For the most part, women participate in meager numbers on the world’s most important international courts. In its sixty-five year history, only three permanent women judges have ever served on the International Court of Justice. Two of them sit on the bench today. The European Court of Justice had only 15% permanent female judges in May 2010. Women were appointed to World Trade Organization panels only 17% of the time in 2009, although women constituted 43% of the appellate body in mid-2010, up from only 19% historically. At the same time, women accounted for 29% of the judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and only one woman had ever served as an ad hoc judge. No women sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The International Criminal Court is the only court, of eleven surveyed in my article, in which women outnumbered men on the bench. As is frequently noted, international courts are playing a growing role in both deciding international disputes and defining the content of international law. And their increasing importance has led to many serious questions about their legitimacy. Because international courts generally lack enforcement powers and guaranteed funds, without legitimacy – defined as justified authority – states and others are less likely to cooperate and comply with their judgments. Among the factors that may impact a court’s legitimacy is the ratio of the sexes, or “sex representation,” on the bench. My article suggests sex representation matters to legitimacy in at least three ways: ► First, when men and women approach the law or facts differently, both are necessary for impartiality, an important prerequisite of legitimate adjudication. Because of the low numbers of women judges on international courts, empirical studies of a gender effect are rare. But one study of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, by Dr. Kimi Lynn King and Megan Greening, shows that female judges gave weightier sentences to defendants who assaulted women, while male judges did the same for male victims. Further, many female international court judges, including frequent IntLawGrrls guest Judge Patricia M. Wald, suggest their life experiences as women make a difference in at least some cases. ► Second, sex representation is important to legitimacy even if men and women are not inherently different because at least some constituencies seem to believe they are nonetheless. For example, as demonstrated in my forthcoming International Criminal Law Review piece, co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, as part of its "Women and International Criminal Law" project, some non-government organizations and states sought to include female judges on post-World War II international criminal tribunals because they thought women would alter the development of facts and the direction of the law. Unisex courts would lack justified authority for them. Similarly, when a group has suffered discrimination or exclusion, it is likely to question the authority of an institution that continues to exclude it. Women’s participation in low numbers is not limited to international courts; it extends to the prestigious International Law Commission, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and several of the United Nations treaty bodies. For many, these institutions (and international law) will face legitimacy troubles until they more accurately reflect the ratio of the sexes. ► Finally, women judges matter for reasons of democratic legitimacy. Imagine a world court with only jurists from one nation. Even if it possessed the most credentialed of benches, such a court would lack justified authority. Legitimate adjudication requires both impartial judges and judges with some link to the constituencies their rulings impact. Just as geographic diversity – a virtually ubiquitous requirement in international court statutes – strengthens international courts’ legitimacy, so too does sex representation. Consequently, perhaps the strongest argument for sex representation is that women make up almost half the world's population, and thus, an important constituency of international courts. In fact, states have already taken steps toward sex representation in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights, and for ad litem judges on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda." Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolved to reject unisex lists of candidates to the European Court of Human Rights. The argument for sex representation is all the more compelling when female Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, and Ministers of Justice have served in a wide range of countries. Surely qualified candidates for international judgeships can be found in countries where women achieve so much. More international courts make decisions that affect our lives today than ever before. They define the scope of our human rights and decide who will be held accountable for what kind of international crimes. They determine which communities will benefit from the exploitation of oil in disputed parts of the ocean, and whether environmental harm has taken place, what reparations must be paid and to whom. They play an integral role in defining fair trade practices and whether natural resources belong to the people within a state or to multinational corporations. This article seeks to shine light on the paucity of women judges participating in these vital decisions and in defining the content of international law today. It argues that we must pay more attention to sex representation if we wish to strengthen the legitimacy of these increasingly important institutions.
Showing posts with label Women ICL series. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Women ICL series. Show all posts
Do women judges matter?
(Delighted to welcome back alumna Nienke Grossman, who contributes this guest post) Thank you to IntLawGrrls for inviting me to blog about my most recent article: “Sex on the Bench: Do Women Judges Matter to the Legitimacy of International Courts?” I will also be discussing this article at the International Legal Theory Interest Group session from 3 to 4:30 p.m. this Friday, March 25, in Salon IIIB of the Ritz Carlton in Washington, D.C., at the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts on the meeting are available here.) 
For the most part, women participate in meager numbers on the world’s most important international courts. In its sixty-five year history, only three permanent women judges have ever served on the International Court of Justice. Two of them sit on the bench today. The European Court of Justice had only 15% permanent female judges in May 2010. Women were appointed to World Trade Organization panels only 17% of the time in 2009, although women constituted 43% of the appellate body in mid-2010, up from only 19% historically. At the same time, women accounted for 29% of the judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and only one woman had ever served as an ad hoc judge. No women sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The International Criminal Court is the only court, of eleven surveyed in my article, in which women outnumbered men on the bench. As is frequently noted, international courts are playing a growing role in both deciding international disputes and defining the content of international law. And their increasing importance has led to many serious questions about their legitimacy. Because international courts generally lack enforcement powers and guaranteed funds, without legitimacy – defined as justified authority – states and others are less likely to cooperate and comply with their judgments. Among the factors that may impact a court’s legitimacy is the ratio of the sexes, or “sex representation,” on the bench. My article suggests sex representation matters to legitimacy in at least three ways: ► First, when men and women approach the law or facts differently, both are necessary for impartiality, an important prerequisite of legitimate adjudication. Because of the low numbers of women judges on international courts, empirical studies of a gender effect are rare. But one study of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, by Dr. Kimi Lynn King and Megan Greening, shows that female judges gave weightier sentences to defendants who assaulted women, while male judges did the same for male victims. Further, many female international court judges, including frequent IntLawGrrls guest Judge Patricia M. Wald, suggest their life experiences as women make a difference in at least some cases. ► Second, sex representation is important to legitimacy even if men and women are not inherently different because at least some constituencies seem to believe they are nonetheless. For example, as demonstrated in my forthcoming International Criminal Law Review piece, co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, as part of its "Women and International Criminal Law" project, some non-government organizations and states sought to include female judges on post-World War II international criminal tribunals because they thought women would alter the development of facts and the direction of the law. Unisex courts would lack justified authority for them. Similarly, when a group has suffered discrimination or exclusion, it is likely to question the authority of an institution that continues to exclude it. Women’s participation in low numbers is not limited to international courts; it extends to the prestigious International Law Commission, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and several of the United Nations treaty bodies. For many, these institutions (and international law) will face legitimacy troubles until they more accurately reflect the ratio of the sexes. ► Finally, women judges matter for reasons of democratic legitimacy. Imagine a world court with only jurists from one nation. Even if it possessed the most credentialed of benches, such a court would lack justified authority. Legitimate adjudication requires both impartial judges and judges with some link to the constituencies their rulings impact. Just as geographic diversity – a virtually ubiquitous requirement in international court statutes – strengthens international courts’ legitimacy, so too does sex representation. Consequently, perhaps the strongest argument for sex representation is that women make up almost half the world's population, and thus, an important constituency of international courts. In fact, states have already taken steps toward sex representation in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights, and for ad litem judges on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda." Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolved to reject unisex lists of candidates to the European Court of Human Rights. The argument for sex representation is all the more compelling when female Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, and Ministers of Justice have served in a wide range of countries. Surely qualified candidates for international judgeships can be found in countries where women achieve so much. More international courts make decisions that affect our lives today than ever before. They define the scope of our human rights and decide who will be held accountable for what kind of international crimes. They determine which communities will benefit from the exploitation of oil in disputed parts of the ocean, and whether environmental harm has taken place, what reparations must be paid and to whom. They play an integral role in defining fair trade practices and whether natural resources belong to the people within a state or to multinational corporations. This article seeks to shine light on the paucity of women judges participating in these vital decisions and in defining the content of international law today. It argues that we must pay more attention to sex representation if we wish to strengthen the legitimacy of these increasingly important institutions.
For the most part, women participate in meager numbers on the world’s most important international courts. In its sixty-five year history, only three permanent women judges have ever served on the International Court of Justice. Two of them sit on the bench today. The European Court of Justice had only 15% permanent female judges in May 2010. Women were appointed to World Trade Organization panels only 17% of the time in 2009, although women constituted 43% of the appellate body in mid-2010, up from only 19% historically. At the same time, women accounted for 29% of the judges on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and only one woman had ever served as an ad hoc judge. No women sit on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The International Criminal Court is the only court, of eleven surveyed in my article, in which women outnumbered men on the bench. As is frequently noted, international courts are playing a growing role in both deciding international disputes and defining the content of international law. And their increasing importance has led to many serious questions about their legitimacy. Because international courts generally lack enforcement powers and guaranteed funds, without legitimacy – defined as justified authority – states and others are less likely to cooperate and comply with their judgments. Among the factors that may impact a court’s legitimacy is the ratio of the sexes, or “sex representation,” on the bench. My article suggests sex representation matters to legitimacy in at least three ways: ► First, when men and women approach the law or facts differently, both are necessary for impartiality, an important prerequisite of legitimate adjudication. Because of the low numbers of women judges on international courts, empirical studies of a gender effect are rare. But one study of sentencing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, by Dr. Kimi Lynn King and Megan Greening, shows that female judges gave weightier sentences to defendants who assaulted women, while male judges did the same for male victims. Further, many female international court judges, including frequent IntLawGrrls guest Judge Patricia M. Wald, suggest their life experiences as women make a difference in at least some cases. ► Second, sex representation is important to legitimacy even if men and women are not inherently different because at least some constituencies seem to believe they are nonetheless. For example, as demonstrated in my forthcoming International Criminal Law Review piece, co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, as part of its "Women and International Criminal Law" project, some non-government organizations and states sought to include female judges on post-World War II international criminal tribunals because they thought women would alter the development of facts and the direction of the law. Unisex courts would lack justified authority for them. Similarly, when a group has suffered discrimination or exclusion, it is likely to question the authority of an institution that continues to exclude it. Women’s participation in low numbers is not limited to international courts; it extends to the prestigious International Law Commission, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, and several of the United Nations treaty bodies. For many, these institutions (and international law) will face legitimacy troubles until they more accurately reflect the ratio of the sexes. ► Finally, women judges matter for reasons of democratic legitimacy. Imagine a world court with only jurists from one nation. Even if it possessed the most credentialed of benches, such a court would lack justified authority. Legitimate adjudication requires both impartial judges and judges with some link to the constituencies their rulings impact. Just as geographic diversity – a virtually ubiquitous requirement in international court statutes – strengthens international courts’ legitimacy, so too does sex representation. Consequently, perhaps the strongest argument for sex representation is that women make up almost half the world's population, and thus, an important constituency of international courts. In fact, states have already taken steps toward sex representation in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights, and for ad litem judges on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda." Similarly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolved to reject unisex lists of candidates to the European Court of Human Rights. The argument for sex representation is all the more compelling when female Presidents, Supreme Court Judges, and Ministers of Justice have served in a wide range of countries. Surely qualified candidates for international judgeships can be found in countries where women achieve so much. More international courts make decisions that affect our lives today than ever before. They define the scope of our human rights and decide who will be held accountable for what kind of international crimes. They determine which communities will benefit from the exploitation of oil in disputed parts of the ocean, and whether environmental harm has taken place, what reparations must be paid and to whom. They play an integral role in defining fair trade practices and whether natural resources belong to the people within a state or to multinational corporations. This article seeks to shine light on the paucity of women judges participating in these vital decisions and in defining the content of international law today. It argues that we must pay more attention to sex representation if we wish to strengthen the legitimacy of these increasingly important institutions. International Gender Justice: Progress in International War Crimes Tribunals and the UN Security Council
On International Women’s Day, it is appropriate to recognize the remarkable progress that women and girls have secured for gender related crimes in contemporary international war crimes tribunals. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in 1993 and its sister tribunal, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), was set up the following year. These two tribunals, set up by the UN Security Council, have together successfully prosecuted rape as a war crime, a crime against humanity, and an instrument of genocide (the groundbreaking cases which established the leading precedent are ICTR: Akayesu, Muhimana; ICTY: Celebici, Furundzija, Kunarac); they’ve recognized rape and enslavement as a form of sexual slavery (ICTY: Kunarac); they’ve recognized rape as forms and means of torture (ICTR: Akayesu; ICTY: Celebici, Furundzija, Kunarac), as well as forms and means of persecution (ICTY: Krstic, Kvocka), that gender crimes may form part of a joint criminal enterprise (JCE) and both perpetrators and others participating in the JCE may be held responsible for intended or foreseeable crimes committed in furtherance of the JCE (ICTY: Krstic, Kvocka), and that men and boys are subjected to sexual violence (ICTY: Tadic, Celebici). They have also noted that other gender-related crimes, such as forced marriage, forced nudity, forced pregnancy and forced abortion, may constitute an international crime (ICTY: Kvocka).
In 1998, the Rome Statute of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) formally listed rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and “other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity,” as war crimes and crimes against humanity (arts. 7 and 8) and also emphasized that gender based persecution as well as trafficking in women and children may be prosecuted (art. 7). While no judgment has yet been rendered in the ICC, the court has accused individuals of rape or sexual slavery as war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Uganda (Kony et. al), the Democratic Republic of Congo (Katanga & Ngudjolo; Mbarushimana), the Central African Republic (Bemba), and the Darfur region of Sudan (Harun & Ali Kushayb; Bashir). There will likely be sex crimes included in the situations in Kenya and Libya once charges are formalized and arrest warrants sought for these situation.
(See here for more on the gender report card at the ICC).
The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) has successfully prosecuted rape, sexual slavery, and inhumane acts of forced marriage (AFRC) and in 2009 the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia convicted the head of a Khmer Rouge torture facility of a number of crimes, including rape (Duch). Mixed chambers in East Timor and Bosnia have also brought war crime and crime against humanity charges for rape crimes.
Unquestionably, in the last 18 years, unprecedented progress has been made on securing justice for gender related crimes in international/ized war crimes tribunals. Yet to be sure, the number of indictments charging individuals with gender crimes, particularly senior military and civilian leaders far from the battlefield, is grossly inadequate, and many sex crime charges that have been brought have been dropped or acquitted. Moreover it is past time for the tribunals to prosecute other recognized crimes, including forced pregnancy and enforced sterilization, which are committed far too commonly in this era when sexual violence is intentionally committed both with random abandon and with callous calculation – as powerful weapons of terror and destruction.
In part in recognition of the strategic use of sexual violence as powerful tools of warfare, as well as its common occurrence because the atmosphere of war and the long history of impunity for sex crimes exploits the opportunity, the UN Security Council has stepped up its efforts to ensure wartime sexual violence is redressed. Over the last decade the council has devoted no fewer than nine resolutions exclusively to ending and punishing war time sexual violence and enhancing the empowerment of women in peacemaking and peacekeeping: 1325 (2000), 1612 (2005), 1674 (2006), 1820 (2008), 1882 (2009), 1888 (2009), 1889 (2009), 1894 (2009), and 1960 (2010). (Prior posts). To reinforce these efforts, in 2010, the Secretary-General appointed a Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict (Margot Wallstrom).
Clearly, enormous – albeit unsatisfactory – progress has been achieved on securing justice for survivors of gender related crimes. Much remains to be done, yet the situation is far from bleak. When leaders who order, ignore, or acquiesce to crimes committed by subordinates are tried, thousands in the victimized communities can have their crimes addressed by those most responsible – perhaps even more so than the physical perpetrators – for the crimes committed against them. As international and domestic courts increasingly go up the power chain to prosecute top leaders, wider justice will be provided. And great satisfaction can be gained in recognizing that over the last fifteen years, there is now worldwide recognition that sex crimes are among the most serious international crimes committable, and these crimes are regarded as those that threaten international peace and security and thus demand action to halt and punish such crimes. If as much progress is made on gender justice in the next fifteen years as the past fifteen, the world community will be well on its way to ending impunity for gender related sex crimes, and for reversing the shame and stigma wrongly attached to victims, instead of perpetrators, of sex crimes.
In 1998, the Rome Statute of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) formally listed rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and “other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity,” as war crimes and crimes against humanity (arts. 7 and 8) and also emphasized that gender based persecution as well as trafficking in women and children may be prosecuted (art. 7). While no judgment has yet been rendered in the ICC, the court has accused individuals of rape or sexual slavery as war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Uganda (Kony et. al), the Democratic Republic of Congo (Katanga & Ngudjolo; Mbarushimana), the Central African Republic (Bemba), and the Darfur region of Sudan (Harun & Ali Kushayb; Bashir). There will likely be sex crimes included in the situations in Kenya and Libya once charges are formalized and arrest warrants sought for these situation.
(See here for more on the gender report card at the ICC).
The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) has successfully prosecuted rape, sexual slavery, and inhumane acts of forced marriage (AFRC) and in 2009 the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia convicted the head of a Khmer Rouge torture facility of a number of crimes, including rape (Duch). Mixed chambers in East Timor and Bosnia have also brought war crime and crime against humanity charges for rape crimes.
Unquestionably, in the last 18 years, unprecedented progress has been made on securing justice for gender related crimes in international/ized war crimes tribunals. Yet to be sure, the number of indictments charging individuals with gender crimes, particularly senior military and civilian leaders far from the battlefield, is grossly inadequate, and many sex crime charges that have been brought have been dropped or acquitted. Moreover it is past time for the tribunals to prosecute other recognized crimes, including forced pregnancy and enforced sterilization, which are committed far too commonly in this era when sexual violence is intentionally committed both with random abandon and with callous calculation – as powerful weapons of terror and destruction.
In part in recognition of the strategic use of sexual violence as powerful tools of warfare, as well as its common occurrence because the atmosphere of war and the long history of impunity for sex crimes exploits the opportunity, the UN Security Council has stepped up its efforts to ensure wartime sexual violence is redressed. Over the last decade the council has devoted no fewer than nine resolutions exclusively to ending and punishing war time sexual violence and enhancing the empowerment of women in peacemaking and peacekeeping: 1325 (2000), 1612 (2005), 1674 (2006), 1820 (2008), 1882 (2009), 1888 (2009), 1889 (2009), 1894 (2009), and 1960 (2010). (Prior posts). To reinforce these efforts, in 2010, the Secretary-General appointed a Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict (Margot Wallstrom).
Clearly, enormous – albeit unsatisfactory – progress has been achieved on securing justice for survivors of gender related crimes. Much remains to be done, yet the situation is far from bleak. When leaders who order, ignore, or acquiesce to crimes committed by subordinates are tried, thousands in the victimized communities can have their crimes addressed by those most responsible – perhaps even more so than the physical perpetrators – for the crimes committed against them. As international and domestic courts increasingly go up the power chain to prosecute top leaders, wider justice will be provided. And great satisfaction can be gained in recognizing that over the last fifteen years, there is now worldwide recognition that sex crimes are among the most serious international crimes committable, and these crimes are regarded as those that threaten international peace and security and thus demand action to halt and punish such crimes. If as much progress is made on gender justice in the next fifteen years as the past fifteen, the world community will be well on its way to ending impunity for gender related sex crimes, and for reversing the shame and stigma wrongly attached to victims, instead of perpetrators, of sex crimes.
See our Women & ICL series for more.
Aggression, Humanitarian Intervention & Women
(From IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack, another in our series of posts on essays forthcoming in "Women and International Criminal Law," a special issue of the International Criminal Law Review)For this special issue dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald, an IntLawGrrls alumna, I contributed an article on the potential for the new crime-of-aggression provisions in the Statute of the International Criminal Court to chill bona fide exercises of humanitarian intervention, given that:
► The crime is expansively drafted to potentially cover all uses of sovereign force,
► Delegates rejected efforts by the United States to include an express exception for military operations launched to prevent the commission of other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, and
► Other proposals that would have prevented humanitarian interventions from being considered “acts of aggression” were not fully explored or implemented.Drawing on elements of feminist theory, the article acknowledges that feminists may never fully come to terms with a notion of humanitarian intervention given the doctrine’s valorization of militarism. This is especially true in light of the fact that women are so often excluded from decisions about uses of force. The article nonetheless argues that if we want to hold out the possibility of humanitarian intervention being deployed in defense of women, elements of the new provisions (such as the terms “manifest,” “character,” “gravity,” and “consequences”) should be interpreted to exclude situations involving the nascent responsibility to protect doctrine.
Entitled "The Crime of Aggression and Humanitarian Intervention on Behalf of Women," this article is part of a larger project to analyze the rarely-considered gender aspects of the crime of aggression and to explore whether or not the amendments adding the crime of aggression to the ICC Statute would represent an advancement for women, as discussed here.
This work was inspired by the Bayeux Tapestry—the longest piece of embroidery on record—which tells in detail how William the Conqueror contested the coronation of King Harold II upon the death of King Edward the Confessor. After arriving in England, William's troops pillaged the locals in preparation for battle. Among other atrocities that we would today designate as war crimes, they burned a home, sending the mother depicted at left and her child fleeing.
Women & ICL series continues
Our readers will recall that this past fall, IntLawGrrls co-sponsored our first symposium along with the American Society of International Law, on the topic of Women and International Criminal Law (full program here).The papers featured at this symposium will be published in a special 2011 issue of the International Criminal Law Review dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald, an IntLawGrrls guest/alumna. Some papers were commissioned; others we received through a global call to papers. We've been spotlighting these papers over the last few months -- Diane Marie Amann's post on her paper is here, Jaya Ramji-Nogales' post on hers is here, and that of Dina Francesca Haynes, Naomi Cahn, and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin is here. Jaya's paper, also subject of an earlier
post, is now available online here. We'll continue to post these as we move into the production phase.Today we feature another paper, posted below, by Margaret deGuzman (left), another IntLawGrrls alumna and Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia. We're delighted to welcome her back. Meg's paper engages the question of "Why Should International Courts Prosecute Sex Crimes?" The full paper, available here, is part of her ongoing work on gravity as an organizing principle for international criminal law and prosecutorial discretion.
Should international courts prosecute sex crimes?
(Alumna Margaret deGuzman contributes this guest post, another in our series of posts on essays forthcoming in "Women and International Criminal Law," a special issue of the International Criminal Law Review)
As a participant in the IntlawGrrls-sponsored roundtable on “Women in International Criminal Law” last October, I presented my research on the philosophical justifications for giving priority to the prosecution of sex crimes at international criminal courts. My essay will appear in our special issue under the title "Why Should International Courts Prosecute Sex Crimes?"
International courts face serious resource constraints; they can generally prosecute only a small fraction of the serious crimes within their jurisdictions. Ever since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, where sex crimes were largely ignored or prosecuted under such euphemistic labels as “failure to respect family honor,” feminists have advocated for more resources to be allocated to the prosecution of sex crimes. (credit for 2009 photo of ICTY in session)
International prosecutors have heeded this call to some extent, placing greater emphasis on the investigation and prosecution of sex crimes. Selecting sex crimes for prosecution, however, often requires leaving other serious crimes unpunished, including crimes that resulted in death.
Some have questioned the appropriateness of such selection decisions. For example, in a 2002 article (pp. 310-11) a former trial attorney at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Peggy Kuo (right), reported that in the early days of the ICTY investigators made comments like:
My symposium contribution represents an initial effort to provide philosophical justification for giving priority to sex crime prosecutions at international courts.
The essay examines each of the primary philosophical bases advanced for international prosecution to determine how they inform decisions whether to give priority to sex crime. These are:
► Retribution,
► Deterrence,
► Expressivism, and
► Restorative justice.
The essay finds that retribution and deterrence support such selections at least some of the time, and that expressivism and restorative justice provide an even stronger foundation for giving priority to sex crimes.
► While notions of retributive desert are complex, an argument can be made that at least some perpetrators of sex crimes are more deserving of punishment than some perpetrators of crimes resulting in death. In particular, killing crimes are sometimes unintentional, while sex crimes generally involve purposeful conduct.
► Prosecution of sex crimes may also provide greater deterrent benefits at least under some circumstances, such as when conviction for such crimes carries a greater stigma than conviction for illegal killings.
► Most importantly, there is a significantly greater need for the international community to express condemnation of sex crimes than of killing crimes, which are already considered serious violations of moral norms throughout the world.
► Finally, restorative justice goals may be more achievable in the context of sex crimes than crimes involving killing, because the immediate victims remain alive and thus potentially able to participate in and benefit from restorative processes.
I will be further developing the ideas sketched in this essay in the context of "Thematic Investigation and Prosecution of International Sex Crimes," a conference in which IntLawGrrl Valerie Oosterveld also will take part. Cosponsored by Yale University and the Belgium-based Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law, the conference will be held in Cape Town, South Africa, on March 7-8, 2011. A publication will follow.
As a participant in the IntlawGrrls-sponsored roundtable on “Women in International Criminal Law” last October, I presented my research on the philosophical justifications for giving priority to the prosecution of sex crimes at international criminal courts. My essay will appear in our special issue under the title "Why Should International Courts Prosecute Sex Crimes?"International courts face serious resource constraints; they can generally prosecute only a small fraction of the serious crimes within their jurisdictions. Ever since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, where sex crimes were largely ignored or prosecuted under such euphemistic labels as “failure to respect family honor,” feminists have advocated for more resources to be allocated to the prosecution of sex crimes. (credit for 2009 photo of ICTY in session)
International prosecutors have heeded this call to some extent, placing greater emphasis on the investigation and prosecution of sex crimes. Selecting sex crimes for prosecution, however, often requires leaving other serious crimes unpunished, including crimes that resulted in death.
Some have questioned the appropriateness of such selection decisions. For example, in a 2002 article (pp. 310-11) a former trial attorney at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Peggy Kuo (right), reported that in the early days of the ICTY investigators made comments like:'I’ve got ten dead bodies, how do I have time for rape?'Moreover, empirical evidence from various national fora indicates that many people consider sex crimes less serious than crimes resulting in death.
My symposium contribution represents an initial effort to provide philosophical justification for giving priority to sex crime prosecutions at international courts.
The essay examines each of the primary philosophical bases advanced for international prosecution to determine how they inform decisions whether to give priority to sex crime. These are:
► Retribution,
► Deterrence,
► Expressivism, and
► Restorative justice.
The essay finds that retribution and deterrence support such selections at least some of the time, and that expressivism and restorative justice provide an even stronger foundation for giving priority to sex crimes.
► While notions of retributive desert are complex, an argument can be made that at least some perpetrators of sex crimes are more deserving of punishment than some perpetrators of crimes resulting in death. In particular, killing crimes are sometimes unintentional, while sex crimes generally involve purposeful conduct.
► Prosecution of sex crimes may also provide greater deterrent benefits at least under some circumstances, such as when conviction for such crimes carries a greater stigma than conviction for illegal killings.
► Most importantly, there is a significantly greater need for the international community to express condemnation of sex crimes than of killing crimes, which are already considered serious violations of moral norms throughout the world.
► Finally, restorative justice goals may be more achievable in the context of sex crimes than crimes involving killing, because the immediate victims remain alive and thus potentially able to participate in and benefit from restorative processes.
I will be further developing the ideas sketched in this essay in the context of "Thematic Investigation and Prosecution of International Sex Crimes," a conference in which IntLawGrrl Valerie Oosterveld also will take part. Cosponsored by Yale University and the Belgium-based Forum for International Criminal and Humanitarian Law, the conference will be held in Cape Town, South Africa, on March 7-8, 2011. A publication will follow.
Supreme balance shift
In her essay for "Women and International Criminal Law," our special edition of International Criminal Law Review (prior posts) now in production, IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Patricia M. Wald writes thatwomen judges (men too of course) have to be recognised as smart, fair, and hardworking if they are to wield influence ...
It appears the 2 newest arrivals to the U.S. Supreme Court got an advance copy.
Appears, too, they've heeded this sage advice from Wald, onetime Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugsolavia and Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Judging from recent reports, 2 voices are likely to be heard once the Court takes the bench to hear oral arguments this morning: the voices, that is, of Justices Sonia Sotomayor (above left) and Elena Kagan (above right). (credit for Dec. 26, 2010, Steve Petteway/Supreme Court / photo, also depicting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at center)
Since Kagan was seated at the beginning of this October Term 2010, "the tenor of the debate has changed," David Savage, Supreme Court correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, recently reported. For years, he wrote, "Supreme Court conservatives led by Justice Antonin Scalia dominated the debates during oral arguments." But now Sotomayor and Kagan "have joined the fray and reenergized the liberal wing."
Bolstering Savage's assessment was a report by New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak. The title pretty much said it all: "Sotomayor Guides Court’s Liberal Wing." She does so, he wrote, by close questioning and incisive commentary that, taken in combination, reveal -- dare one say empathy? Liptak preferred to say that
Judging from recent reports, 2 voices are likely to be heard once the Court takes the bench to hear oral arguments this morning: the voices, that is, of Justices Sonia Sotomayor (above left) and Elena Kagan (above right). (credit for Dec. 26, 2010, Steve Petteway/Supreme Court / photo, also depicting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at center)
Since Kagan was seated at the beginning of this October Term 2010, "the tenor of the debate has changed," David Savage, Supreme Court correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, recently reported. For years, he wrote, "Supreme Court conservatives led by Justice Antonin Scalia dominated the debates during oral arguments." But now Sotomayor and Kagan "have joined the fray and reenergized the liberal wing."
Bolstering Savage's assessment was a report by New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak. The title pretty much said it all: "Sotomayor Guides Court’s Liberal Wing." She does so, he wrote, by close questioning and incisive commentary that, taken in combination, reveal -- dare one say empathy? Liptak preferred to say that
she has displayed a quality — call it what you will — that is alert to the humanity of the people whose cases make their way to the Supreme Court.
An example of this combination, from an article by the Wall Street Journal's Jess Bravin, regarding a recent oral argument on California prison conditions:
'When are you going to avoid the needless deaths that were reported in this record?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at arguments on Tuesday. 'When are you going to get around people sitting in their feces for days in a dazed state? When are you going to get to a point where you are going to deliver care that is going to be adequate?'
Amid reports that these new, "smart, fair, and hardworking" Justices may be shifting balance on the Court, Justice Scalia publicly renewed his attacks on substantive due process applied to enforce rights of women (and, here, gays).
Coincidence?
Criminal Justice for Gendered Violence and Beyond
Many of us gathered at the American Society of International Law on October 29th to honor the remarkable Judge Patricia Wald by bringing together our perspectives on women and international criminal law. IntLawGrrls Naomi Cahn and Dina Francesca Haynes, and guest Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (pictured below right) presented our paper on Criminal Justice for Gendered Violence and Beyond, drawing concepts from our forthcoming book, On the Frontlines, to be published by Oxford University Press in September 2011.In the article, which will be part of a special volume of the International Criminal Law Review edited by IntLawGrrls Diane Marie Amann, Jaya Ramji-Nogales and Beth Van Schaack, we argue: 1) that sexual offenses that arise during and post conflict are not yet sufficiently addressed, 2) that even so, the focus on sex crimes diverts attention from accurately assessing the actual harms perceived by women and 3) that legal reform and post conflict reconstruction should precede the creation of tribunals.
Our responses to sexual offenses committed during and after conflict are still insufficient in multiple ways. Though the jurisprudence of the ICTY and ICTR has taken us some distance,
courts still fail to capture the full range of harms that flow from sexual violence. Furthermore, the successful prosecution of sex based crimes still requires significant external pressure and advocacy, multiple structural barriers still exist with the gathering of evidence and protection of witnesses, and the sentences and number of cases pursued is still disproportionately lower than other wartime offenses. Despite the failures in sufficiently addressing wartime sex based offenses, the focus on sex crimes as the crime associated with women and war diverts attention and resources from properly assessing what women truly perceive as harm and accordingly limit our ability to redress those harms. Finally, the timeline for pursuing prosecutions is not yet in sync with post war “safety.” Tribunals are established before women and victims of war have developed any sense of security. Accordingly, we recommend that legal reform and post conflict reconstruction processes should precede the creation of criminal tribunals.
Our responses to sexual offenses committed during and after conflict are still insufficient in multiple ways. Though the jurisprudence of the ICTY and ICTR has taken us some distance,
courts still fail to capture the full range of harms that flow from sexual violence. Furthermore, the successful prosecution of sex based crimes still requires significant external pressure and advocacy, multiple structural barriers still exist with the gathering of evidence and protection of witnesses, and the sentences and number of cases pursued is still disproportionately lower than other wartime offenses. Despite the failures in sufficiently addressing wartime sex based offenses, the focus on sex crimes as the crime associated with women and war diverts attention and resources from properly assessing what women truly perceive as harm and accordingly limit our ability to redress those harms. Finally, the timeline for pursuing prosecutions is not yet in sync with post war “safety.” Tribunals are established before women and victims of war have developed any sense of security. Accordingly, we recommend that legal reform and post conflict reconstruction processes should precede the creation of criminal tribunals.
Questioning hierarchies of harm
Many IntLawGrrls have gathered this morning to honor Judge Patricia Wald at our roundtable on "Women and International Criminal Law." I'll be participating in the first panel, entitled The Limits of International Criminal Law, and look forward to receiving comments on my paper, "Questioning Hierarchies of Harm: Women, Forced Migration, and International Criminal Law." It's available in full here; here's a preview of some of the ideas therein:From the Akayesu case to the Revolutionary United Front decision, international criminal law has made great strides in addressing harm perpetrated against women in wartime. Though these doctrinal developments are laudable, the gendered structure of international criminal law diverts attention away from other significant harms that women endure as a result of armed conflict. In particular, international criminal law’s hierarchy of harm is deeply problematic. This hierarchy elevates crimes committed as part of a plan or pattern across political groups – for example, by members of one group against members of a second group on the other side of a political conflict, whether during war or otherwise – over equally serious forms of harm perpetrated randomly, often within political groups – for example, by men against women on the same side of a conflict. This approach is problematic because female forced migrants suffer serious harms that do not fall clearly within the framework of international criminal law. These harms include rape, sexual assault, and other forms of physical violence that are not part of a master criminal plan but are rather private and opportunistic harms enabled by situations of displacement.
Refugees and internally displaced women suffer extensive violence at the hands of husbands, boyfriends, family members, neighbors, aid workers, peacekeepers, and strangers, none of whom is acting at the behest of a state or militia or fulfilling an organizational master plan. Is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court applicable to these crimes? While the language of the statute does not provide an obvious basis for prosecuting opportunistic crimes against female forced migrants, international refugee law offers a potential avenue for interpre
ting international criminal law to cover such crimes. Even so, the fit is imperfect – perhaps unsurprisingly given that the law was created to address very different crimes. Beyond the limitations of international criminal law, a vacuum of accountability exists on several levels in situations of forced displacement. Female forced migrants cannot rely on their own governments, their host governments, and often even international humanitarian organizations to protect them against opportunistic violence.
Should international criminal law step into the void? One might argue that the purpose of international criminal law is to provide accountability for conflict-related harms that would not otherwise be addressed. From that perspective, redress for the myriad forms of violence suffered by female forced migrants – harms that usually fall outside of any legal accountability mechanisms – seems an important component of that goal. Similarly, if the central aim of international criminal law is to account for crimes of such severity that they can be considered to be harms against all humankind, violence against women in situations of displacement is so prevalent and destructive that its prosecution should be viewed as a significant component of this goal. Such a step would require quite serious reconstruction of international criminal law, namely expansion of its scope and restructuring of its focus.
It may be that a structure designed specifically to prevent and account for opportunistic violence against female forced migrants would be better equipped to perform that task. Criminal accountability might be better performed in national legal systems or informal justice systems created within camp environments. There are also solutions other than criminal accountability, such as human rights law, that might be more appropriate in addressing such harms. In the meantime, until a solution is found that places these “private” crimes on equal footing with “public” attacks currently prohibited by international criminal law, the serious and frequent harms suffered by forcibly displaced women will continue to be overlooked, relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of harms.
Refugees and internally displaced women suffer extensive violence at the hands of husbands, boyfriends, family members, neighbors, aid workers, peacekeepers, and strangers, none of whom is acting at the behest of a state or militia or fulfilling an organizational master plan. Is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court applicable to these crimes? While the language of the statute does not provide an obvious basis for prosecuting opportunistic crimes against female forced migrants, international refugee law offers a potential avenue for interpre
ting international criminal law to cover such crimes. Even so, the fit is imperfect – perhaps unsurprisingly given that the law was created to address very different crimes. Beyond the limitations of international criminal law, a vacuum of accountability exists on several levels in situations of forced displacement. Female forced migrants cannot rely on their own governments, their host governments, and often even international humanitarian organizations to protect them against opportunistic violence.Should international criminal law step into the void? One might argue that the purpose of international criminal law is to provide accountability for conflict-related harms that would not otherwise be addressed. From that perspective, redress for the myriad forms of violence suffered by female forced migrants – harms that usually fall outside of any legal accountability mechanisms – seems an important component of that goal. Similarly, if the central aim of international criminal law is to account for crimes of such severity that they can be considered to be harms against all humankind, violence against women in situations of displacement is so prevalent and destructive that its prosecution should be viewed as a significant component of this goal. Such a step would require quite serious reconstruction of international criminal law, namely expansion of its scope and restructuring of its focus.
It may be that a structure designed specifically to prevent and account for opportunistic violence against female forced migrants would be better equipped to perform that task. Criminal accountability might be better performed in national legal systems or informal justice systems created within camp environments. There are also solutions other than criminal accountability, such as human rights law, that might be more appropriate in addressing such harms. In the meantime, until a solution is found that places these “private” crimes on equal footing with “public” attacks currently prohibited by international criminal law, the serious and frequent harms suffered by forcibly displaced women will continue to be overlooked, relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of harms.
Women at Nuremberg redux
At the IntLawGrrls-sponsored "Women and International Criminal Law" roundtable this Friday, I'll have the privilege to hear comments on the latest of my research regarding women who played roles in the Allies' Trial of the Major War Criminals, as well as subsequent trials that the United States held after World War II at Nuremberg, Germany.The research owes much to IntLawGrrls' alumna Diane Orentlicher, now Deputy, Office of War Crimes Issues, at the U.S. Department of State. She dedicated her work on the blog to "Beatrice," the presumed name of an unremembered woman who prosecuted defendants at Nuremberg. Eventually, Diane determined that any number of women might have been "Beatrice." The most likely candidate was "Ceil" Goetz (above right); the quest for her and her sisters at Nuremberg first was explored in my "Women at Nuremberg" series of blog posts.
My roundtable essay, Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg, tells more about Goetz, an American woman who turned 30 at Nuremberg. Included are not only details on how and why she became a prosecutor in the Krupp trial, but also a life story marked by many “first woman” chapters -- on the law review at New York University School of Law, at the U.S. Department of Justice, and, after Nuremberg, in the federal judiciary.
This essay follows upon another overview, "Portraits of Woman at Nuremberg," published recently in Proceedings of the Third International Humanitarian Law Dialogs (Elizabeth Andersen & David M. Crane eds., 2010). "Portraits" places women at the trials within the context of social developments during the post-World War II era. Mentioned are women who
were defendants, journalists, or witnesses; however, the focus is on women, mostly Americans, who served as prosecutors at Nuremberg. Among the latter was Sadie Arbuthnot, depicted at left in a photo recently discovered in Harvard Library's digital trove.Later a judge in the United States' court system in Germany and after marriage a lawyer at NASA, Arbuthnot too was a woman at Nuremberg.
More to come.
Go On! Women & ICL
(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)
We at IntLawGrrls are delighted to announce Women and International Criminal Law, a daylong event we've organized for Friday, October 29, 2010, just days before the 10th 
anniversary of the milestone U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and peace and security.
anniversary of the milestone U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and peace and security.Featured will be a roundtable discussion of papers to be published in a 2011 special edition of the International Criminal Law Review, to be edited by IntLawGrrls Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Beth Van Schaack, and yours truly, Diane Marie Amann.
We've dedicated to the Honorable Patricia M. Wald, the IntLawGrrls guest/alumna pictured at the top of the above poster and at bottom right. Formerly a Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, she has served as an American Society of International Law Counsellor and as Co-Chair of the ASIL Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward the International Criminal Court.
Judge Wald will be among the speakers at this roundtable. Other distinguished participants, including a few chosen pursuant to our earlier call for papers, are listed in the full program, set 
forth below.
forth below.IntLawGrrls is honored to be hosting the event along with our generous 
cosponsors, the American Society of International Law; the California International Law Center at King Hall at University of California, Davis, School of Law; Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California; and Temple University Beasley 
School of Law, Philadelphia.
All attendees must preregister for this event. Seating is limited, so we encourage you to register early, pursuant to registration details
here. For those who can't attend, our cosponsors plan in due course to post video of the event on their websites.
cosponsors, the American Society of International Law; the California International Law Center at King Hall at University of California, Davis, School of Law; Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California; and Temple University Beasley 
School of Law, Philadelphia.All attendees must preregister for this event. Seating is limited, so we encourage you to register early, pursuant to registration details
here. For those who can't attend, our cosponsors plan in due course to post video of the event on their websites.Heartfelt thanks are also due to poster designer Janet Goldwater, who directed the film "Mrs. Goundo's Daughter," which our own Hope Lewis reviewed a while back, and to ASIL's Veronica Onorevole and to IntLawGrrl Kathleen A. Doty California International Law Center Fellow, for providing organizational assistance above and beyond the call of duty.
Without further ado, here's the program:
► Panel on The Limits of International Criminal Law, moderated by Michael Surgalla, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Human Rights and Special Prosecutions. Papers to be presented:
• "Criminal Justice for Gendered Violence and Beyond," by IntLawGrrl Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., and Co-Chair of WILIG, ASIL’s Women in International Law Interest Group; IntLawGrrl Dina Francesca Haynes, Associate Professor of Law, New England Law School, Boston; and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, Associate Dean for Planning and Research and Dorsey & Whitney Chair in Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Professor of Law, Transitional Justice Institute, University of
Ulster, Belfast and Derry, Northern Ireland, and ASIL Executive Council member.
• "Criminal Justice for Gendered Violence and Beyond," by IntLawGrrl Naomi Cahn, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., and Co-Chair of WILIG, ASIL’s Women in International Law Interest Group; IntLawGrrl Dina Francesca Haynes, Associate Professor of Law, New England Law School, Boston; and IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, Associate Dean for Planning and Research and Dorsey & Whitney Chair in Law, University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Professor of Law, Transitional Justice Institute, University of
Ulster, Belfast and Derry, Northern Ireland, and ASIL Executive Council member.
• "The Public Health Implications on Women of Armed Conflict and Transitional Justice," by
Jennifer Leaning, Director of the Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health & Human Rights; Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of Public Health; and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
Jennifer Leaning, Director of the Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health & Human Rights; Professor of the Practice of Health and Human Rights at Harvard School of Public Health; and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.
• "Questioning Hierarchies of Harm: Women, Forced Migration and International Criminal Law," by IntLawGrrl Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia.
• "The Crime of Aggression: A Feminist Project?" by IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California.
• "The Crime of Aggression: A Feminist Project?" by IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, California.
► Panel on Gender and International Criminal Law, moderated by Morten Bergsmo, Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., and Senior Researcher at the Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway. Papers to be presented:• "The Gendered Dichotomy of Cumulative Charges for Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes at the International Criminal Court," by Laurie Green, LL.M. Student, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C.
• "Beyond Consent: A Note on the Definition of Sexual Assault in International Criminal Law," by Katie O’Byrne, Law Clerk at the High Court of Australia, Canberra.
• "Prioritizing Gender Crimes at International Criminal Courts: The Philosophical Foundations of a Feminist Agenda," by IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Margaret M. deGuzman, Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia.
• "Beyond Consent: A Note on the Definition of Sexual Assault in International Criminal Law," by Katie O’Byrne, Law Clerk at the High Court of Australia, Canberra.
• "Prioritizing Gender Crimes at International Criminal Courts: The Philosophical Foundations of a Feminist Agenda," by IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Margaret M. deGuzman, Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia.
► Lunch tributes by IntLawGrrl Kelly Askin, Senior Legal Officer, International Justice, Open Society Justice Initiative, and by ASIL Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen, who will read a tribute to Judge Wald by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
► Panel on Beyond International Criminal Law, moderated by David P. Stewart, Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington D.C., and former Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law, U.S. Department of State. Papers to be presented:
• "Is International Criminal Law Feminist?" by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Doris Buss, Associate Professor of Law at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
• "The Paradoxical Feminist Quest for Remedy: A Case Study of Jane Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front and Anwar Haddam," by IntLawGrrl Karima Bennoune, Professor of Law and Arthur L. Dickson Scholar, Rutgers School of Law, Newark.
• 'Assessing Civil Liability for Harms to Women During Armed Conflict: The Rulings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission," by IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed, Partner at Freshfields Deringer Bruckhaus LLP in New York, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commissioner, and ASIL's Immediate Past President.
• "The Paradoxical Feminist Quest for Remedy: A Case Study of Jane Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front and Anwar Haddam," by IntLawGrrl Karima Bennoune, Professor of Law and Arthur L. Dickson Scholar, Rutgers School of Law, Newark.
• 'Assessing Civil Liability for Harms to Women During Armed Conflict: The Rulings of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission," by IntLawGrrl Lucy Reed, Partner at Freshfields Deringer Bruckhaus LLP in New York, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commissioner, and ASIL's Immediate Past President.
► Panel on Women as Creators of International Criminal Law, moderated by IntLawGrrl alumna Diane Orentlicher, Deputy, Office of War Crimes Issues, U.S. Department of State. Papers to be presented:
• "Hannah Arendt as a Theorist of International Criminal Law," by David Luban, University Professor and Frederick J. Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.
• "Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg," by IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann, Professor of Law, Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research Scholar, and Director, California International Law Center at King Hall, University of California, Davis, School of Law, an ASIL Vice President.
• "Cecelia Goetz, Woman at Nuremberg," by IntLawGrrl Diane Marie Amann, Professor of Law, Martin Luther King Jr. Hall Research Scholar, and Director, California International Law Center at King Hall, University of California, Davis, School of Law, an ASIL Vice President.
• "Sex Representation on the Bench and the Legitimacy of International Criminal Courts," by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Nienke Grossman, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law.
• "International Criminal Law at the Crossroad: The Impact of Judge Wald," by IntLawGrrl Jenny S. Martinez, Professor of Law and Justin M. Roach, Jr. Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School, Stanford, California.
► Closing Remarks on Women and International Criminal Law, by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna and special edition honoree Patricia M. Wald, former Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; former ASIL Counsellor and Co-Chair ASIL Task Force on U.S. Policy Toward the International Criminal Court.
Call for Papers: Women & International Criminal Law
(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers.)
Call for Papers: Women & International Criminal Law
Special Issue of the International Criminal Law Review
Dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald
Special Issue Logistics
Call for Papers: Women & International Criminal LawSpecial Issue of the International Criminal Law Review
Dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald
The International Criminal Law Review invites submissions for its 2010 special issue entitled "Women and International Criminal Law," to be guest-edited by IntLawGrrls Diane Marie Amann, University of California, Davis, School of Law; Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Temple University Beasley School of Law; and Beth Van Schaack, University of Santa Clara School of Law (bios below). This is the second event on international criminal law co-sponsored by IntLawGrrls, the first being the IHL Dialogue at Chautauqua last fall.
The Special Issue is dedicated to Judge Patricia M. Wald (right), a pathbreaker in international 
criminal law who has served as
criminal law who has served as - Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
- a Judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,
- a member of the Iraq Intelligence Commission,
- Co-Chair of the American Society of International Law Task Force on the International Criminal Court, and
- Chair of the Board of Directors of the Open Society Justice Initiative.
(Bios of Judge Wald, an IntLawGrrls guest/alumna, are available here and here. All IntLawGrrls posts by and about her are here.)
This special issue is devoted to the topic of women and international criminal law. The majority of the articles have been solicited from prominent academics and practitioners in the field of international criminal law and feminist jurisprudence, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Prof. Jenny Martinez, Dean Martha Minow, Prof. David Luban, Prof. Naomi Cahn, Prof. Leila Nadya Sadat, and Lucy Reed. The editors have also reserved several slots for submissions in response to this call to papers. Submissions should be inspired by this theme statement:
Special Issue Theme: Women & International Criminal Law
The law, it has been noted, “has not always served women well.” The critique extends readily to international law. Until very recently, women were absent from the processes of international law formation and enforcement, and invisible within substantive law reflective of the male experience. Mirroring the public/private divide running through much of law and society, the law, and those with the power to use it, tended to treat all forms of gender violence as opportunistic, peripheral, or private crimes reflecting personal motives and desires unconnected to issues of international importance. Thanks to the tireless work of committed advocates, jurists, and diplomats, international criminal law now treats many forms of gender violence as prosecutable offences against the physical and mental integrity of the victim. With the promulgation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the voluminous jurisprudence of the ad hoc criminal tribunals, the law now sanctions the prosecution of gender crimes as war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, and the predicate acts of genocide.
Women have stood front and center to push these developments. Other international institutions often are dominated by men. Yet women have served in top posts in all of the modern tribunals, as
- Presidents (Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Navanethem Pillay, and Renate Winter),
- Registrar (Dorothée de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh),
- Chief Prosecutors (Louise Arbour and Carla Del Ponte),
- Deputy Prosecutors (Fatou Bensouda),
- Gender Advisors (Patricia Viseur Sellers and Catharine MacKinnon),
- Chefs de Cabinet (Susan Lamb), and
- in many other judicial, prosecution, defense, and administrative capacities.
The tribunals are approaching gender parity in staffing, although women remain concentrated in the lower professional grades. International criminal law is thus one area of international law in which women have made headway in terms of substantive law and institutional access; still, significant obstacles remain to ensure a robust system of gender justice in the face of continued violations.
The field of international criminal law nears a watershed moment, as ad hoc tribunals wind down and the International Criminal Court becomes fully operational. This opportune time invites reflection on whether international criminal law should be considered a feminist project. Accordingly, this volume offers sustained study of how international criminal law affects women and how women have affected international criminal law.
We welcome submissions on the following topics:
• Can, and has, international criminal law improved the material conditions of women’s lives and promoted the dignity of women?
• Is participation in international criminal justice liberating and transformative, or alienating and regressive?
• What legal reforms, procedural devices, advocacy strategies, and institutional arrangements can be employed to ensure that women experience the former and not the latter?
• Does fixation on criminal penalties constrain imagination and implementation of other ways to respond to the needs, demands, and aspirations of women in situations of armed conflict, mass violence, abuse, and repression?
• How have women – as activists, victims, lawyers, and perpetrators – changed the field?
• How has the gender jurisprudence advanced, or impeded, the development of international criminal law?
• Has international criminal law changed the way we think about violence against women?
This volume looks beyond sex crimes to consider multiple ways that women experience war and repression, as agents of change, peacemakers, as victims, and as perpetrators. The study adopts critical perspectives to challenge conceptual boundaries – between and within public international law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights – that tend to eclipse the intersectionalities of women’s identities and to fragment women’s experiences with violence, based upon whether violence occurs in a time of war or peace, whether it occurs at home or in a detention center, or whether the perpetrator is a state actor or a private person.
• Is participation in international criminal justice liberating and transformative, or alienating and regressive?
• What legal reforms, procedural devices, advocacy strategies, and institutional arrangements can be employed to ensure that women experience the former and not the latter?
• Does fixation on criminal penalties constrain imagination and implementation of other ways to respond to the needs, demands, and aspirations of women in situations of armed conflict, mass violence, abuse, and repression?
• How have women – as activists, victims, lawyers, and perpetrators – changed the field?
• How has the gender jurisprudence advanced, or impeded, the development of international criminal law?
• Has international criminal law changed the way we think about violence against women?
This volume looks beyond sex crimes to consider multiple ways that women experience war and repression, as agents of change, peacemakers, as victims, and as perpetrators. The study adopts critical perspectives to challenge conceptual boundaries – between and within public international law, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights – that tend to eclipse the intersectionalities of women’s identities and to fragment women’s experiences with violence, based upon whether violence occurs in a time of war or peace, whether it occurs at home or in a detention center, or whether the perpetrator is a state actor or a private person.
Our hope is that the new perspectives presented in this collection will advance our thinking about gender and international law across a number of disciplines. We welcome your participation in this historic effort to examine the impact of international criminal law on women, and vice versa.
Special Issue Logistics
The volume will be published in spring 2011. Judge Wald and other contributors will present their works at a roundtable hosted at the American Society of International Law’s Tillar House in Washington, D.C., on October 29, 2010 – days before the tenth anniversary of the first U.N. Security Council resolution (1325) on Women, Peace and Security.
To ensure anonymity in the selection phase, please submit a solid draft essay or article, in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 words, with all identifying information redacted, to Kathleen A. Doty, by way of an e-mail attachment in Word format (kadoty@ucdavis.edu), by April 15, 2010. Please note the paper’s title (which should match exactly the title of the redacted paper) and your name and contact information in the body of the e-mail.
Once papers have been selected, they will be subject to a full edit and peer review in advance of the October roundtable. The final draft of the paper will be due no later than March 1, 2011, and should adhere to the International Criminal Law Review style sheet, which is available here.
About the Editors
Diane Marie Amann (right) is Professor of Law and Director of the California International Law Center at King Hall, University of California, Davis, School of Law; a founding contributor to the IntLawGrrls blog; and a Vice President of the American Society of International Law. Her scholarship examines the interaction of national and international legal regimes in efforts to combat atrocity and cross-border crime.
Jaya Ramji-Nogales (left) is Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University's Beasley School of Law; a regular contributor to IntLawGrrls blog; and a member of the Board of Legal Advisors to the Documentation Center of Cambodia. Her scholarship examines transitional justice mechanisms, and includes the volume Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice: Prosecuting Mass Violence Before the Cambodian Courts (2005), co-edited with Beth Van Schaack.
Beth Van Schaack (right) is Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law and Visiting Scholar (2009-2010) at the Center on Democracy, Development & The Rule of Law, Stanford University, as well as a regular contributor to IntLawGrrls blog. Prior to joining the law faculty, she was Acting Executive Director and Staff Attorney with The Center for Justice & Accountability, San Francisco, and a law clerk with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Her scholarship is in the area of international criminal law, and she is the co-author with Ron Slye of a leading casebook and hornbook on the topic.
To ensure anonymity in the selection phase, please submit a solid draft essay or article, in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 words, with all identifying information redacted, to Kathleen A. Doty, by way of an e-mail attachment in Word format (kadoty@ucdavis.edu), by April 15, 2010. Please note the paper’s title (which should match exactly the title of the redacted paper) and your name and contact information in the body of the e-mail.
Once papers have been selected, they will be subject to a full edit and peer review in advance of the October roundtable. The final draft of the paper will be due no later than March 1, 2011, and should adhere to the International Criminal Law Review style sheet, which is available here.
About the Editors
Diane Marie Amann (right) is Professor of Law and Director of the California International Law Center at King Hall, University of California, Davis, School of Law; a founding contributor to the IntLawGrrls blog; and a Vice President of the American Society of International Law. Her scholarship examines the interaction of national and international legal regimes in efforts to combat atrocity and cross-border crime.
Jaya Ramji-Nogales (left) is Assistant Professor of Law at Temple University's Beasley School of Law; a regular contributor to IntLawGrrls blog; and a member of the Board of Legal Advisors to the Documentation Center of Cambodia. Her scholarship examines transitional justice mechanisms, and includes the volume Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice: Prosecuting Mass Violence Before the Cambodian Courts (2005), co-edited with Beth Van Schaack.
Beth Van Schaack (right) is Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law and Visiting Scholar (2009-2010) at the Center on Democracy, Development & The Rule of Law, Stanford University, as well as a regular contributor to IntLawGrrls blog. Prior to joining the law faculty, she was Acting Executive Director and Staff Attorney with The Center for Justice & Accountability, San Francisco, and a law clerk with the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Her scholarship is in the area of international criminal law, and she is the co-author with Ron Slye of a leading casebook and hornbook on the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
