Upholding human rights standards to address GBV in complex emergencies

WOMEN, PEACE AND SECURITY AGENDA

The ground-breaking resolution 1325 adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 2000 emphasized the crucial role women play in the peace process and in addressing the root causes of conflict-related violence against women. Subsequently, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820 (2008) recognized, for the first time, conflict-related sexual violence as a tactic of warfare and as a serious threat to international peace and security. The resolution calls for an end to widespread conflict-related sexual violence, establishes accountability of all actors to counter impunity for such crimes and calls on the United Nations to develop appropriate mechanisms to provide protection from violence and respond to sexual violence and other forms of violence against civilians. All the subsequent resolutions on women, peace and security,89 which taken together constitute the Women, Peace and Security Agenda, establish international norms and standards to promote the protection of women during armed conflict and their participation in peace and security decision-making. A 2019 review of the implementation of these resolutions, as it related to the United Nations system, identified three key factors essential for their implementation – (1) the degree to which gender equality, as well as women, peace and security are consistently prioritized and sufficiently resourced; (2) the presence of accountability mechanisms; and (3) the presence and influence of gender expertise at senior levels and across political and technical components, special political missions and other United Nations system entities.90

International criminal law has gained a prominent role in addressing GBV in the past 20 years to the extent that it may give rise to the perception that it is the main international legal answer to GBV. However, the international criminal law regime is inextricably intertwined not only with (the earlier developed) international humanitarian law, but with international human rights law as well. Each regime intervenes at a different stage of a conflict, and one cannot be applied without the other.91 Indeed, the protection of women and girls does require international humanitarian law during the conflict, international criminal law during the peace transition and international human rights law before and after a conflict. However, the clear delineation between the three disciplines exists only on paper, and when it comes to providing an adequate legal response to GBV, they often overlap.

Importantly, a basic provision of the right to access justice for GBV is that the standards established by CEDAW apply under all circumstances – in conflict, post-conflict and peacetime – and that other international rules, such as international criminal law,92 international refugee law93 and international humanitarian law, and the imperatives of the Security Council agenda on women, peace and security, are complementary to the rules of international human rights law.94

Given the noted overlap of the different legal regimes applying in complex situations, it is essential that all those operating in fragile situations know that

the basic requirements of international human rights law apply at all times. Difficult situations, such as pandemics, natural disasters or mass migration, do not provide an excuse for perpetrating harm against women and girls.

A survivor-centred approach is the key thread in understanding the international standards on access to justice for GBV, in all circumstances, including fragile situations. The CEDAW Committee has also recognized that in seeking access to justice, women and girls should be considered not just as victims of crimes, but as participants and co-creators of the institutions tasked with vindicating their rights. States parties to CEDAW are required to: “Provide effective and timely remedies and ensure that they respond to the different types of violations experienced by women, as well as adequate reparation, and ensure women’s participation in the design of all reparation programs”, as indicated in General Recommendation 33.95

Box 6: Timeline of international and regional standards on GBV

1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

1949: The Four Geneva Conventions

1977: Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions

1979: United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

1992: CEDAW Committee General Recommendation 19 on gender-based violence

1993: UN General Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women

1994: Inter-American convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (Belém do Pará)

1995: Beijing Platform for Action

1998: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Jean-Paul Akayesu Judgement of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

1999: Optional Protocol to CEDAW

2000: UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security

2003: Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol)

2008: UN Security Council Resolution 1820 on conflict-related sexual violence as a tactic of warfare

2009: Landmarkcase on VAW: Gonzalez et al v. Mexico (the Cotton Fields Case)

2011: Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)

2015: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

2017: CEDAW Committee General Recommendation 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating GR19

2021: Generation Equality Global Acceleration Plan