Feminists Refuse to Define Their “Gender Agenda” for the International Criminal Court

By Austin Ruse | June 26, 1998

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) As the second week of hard bargaining comes to a close in Rome, the “gender agenda” being advanced by the feminist Women’s Caucus is one of the key issues confronting the delegates meeting here to negotiate an International Criminal Court (ICC). Throughout the week, pressure has mounted for explicit definition of key feminist catch phrases like “enforced pregnancy” and “gender persecution.”

Delegates have expressed concern that “enforced pregnancy,” if included in a final ICC treaty document, could make any country’s refusal to provide on-demand access to abortion a crime under international law. Similarly, the term “gender,” which appears in other international documents but has never been defined, could be interpreted as criminalizing any national laws or policies that favor heterosexual marriage over homosexual couplings, on the grounds that homosexuality is a recognized “gender.”

Women’s Caucus spokesmen are resisting all requests for clarification of the meaning of such terms, even though Article 21 of the ICC Draft Statute explicitly endorses the legal principle of nullem crimen lege sine–that no person should be convicted of a crime without explicit and specific definition of the elements of that crime. Moreover, the US, along with numerous other countries, has passionately argued in favor of precise definition of every crime to be included in the final ICC Statute.

In previous international discussions, Women’s Caucus representatives have consistently maintained that “enforced pregnancy” and the synonymous term “forced pregnancy” refer, in part, to a denial of access to abortion. However, at a Women’s Caucus press conference on Thursday, feminist lobbyists refused to admit that they believe that “enforced pregnancy” would inevitably carry the same meaning into the ICC Statute.

Asked directly by a reporter if “enforced pregnancy” or any other language in the ICC document will serve to criminalize the denial of access to abortion, the feminists obfuscated vigorously. One Women’s Caucus member insisted that there was “not a common position” among feminist groups on the issue. Later, City University of New York law professor Rhonda Copelon declared that the Women’s Caucus would not comment publicly about abortion-related questions because the issue had been “intruded” into the ICC negotiations “in a way that was unfair to the Women’s Caucus.” Added Copelon, “Our silence is an effort to make a resolution to the problem.”

But there are clear signs that this feminist silence is proving unpersuasive to delegates. The Thursday edition of the conference newsletter Terra Viva, an NGO publication that is highly sympathetic to Women’s Caucus arguments, carried a story acknowledging the widespread resistance to the “enforced pregnancy” phrase. “One African official warned that the enforced pregnancy language is in for a real fight,” Terra Viva reported.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter