In the Absence of a Tribunal, Can UN Investigative Mechanisms Ensure Justice for Victims of Rape as a Weapon of War?

Helen Jennings
{"title":"In the Absence of a Tribunal, Can UN Investigative Mechanisms Ensure Justice for Victims of Rape as a Weapon of War?","authors":"Helen Jennings","doi":"10.1163/15718034-12341490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article explores the evolution of UN fact-finding mechanisms as a method of pursuing legal accountability for violations of international criminal and human rights law, specifically sexual and gender-based violence and violations of sexual and reproductive health rights in conflict situations. The article argues that, in order to effectively contribute to the task of securing individual accountability for violations of international criminal law, while also pursuing political accountability for mass abuse of human rights, the UN system of fact-finding mechanisms must be reformed. The mandates of Commissions of Inquiry must be stripped back to their core function of investigating human rights abuse, while Novel Investigative Mechanisms take over the individual criminal responsibility mandate. Until both these functions are given separate and adequate attention by properly resourced fact-finding mechanisms, victims of abuse such as sexual and gender-based violence and violation of sexual and reproductive health rights in countries without recourse to international courts will be denied justice and recognition through UN channels.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341490","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores the evolution of UN fact-finding mechanisms as a method of pursuing legal accountability for violations of international criminal and human rights law, specifically sexual and gender-based violence and violations of sexual and reproductive health rights in conflict situations. The article argues that, in order to effectively contribute to the task of securing individual accountability for violations of international criminal law, while also pursuing political accountability for mass abuse of human rights, the UN system of fact-finding mechanisms must be reformed. The mandates of Commissions of Inquiry must be stripped back to their core function of investigating human rights abuse, while Novel Investigative Mechanisms take over the individual criminal responsibility mandate. Until both these functions are given separate and adequate attention by properly resourced fact-finding mechanisms, victims of abuse such as sexual and gender-based violence and violation of sexual and reproductive health rights in countries without recourse to international courts will be denied justice and recognition through UN channels.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在没有法庭的情况下,联合国调查机制能否确保将强奸作为战争武器的受害者获得正义?
本文探讨了联合国实况调查机制的演变,作为对违反国际刑事法和人权法,特别是性暴力和基于性别的暴力以及冲突局势中侵犯性健康和生殖健康权利的行为追究法律责任的一种方法。文章认为,为了有效促进确保对违反国际刑法的个人问责的任务,同时也为大规模侵犯人权行为寻求政治问责,联合国的实况调查机制系统必须进行改革。调查委员会的任务必须恢复到其调查侵犯人权行为的核心职能,而新的调查机制则接管个人刑事责任的任务。除非资源充足的实况调查机制对这两项职能给予单独和充分的重视,否则,在不诉诸国际法院的国家中,性暴力和基于性别的暴力等虐待行为以及侵犯性健康和生殖健康权利的受害者将无法通过联合国渠道获得正义和承认。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.
期刊最新文献
Situating “Deformalization” within the International Court of Justice: Understanding Institutionalised Informality The World Is Burning, Urgently and Irreparably – a Plea for Interim Protection against Climatic Change at the ICJ “Cross Treaty Interpretation” en bloc or How CAFTA-DR Tribunals Are Systematically Interpreting the FET Standard Based on NAFTA Case Law The Asian Turn in Foreign Investment, edited by Mahdev Mohan and Chester Brown Not Just a Participation Trophy? Advancing Public Interests through Advisory Opinions at the International Court of Justice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1