نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• آناهیتا سیفی ¹
• فرنگیس منصوری ²

¹ استادیار حقوق بین‌الملل، گروه مطالعات زنان، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

² استادیار گروه حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مطالعات زیادی در خصوص آسیب‌پذیری زنان در درگیری و خشونت انجام شده اما بحث نسبتاً کمتری در مورد تجربیات زنان به‌عنوان متهم و مجرم در مخاصمات در دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی دیده می‌شود. این مقاله با نگاهی به پرونده برخی متهمان زن در دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی، به بررسی میزان شکل‌گیری گفتمان‌های حقوقی در قالب کلیشه‌های زنانگی، درگیری و خشونت جمعی می‌پردازد. این پژوهش با رویکرد تحلیل محتوا  درصدد پاسخگویی به پرسش‌های مطرح شده می باشد. پرسش این است آیا زنان کمتر از مردان توانایی ارتکاب خشونت و جنایات دسته جمعی را دارند؟ کلیشه‌های جنسیتی چه تاثیری بر پرونده مطروحه متهمان زن در دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی دارد؟ در این راستا بررسی روایت‌های جنسیتی همچون مادر، همسر، هیولا و ... که در رابطه با متهمان زن در دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد، نشان می‌دهد این روایت‌ها ناسازگاری زنانگی با خشونت را برجسته و عاملیت زنان را در زمینه‌های سیاسی و نظامی و ارتکاب خشونت رد می‌کند. بر این اساس پرونده متهمان زن در دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی با نگاه جنسیتی بررسی و این امر تحقق عدالت کیفری را در ارتباط با متهمان زن و قربانیان آنها می‌تواند با مشکل مواجه می‌کند..

کلیدواژه‌ها

• متهمان زن
• کلیشه‌های جنسیتی
• روایت‌های جنسیتی
• عدالت کیفری
• دادگاه‌های کیفری بین‌المللی

موضوعات

• حقوق بین الملل

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Gender Perspective in the Cases of Female Defendants in International Criminal Courts

نویسندگان [English]

• Anahita Seifi ¹
• Farangis Mansori ²

¹ Assistant Professor, International Law, Women's Studies Department, Allameh Tabatabae’i University, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Department of Law and Social Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction

Traditionally, collective conflict and violence are perceived as the domain of men. Women are often perceived as naturally calm due to their roles as mothers and wives, and are believed to be physically and psychologically less capable of committing acts of violence. Actually, they are viewed as more vulnerable than men and are typically seen as the primary victims of violence. Moreover, the minority status of women in political and military leadership has reinforced the notion that conflict and collective violence are predominantly male domains. As a result, when a female appears as a defendant before the International Criminal Court, she is perceived as an anomaly due to her gender. Gender narratives are used to align the defendant’s behavior with traditional gender norms, portraying the defendant as either female and therefore non-violent, violent and therefore not truly female, or influenced by a violent man. In doing so, these narratives reinforce existing gender stereotypes and suggest that femininity is inherently incompatible with violence. However, contrary to these stereotypes, recent years have seen a more nuanced understanding of the roles women play in conflict and instability. Women have participated in wars, terrorist acts, and other forms of collective violence—as perpetrators of killings and as accomplices to murder. They served as soldiers and trained militia members in conflicts in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, including membership in terrorist groups such as ISIS. They have been involved in committing murders and other crimes. One of the most unexpected roles of female perpetrators is their participation in war-related sexual violence. During the Rwandan genocide, the conflict in Sierra Leone, at Abu Ghraib prison, and in the wars in the former Yugoslavia, women were actively involved in acts of sexual violence. However, the experiences of these women within the criminal justice system, as well as the influence of gender stereotypes on legal proceedings, have not been adequately studied. Yet it is essential to recognize and examine these stereotypes, given their harmful effects. One of the most damaging consequences of gender stereotypes is that they contribute to discrimination between the sexes in the judicial process. The present research tried to address the following questions: Are women less capable of committing collective violence and crimes than men? How do gender stereotypes influence the treatment of female defendants in international criminal courts? To explore these issues, the study examined gender narratives—such as the mother, the wife, the pacifist, and the monster—as they relate to female defendants in international criminal courts.

Literature Review

The experiences of women within the criminal justice system, as well as the impact of gender stereotypes on legal proceedings, have received limited scholarly attention. Moreover, few studies have conducted in-depth analyses of cases involving female defendants in international criminal courts. Yet the literature provides some relevant studies. For instance, in her research titled “Women Accused of International Crimes: A Trans-Disciplinary Inquiry and Methodology”, Linton (2016) criticized the predominant portrayal of women as victims of international crimes. She argues that this perspective reinforces harmful stereotypes of women as weak, non-autonomous, pacifist, and victimized. Such a view is problematic, especially considering that since the end of World War II, thousands of women have actively participated in serious crimes such as mass murder, torture, sexual violence, and inhumane treatment. Labenski’s Ph.D. thesis titled Female Defendants in International Criminal Law and Beyond (2017) analyzed the legal and cultural contexts surrounding several female defendants in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Her work explores the nature of women’s violence in armed conflict beyond traditional gendered meanings. Labenski also challenges assumptions and stereotypes related to racial victimization and sexual vulnerability as they pertain to gender in the context of armed conflict. In “Gender Justice or Gendered Justice? Female Defendants in International Criminal Tribunals,” Hodgson (2017) examined several cases involving female defendants. She concludes that these cases are often interpreted through the lens of gendered assumptions and stereotypes. This form of gendered justice is problematic, as it reinforces patriarchal stereotypes and may undermine broader efforts to achieve gender justice.

Materials and Methods

This research used a descriptive–analytical method, drawing on the analysis of expert opinions, international documents, and a variety of sources. The data was collected through library research, including the work of legal research centers, books, articles, academic theses, and authentic websites.

Results and Discussion

Females also commit crimes and participate in acts of violence. However, this does not mean that women engage in violent acts during armed conflict more frequently than men, or even to the same extent. Rather, while women do commit international crimes, many of these offenses may be overlooked due to the prevailing perception of women primarily as victims of violence and armed conflict. In addition, there is a clear gendered perception and portrayal of female defendants and criminals as insane, abnormal, or devoid of agency. In Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics, Sjoberg and Gentry (2007) analyzed the portrayal of female defendants and criminals through three dominant narratives: the mother, the monster, and the whore. The mother narrative frames women’s violence as stemming from a desire for belonging, a need to nurture, or an expression of care and loyalty to men. The monster narrative strips female offenders of rational behavior or ideological motivation, portraying them as mentally unstable and denying their femininity or even their humanity. Finally, the whore narrative views violence, in its most extreme or vulnerable forms of female sexuality, as stemming from women’s sexual evils.
In a similar fashion, Hodgson (2017) identified three narratives: mother narratives, monster narratives, and wife narratives. Concerning the wife narrative, “A defendant’s actions were viewed in the context of her relationship with her husband or partner, with these relationships being used to explain or justify why the defendant had become involved in the conflict or mass violence” (Hodgson, 2017, p. 349). Because it portrays women as being controlled by men, the wife narrative shares similarities with the whore narrative. However, unlike the whore narrative—which emphasizes the defendant’s sexuality and behavior—the wife narrative places greater emphasis on how the defendant’s romantic relationships have shaped her choices (Hodgson, 2017). These narratives and stereotypes are evident in the cases of several accused women in international criminal courts and hybrid courts.
In reviewing the cases of female defendants, courts are often influenced by stereotypes and tend to overlook the actual crimes committed by these women. Victims of female perpetrators are further harmed when society and the justice system fail to acknowledge such acts as expressions of agency. This perspective is partly influenced by the reduction of accountability and penalties for female perpetrators in international crimes, and it also reinforces the persistence of strict and violent behavior of women. As a result, the justice system fails both the female defendants and their victims. Overall, stereotypes negatively affect both men and women, though their impact on women is more severe, as these narratives often depict them as weak or inferior. Moreover, such stereotypes undermine women’s recognition as full holders of human rights.

Conclusion

Studies show that these narratives emphasize the perceived incompatibility of femininity with violence, denying women’s agency in political and military roles as well as in acts of violence. Furthermore, the way accused women present themselves during trials, along with the court’s statements, reveals deeply rooted gender stereotypes within international criminal justice systems. In particular, these gender stereotypes strongly associate women with motherly and peace-loving identities, which diminishes their agency and inevitably influences the orders issued by the courts. The criminal courts’ excessive focus on women primarily as victims of violence reflects a specific view of femininity shaped by gender stereotypes. Regardless of these stereotypes, courts should avoid assuming that women are solely helpless victims during conflicts by recognizing their roles as active participants. Women are equally capable of committing violence and must be held accountable accordingly. With the increasing involvement of women in conflicts and mass violence, it is crucial to treat female defendants in international criminal justice systems as individuals—beyond a gendered perspective. This approach is essential to realize criminal justice. To uphold justice effectively, international criminal courts must evaluate cases of alleged international crimes regardless of gender, race, culture, ethnicity, region, or the scale of conflict.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Female Defendants
• Gender Stereotypes
• Gender Narratives
• Criminal Justice
• International Criminal Courts