19 June is the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict. Sexual violence is one of the deadliest types of violence in conflict, and one of the most silenced and least condemned.

Over twenty years ago, UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security expressed concerns that war fuels sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), where “women and children… are increasingly targeted by combatants and armed elements.” The landmark resolution 1325 recognised that impunity for this type of violence against civilians, which may also include men, undermines the prospects for durable peace and reconciliation.  We have seen an escalation in the use of SGBV to target and terrorise populations in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Burma, Sudan, and Ukraine, among others.

Established in 2015 by a declaration of states, the International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict honours victims-survivors and reaffirms states, non-state armed groups, militaries, police, communities, and humanitarian organisation shared responsibility to prevent and end SGBV in armed conflict. This commitment is vital for gender-inclusive peace, sustainable peace, and survivor-centred justice.  Yet we know from the growing body of research on conflict-related sexual violence that a restorative justice process for SGBV crimes is rare, as is compensation paid to survivors or families of victims who experience SGBV.  Those who perpetrate these crimes know the odds are in their favour to operate with impunity. Terror groups such as the Taliban, Boko Haram, and Da’esh/ Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) understand the power of gender politics, and they use gender politics to target populations, wage campaigns of fear as part of their governance, and incite retaliation that will further escalate violence.  SGBV is an early warning for conflict escalation, it enables the drivers of conflict and may continue after war to shape the trajectory of peace.

In 2008, UNSCR 1820 affirmed that “effective steps to prevent and respond to such acts of SGBV violence can significantly contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.” An annual report on conflict-related sexual violence in the Security Council was established together with a dedicated office under the UN Secretariat to ensure data collection on SGBV in all conflict situations. Each year the Council hears reports on these situations and reviews the list of alleged perpetrators. Identifying situations at risk in annual reports is political and many situations are not included. Since 2012, there have been over 30 conflict situations and over five “other” situations listed in these reports. In 2022, there were 13 listed conflict situations and two “other” situations where sexual violence was documented. The 2022 report listed 49 parties as perpetrators, including states and non-state actors.

Reviewing these reports over 15 years regrettably reveals that many situations first reported in 2012 continue to experience conflict-related SGBV today: Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar/Burma, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria. In stating this, we do not seek to dismiss the local or international effort that has been made to address the injustice and consequences of these crimes. However, after a decade of reporting there is a need to consider what works to prevent and eliminate conflict-related SGBV. Is it pledges from combatant groups to not rape? Is it more legislation, more prosecutions, more truth and reconciliation processes, more training of troops, more peacekeepers, and more gender inclusion? Or do all of these need to be in operation at the same time?

If we examine the situations that have been reported as escalating in 2022 and 2023, we can see one pattern in operation across all. In Afghanistan, the creation of a gender apartheid system that institutionalises gender oppression is synonymous with impunity. In the DRC, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, and Ethiopia – brutal civil conflicts are fuelling the targeting of populations on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and religious identity to subjugate rival communities and humiliate opposition groups. In Nigeria and Iraq, terrorist groups capture territories where local gender, ethnicity, and religious practices were already separated from the central government. Terror groups identify the social cleavage and wedge themselves in to eliminate a population by targeting women and girls for sexual abuse and slavery (Da’esh in Iraq) or by brutalising populations under a new social order where future generations are born to be fighters (i.e. Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria). In Ukraine, the deliberate use of sexual violence was documented against populations on the basis of gender with the intention to subjugate, conquest and humiliate.

Gender and racial discrimination provided the normative underpinnings for these crimes.

Decades of research and advocacy have gone into building knowledge to illustrate the spread of these crimes over time and across regions. Where there is a war or conflict, there is a risk that at least one segment of the population will experience this violence. The gender and racial norms that permit, legitimate and incentivise this violence are the consistent structural conditions always present. These conditions are what we need to address and eliminate.

This task may seem overwhelming and politically risky. There are few countries that can claim no need to take active steps to eliminate gender and racial discrimination in the judiciary, military, finance, parliament, civil service, education, and healthcare. Many countries (and some researchers) would reject that steps to eradicate discrimination are measures that would reduce the risk of conflict-related SGBV. We ask in response: Why would we not want to eliminate such discriminatory practices in the first place?

The Australian government has identified reducing SGBV as one of its four priority outcomes in the second National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, 2021-2031. The government has committed to a survivor-centred approach that increases access to justice and provides services to survivors. What does this mean for Australian diplomacy in current situations such as Afghanistan and Myanmar? What does it mean for Australia nationally?

A win-win approach to the elimination of conflict-related SGBV would be for the Australian government to address practical and racial barriers to services, justice, and recovery identified by survivors of conflict-related SGBV who have settled in Australia. We encourage the Australian government to consider the importance of a truth-telling process for historical allegations of SGBV committed against First Nations peoples by state institutions. Internationally, the government should support the UN Secretariat to implement the recommendations included in conflict-related SGBV annual reports, such as ensuring no training or weapons are provided to armed groups, state or non-state, connected to any listed perpetrators in the annual report;  supporting the survivor-centred reporting and investigative processes to assist with the documentation of evidence to support future trials for SGBV crimes; and investing in ceasefire or peace agreements that reference justice and reparations for conflict-related SGBV, and gender-responsive recovery.

In the current regional and global context of escalating violence and instability, the elimination of SGBV in conflict is at risk of failing. There is a need to prioritise and galvanise collective state action and support.

Dr Sara Davies is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow and Professor at the Centre for Governance and Public Policy, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, Australia. Sara is a former co-editor of the Australian Journal of International Affairs (AJIA), and she is committed to upholding the proud tradition of the AJIA as a forum for the highest quality of debate about Australia’s role in the world.

Jacqui True FASSA FAIIA is Professor of International Relations and Director of Monash University’s Centre for Gender, Peace and Security. She is also a Global Fellow, Peace Research Institute (PRIO), Oslo and received her PhD from York University, Toronto, Canada, and an honorary doctorate from Lund University Sweden in 2018. Jacqui is a Fellow of the AIIA.

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.