(Editor’s note: This is the second of three articles analyzing a recent resumed session of the U.N. General Assembly’s Legal Committee to discuss Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity. See the overview here, and stay tuned for an analysis of discussions related to adding gender apartheid as a crime in the proposed treaty.)
More than 60 U.N. member and observer States indicated support for some degree of gender-related improvements to the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (Draft Articles), during a U.N. session last month. The meeting was held under a December 2022 U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a series of such sessions to discuss elements of the International Law Commission’s (ILC’s) draft treaty, which was developed to address gaps in international law in combatting crimes against humanity.
The session represented the first time that many States addressed proposals intended to ensure the Draft Articles better integrate gender justice as well as prioritizing victims and survivors. The meeting was a follow-on to earlier diplomatic discussions in April 2023 and October 2023, and to written comments that States submitted in December. Irrespective of views on specific gender justice proposals, many States emphasized that the most important step at present is for the General Assembly’s legal committee (the Sixth Committee) to take a decision this coming October to move the process to formal treaty negotiations.
Where States Stand on Gender in the Draft Articles
More than 20 individual States and three State groups representing 63 States voiced strong support for at least one proposal to incorporate gender justice. Eighteen States supported incorporating elements focused on victims and survivors.
The States that expressed hesitation or opposition cited their own perceptions that certain definitions lacked widespread acceptance or that such provisions would either fragment international law and/or deviate too significantly from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
A chart provided at the end of this article tracks States’ apparent positions on gender justice based on their interventions during the April session.
Gender Definition in the Draft Articles
As with the first resumed session in April 2023, the question of whether to include a definition for the term “gender” was the most widely commented-upon gender issue this time.
The ILC relied heavily on the Rome Statute when drafting the definition of crimes against humanity contained in Article 2 of the Draft Articles. One significant difference between the two definitions is that the ILC excluded the Rome Statute’s definition of “gender” because it is defined there as “the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society.” The ILC’s stated reason for leaving the term undefined in the Draft Articles was to allow “the term to be applied for the purposes of the present draft articles based on an evolving understanding as to its meaning.”
Consistent with current international human rights law, this evolving understanding would presumably include gender as referring to social constructions of masculinity and femininity and allow easier prosecution of persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity as persecution on “gender” grounds. The Rome Statute’s definition does not specifically preclude this interpretation of gender (indeed, some experts argue that the Rome Statute’s definition must encompass that broad interpretation). However, the argument has been made that omitting the Rome Statute’s definition would avoid any doubt in this respect.
The ILC commentary also noted that other grounds of persecution, including political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, and religious grounds, were also left undefined in the Draft Articles.
Many of the States that supported the exclusion of a gender definition also expressed that opinion during last year’s session. This included Portugal, which noted this year that they welcomed the removal of the gender definition “which allows great flexibility and protection compared to previously adopted solutions,” and Australia, which noted that the exclusion of a gender definition “enables States to apply such definitions… used within their national systems.” Other States — Chile, Cyprus, and Hungary — also expressed support for this approach for the first time during this session.
Turkey, the Holy See, Pakistan, and the African Group expressed concerns over the exclusion of a gender definition, joining Cameroon, Qatar, The Gambia, Nigeria, and Poland, which had raised similar concerns in October 2023. Turkey argued that excluding the definition might “cause disagreements among States and a considerable number of States may refrain from acceding [to] a future convention for this very reason.”
Gender Crime Definitions
A number of States expressed strong support for improving the language on gender crimes in the Draft Articles, and incorporating gender crimes that were not included in the Rome Statute.
Forced Pregnancy
Article 7(2)(f) of the Rome Statute, which is replicated in the Draft Articles, states: “‘forced pregnancy’ means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy.”
Both States and civil society organizations, including the Global Justice Center (GJC, my organization), have proposed two changes to the crime of “forced pregnancy” contained in Draft Article 2(2)(f). The first is to remove the reference to national laws, which does not serve any legal or functional purpose and was only included in the Rome Statute as a political compromise with States that had concerns about national abortion laws. The second proposed change is to replace the term “woman” with more inclusive language such as “woman, girl or other person” to ensure that the crime ultimately encompasses all individuals who may experience this specific harm. Civil society has advocated for the addition of gender-inclusive language to the definition of forced pregnancy to encompass the fact that persons aside from cisgender women can become pregnant.
Cuba, South Africa, and the U.K. advocated for the inclusion of some of these changes. Cuba and Finland (on behalf of the Nordic States) noted that the definition should be considered in light of international legal developments in sexual and reproductive health. South Africa advocated to include girls as potential victims of forced pregnancy, and the United Kingdom advocated for the removal of the caveat regarding national laws.
On the other hand, the Holy See stated that it could not support any amendment to the current definition of forced pregnancy on the basis that it provides States sufficient flexibility to enact national legislation that recognizes and protects the right to life from conception.
Forced Marriage
Forced marriage is not expressly included in the Rome Statute, but it has been successfully prosecuted as the crimes against humanity of “other inhumane acts” pursuant to the relevant statutes of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the ICC. It has also been successfully prosecuted as the crime against humanity of “sexual slavery” at the SCSL. Advocates of including forced marriage in the Draft Articles, including GJC, believe that enumerating and providing elements for the crime of forced marriage will make it more likely that the crime will be investigated and prosecuted on a national level.
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa, and the U.K. advocated for the enumeration of forced marriage in the definition of crimes against humanity in a future crimes against humanity convention. In particular, the U.K. referenced the ICC’s Ongwencase, the Court’s first conviction for forced marriage, and proposed a definition of forced marriage that would apply the crime to any “person” regardless of gender or age.
Hungary and the Netherlands also indicated that they were open to including forced marriage as an enumerated crime in a future convention. No States expressed concerns regarding the inclusion of forced marriage.
Reproductive Violence
Mirroring Article 7(1)(g) of the Rome Statute, Draft Article 2(1)(g) currently includes “[r]ape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity” as crimes against humanity. Advocates of including “reproductive violence” in this list, including GJC, believe this would ensure that all possible relevant harms are covered. These crimes include, but are not limited to, forced abortion, forced contraception, and forced breastfeeding.
Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico advocated for the inclusion of reproductive violence in the Draft Articles. In particular, Brazil noted that “a future convention is an opportunity to also codify… manifestations of reproductive violence as that of forced pregnancy and enforced sterilization, such as forced abortion and forced contraception.”
No States expressly advocated against the inclusion of reproductive violence in the Draft Articles. However, some States expressed a general reticence toward diverging from the existing Rome Statute definition of crimes against humanity in order to avoid perceived fragmentation of international law or conflicting obligations for States.
Slavery and the Slave Trade
While enslavement is included in the Draft Article 2(1)(c), the crime does not cover all acts related to the slave trade. The Rome Statute’s Elements of Crimes defines the crime of enslavement congruently with the 1926 Slavery Convention’s definition of slavery, which requires the attachment of ownership power. Because of this, enslavement does not include acts related to the slave trade that do not require ownership, such as the acquisition or distribution of slaves. The inclusion of the “slave trade” to Draft Article 2(1)(c) would ensure that all acts that further slavery are considered crimes against humanity.
Uganda (on behalf of the African Group), along with Australia, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone, expressed strong support for the inclusion of the “slave trade” in Draft Article 2(1)(c)’s crime of enslavement.
The African Group noted the “negative impacts of the historical, past tragedies of the slave trade, slavery and exploitation including on the African continent… call[ed] for the inclusion of slave trade and slavery as a crime against humanity.” Iceland, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and the State of Palestine expressed an openness to the inclusion of the slave trade in the draft articles. No States raised concerns or opposed inclusion of this crime.
Gender Apartheid
Replicating the Rome Statute’s definition of apartheid, Draft Article 2(2)(h) enumerates the crime of apartheid, defined as certain acts “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.” As this definition is limited to racial groups, it does not cover the systemic oppression of individuals based on gender, which commentators argue is currently practiced in states such as Afghanistan and Iran.
Civil society has noted that the inclusion of gender apartheid in a future convention would not require the creation of a new and separate crime, as gender can be incorporated into the existing crime of apartheid.
Australia, Chile, Malta, and Mexico all called for the consideration of gender apartheid in a future convention on crimes against humanity. Five other States — Austria, Brazil, Iceland, the Philippines, and the U.S — expressed an openness to future discussions on the concept.
Cameroon argued that it would be better to address the conduct described as gender apartheid under the existing crime of persecution. However, persecution does not exist as a stand-alone crime in the Draft Articles.
Prioritizing Survivors
Many States called for the inclusion of a “survivor-centric” approach to the negotiations and any future convention on crimes against humanity. This would require States to ensure that victims’ and survivors’ rights are protected, which is especially important for survivors of gender-specific harms such as sexual and gender-based crimes. The approach also would require States to consider the actual effects of proposed language on victims and survivors as they negotiate the future convention, and emphasizes that seeking justice is a right, not a privilege, for victims and survivors.
Ten individual States, as well as Finland (on behalf of the Nordic States) and Latvia (on behalf of the Baltic States) expressly advocated for this approach. Many other States made more general references to the importance of considering victims and survivors, as well as the impact that a future convention would have on both present and future victims and survivors.
Though Turkey “welcome[d] attempts to make sure the voices and stories of victims and survivors of such heinous crimes are heard,” the government queried whether there is a “consensus and clarity about the terms ‘victim-centered’ or ‘survivor-centered’ approaches in international law.”
Moving Forward with Formal Negotiations
While many States expressed support or openness to strengthening gender justice proposals during the second resumed session, almost all of these States also emphasized that any existing disagreements on gender-related provisions would be most properly addressed during formal treaty negotiations rather than in Sixth Committee sessions.
Some States that had been more vocal about supporting the incorporation of gender justice into the Draft Articles also stepped back during the second resumed session to instead focus on the broader picture. For example, the European Union on behalf of its member States said that “[t]he need to integrate a contemporary gender perspective in the draft Convention… could usefully be discussed in a negotiation setting. [It] should not, however, in any way reduce the cardinal value of our objective: that is preventing and punishing crimes against humanity.”
The Sixth Committee will reconvene one last time pursuant to resolution 77/249, in October 2024, to make a decision on whether to move forward with the ILC’s recommendation to elaborate a treaty on the basis of the Draft Articles, either by the General Assembly or by an international conference of plenipotentiaries. Advocates and observers will be watching those discussions closely.
Tracking States’ Positions on Gender Justice
The following chart offers a summary of apparent State positions on gender justice, based on their interventions during the April 2024 session, with links to the full text of the statement where available. Italics indicate that the State expressed this position for the first time to our knowledge.
IMAGE: Afghan Journalist and producer Sadaf Rahimi (L in foreground), in the control booth, directs the talk show “Tabassoum” (Smile, in Dari), hosted by Afghan refugee journalist Diba Akbari (C) and former Afghan actress Marina Golbahari (R) in Begum TV studio in Paris, on March 12, 2024. Begum TV is an educational television channel newly launched by the French NGO Begum Organisation for Women (BOW) to give a face, a voice and hope to women in Afghanistan, led by Afghan refugee journalists. The channel aims for a demographic of middle and high school girls deprived of education by the Taliban authorities since they retook power in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021. (Photo by GEOFFROY VAN DER HASSELT/AFP via Getty Images)
Signups for A.M. & P.M. EmailsSearch for:
Search authors only
Featured Articles
- Announcing a Symposium on the International Criminal Court and Israel-Hamas Warby Just SecurityMay 22nd, 2024
- Trump Trials Clearinghouseby Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois BarrilleauxMay 22nd, 2024
- Q&A: ‘The Oceans Court’ Issues Landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Changeby Catherine Amirfar and Duncan PickardMay 21st, 2024
- Imprisoned Writer Serving 9 Years Illustrates Vietnam’s Crackdown on Expressionby Anh-Thu VoMay 17th, 2024
- On Georgia’s `Russian Law,’ Amendments Are a Trap: The West Should Just Say Noby Elene Kintsurashvili, Nathan Kohlenberg and Joshua RudolphMay 15th, 2024
- Comprehensive Timeline on False Electors Scheme in 2020 Presidential Electionby Ryan Goodman, Jacob Glick, Mary B. McCord and Rupa BhattacharyyaMay 15th, 2024
- Violence as Redress: A Right to Rebellion for Armed Groups under International Law?by Luke MoffettMay 14th, 2024
- How the Georgian Government, Once a US Ally, Became an Adversary, Against the Wishes of Its Protesting Citizensby Ambassador (ret) Ian Kelly and David J. KramerMay 14th, 2024
- The Machine Got it Wrong? Uncertainties, Assumptions, and Biases in Military AIby Arthur Holland MichelMay 13th, 2024
- Key Takeaways from Biden Administration Report on Israeli Use of US Weaponsby John Ramming ChappellMay 11th, 2024
- Amid Russia’s Aggression Towards Ukraine, Can Religious Freedom Endure?by Yuliia FysunMay 10th, 2024
- The Darfur Genocide Demands International Action and Accountabilityby Mutasim Ali and Yonah DiamondMay 9th, 2024
- Armed Groups and International Law: Introduction to the Symposiumby Katharine Fortin and Ezequiel HeffesMay 8th, 2024
- For Another Year, DoD Fails to Make Condolence Payments to Civilian Harm Victimsby Joanna Naples-Mitchell and Annie ShielMay 7th, 2024
- No, Trump Was Not Good for US Alliances. And Without Changes, Trump 2.0 Will Be Worse.by Lisa Homel and Ambassador Daniel FriedMay 3rd, 2024
- Keeping Count: Major Adverse Legal Findings Against Donald Trump (Nov. 2020-2024)by Tom Joscelyn and Ryan GoodmanMay 2nd, 2024
- The Kremlin’s Hand: How Russia Fuels Srebrenica Genocide Denial and Balkan Instabilityby Sead TurčaloMay 1st, 2024
- Why No “Plain Statement Rule” Bars a President’s Prosecution for Murderby Albert W. AlschulerApr 30th, 2024
- Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates: Criminal and Civil Casesby Norman L. Eisen, Ryan Goodman, Siven Watt and Francois BarrilleauxApr 28th, 2024
- An Oversight Model for AI in National Security: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Boardby Faiza Patel and Patrick C. ToomeyApr 26th, 2024
- Report of the Independent Task Force on National Security Memorandum-20 Regarding Israelby Noura Erakat and Josh PaulApr 24th, 2024
- America’s Sanctions Habit is Hurting Peacemakingby Delaney SimonApr 24th, 2024
- American Autocracy Threat Trackerby Norman L. Eisen, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Siven Watt, Andrew Warren, Jacob Kovacs-Goodman and Francois BarrilleauxApr 24th, 2024
- Sanctions Against Russia: The Coalition Can Do Better – for Ukraine and Global Orderby Anna TkachovaApr 23rd, 2024
- ‘Election Fraud, Pure and Simple’: Trump’s Prosecutors Move Beyond Stormy Daniels in Wide-Lens Trial Openingby Adam KlasfeldApr 22nd, 2024
- Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collectionby Clara AptApr 18th, 2024
- Trump’s Challenge to Democracy Through the Lens of Transitional Justiceby Jonathan HafetzApr 18th, 2024
- 41 Star Witnesses and Bit Players in Trump’s NY Criminal Trialby Norman L. Eisen, Adam Klasfeld and Jacob Kovacs-GoodmanApr 17th, 2024
- Q&A with Eliav Lieblich on Iran-Israel Hostilitiesby Eliav LieblichApr 16th, 2024
- Trump’s Forbidden Legal Strategy: What New York Law Won’t Let the Jury Doby Adam KlasfeldApr 15th, 2024
- Dispatches from the Trump Trial Courtroom in New Yorkby Adam KlasfeldApr 14th, 2024
- Russian Human Rights Activist Vladimir Kara-Murza Marks Two Years Behind Barsby Evgenia Kara-MurzaApr 10th, 2024
- Deportation, Detention, and Other Crimes: In Ukraine, the Past and Present of International Criminal Law Convergeby Andrew BoyleApr 9th, 2024
- In Shifting US Ties with Niger and Africa, Focus on Human Rights and Democracy to Strengthen Partnershipsby Ikechukwu UzomaApr 8th, 2024
- The SAFE Act Is No “Compromise” and Won’t Leave Americans Saferby George CronerApr 5th, 2024
- The Year(s) of Section 702 Reform, Part VI: (Another) Looming Deadlineby Noah Chauvin and Elizabeth GoiteinApr 5th, 2024
- Planning for Ukrainian Reintegrationby Ronald A. BrandApr 3rd, 2024
- Trump’s Promise to Free Jan. 6 Inmates in DC Jail — Almost All of Them Assaulted Law Enforcement Officersby Tom Joscelyn, Fred Wertheimer and Norman L. EisenApr 2nd, 2024
- The UK Is Failing to Recoup Ill-gotten Gains Linked to the Syrian Regimeby Natalia KubeschApr 1st, 2024
- “Famine is Setting in”: The International Court of Justice Returns to Gazaby Adil Ahmad HaqueMar 30th, 2024
- Gaza’s Famine is Underwayby Jeremy KonyndykMar 28th, 2024
- The ‘Year of Climate’ in International Courtsby Rebecca HamiltonMar 27th, 2024
- A Complete Guide to the Manhattan Trump Election Interference Prosecutionby Norman L. Eisen, Andrew Warren and Siven WattMar 27th, 2024
- Beating Putin’s Game of Nuclear Chickenby Douglas LondonMar 21st, 2024
- Section 620I: No Military Assistance to States Restricting U.S. Humanitarian Assistanceby Brian FinucaneMar 19th, 2024
- Does the ICC Have Jurisdiction Over the Starvation War Crime in Sudan?by Tom DannenbaumMar 19th, 2024
- Did Macron and Tusk Just Chart a Path for Liberals Elsewhere on Immigration?by Leo GreenbergMar 18th, 2024
- Key Takeaways from the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communityby Christopher S. ChivvisMar 15th, 2024
- Video: Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines Remarks and Fireside Chat on the 10-Year Anniversary of Just Securityby Just SecurityMar 13th, 2024
- Video: Social Media, Government Jawboning, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Courtby Just SecurityMar 13th, 2024
- A Troubling Omen for Ukraine in the EU’s Balkan Membership Strugglesby Mieczysław (Mietek) Boduszyńskiand Jasmin MujanovićMar 13th, 2024
- Israeli Civilian Harm Mitigation in Gaza: Gold Standard or Fool’s Gold?by Larry LewisMar 12th, 2024
- No Simple End: The ICJ and Remedies for Illegal Practices in the Occupied Territoriesby Yuval Shany and Amichai CohenMar 12th, 2024
- With Haiti on the Brink of Collapse, a Reckoning for US Policy on Haitiby Beatrice LindstromMar 9th, 2024
- Under the Weather – The National Security Risks from Climate Change Could Go Well Beyond What the U.S. Government Thinksby Bryan Frederick and Caitlin McCullochMar 7th, 2024
- Disclosing Secrets: Deterrence, Diplomacy, and Debate – Reflections on Remarks by DNI Avril Hainesby Brianna RosenMar 1st, 2024
- Transferring Russian Assets to Compensate Ukraine: Some Reflections on Countermeasuresby Federica PaddeuMar 1st, 2024
- Rethinking Risk: Reducing Harm to Nonprofits in the Push to Counter Terrorism Financingby Lia van Broekhoven, Sangeeta Goswami, Floor Knoote and Thalia MalmbergFeb 28th, 2024
- Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act Under International Lawby Preston LimFeb 27th, 2024
- Membership in a Non-State Armed Group in the DoD Law of War Manualby Jenny MaddocksFeb 26th, 2024
- Reparations for Ukraine: Three Proposals from Europeby Philippa WebbFeb 26th, 2024
- Israel, the United States, and the Fourth Geneva Conventionby Brian FinucaneFeb 23rd, 2024
- Russian Opposition Searches for Shreds of Hope After Navalny’s Deathby Ekaterina KotrikadzeFeb 23rd, 2024
- International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lvivby Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamiltonand Gregory ShafferFeb 22nd, 2024
- Decisions Without Enforcement: Ukrainian Judiciary and Compensation for War Damagesby Ivan HorodyskyyFeb 21st, 2024
- How to Make Russia Pay to Rebuild Ukraineby Maggie Mills, Thomas Poston and Oona A. HathawayFeb 20th, 2024
- Navalny’s Death and the Kremlinby Ambassador Daniel FriedFeb 16th, 2024
- How Israel Took the Terrorists’ Baitby Matthew LevingerFeb 13th, 2024
- The Real “Robert Hur Report” (Versus What You Read in the News)by Andrew Weissmann and Ryan GoodmanFeb 10th, 2024
- Protected Persons and the ‘Geographic Nexus’ Requirement in the DoD Law of War Manualby Eliav LieblichFeb 6th, 2024
- Taking Stock of ICJ Decisions in the ‘Ukraine v. Russia’ Cases—And implications for South Africa’s case against Israelby Oona A. HathawayFeb 5th, 2024
- Between Rhetoric and Effects: The ICJ Provisional Measures Order in South Africa v. Israelby Amichai Cohen and Yuval ShanyFeb 1st, 2024
- The Facts About Electronic Surveillance Reformby Senator Ron WydenJan 31st, 2024
- Planning Ahead: How the US May Recover Its Diplomatic Standing at the UN After the Gaza Warby Richard GowanJan 30th, 2024
- Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case)by Just SecurityJan 26th, 2024
- Unpacking the Int’l Court of Justice Judgment in South Africa v Israel (Genocide Case)by Ryan Goodman and Siven WattJan 26th, 2024
- Congress Must Strengthen Oversight on Intelligence Sharing and Civilian Harmby Steven Katz and John Ramming ChappellJan 25th, 2024
- A Lawyer for Political Prisoners on Why He Fled Russiaby Vadim ProkhorovJan 24th, 2024
- The Democratic Price of Countering Authoritarianismby Thomas CarothersJan 22nd, 2024
- Signals of Support for Gender Justice in the Draft Treaty on Crimes Against Humanityby Paloma van GrollJan 19th, 2024
- Success or Failure in Ukraine?by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr.and David BernellJan 12th, 2024
- Успіх чи невдача в Україні?by Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr.and David BernellJan 12th, 2024
- Assessing the DoD Law of War Manual’s Approach to Treaties and Customary International Lawby Sean MurphyJan 10th, 2024
- Constitutional Law Scholars on the Impeachment Proceedings Against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkasby Joshua Matz and Laurence H. TribeJan 10th, 2024
- How Long Will Trump’s DC Immunity Appeal Take? Analyzing the Alternative Timelinesby Norman L. Eisen, Matthew A. Seligman and Joshua KolbJan 9th, 2024
- How the KKK Produced the Department of Justiceby Bruce Hoffman and Jacob WareJan 8th, 2024
- Introduction to Expert Statements on Role of Extremism in Social and News Media, submitted to January 6th House Select Committeeby Meghan Conroy and Justin HendrixJan 6th, 2024
- Old Constitutional Provisions and Presidential Selection: The folly of exhuming Section 3 of the 14th Amendmentby Samuel IssacharoffJan 5th, 2024
- It’s Not Just Technology: What it Means to be a Global Leader in AIby Kayla Blomquist and Keegan McBrideJan 4th, 2024
- Selective Use of Facts and the Gaza Genocide Debateby Amichai Cohen and Yuval ShanyJan 2nd, 2024
- Nine Stories That Deserved More Attention in 2023 – and That May Shape 2024by Megan CorrarinoDec 29th, 2023
- U.S. Policymakers’ Lessons from Yemen for Gazaby Wa’el Alzayat and Jeremy KonyndykDec 22nd, 2023
- Unhuman Killings: AI and Civilian Harm in Gazaby Brianna RosenDec 15th, 2023
- Poland’s New Government Will Face Hurdles to Restore Rule of Law and Judicial Independenceby Jasmine D. Cameron, Judge Dariusz Mazur and Anna WójcikDec 12th, 2023
- Learning from Justice O’Connorby Jane StromsethDec 2nd, 2023
- Tracking COP28: Notable Moments and Key Themesby Clara AptNov 30th, 2023
- Giving Tuesday: Please Support Just Security With a Tax-Deductible Donationby Tess Bridgeman and Ryan GoodmanNov 28th, 2023
- The Year of Section 702 Reform, Part V: The HPSCI Majority FISA Working Group Reportby Elizabeth Goitein and Noah ChauvinNov 27th, 2023
- Threat from Within? Unreformed Counterterrorism Infrastructure Raises Concerns About Misuseby Faiza PatelNov 21st, 2023
- It’s Time to Close the Door on Biden’s Saudi Defense Dealby Shahed GhoreishiNov 16th, 2023
Key Topics
Scroll within to view all topics.
- Artificial Intelligence
- Climate Change
- Congressional Oversight
- Counterterrorism
- Cybersecurity
- Democracy
- Diplomacy
- Disinformation
- Human Rights
- Immigration
- Intelligence activities
- International Criminal Law
- Israel-Hamas War
- January 6th Attack on US Capitol
- Law of Armed Conflict
- Local Voices
- Racial Justice
- Social Media Platforms
- United Nations
- Use of Force
Resources
TRACKERS
- American Autocracy Threat Trackerby Norman L. Eisen, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Siven Watt, Andrew Warren, Jacob Kovacs-Goodman and Francois BarrilleauxApr 24th, 2024
- Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collectionby Clara AptApr 18th, 2024
- Tracking UNGA 78: Notable Moments and Key Themesby Gwendolyn Whidden, Katherine Fang and Clara AptSep 27th, 2023
- January 6 Clearinghouseby Ryan Goodman, Justin Hendrix and Norman L. EisenMar 14th, 2024
SERIES
- Symposium: International Law in Ukraine – The View from Lvivby Just SecurityApr 5th, 2024
- Announcing a Symposium on the International Criminal Court and Israel-Hamas Warby Just SecurityMay 22nd, 2024
- 2024 and Beyond: Just Security’s US Election Protection Coverageby Allison MollenkampDec 4th, 2023
- Introducing Just Security’s Series on Reparations in Russia’s War Against Ukraineby Megan CorrarinoFeb 20th, 2024
- It’s Time to Establish a Syria Victims Fundby Joumana SeifFeb 19th, 2024
- The Future of Atrocity Prevention: A Joint Symposiumby Gwendolyn WhiddenOct 31st, 2023
- Introducing the Symposium on AI Governance: Power, Justice, and the Limits of the Lawby Brianna RosenOct 18th, 2023
- Introduction to Symposium: Ending Perpetual Warby Brianna RosenSep 11th, 2023
- Joint Symposium on U.S. Cooperation with the International Criminal Court’s Ukraine Investigationby Just SecurityJul 17th, 2023
- U.N. General Assembly and International Criminal Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraineby Just SecurityMay 9th, 2023
- Introducing the Symposium on U.S. Support for the ICC’s Trust Fund for Victimsby Paul R. Williams, Milena Sterio, Yvonne Dutton, Alexandra Koch, Lilian Waldock, Floriane Lavaud, Ashika Singhand Isabelle GlimcherFeb 13th, 2023
- Antisemitism and Threats to American Democracyby Eileen B. Hershenov and Ryan B. GreerJan 26th, 2023
- Toward a Values-Based Foreign Policy: Developing an Ethical Checklistby Ambassador Peter Mulrean (ret.) and William J. HawkJan 4th, 2023
- Tracking COP27: Notable Moments and Key Themesby Clara Apt and Katherine FangNov 18th, 2022
- On Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Reflections on Tribal Sovereignty in Haaland v. Brackeenby Amanda L. White EagleOct 10th, 2022
- Ending Perpetual Warby Brianna RosenOct 25th, 2022
- The Case for Creating an International Tribunal to Prosecute the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine (Part I)by Oona A. HathawaySep 20th, 2022
- Introduction to Symposium: Still at War – Where and Why the United States is Fighting the “War on Terror”by Tess Bridgeman and Brianna RosenMar 24th, 2022
- After a Year of Privation With the Taliban’s Return, the People of Afghanistan Deserve Better from the US and the Worldby Nasir A. Andisha and Marzia MarastoniAug 15th, 2022
- Introduction to Just Security’s Series on Executive Order 9066, 80 Years After Signingby Megan CorrarinoFeb 18th, 2022
- Congress Can and Should Address the Threat from Unauthorized Paramilitary Activityby Mary B. McCordJan 24th, 2022
- The Good Governance Papers: A January 2022 “Report Card” Updateby Emily Berman, Tess Bridgeman, Megan Corrarino, Ryan Goodman and Dakota S. RudesillJan 20th, 2022
- Symposium Recap: Security, Privacy and Innovation – Reshaping Law for the AI Eraby Laura Brawley, Antara Joardar and Madhu NarasimhanOct 29th, 2021
- Towards a New Treaty on Crimes Against Humanity: Next Stepsby Leila Nadya SadatSep 13th, 2021
- Introduction to Symposium: How Perpetual War Has Changed Us — Reflections on the Anniversary of 9/11by Tess Bridgeman, Rachel Goldbrennerand Ryan GoodmanSep 7th, 2021
- New Just Security Series: Beyond the Myanmar Coupby Just SecurityJul 19th, 2021
- New Just Security Series: Reflections on Afghanistan on the Eve of Withdrawalby Kate BrannenJun 30th, 2021
- Introducing a Symposium on the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategyby Fionnuala Ní Aoláin and Kate BrannenJun 14th, 2021
- The Méndez Principles: Leadership to Transform Interrogation via Science, Law, and Ethicsby Steven J. Barela and Mark FallonJun 1st, 2021
- Introduction to Just Security’s Series on Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921by Christine BergerMay 29th, 2021
- Spotlight on Sri Lanka as UN Human Rights Council Prepares Next Sessionby Beth Van SchaackFeb 1st, 2021
- Nestlé & Cargill v. Doe: Introduction to a Symposiumby Beth Van Schaack and Chris MoxleyNov 16th, 2020
About the Author(s)
Kelly Adams
Kelly Adams is a Legal Advisor at the Global Justice Center.