Aroussi, Sahla. 2011. “‘Women, Peace and Security’: Addressing Accountability for Wartime Sexual Violence.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 13(4): 576–93.

Article examines the issue of accountability for wartime sexual violence within the UN agenda on women, peace and security. The central argument of this article is that the lack of attention to accountability for sexual violence is symptomatic of larger problems within the UN agenda which is underpinned by a masculinized perception of accountability limited to sanctions and punishment and a narrow focus on sexual violence as a weapon of war. The author argues that unless a holistic approach to justice and accountability and a broader concern with gender-based violence are adopted, the UN’s aim of ending impunity for wartime sexual violence will remain unfulfilled.

Chinkin, Christine. 2019. “Women, Peace, and Security: Tackling Violence Against Women in the Contemporary World?” German Yearbook of International Law 61(1): 185–206.

Talk given by Chinkin on what tackling gendered violence looks like in the contemporary era.
Discusses CEDAW Committee and reparations. – “CEDAW Committee draws no hard distinction between conflict and post-conflict, observing that this transition is often not linear and can involve lengthy cycles of cessation of conflict and then slippage back into conflict, a transition that can exacerbate violence against women. In this Recommendation and its more recent General Recommendation No. 3522 the CEDAW Committee clearly implicates both State and non-State actors and, in line with general international law, sets out clearly the responsibility of States for the acts or omissions of both. States are responsible for preventing and punishing acts or omissions that constitute gender-based violence against women by their own organs and agents, and those acting on their behalf whose acts are attributable to the State, and paying reparations. States are also responsible for the acts of non-State actors through failure to exercise due diligence to prevent, protect against, investigate, prosecute, and punish offenders and pay reparations to victims of gender-based violence. The Committee recommends that reparation measures seek to rectify structural inequalities whereas the Security Council focuses on reparation for violations of individual rights, an approach that undermines the transformative potential of reparations”.  (Chinkin 2019: 198).

Painter, Genevieve Renard. 2012. “THINKING PAST RIGHTS: TOWARDS FEMINIST THEORIES OF REPARATIONS.” Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 30(1): 1–38.

This article explores the concept of reparations, highlighting its implications for the relationship between individuals and society, the nature of political community, justice, and the role of rights in driving social change. It notes that while international law predominantly views reparations through the lens of individual rights, this perspective often conflicts with the views held by many women activists.

The author proposes a theoretical framework for understanding justice and reparations that bridges the gap between the international normative approach and activist discourses. Drawing on distributive, communitarian, and critical theories of justice, the author posits that reparations can be understood as rights, symbols, or processes. However, from an activist and feminist standpoint, the interpretations of reparations as rights or symbols present significant challenges. The author argues that reparations programs should be shaped by the specific political, social, economic, and cultural contexts rather than following a one-size-fits-all blueprint for a “feminist reparations program.” Ultimately, the most robust feminist approach to reparations would view them as a process, allowing for adaptability and responsiveness to the needs of the affected communities.