Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Halley Rape at Rome

Halley Rape at Rome

Ratings: (0)|Views: 11 |Likes:
Halley Rape at Rome
Feminism
Halley Rape at Rome
Feminism

More info:

Published by: Zorelly Torres Sánchez on Sep 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
RAPE AT ROME:FEMINIST INTERVENTIONS IN THECRIMINALIZATION OF SEX-RELATEDVIOLENCE IN POSITIVE INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL LAW
 
 Janet Halley
*
 
Introduction to “Governance Feminism”..........................................
3
 
I. The ICTY and ICTR Statutes and the RomeStatute Seen Synoptically....................................................
8
 
A.
The ICTY and ICTR Statutes and the Rome Statuteas Events in Time...................................................................
8
 
B.
Feminist Organizational Capacity and  Rhetorical Strategy..............................................................
12
 
1. The Emergence of GFeminism as anImportant NG Force......................................................12
 
2. The Emerging Genres of GFeminist Rhetoric...............26
 
II. Feminist Goals, Successes, and Defeats inthe Statutory Processes.......................................................
49
 
A.
The Legal Backdrop.............................................................
51
 
B.
 Early Feminist Goals and the Emergence of the Feminist Universalist Vision..........................................
53
 
C.
Feminist Successes and Defeats in the ICTY and ICTR Statutes................................................................
67
 
D.
Feminists at Rome................................................................
70
 
1. The Feminist Universalist Vision Comes of Age..........70
 
2. WCGJ Operationalization of the FeministUniversalist Vision as Legal Rule Proposals.................75
 
E.
Feminist Successes and Defeats in the Rome Statute.........
101
 
1. Horizontal Reforms.....................................................101
 
2. Vertical Reforms.........................................................108
 
Conclusion..........................................................................................
120
 
© 2009 by Janet Halley. All rights reserved.*Royall Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Thanks to David Kennedy, DuncanKennedy, Valerie Oosterveld, Darren Rosenblum, Hila Shamir, Ralphe Wilde for comments onearlier drafts, and to A. Edsel Tupaz, Jimmy Richardson, and Hila Shamir for stellar researchassistance. Stephen Wiles and other Harvard Law School librarians were immensely generouswith their skills. Thanks also, for opportunities to discuss earlier drafts of this Article, to theHarvard Legal Scholarship Workshop (2005), the Harvard International Law Workshop(2006), the Women’s Studies Program and Kirkland Endowment at Hamilton College (2007),the “Resistance and the Law” Conference sponsored by
Unbound: The Harvard Journal for the Legal Left 
(2007), the Siderow Workshop for Law and Political Thought at Tel Aviv Uni-versity Buchmann Faculty of Law (January 2008), the Law Department at the AmericanUniversity of Cairo (April 2005 and January 2008), the Brown University Department of Eng-lish (March 2008), and the HLS Faculty Workshop (July 2008).
 
2
Michigan Journal of International Law
[Vol. 30:1
This Article examines the work of organized feminism in the forma-tion of new international criminal tribunals over the course of the 1990s.It focuses on the statutes establishing the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It offersa description of the evolving organizational style of feminists involved inthe legislative processes leading to the establishment of these courts, anda description of their reform agenda read against the outcomes in eachcourt-establishing statute. At each stage, the Article counts up the femi-nist victories and defeats, giving (I hope) a clear picture of how“feminist” the resulting codes really are.The goal is to produce an assessment of the ideological/political in-vestments that feminists brought to their work on the statutes for theinternational criminal tribunals (ICTs) and the ICC, and of the degree towhich the statutory regimes contain rules that allow participants in adjudi-cation under these statutes to put those ideological/political investmentsinto action.This Article is one of a series. In an essay recently published in the
 Melbourne Journal of International Law
, I read representations of rapeboth in a literary text and in law reform sought by feminists in the prose-cution and adjudication of actual cases in the ICTY and ICTR.
1
In yetanother paper currently in draft, I examine the litigation and adjudicationof the ICTs and the prosecutorial output of the ICC to date in far moredetail than I attempt in the
 Melbourne
essay, with the same goals that Ipursue in the present Article’s examination of statutory rulemaking.
2
 My conclusions in this Article are two. First, feminist organizationalstyle and capacity evolved rapidly over the course of the 1990s. Second,though there were some disagreements among the feminists involved,the organizational style was overwhelmingly coalitional, resulting in aliterary “trace” of feminist work that is almost devoid of manifest inter-nal conflict. The consensus that emerged as the feminists’ jointrepresentation of their worldview, argument repertoire, and reformagenda was not, as one might expect, a median liberal feminist view thatsplit the difference between conservative and leftist feminist ideologies.Instead, the manifest consensus view was an updated radical feminism,strongly committed to a structuralist understanding of male dominationand female subordination. There was some tension on a few issues be-tween structuralist and liberal-individualist femininists (a distinction I
1. Janet Halley,
 Rape in Berlin: Reconsidering the Criminalisation of Rape in the International Law of Armed Conflict 
, 9
Melb. J. Int’l L.
78 (2008) [hereinafter Halley,
 Rapein Berlin
].2. To be entitled,
 Rewriting Rape: Feminist Reforms in the Prosecution and Adjudica-tion of Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict 
.
 
Fall 2008]
 
 Rape at Rome
 
3
will describe in detail below),
3
but it was muted by the coalitional styleadopted by feminists and compromised usually in the direction of struc-turalist rule choices.
Introduction to “Governance Feminism”
Chantal Thomas, Prabha Kotiswaran, Hila Shamir, and I have de-scribed a new feminist organizational style that has evolved over thecourse of the 1990s as Governance Feminism (GFeminism).
4
We devel-oped this term in part because it captures the strong resemblance of thenew, muscular non-governmental organization (NGO) formationsadopted by feminists to the prescription for political engagement withlaw produced by the “new governance” (NG) school.
5
Amy Cohen de-scribes the project of the NG literature as follows:[N]ew governance proponents aim to design a wide-scale prob-lem-solving praxis that is both maximally efficient andnormatively (democratically) legitimate. They envisage myriadindividual stakeholders grouped into “problem-solving ‘publics’
 
3.
See infra
Part II.D.b.iv.4. Janet Halley, Prabha Kotiswaran, Hila Shamir & Chantal Thomas,
From the Inter-national to the Local in Feminist Legal Responses to Rape, Prostitution/Sex Work, and Sex Trafficking: Four Studies in Contemporary Governance Feminism
, 29
Harv. J.L. & Gender
 335, 337
 
(2006).5
.
See id.
at 340–42 (discussing the “new governance” (NG) project as it relates toGFeminism).
See
 
generally
 
Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Em-powered Participatory Governance
(Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright eds., 2003);
Lawand New Governance in the EU and the US
(Gráinne de Búrca & Joanne Scott eds.,2006); Joshua Cohen & Charles Sabel,
 Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy
, 3
Eur. L.J.
313, 313–42 (1997); Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel,
 A Constitution of Democratic Experimental-ism
, 98
Colum. L. Rev.
267, 267–473 (1998); Jody Freeman,
The Private Role in PublicGovernance
, 75
N.Y.U. L. Rev.
543, 543–675 (2000); Brandon L. Garrett & James S. Lieb-man,
 Experimentalist Equal Protection
, 22
Yale L. & Pol’y Rev.
261, 261–327 (2004);Oliver Gerstenberg & Charles F. Sabel,
 Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy: An Institutional Ideal for Europe?
,
in
 
Good Governance in Europe’s Integrated Market
289 (Christian Jo-erges & Renaud Dehousse eds., 2002); Bradley C. Karkkainen,
“New Governance” in LegalThought and in the World: Some Splitting as Antidote to Overzealous Lumping
, 89
Minn. L.Rev.
471, 471–97 (2004); James S. Liebman & Charles F. Sabel,
 A Public Laboratory Dewey Barely Imagined: The Emerging Model of School Governance and Legal Reform
, 28
N.Y.U.Rev. L. & Soc. Change
183, 183–304 (2003); Orly Lobel,
The Renew Deal: The Fall of  Regulation and the Rise of Governance in Contemporary Legal Thought 
, 89
Minn. L. Rev.
 342, 342–470 (2004); Charles F. Sabel & William H. Simon,
 Destabilization Rights: HowPublic Law Litigation Succeeds
, 117
Harv. L. Rev.
1016,
 
1016–1101 (2004); Joanne Scott &Susan P. Sturm,
Courts as Catalysts: Re-Thinking the Judicial Role in New Governance
, 13
Colum. J. Eur. L.
565, 565–94 (2007); William H. Simon,
Solving Problems vs. Claiming Rights: The Pragmatist Challenge to Legal Liberalism
, 46
Wm. & Mary L. Rev.
127, 127–212 (2004); Susan Sturm,
Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Ap- proach
, 101
Colum. L. Rev.
458, 458–568 (2001).

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->