kb KELLY-JO BLUEN Project Leader, International Justice, Institute for Justice and Reconciliation The inclusions and omissions of narratives of rape as a weapon of war Bluen’s presentation focused on the ways in which sexual violence is discussed in conflict, and noted that the notion of ‘rape as weapon of war’ has become the dominant way of discussing sexual and gender-based violence in conflict. She drew on academic literature, media and policy representations, as well as the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation’s work on gender, to look at some of the inclusions, exclusions, and narratives involved in this framing. For Bluen, on one hand, there is a power behind this narrative. For much of history, traditional notions of acts, crimes or ‘weapons’ of war did not include sexual and gender-based violence, which were omitted from broader considerations of accountability. The impact of its inclusion is evident in such developments as the ICC’s work, the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence initiative and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda resolutions. One of the significant impacts of this is that sexual and gender-based violence cannot be easily excluded from crimes to consider in conflict, and from investigations and accountability, a feature further cemented by the ICC OTP’s Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-based Crimes. Bluen, however, argued that it is important to consider where the narrative comes from and the roles it plays, and whose stories or experiences of violence are told and considered relevant. Bluen raised four concerns about the narrative of rape as a weapon of war: 1. The idea that sexual violence needs to be strategic to make it relevant Bluen argued that the requirement that sexual and gender-based violence be committed as part of a widespread attack, or in pursuit of strategic conflict-related goals, for it to be considered in most international criminal law spaces means that many victims and survivors are excluded. In light of the ways in which this narrative has gained traction, it risks suggesting that those who experience sexual violence outside of these frames are not seen as ‘real victims’, despite the fact that sexual and gender-based violence happens in many different ways and contexts. There is some complexity, since most recent jurisprudence notes that sexual and gender-based violence does not need to be widespread to be considered; however, linking sexual violence to broader strategy means that many cases are omitted. There is no evidence to suggest that an experience of sexual violence in the context of a strategic instance of mass violence is different from an experience outside this context. In this regard, current frameworks risk marginalising many survivors and victims. 2. The binaries between victims and perpetrators Bluen noted that sexual and gender-based violence is a global phenomenon, as part of patriarchy. In this regard, the distinctions between victims and perpetrators that international criminal law prefers mean that those who experience sexual and gender-based violence from the ‘perpetrator’ or ‘enemy’ side are often excluded from justice. Bluen drew on the work of Mibenge (2008) and Buss (2009) to look at how Hutu women who were victims and survivors of sexual violence were not considered ‘real victims’ in the Rwandan genocide. For Bluen, the experiences of sexual violence are diverse; so, there is no one way to be a victim or a perpetrator. Consequently, it is important to consider how to pursue accountability without using essentialised, gendered, radicalised identities when talking about sexual violence. 3. Gender-based violence extends beyond sexual violence The multiplicity of ways in which women and individuals of marginalised gender identities experience conflict is vastly different. Therefore, gender- based violence should not be reduced to sexual violence. The problem is that patriarchy manifests in many ways – as a globalised, white, hetero-sexist, trans-antagonist patriarchy. This means that there is a risk of creating these figurative tropes that are advocacy- and donorfriendly, which is are generally an agency-less PANEL 4: The relationships between narratives around sexual and gender-based violence and accountability processes /17