in the face of widespread sexual violence is dire. The prevalence of abuse, documented by Burmese women’s groups, UN special rapporteurs, and even the Security Council, is extensive. These violations are not anecdotal incidences of crime. Rather, the Burmese military uses rape as a weapon of war against the civilian population.
Although this problem has been reported at length, the Burmese government refuses to take any action to punish such acts. In fact, the current 2008 Constitution provides complete impunity for sexual violence perpetrated by the military by including an amnesty provision that precludes the prosecution of military perpetrators of crimes. What’s more, current law requires that any amendment to the Constitution be supported by more than 75% of parliament. Because 25% of parliamentary seats are reserved for the military, all nonmilitary members plus at least one military member must support any proposed amendment. It is therefore unlikely that the amnesty provision will be overturned any time soon.Because of this, the International Center for Transitional Justice has said that Burma presents “one of the most difficult challenges in the world in relation to making progress toward combating impunity”.
As a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Burma has an affirmative duty to ensure women are protected from sexual violence, which includes not affording immunity to its perpetrators. Like Kenya, Burma is bound under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and should be guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in developing policies and practices that protect Burmese citizens from sexual violence. Burma is violating these international obligations when it relies on its 2008 Constitution to justify inaction.
The international community should look to the recent case in Kenya as a model and call for Burma to put an end to impunity if it wants to establish viable democracy in the country. Given the Burmese military’s reliance on aid, international pressure could be highly effective. While the government continues to fail to act to combat impunity, the international community must demand a change in the constitution so that girls and women in Burma, just as in Kenya, receive the protections their government owes them.
The rights of women under international law, including the right to occupy positions of political power, have advanced more in the last 20 years than ever before. True political participation requires a significant number of women in all areas of governance: ceasefire and peace treaty negotiations, constitution drafting committees, political parties, executive branch appointments, and elected positions.
In Burma, the long history of militarization has reinforced and perpetuated the gender gap in power. Women are not admitted into active military service, effectively excluding them (as well as ethnic minorities) from political participation since top offices are reserved for the military. Therefore, they have also been ineligible for the employment, education, business, joint venture and travel opportunities created by military status.
Pursuant to the 2008 Constitution, the Defense Services (Tatmadaw) remain an integral and permanent part of the machinery that governs Burma and is constitutionally guaranteed complete power and autonomy. The continued military dominance guaranteed by the Constitution is the main obstacle for women in Burma hindering them from ever gaining real political power.
This timeline illustrates the absence of women’s voices from formal governing structures throughout Burmese history. It should provide an impetus for this formerly silent majority, the feminist majority, to make their voices heard and to take their turn at governing the country.
Letter to Louise Arbour: RE: The International Crisis Group’s Policy Urging Unconditional Engagement with Burma’s Military Rulers Contradicts States’ Absolute Obligations to Respond to Burma’s Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms of International Law, Sep
Letter to Louise Arbour: RE: The International Crisis Group’s Policy Urging Unconditional Engagement with Burma’s Military Rulers Contradicts States’ Absolute Obligations to Respond to Burma’s Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms of International Law, September 2011
Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 17:00-18:00
On Tuesday April 23, Burmese President Thein Sein was awarded a peace prize from the International Crisis Group, an NGO dedicated to resolving deadly conflict. Oddly, presenting Thein Sein with this award is a step away from the ICG’s goal, seeing as their main focus involves conflict resolution, something the Burmese president has evaded. In ICG’s recognition of Thein Sein, they highlight that he has transformed Myanmar by “liberalizing past repressive laws” and “making significant strides in ending internal conflicts, securing ceasefires with all but one of the ethnic armed groups”. However, they gloss over the fact that despite the changes that he’s made, ethnic groups are still being oppressed by the military. There have been ongoing reports against the Myanmar Army from a multitude of sources, including the UN, with claims accusing them of systemic use of rape against Ethnic women. These allegations clearly indicate that rape is being used as a weapon of war against ethnic minorities, while the government turns a blind eye to these atrocities. Instead of acknowledging these methodical violations of human rights or making some sort of effort to alleviate the situation, President Thein Sein has merely denied the allegations. Reports have made it clear that the Myanmar army uses rape to terrorize and intimidate Ethnic people. As a signatory of the Geneva Convention, the nation of Myanmar is obligated to take initiatives to enforce humanitarian law against its army, but has failed to do so. As an advocate of human rights, GJC does not support a leader who oppresses its citizens and violates principles of humanity, especially against women. Our Rape as a Weapon of War Campaign demands justice for women raped in conflict in order to shatter this culture of impunity. Raping women for military objections is a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, and states must face repercussions for these actions. Thein Sein should not be awarded a peace prize when he is not recognizing the abuses that his own citizens are facing under his rule as he allows this to continue, and by awarding him, the ICG is only approving of the suffering of innocent civilians. It is time to punish states that use rape as an unlawful weapon in armed conflict, not reward them.
Friday, March 8, 2013, 11:30-13:00
The European Association of Women Lawyers, NAWO, the Global Justice Center and others will be hosting the event “Lessons Learnt on VAGW: A better future including establishing a UN Convention on VAGW." GJC President Janet Benshoof will be talking on using the rule of law to stop Violence Against Women and Girls.
GJC President Janet Benshoof in Democratic Voice of Burma: "It's Time for the International Community to Address Burma's Constitution"
Here's an excerpt from the article "It's Time for the International Community to Address Burma's Constitution," which was published in
The international community acts as if development and engagement alone can secure a democratic future for Burma. The United Nations and donor countries, with staggering rapidity, are investing considerable amounts of international and bilateral aid in Burma, including for “rule of law” projects designed to jettison Burma into the 21st century global legal community. However, this well-intended engagement, touting ideals of democracy and the rule of law, is built on a fallacy, which neither serves the people of Burma nor advances the global security sought by the international community.
This fallacy is that justice, democracy, and rule of law can be established in Burma notwithstanding the fact that the 2008 constitution establishing the “Republic of the Union of Myanmar” grants the “Defense Services,” under Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing, complete and total legal autonomy over its own affairs, as well as immunity for its actions, however criminal or corrupt. The truth is actually quite simple: unless and until the military is placed under civilian control through constitutional amendment, talk of democracy and rule of law in Burma is just that, talk.
Click here to read the full article in English.
Click here to read the full article in Burmese.
The GJC welcomes the Committee’s Concept Note and looks forward to the general discussion on “Access to Justice” in preparation for a General Recommendation on the subject.
In general, access to justice for women is essential to the advancement of women’s rights, including the prevention of any form of discrimination against women, including gender based violence, and the full implementation of the rights in the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women.2 In this context, it is essential that women are able to assert their rights in a judicial system, have access to redress and reparation, including compensation, and have perpetrators of crimes against women held accountable.
This written submission focuses on one particular area of access to justice: the necessity to ensure equal participation in the judiciary by women, in particular through the use of quota systems. Gender parity in the judiciary is essential in order to ensure the advancement of the rule of law, and high quality, non-discriminatory decisions.
The very definition of “sovereignty” or of a “sovereign” state like the Union of the Republic of Myanmar, assumes that the state has complete legal authority over the military and over constitution amendment processes
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Calls for UN Security Council Action on the 2008 Myanmar Constitution's Removal of All Civilian Government Control Over the Military
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - November 30, 2012
[NEW YORK, NY] - On November 30, 2012, the President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Dr. David Krieger, alerted United Nations Security Council members to the security risks raised by the 2008 Myanmar constitution, which denies the civilian government any power to control the military.
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.
Friday, November 02, 2012 18:30 - 20:30
The Global Justice Center will be holding an event in New York City on Friday, November 2 from 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm. This event will feature an evening of conversation with GJC President Janet Benshoof discussing the Global Justice Center’s innovative approach to enforcing international law to establish human rights grounded in the rule of law.
UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security: A Chart Detailing State Mandates to End Crimes of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict, Ensure Accountability and Promote Gender Parity in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations
The following chart details the legally-binding mandates of the UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security 1325 (2000), 1820 (2008), 1888 (2009), 1889 (2009), and 1960 (2010) – emphasizing the need for greater protection of women‟s rights and the inclusion of women in global governance and peace processes. The chart delineates the duties and obligations for action by 1) the UN Secretary-General, and 2) Myanmar/Burma [hereinafter Burma], as both a UN member state and a party to armed conflict.
Despite their application to Burma, the Resolutions have not brought any real and concrete change for girls and women on the ground. The inability of UN representatives to reach conflict areas in Burma severely obstructs the reporting mechanisms of SCR 1960. Additionally, since the Constitution of Burma gives complete amnesty for any and all crimes committed by the ruling military regime, the Burmese government precludes any meaningful accountability and justice mechanism for the women victims of sexual violence and enshrines further impunity for perpetrators.
The Global Justice Center is a New York based Human Rights Organization with consultative status to the United Nations working with judges, parliamentarians and civil society leaders on the strategic and timely enforcement of international equality guarantees. The Global Justice Center has been at the forefront of human rights advocacy in Burma by working closely with groups on the ground to implement international women‟s rights through the rule of law.
Domestic Criminal Laws That Conflict with International Law: Burma's Abortion and Rape Laws - A Case Study
International law provides a model to improve often outdated domestic laws.
Burma is party to many treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. International law requires states to comply with their treaty obligations in “good faith” regardless of whether domestic laws conflict with the treaty. These obligations often include requirements that states modify their domestic laws to ensure compliance with international human rights and humanitarian standards and obligations. For example, the Genocide and Geneva Conventions, ratified by Burma, both require as a part of their fundamental mandates that states pass domestic laws to comply with their treaty obligations. Burma currently has no domestic laws implementing any of its human rights treaty obligations, with the possible exception of its laws against human trafficking.
This document examines Burma’s domestic criminal laws addressing abortion and rape and compares them with the international law standards binding on Burma. These case studies are examples of how international law can be used to reform of Burma’s domestic law to comport with international human rights and humanitarian standards.
GJC President, Janet Benshoof's PowerPoint for Training Women Lawyers in Burma, "Enforcing International Law for Radical Change."