Conflict-Related Sexual Violence and the Perils of Impunity

• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Helga Malmin Binningsbø,Ragnhild Nordås
• DOI: 10.1177/00220027221078330
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Journal of Conf‌lict Resolution

2022, Vol. 66(6) 1066–1090

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027221078330

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

Conf‌lict-Related Sexual

Violence and the Perils of

Impunity

Helga Malmin Binningsbø

1

and Ragnhild Nord˚

as

2,3

Abstract

“Ending impunity”is often heralded as the key mechanism for stopping rape in war. Yet,

little systematic evidence or analyses exist of the relationship between impunity (or lack

thereof) and sexual violence. We argue that amnesties signal impunity and permis-

siveness for sexual violence, which can perpetuate and instigate more sexual violence

by rebels. Trials, on the other hand, signal a nonzero probability of punishment, which

could have a deterrent effect. Studying all intrastate armed conf‌licts in the period 1989–

2011, we f‌ind in line with the impunity signal that amnesties are associated with sexual

violence by rebels, but we are not able to demonstrate a deterrent effect of trials.

While the study prevents us from conclusively saying that ending impunity would be an

effective policy tool to stop sexual violence in war, the association between amnesties

and subsequent sexual violence is a testament to the perils of impunity.

Keywords

sexual violence, civil war, impunity, amnesty, trial, justice

Introduction

Conf‌lict-related sexual violence is now widely acknowledged as a global security

problem, and various studies have also found that the use of sexual violence can

1

Peace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, Norway

2

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

3

Peace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Corresponding Author:

Helga Malmin Binningsbø, PRIO, PO Box 9229 Grønland, Hausmanns gate 3, Oslo 0134, Norway.

Email: helmal@prio.org

inf‌luence the trajectory and ending of wars (e.g., Nagel 2019;Chu and Braithwaite

2018). Several high-level meetings and UN Security Council resolutions have ad-

dressed the problem and discussed solutions (i.e., UNSCR 1325, 1820 (2008), 1888

(2009), 1960 (2010), 2106 (2013), 2122 (2013), and 2493 (2019)).

However, the ability of peacekeepers to reduce sexual violence in general is weak

(Johansson and Hultman 2019), and sexual violence is still rampant in many conf‌licts

(Nord˚

as and Nagel 2018). Systematic evidence on what can be done to stop sexual

violence in war is still a priority for scholars working in this area (Nord˚

as and Cohen

2021).

Activism and scholarly attention from legal and feminist studies have strengthened

the perceived moral and legal responsibilities to prosecute sexual violence crimes

(Krause 2015). UN Security Council Resolutions 1960 (2010) and 2106 (2013) have

emphasized ending impunity through justice systems and legal frameworks as the

foremost preventative measure, and the UN Special Representative on sexual violence

has warned against granting amnesty to perpetrators of sexual violence.

1

There seems

to be a near consensus in policy circles, amongst high-level off‌icials and activists, and

in the NGO sector, that ending impunity, meaning the exemption from punishment or

injurious consequences, is the solution “par excellence”to the problem of sexual

violence in war (Houge and Lohne 2017).

2

This notion that ending impunity can solve the problem of wartime sexual violence

has been criticized by scholars as too simplistic, and probably rightfully so.

3

Kirby

(2015), for instance, criticizes the aim of ending impunity as it “fails to fully reckon

with the lack of evidence for strong deterrence effect”(p. 457). Although the f‌ield of

law has had a long interest in the issue of conf‌lict-related sexual violence and several

studies have looked at how sexual violence has been included in international court

cases after war and genocide (Askin 2003;Campbell 2007;Franklin 2008), the wider

impacts of a justice response remain understudied, and the link has not undergone

systematic empirical testing.

Amnesties for wrongdoing can signal that sexual violence is permissive and can be

perpetrated with impunity, and we assume that this can perpetuate and instigate more

sexual violence by rebels. Trials on the other hand should signal that there is not

impunity, and that punishment is plausible, incurring additional costs on sexual vi-

olence. This could produce a deterrent effect, and the size of this effect should be

affected by the scope and volume of trials.

To address the links between impunity and violence, we conduct a systematic

analysis of all internal armed conf‌licts in the period 1989–2011 and ask how granting of

amnesties and justice processes (trials) during conf‌lict could affect subsequent per-

petration of sexual violence by rebels. We f‌ind that, in accordance with our expec-

tations, sexual violence is more likely in the wake of amnesties, which we present as the

peril of impunity.

4

Amnesties of all kinds are associated with more sexual violence, but

amnesties that are unlimited and unconditional are particularly problematic. This

f‌inding has serious implications for the presumed trade-off between using amnesties as

an instrument for ending conf‌licts, and the security of civilians in war zones. Trials do

Binningsbø and Nord˚

as 1067