![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Post-conflict interventions to ‘deal with’ violent pasts have moved from exception to global norm. Early efforts to achieve peace and justice were critiqued as ‘gender-blind’—for failing to address sexual and gender-based violence, and neglecting the gender-specific interests and needs of women in transitional settings. The advent of UN Security Council resolutions on ‘Women, Peace and Security’ provided a key policy framework for integrating both women and gender issues into transitional justice processes and mechanisms. Despite this, gender justice and equality in (post-)conflict settings remain largely unachieved. This article explores efforts to attain gender-just peace in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). It critically examines the significance of a recent ‘bottom-up’ truth-telling project—the Women’s Court for the former Yugoslavia—as a locally engaged approach to achieving justice and redress for women impacted by armed conflict. Drawing on participant observation, documentary analysis, and interviews with women activists, the article evaluates the successes and shortcomings of responding to gendered forms of wartime violence through truth-telling. Extending Nancy Fraser’s tripartite model of justice to peacebuilding contexts, the article advances notions of recognition, redistribution and representation as crucial components of gender-just peace. It argues that recognizing women as victims and survivors of conflict, achieving a gender-equitable distribution of material and symbolic resources, and enabling women to participate as agents of transitional justice processes are all essential for transforming the structural inequalities that enable gender violence and discrimination to materialize before, during, and after conflict.
Acknowledgements
I thank Catherine Baker, Jelena Obradovic-Wochnik, Gorana Mlinarević and Kirsten Campbell for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. I also thank Elma Demir and Jasenka Ferizović for ongoing discussions on gender justice initiatives in BiH, and Una Tokmačić for interpretation and research assistance.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Maria O’Reilly is a Post-Doctoral Researcher in Sociology at Goldsmiths, University of London, currently researching the gendered impact of DDR policies in post-conflict Bosnia & Herzegovina, and women combatants’ experiences of reintegration. She has also researched gender and transitional justice issues, and her book, Gendered Agency in War and Peace: Gender Justice and Women’s Activism in Post-Conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina is forthcoming. ([email protected])
Notes
1. Seven subsequent WPS resolutions were adopted by UN Security Council: 1820, 1888, 1889, 1960, 2106, 2122 and 2242.
2. I deploy the term SGBV to denote ‘gendered and sexualised forms of harm experienced by women and men in armed conflict’, while recognizing that ‘women experience wartime violence in ways particular to them as women’ (Buss Citation2011, 413). These modes of violence—including rape, forced enlistment and sex-selective massacres—(re)produce gender roles, identities and hierarchies of power (see Carpenter Citation2006).
3. Whilst international criminal tribunals increasingly prosecute SGBV, they are criticized for excluding or undermining women's experiences of violence (Ní Aoláin and O’Rourke Citation2010; Buckley-Zistel and Stanley Citation2012), through limited interpretations of harm and problematic practices of cross-examination (Campbell Citation2007; Mertus Citation2004).
4. Examples include establishing women's hearings, dedicated gender units, gender quotas for commissioners and staff, and specialized witness protection and support; building partnerships with local and international women's organizations; and constructing ‘gender-responsive’ mandates that are inclusive of women and sensitive to gender-based violence (Theidon 2007, 457; Valji Citation2010, 9–13).
5. Women's organizations have organized dozens of women's courts and tribunals across the world, with themes ranging from sexual violence, to human trafficking, and the rights of indigenous women. Key examples include the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery (Tokyo, 2000) and the Global Tribunal on Violations of Women's Human Rights (Vienna, 1993).
6. I thank Kirsten Campbell for drawing this to my attention.
7. The arguments presented in this article derive from a detailed investigation into the modes of gendered agency in post-war peacebuilding processes (see O’Reilly forthcoming).
8. This paper is a part of a broader research project on gender and transitional justice in BiH for which my interview sample included over 100 activists in BiH and one in Serbia, around 15 of whom have at some point been associated with the Women's Court initiative. Data collection was conducted in April–November 2011, March–June 2012, May, June and September 2014, and in April, May, July, September and October 2015, narrative interviews lasting between 30 minutes and three hours. All participants were interviewed face-to-face, and the majority of interviews were conducted in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian languages with the aid of an interpreter. I also participated as an observer at the Women's Court event (May 2015), and associated conference (June 2014) and workshop (November 2011), all held in Sarajevo during my fieldwork. Interviewees were asked whether they would like the information they shared to be fully attributed to them or partially/fully anonymous. I respect their choices regarding anonymity/attribution. However, in some instances, I have omitted names and places in order to provide anonymity to women and organizations whose statements might be interpreted negatively given the political instability that continues to exist in BiH.
9. E.g. at the time of writing, discussions are ongoing regarding the publication of a book of testimonies, production of documentary film and organization of ongoing support to witnesses.
10. E.g. McKay (Citation2000, 561) regards gender justice as ensuring that post-war peacebuilding and TJ processes ‘are equitable, not privileged by and for men, and … acknowledge the ways in which women uniquely experience harm’. Spees (Citation2004, 9) defines it as ‘the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic and social rights on the basis of gender equality’.
11. Due to space constraints, this section cannot capture the expanding literature on understanding SGBV in conflict. For an overview, please see e.g. Baaz and Stern (Citation2009).
12. For an overview of debates regarding the causes of Yugoslavia's dissolution, see Cohen and Dragović-Soso (Citation2008). On the war in Bosnia, see Woodward (Citation1995).
13. See in particular Rules 34(A), 69, 75 and 96 of the ICTY's Rules of Procedure and Evidence, available at http://www.icty.org/
14. At the ICTY, 78 individuals (48 per cent of the 161 total accused persons) have had acts of sexual violence included in ICTY indictments as of mid-2013. Of these, 30 were convicted. The WCC had tried 71 individuals and convicted 33 by 2013. Criminal proceedings before the courts of the Federation, RS and Brčko District has resulted in 45 defendants and 34 convictions by 2014. ICTY, Infographics: ICTY Facts & Figures, available at http://www.icty.org/sid/10586 (last accessed 30 May 2016); OSCE (Citation2014, Citation2015).
15. This view was expressed at the Track Impunity Always (TRIAL) and ICTY public roundtable I attended on 17 May 2012, through presentations made by representatives of local Prosecutor's Offices.
16. This view was expressed by many interviewees I spoke to throughout my fieldwork.
17. For example, the international advocacy NGO TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) has helped survivors obtain justice for crimes of sexual violence through strategic litigation before domestic authorities and international human rights bodies. See https://trialinternational.org/countries-post/bosnia-herzegovina/ (accessed 19 April 2016).
18. Women in Black, presentation at Women's Court workshop held in Sarajevo, November 2011.
19. Staša Zajović, Women in Black, Personal interview, Belgrade, 8 May 2012.
20. The World Court of Women against War, and for Peace, held in Cape Town in 2001, was particularly significant because it featured several women from the former Yugoslavia. Bosnian activist Memnuna Zvizdić (Women to Women, Sarajevo), was a member of the International Coordination Committee. Žarana Papić, a prominent feminist and member of Women in Black Belgrade (WiB), was one of five speakers on the Opening Panel. Two women from Prijedor, BiH, testified at the event: Nusreta Sivac spoke of surviving wartime rape; Mejra Dautović testified about losing two children and being displaced from her hometown (Kumar Citation2001). Their testimonies featured in promotional films for the 2015 Women's Court. Mejra Dautović, Personal interview, Bihać, 24 April 2012.
21. The event was organized by a Regional Steering Board, featuring activists from the organizations: Mothers of Srebrenica and Žepa enclaves and Foundation CURE (BiH); Centre for Women Studies and ROSA—Centre for Women War Victims (Croatia); Kosovo Women's Network; National Council for Gender Equality (Macedonia); Anima (Montenegro); Women's Lobby Slovenia; and Women's Studies (University of Belgrade) and Women in Black (both from Serbia). More information is available at http://www.zenskisud.org.
22. Confidential Source, Personal interview, BiH, April 2015.
23. The organizations involved in establishing and implementing the initiative and their degrees of involvement changed over time. Hence it proved difficult to gain accurate information regarding the organization process. I acknowledge that this synopsis is therefore a simplified version.
24. Official website of the Women's Court for the Former Yugoslavia, ‘Methodology of Work’, http://www.zenskisud.org/en/Metodologija.html (accessed 2 April 2015).
25. These are: Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić, Serbia; Charlotte Bunch, USA; Gorana Mlinarević, BiH; Latinka Perovic, Serbia; Kirsten Campbell, UK; Dianne Otto, Australia; and Vesna Teršelič, Croatia.
26. Notably, all testimonies presented at the Women's Court for the Former Yugoslavia were first-person testimonies. First-person, advocate and/or joint testimonies have all been used in other Women's Tribunals, as Reilly and Posluszny (Citation2005) point out.
27. These are: Rada Iveković, Vjolca Krasniqi, Renata Jambrešić Kirin, Miroslava Malešević, Snježana Milivojević (Panels 1 and 4); Marijana Senjak i Gabi Mischkowski (Panel 2); Staša Zajović, Snežana Obrenović and Bojan Aleksov (Panel 3); Tanja Đurić Kuzmanović i Senka Rastoder (Panel 5).
28. This is a key aspect of Women's Court methodology. See official website of the Women's Court for the Former Yugoslavia, ‘Methodology of Work’, http://www.zenskisud.org/en/Metodologija.html (accessed 2 April 2015).
29. Merry (1995, 40) identifies four main cultural traditions of popular justice that have emerged in the twentieth century: reformist, socialist, communitarian and anarchic.
30. These are some of the key characteristics of the socialist ‘self-management courts’ created by the 1974 Constitution of SFRY, as outlined by Hayden (Citation1990). None of my respondents highlighted the ‘self-management courts’ as inspiration for the recent initiative. The Court's continuity with the socialist model of popular justice is striking but appears largely unintended.
31. I should clarify that criminal trials are also viewed as important sources of recognition by survivors of SGBV in BiH, as highlighted by many interviewees. The Women's Court should be viewed as a complementary rather than strictly alternative model of justice for BiH.
32. It is important however to point out that women's wartime activism demanding prosecution of sexual violence was crucial to the establishment of the ICTY (see e.g. Mertus Citation2008).
33. In addition, another witness testified to her experience of sexual violence during Panel 4 (‘ethnic violence’).
34. Testimonies from other post-Yugoslav countries recounted other direct harms incurred by women including, for example, the experience of being ‘erased’ (e.g. stripped of citizenship/legal status) following Slovenia's declaration of independence in 1991 (Slovenia); and violent and discriminatory processes of post-war privatization (Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia).
35. I refer here to all four testimonies on Panel 2 (‘women's bodies—a battlefield’) and one testimony from Panel 4 (‘ethnic violence’).
36. This point was mentioned by other audience members at the event.
37. The sole exception was the testimony of one woman from Croatia who was raped by a paramilitary group, and was targeted on the basis of her identity as a member of the Serb minority. However she was included in Panel 4 rather than 2.
38. Importantly, women's courage and agency in testifying and engaging in struggles for justice was highlighted by the expert statements and the preliminary decision and recommendations delivered by the Judicial Council.
39. Notably, witnesses from BiH suggested before the event that the range of BiH witnesses should be expanded to include women from other regions and towns which do not receive the same degree of public attention as Srebrenica and Podrinja Valley.
Kadefa Rizvanović, Vice-President of Women of Podrinja Association, Personal interview, Ilidža, October 2015.
40. In this regard I diverge from Clark's (Citation2016) view that the Women's Court successfully delivered justice as recognition.
41. These are the key measures of reparations outlined in the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (UN Citation2005).
42. Human Rights Council, A/HRC/11/6/Add.3 (2013), paragraph 94.
43. Lejla Mamut, Human Rights Coordinator, TRIAL, Personal interview, Sarajevo, 13 April 2011.
44. This point was raised during the consultation meeting I attended in Prijedor (RS).
45. This deadline excluded for example those living outside BiH, those without necessary documentation, those who were unaware of the law's existence and those whose health problems prevented them from making claims.
46. Dragiša Andrić, Višegrad Camp Detainees Association, Personal interview, Višegrad, 2 May 2012.
47. Alisa Muratčauš, Association of Concentration Camp Survivors, Canton Sarajevo, Personal interview, Sarajevo, 21 October 2011.
48. This point was raised during a BiH Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees consultation meeting.
49. For examples of possible transformative measures, please see Porobić Isaković et al. (2016), outlining a concept and framework for the development of a gender-sensitive reparations programme for civilian war victims in BiH.
50. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, May 2015. Notably, the RS government refused to receive visits from these organizations.
51. In 2012 I attended several consultative meetings organized by the BiH Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees on the Draft Programme across BiH.
52. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, April 2015.
53. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, April 2015.
54. In contrast, work with survivors was undertaken on a longer-term basis in other countries (e.g. Serbia and Croatia).
55. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, April 2015. The devastating floods that hit BiH in May 2014 also impeded this preparatory work, with some survivors having to focus on immediate existential needs.
56. McLeod (2015, 107) notes that the belief that the Serbian state and society should accept responsibility for war crimes committed during the 1990s conflicts is an ‘integral value’ of WiB activists.
57. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, May 2015.
58. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, May 2015.
59. Confidential source, Personal interview, BiH, April 2015.
60. In April 2015, politicians in the RS National Assembly discussed and adopted findings and recommendations of a study on the position of Serb women, victims of wartime crime of sexual violence in BiH provided by the RS Gender Center.
61. Although survivors of sexual violence from BiH participated in the preparatory process, not all chose to publicly testify at the May event. Suvada Selimović and Šaha Hrustić, Association Anima 2005, Personal interview, Đulići, October 2015.
62. Benderly (1997, 65) highlights that during the war a ‘numbers game’ was played—between the European Community, human rights groups, the United Nations, as well as governments in the region—regarding the magnitude and character of wartime rape.
63. This was pointed out at the consultation meetings I attended on the topic of wartime rape and sexual violence organized by BiH Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees in 2012.