Amidst new and renewed attacks on sexual and reproductive health and rights, it is more important than ever for humanitarian aid policies to explicitly include abortion services.
Read Akila Radhakrishnan's Speech at the Feminist Majority Foundation's 2018 National Young Feminist Leadership Conference
2018 National Young Feminist Leadership Conference
March 17, 2018 Washington, DC
Text of Prepared Remarks
"I think we all remember the image of Donald Trump, on his third day in office, surrounded by a group of white men, with Mike Pence looking anxiously over his shoulder, signing an executive order stripping women and girls around the world of their access to safe abortion services. And he didn’t just do it like Presidents before him—like Regan and George W. Bush—he did it bigly.
GJC sent a submission to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar detailing the structural barriers that impede accountability for perpetrators and preclude justice for victims of human rights abuses in Myanmar.
GJC sends a mid-term report submission for the Universal Periodic Review of the United States of America. The report examines the restrictions that the US puts on foriegn aid regarding the provision of abortion services and the ways those restrictions violate international law.
FAQ: How US Abortion Restrictions on Foreign Assistance, including the Global Gag Rule, Violate Women Rights & Human Rights
On January 23, 2017, his second day in office, President Trump issued an executive order reinstating the Global Gag Rule (“GGR” or “Gag Rule,” now termed “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance”), restricting US funding for organizations that provide abortion services as a method of family planning. The GGR joins a multitude of other restrictions on family planning and abortion imposed on US foreign assistance that permit the US government to dictate the care provided to women around the world. This FAQ explores commonly asked questions about these policies—what they are, what they mean, and their impact is—including on women’s and human rights.
GJC Vice-President, Akila Radhakrishnan, GJC Legal Fellow, Elena Sarver and GJC Staff Attorney, Grant Shubin published an article in Reproductive Health Matters.
Women and girls are increasingly the direct and targeted victims of armed conflict and studies show that they are disproportionately and differentially affected. However, humanitarian laws, policies, and protocols have yet to be meaningfully interpreted and adapted to respond to their specific needs, including to sexual and reproductive health services and rights. In particular, safe abortion services are routinely omitted from sexual and reproductive health services in humanitarian settings for a variety of reasons, including improper deference to national law, the disproportionate influence of restrictive funding policies, and the failure to treat abortion as medical care. However, properly construed, abortion services fall within the purview of the universal and non-derogable protections granted under international humanitarian and human rights law. This commentary considers the protections of international humanitarian law and explains how abortion services fall within a category of protected medical care. It then outlines contemporary challenges affecting the realisation of these rights. Finally, it proposes a unification of current approaches through the use of international humanitarian law to ensure comprehensive care for those affected by armed conflict.
Humanitarian and Human Rights Groups send Letter to the European Commission on Abortion Services for Women and Girls in War Zones
November 23, 2017: Joint letter from 90 humanitarian and human rights to the European Commission calling on them to provide abortion services to women and girls in war zones.
This factsheet outlines IHL’s various provisions that protect abortion services for female victims of conflict.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 16, 2017
[NEW YORK, NY] - GJC welcomes Iraq’s letter to the UN requesting assistance in bringing Daesh to justice and thanks the United Kingdom for its efforts in negotiating a UN Security Council resolution. We reiterate our call that all investigations and prosecutions must ensure accountability for gender-based crimes, including those amounting to genocide, by all actors. We also express concern over reports of current Daesh prosecutions that focus solely on terrorism crimes, extrajudicial killings and torture of those thought to be Daesh-aligned and accordingly, call on the Iraqi Government to ensure due process in line with international human rights standards.
We also urge the Iraqi government to ensure that enabling legislation is adopted to incorporate genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity into domestic law in order to ensure that prosecutions reflect the full criminality of the acts in question. The global community must hold the perpetrators of these horrific crimes accountable for their actions, and ensure victims and survivors receive their entitled reparations, including redress and reparations for sexual and gender-based violence. Finally, we call on all parties in Iraq and the Global Coalition against Daesh to ensure respect for international humanitarian law (IHL), including by ensuring access to comprehensive medical and psychosocial care for victims, and to take concrete steps to rescue all remaining Yazidi women and children held captive by Daesh.
For more information contact:
On the Third Anniversary of the Massacre at Sinjar, the Global Justice Center and Bar Human Rights Committee of England & Wales Call for Justice for the Yazidi Genocide
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - August 3, 2017
[NEW YORK, NY] - Today is the third anniversary of the massacre at Mount Sinjar where ISIS fighters murdered thousands of Yazidi men and enslaved thousands of Yazidi women and girls. Despite the fact that the UN and the European Parliament have accepted that crimes committed against the Yazidis constitute genocide, there has not been a single prosecution of ISIS fighters for these crimes.
Listen to GJC's interview with Stephen Rapp, former United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes and a prosecutor for the Rwanda tribunal, who shares his insights and ideas on the prosecution of ISIS fighters for genocide in "Prosecuting Genocide," the fifth episode of our "That's Illegal!" podcast. Find us on iTunes and Soundcloud.
On World Day for International Justice GJC Calls on the International Community to take Immediate Action on Yazidi Genocide
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - July 17, 2017
[NEW YORK, NY] – On the World Day for International Justice and almost three years after ISIS began a campaign of genocide against the Yazidis, the Global Justice Center renews its calls to world leaders to uphold international law and ensure justice for Yazidi women and girls.
Sexual violence in today’s armed conflicts is systematically used against civilians to demoralize, destroy, terrorize, and even change the ethnic compositions of entire communities. For instance, the ongoing Syrian civil war has seen an estimated 50,000 rapes. Women there describe being drugged, blindfolded, and raped in groups. In Iraq, ISIS has systematically abducted girls and women, held them in captivity, and repeatedly subjected them sexual violence including rape and sexual slavery. In Darfur, Sudan, where sexual violence has been used as a tactic of war for over 12 years, a 2015 attack in Tabit included the mass rape of over 200 women and girls in the span of three days. Finally, in Nigeria, Boko Haram openly targets young girls for kidnappings, forced marriage, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of gender-based violence.
Today, thousands of girls and women raped and impregnated in armed conflict are routinely denied abortions with devastating consequences. A girl or woman who is a victim of war rape and is denied an abortion when she wants one often has three options: (1) undergoing an unsafe abortion; (2) carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy; or (3) committing suicide. The denial of abortion services to these victims is both illegal and inhumane.
In the context of armed conflict, the rights of war victims are protected under international humanitarian law. Specifically, victims of war rape are part of a special class of people called “wounded and sick in armed conflict.” This status means they are entitled to comprehensive and non-discriminatory medical care provided solely on the basis of their condition. Failing to provide–or denying–a medical service needed only by one gender (i.e. abortion) violates these absolute rights.
Abortion as protected medical care under international humanitarian law has increasingly been recognized by states, international policy makers, and legal experts on international humanitarian law. This document complies language and citations of laws, policies, authoritative declarations of public officials, and legal treatises, that affirm abortion as protected medical care for girls and women raped in war under IHL.
On the campaign trail and over the course of his life Donald Trump has championed viewpoints and proposed policies, which, if taken by the US government, would violate the US’s obligations under international law. Below is a non-exhaustive list of statements Donald Trump has made and what international legal obligations they would violate if enacted.
As global tensions mount and with daily atrocities in the news, there is increasing concern over how to protect civilians and vulnerable populations. The US holds the Presidency of the UN Security Council for April and has a chance to take a strong stance in defense of human rights. Instead, the US’ plans to hold an open briefing on human rights at the Security Council has some concerned it will serve to undermine already existing international bodies devoted to protecting human rights and further polarize attempts to address human rights abuses.
The discussion is being branded as the first ever human rights debate in the Council, which is not entirely true. Human rights are regularly discussed in thematic agendas and contexts such as peacekeeping, issuing of sanctions, or when setting up commissions of inquiry or referrals to the International Criminal Court. Viewed in isolation, a discussion highlighting the nexus of human rights and international peace and security is welcome and appears extremely timely. For some time, advocates and the UN have been calling for a preventative approach by putting human rights at the heart of the Security Council’s actions, given the Council’s failure to act in light of the most egregious human rights abuses.
by Eva Marie Wüst Vestergaard
Over the course of the campaign trail, US president elect Donald Trump suggested many proposals on how to defeat ISIS. Many of which, including the use of torture, drone strikes, and nuclear weapons, would violate international law if fulfilled.
Trump has previously criticized the US for their politically correctness in the fight against ISIS, and he has instead offered proposals that if enacted, would constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In one proposal, Trump approves torture as a tool in the war against terrorists. In an interview for NBC he said, “Well I’m not looking to break any news on your show, but frankly the waterboarding, if it was up to me, and if we changed the laws or have the laws, waterboarding would be fine,”. Trump supported this with the argument that ISIS do not follow the law; “You know, we work within laws. They don’t work within laws – they have no laws. We work within laws. The waterboarding would be fine, and if they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding.”
Waterboarding is an act of torture and hence violates the Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits torture and bounds parties in armed conflicts to treat hostages humanely. Torture is immoral because it dehumanizes people. Not just the tortured but also the torturers are severely affected.
Using torture as a tool in war would also have negative consequences for the US as a state because it infringes on the global rule of law. Instead of a social system based on justice, the system would be based on force. This goes against the fundamental values, such as independence and democracy, on which America has been built and which define America’s strong role in the world today.
Even more alarming, in the war against terrorism, Trump has said he would take measures that would kill innocent people. The president elect has expressed willingness for using drone strikes and nuclear weapons to fight terrorists. In an interview with the Daily Mail, Trump said, “As far as drones are concerned, yes, to take out terrorists. The only thing is I want them to get it right. But to take out terrorists yes I think that is something I would continue to do.” In another interview for the MSNBC, he questioned the lack of using nuclear weapons against ISIS; “Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?”
Such actions would not merely hit ISIS but also civilians in war zones. A consequence which Trump did not seem to care for when proposing to hurt terrorists through their potentially innocent families in an interview with Fox News; "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”
Attacking civilians violates the Geneva Convention which prohibits attacks on civilians and bounds distinction between civilians and combatants. Non-combatants are innocent people that may not be supporting the conflict. This includes children, women and elderly. The US should not be recognized as a state that explicitly targets and kills innocents.
The intention to defeat ISIS is not a cover for committing illegal acts. Violating international law will not make America great, only worse. Therefore, it is more important than ever that America upholds its obligations to the international community and not break humanitarian law. It is equally important that the international community hold the US accountable if and when it commits such crimes.
Photo: Gage Skidmore
GJC Staff Attorney Grant Shubin wrote an article in Ms. Magazine on the devastating effect of the Helms Amendment on women and girls in war zones.
Click here to read the full article.