Justice on whose terms? A critique of international criminal justice responses to conflict-related sexual violence

This article argues that the international criminal justice system fails to sufficiently address conflict-related sexual violence in two critical ways: [1] by advocating a pro-prosecution, “end impunity” approach (defined as holding perpetrators accountable through criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings) which applies the prevailing Euro-American model of justice designed to prosecute one man for the rape of one woman to post-conflict zones where widespread sexual violence occurred, and [2] by identifying conflict and post-conflict zones as both discursive and practical sites of pathology that require intervention by elites who strongly identify with a Euro-American liberal individualistic vision of justice. We argue that the international community can no longer conveniently refuse to address the inequalities characterizing the international criminal justice system, in which a tiny minority of self-congratulatory elites uses the noble principles of human rights and justice to advance an agenda that works in their own best interests. To explore possible alternatives to a prosecution-centered approach to conflict-related sexual violence, we employ two African case study examples of community-led gender justice initiatives that have successfully shifted legal discourse while simultaneously transforming wider cultural frameworks. ► Discusses international human rights law’s shortcomings on gender-based violence. ► Describes how feminist analysis provides a unique set of methods to address these gaps. ► Employs two African case studies as possible alternatives to the prevailing system. ► Includes interdisciplinary analysis drawn from anthropology and legal theory. ► Exposes the restricted agency obscured in international criminal justice practices.