The (Non-)Prohibition of Rape and Pillage in War: The Hague Conventions (1899, 1907)

Abstract

This article seeks to explain two related theoretical questions by looking at the treatment of two related practices of war, pillage and rape, by international law: How does change, particularly legalized regime change, happen in international relations and what is the role of “gender” as a category in this process of change? The argument here is that three conditions are necessary for the emergence of a legalized prohibition regime: Firstly, states must believe that they can comply with the prohibition because non-compliance is costly. Secondly, a normative context conducive to the idea that the particular practice is abnormal/undesirable is necessary. Thirdly, actors actively propagating these ideas to promote the creation of a particular regime should exist. The 100-year temporal difference between the emergence of the regimes against pillage and rape reveals the role of gender in this process.

Keywords

International Regimes, International Norms, Gender, Laws of War, Legalization

Citation

İnal, Tuba, “The (Non-)Prohibition of Rape and Pillage in War: The Hague Conventions (1899, 1907)”, International Relations, Volume 8, Issue 29 (Spring 2011), pp. 27-47.

Affiliations

• Tuba İnal, Department of Political Science and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program, University of Richmond