Inconsistent Justice

This paper critically examines landmark precedents set by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in prosecuting sexual violence as a means of genocide. Under statutory international humanitarian law, sexual violence is not explicitly listed as a mean...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Saahil Gill
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: York University 2025-05-01
Series:Canadian Journal for the Academic Mind
Subjects:
Online Access:https://cjam.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/default/article/view/95
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849729475245244416
author Saahil Gill
author_facet Saahil Gill
author_sort Saahil Gill
collection DOAJ
description This paper critically examines landmark precedents set by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in prosecuting sexual violence as a means of genocide. Under statutory international humanitarian law, sexual violence is not explicitly listed as a means of genocide, leaving the chambers of these aforementioned tribunals to interpret various legal instruments in order to prosecute the perpetrators of sexual violence during the armed conflicts. In this context, the ICTR set a groundbreaking precedent in the Akayesu case by recognizing sexual violence as a means of committing genocide, thereby elevating the status of these sexual crimes to one of the gravest violations under international law. By contrast, the ICTY was notably reluctant to rule sexual violence and rape as a charge of genocide, electing instead to prosecute it solely as a crime against humanity. By analyzing key cases such as Akayesu at the ICTR and Kunarac et al. and Kristic at the ICTY, this paper argues that the latter’s reluctance to recognize sexual violence as a genocidal act has influenced the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) limited application of genocide charges in contemporary cases involving sexual violence. Consequently, victims of gender-based violence during armed conflict continue to face challenges in securing proper justice and accountability. As such, this analysis highlights the need for a re-evaluation of both the existing statutory and judicial understanding of genocide under international law to reflect the ICTR’s broader recognition of the relationship between gender-based sexual violence, armed conflict, and genocidal intent.
format Article
id doaj-art-a74afb1a0eb34e30aa695eb72a04e65c
institution DOAJ
issn 2817-5344
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher York University
record_format Article
series Canadian Journal for the Academic Mind
spelling doaj-art-a74afb1a0eb34e30aa695eb72a04e65c2025-08-20T03:09:12ZengYork UniversityCanadian Journal for the Academic Mind2817-53442025-05-012210.25071/2817-5344/95Inconsistent JusticeSaahil Gill0https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7978-9692School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa This paper critically examines landmark precedents set by the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in prosecuting sexual violence as a means of genocide. Under statutory international humanitarian law, sexual violence is not explicitly listed as a means of genocide, leaving the chambers of these aforementioned tribunals to interpret various legal instruments in order to prosecute the perpetrators of sexual violence during the armed conflicts. In this context, the ICTR set a groundbreaking precedent in the Akayesu case by recognizing sexual violence as a means of committing genocide, thereby elevating the status of these sexual crimes to one of the gravest violations under international law. By contrast, the ICTY was notably reluctant to rule sexual violence and rape as a charge of genocide, electing instead to prosecute it solely as a crime against humanity. By analyzing key cases such as Akayesu at the ICTR and Kunarac et al. and Kristic at the ICTY, this paper argues that the latter’s reluctance to recognize sexual violence as a genocidal act has influenced the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) limited application of genocide charges in contemporary cases involving sexual violence. Consequently, victims of gender-based violence during armed conflict continue to face challenges in securing proper justice and accountability. As such, this analysis highlights the need for a re-evaluation of both the existing statutory and judicial understanding of genocide under international law to reflect the ICTR’s broader recognition of the relationship between gender-based sexual violence, armed conflict, and genocidal intent. https://cjam.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/default/article/view/95genocidesexual violencecrimes against humanityinternational humanitarian lawRwandan GenocideBosnian Genocide
spellingShingle Saahil Gill
Inconsistent Justice
Canadian Journal for the Academic Mind
genocide
sexual violence
crimes against humanity
international humanitarian law
Rwandan Genocide
Bosnian Genocide
title Inconsistent Justice
title_full Inconsistent Justice
title_fullStr Inconsistent Justice
title_full_unstemmed Inconsistent Justice
title_short Inconsistent Justice
title_sort inconsistent justice
topic genocide
sexual violence
crimes against humanity
international humanitarian law
Rwandan Genocide
Bosnian Genocide
url https://cjam.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/default/article/view/95
work_keys_str_mv AT saahilgill inconsistentjustice