An Avenue to Justice for Afghan Women

Click to expand Image

This article was co-authored by Fereshta Abbasi, Natasha Arnpriester, and Duru Yavan

Bringing a CEDAW Case Before the International Court of Justice[1]

In a tumultuous Afghanistan, the plight of women and girls has reached a critical juncture. The resurgence of the Taliban in power has not only reversed decades of progress on women’s rights in the country, but has also plunged Afghan women into yet another dark era of severe oppression and erasure.

The Taliban, as de facto authorities, are freely violating the international human rights treaties that Afghanistan has ratified, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW or the Convention). A chilling regime of systematic gender-based discrimination and violence now prevails. Women and girls are restricted in all facets of life and society, including their rights to freedom of movement, expression, and peaceful assembly, in addition to their rights to employment, political participation, health care, and education.

Afghanistan stands alone as the only state in the world that bars girls from secondary and higher education. Women throughout Afghanistan describe their situation as isolation and suffocation, drawing comparisons to ‘living in prison-like conditions’.[2] United Nations mandate holders have concluded that ‘nowhere else in the world has there been an attack as widespread, systematic and all-encompassing on the rights of women and girls as in Afghanistan’.[3]

The international community has repeatedly condemned the Taliban’s systematic persecution of women and girls. While domestic legal options are currently unavailable, no international legal avenues have been pursued to ensure that women’s and girls’ rights are restored. An untried, overlooked but promising avenue exists. The International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) offers a potential platform where the voices of Afghan women could echo, demanding justice and accountability.

Under CEDAW, Afghanistan has consented to the ICJ’s jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding its interpretation and application. Consequently, any other state party consenting to ICJ jurisdiction under CEDAW can bring Afghanistan before the Court to challenge its adherence to the Convention. This approach was highlighted in the June 2023 joint report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Afghanistan and the UN Working Group on discrimination against women and girls, which encouraged states to ‘[s]upport international and Afghan civil society justice-seeking efforts for Afghan women and girls for violations of their human rights, including through the […] International Court of Justice’.[4] UN experts have consistently reiterated this stance.[5] While recognising the complexities and challenging nature of such a case, this piece argues that it is not only legally feasible, but also could yield significant and positive impact for women and girls in Afghanistan. The following discussion aims to elucidate this possibility.[6]

Over the years, the ICJ has emerged as an increasingly important forum for adjudicating violations of international human rights conventions. The Court is currently hearing several cases of this nature, including Ukraine v. Russia (concerning the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Genocide Convention); Armenia v. Azerbaijan (regarding ICERD); The Gambia v. Myanmar (concerning the Genocide Convention); Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic (in relation to the Convention Against Torture (CAT)), and South Africa v. Israel (concerning the Genocide Convention). Bringing a case under CEDAW at the ICJ would be a landmark first, marking the Court’s inaugural examination of the world’s foremost women’s rights treaty.[7]

1. The Taliban’s Systemic Violations of Women and Girls’ Rights under CEDAW

Since the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, women and girls in the country have been subjected to severe forms of gender-based discrimination and violence, a situation deemed ‘unparalleled globally’,[8] and identified by UN mandates as potentially constituting gender persecution, a crime against humanity, and possibly ‘gender apartheid’.[9]

The Taliban’s discriminatory policies and practices against women and girls have resulted in a severe erosion of their rights and opportunities. These measures have been implemented through a range of decrees, both written and announced, directly contradicting Afghanistan’s obligations under the CEDAW.[10]

The Taliban have taken a series of measures that have had the effect of banning all girls and women from education beyond the sixth grade. First, through a decree of August 2021, the Taliban authorities banned co-education, and girls were no longer allowed to receive education from male teachers.[11] In September 2021 the Taliban announced the return of male teachers and students to secondary schools, without addressing whether women and girls could return.[12] By March 2022, the Taliban announced that girls from grade seven and up could no longer attend school.[13]

At the university level, women’s access to education was also restricted and eventually prohibited. When the Taliban returned to power, they imposed gender-segregated classes for female students, a mandatory campus dress code, and police control over dormitories, with women receiving severe threats in case of non-compliance. [14] In December 2022, the Taliban banned women’s access to university education.[15] The fear of harassment and violence by Taliban members has also discouraged many young girls from attending schools, even when they are permitted to, with some afraid to leave their homes altogether.[16]

Additionally, only a few months after seizing power, the Taliban instituted a de facto prohibition on many forms of employment for women in Afghanistan, limiting their roles in humanitarian agencies to specific sectors such as health care, primary education, and nutrition.[17] The Taliban authorities prohibited women from holding any senior positions in the civil service, including as judges.[18] In December 2022 and April 2023, respectively, Afghan women faced additional setbacks as they were banned from working with international non-governmental organisations and then with UN agencies except in the exempted areas.[19] Subsequently, in July 2023, beauty salons for women were closed, at a cost of 60,000 women’s jobs, and removing one of the very few spaces where women could find support and community outside their homes.[20]

Moreover, in most Afghan provinces, Taliban authorities have announced and frequently enforced rules prohibiting women from traveling or leaving their homes, including to go to their workplace without a male family member accompanying them.[21] The authorities also announced rules requiring women to fully cover their faces in public and stipulated that male family members would be punished when women violate rules regarding movement and clothing.[22] As a result, women and girls faced additional severe limitations in access to education, health care, and employment opportunities.[23] These restrictions also increase their vulnerability to harassment and violence, both in public and a home.[24] Beyond the physical limitations, the psychological impact of living in constant surveillance and fear has been pervasive.[25]

Forced and early marriages have also reportedly increased, partly in response to the economic crisis, further diminishing women and girls’ autonomy and exposing them to coercion and violence.[26]

Women have been forcibly disappeared and severely punished by the Taliban, including with lashings and imprisonment. These severe restrictions have left women economically dependent and vulnerable to continued violence and discrimination.[27]

Women’s access to justice has been also severely curtailed, with numerous obstacles obstructing their ability to seek legal remedies and protection. The imposition of a legal system that purports to rely solely on the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Sharia law often discriminates against women and girls, making it arduous for women to assert their rights in matters such as divorce, inheritance, and child custody. The ban on women working as legal professionals and judges further compounds these challenges, leaving women without adequate legal counsel.[28] Restrictions on women’s freedom of movement, stringent dress codes, and the requirement of male guardians not only restrict their access to legal institutions but also discourage them from pursuing legal action due to fear of retaliation or threats.[29]

The Taliban have also restricted access to health services for women and girls, with severe health consequences.[30] A primary barrier to health care access for women in some areas is the requirement for a male guardian to accompanying them to health clinics, which is also a violation of their medical privacy. The situation is exacerbated as many female health staff are unable to work or fulfil their duties under the current circumstances and no new female healthcare workers are joining the profession due to the Taliban’s bans on education for girls and women.

This combination of restrictions has significantly hampered women and girls’ ability to obtain essential medical and psychological support,[31] as well as to access sexual and reproductive healthcare services, including prenatal and postnatal care, sexual and reproductive health care, and maternal health services.[32] The denial of reproductive rights and healthcare access has had a profound psychological impact on Afghan women, with growing anxiety and fear regarding their reproductive well-being.[33]

Finally, women in Afghanistan are facing profound violations of their right to political participation, denying them representation in the political sphere. The Taliban leadership, all men, has also prohibited women from participating in governance at any level.[34] Most women who worked for the former government have been unable to resume their jobs. Stifling freedom of expression and the suppressing of women’s voices have marginalized them from political discourse.[35]

Taliban forces have used excessive force to disperse women protesting. The Taliban have arbitrarily detained many female protesters—in some cases with their entire family, including small children. Detained protesters and their family members have experienced torture and other ill-treatment in custody, including threats, beatings, dangerous conditions of confinement, denial of due process, and abusive conditions for release.[36] This type of treatment has affected female activists, protesters, politicians, and journalists, thereby inhibiting their participation in public and political life.[37]

2. Litigating Before the ICJ for the Rights of Afghan Women and Girls Under CEDAW

2.1. Jurisdiction Over Afghanistan Under CEDAW’s Compromissory Clause

The ICJ has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between states (i.e. ‘contentious cases’), but its jurisdiction is contingent on the consent of the involved states—a foundational aspect of international law. Such consent can be established primarily through (1) a special agreement between the states to submit the dispute to the Court; (2) reciprocal declarations made under the ICJ Statute; and (3) a compromissory (jurisdictional) clause in a treaty to which the states are party.[38] Approximately 350 treaties, including CEDAW, contain compromissory clauses that grant the ICJ jurisdiction over contentious cases.[39]

By ratifying CEDAW in 2003 without reservation to its compromissory clause (Article 29), the State of Afghanistan explicitly consented to the jurisdiction of the ICJ thereunder. Article 29 stipulates that any dispute between two or more states Parties ‘concerning the interpretation or application’ of the Convention that is not settled by those parties may be referred by one of them to the International Court of Justice.[40]

2.2. The Taliban’s Actions are Attributable to the State of Afghanistan

The Taliban lacks international recognition as Afghanistan’s government. However, they are considered the de facto authorities in Afghanistan as they have consolidated their administrative control over Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.[41] This means that, despite not having international recognition, the Taliban inherits all obligations and responsibilities that are binding on the State of Afghanistan, including adherence to the international treaties to which it is a party, including CEDAW. The International Law Commission (ILC) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which codifies customary international law, notes that a ‘de facto government…is itself an apparatus of the state’ and its ‘conduct’ is imputable to the state (Article 4; Comment 4 to Article 9).[42] Consequently, actions carried out by the Taliban are imputable to the State of Afghanistan.

As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated, ‘Afghanistan as a State remains bound by the international human rights obligations stemming from the treaties to which it is a party. The de facto authorities have responsibility for upholding these obligations by respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights in Afghanistan’.[43] Additionally, because the Taliban authorities are not the recognised government of Afghanistan, they do not have the authority to withdraw from the state’s treaties including CEDAW, while still obligated to meet its provisions.[44]

2.3. Any State Party that has Consented to ICJ Jurisdiction Under CEDAW Can Participate in the Case

Under CEDAW, any state party can challenge Afghanistan’s adherence to the Convention before the ICJ, provided it has likewise consented to the Court’s jurisdiction under the treaty. Additionally, in accordance with Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute, once the case is initiated, other state parties may co-file or intervene.

Furthermore, Article 48(1)(a) of the ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, regarding the ‘invocation of responsibility by a State other than an injured State’ stipulates that any state can invoke the responsibility of another state if the obligation breached is owed to a group of states ‘for the protection of a collective interest of the group’. Commentary to paragraph 1(a) explains that such obligations ‘may derive from multilateral treaties’ sometimes referred to as ‘obligations erga omnes partes’ (Comment 6)—the principle that every state party to a treaty in question has an interest in other states’ compliance.[45]

Moreover, ‘[o]bligations coming within the scope of paragraph 1(a) have been ‘collective obligations’, i.e. they must apply between a group of states and have been established in some collective interest’ (Comment 7). The principal purpose of such collective obligations is ‘to foster a common interest, over and above any interests of the states concerned individually. This would include situations in in which states, attempting to set general standards of protection for a group or people, have assumed obligations protecting non-State entities’. Thus, CEDAW, with 189 states parties, attempts to ‘set general standards for protection’ for women, with the stated purpose of eliminating ‘discrimination against women in all its forms’.[46] Accordingly, any state party to CEDAW, provided they meet the jurisdictional requirements discussed above, can invoke Afghanistan’s responsibility.

2.4. Litigating Against the State of Afghanistan Without Recognizing the Taliban

While the Taliban have control over the State of Afghanistan, no foreign government thus far has officially recognised them as its legitimate governing authority.[47] Diplomats from the previous Afghan government continue to represent Afghanistan at the United Nations, indicating that the UN does not recognise the Taliban.[48] Nevertheless, the Taliban have sought to gain recognition and international legitimacy, motivated by the pursuit of financial resources, trade advantages, international status, and diplomatic relations.[49]

Litigation before the ICJ is only between states, meaning that the proposed case would be against the State of Afghanistan, rather than the Taliban. It is firmly established that initiating litigation against a state does not equate to, nor require, the recognition of its government. ICJ precedents confirm that a state initiating proceedings against Afghanistan would not result in recognising the Taliban as its government. For instance, in United States of America v. Iran (1980), the United States filed an application against Iran despite the ambiguous nature of diplomatic relations and recognition of the Iranian revolutionary government, referring to it as the ‘Government of Iran’ rather than the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’, which the Iranian constitution specified. The case continued even after the US severed all diplomatic relations. [50]

In Ethiopia v. South Africa (1960)[51] and Liberia v. South Africa (1960),[52] both applicant states instituted proceedings against apartheid South Africa despite their lack of diplomatic relations and their active efforts to boycott and delegitimise it internationally. Moreover, in The Gambia v. Myanmar (2019), the international community’s lack of recognition of Myanmar’s military junta following its 2021 coup against the civilian government mid-ICJ proceedings, and its subsequent appearance before the Court, did not in any way provide legitimacy to the junta’s rule. Instead, the Court specifically proclaimed ‘that the parties to a contentious case before the court are States, not particular governments’.[53]

As such, pursuing claims against Afghanistan before the ICJ does not require a state to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government; rather, it demonstrates that a state recognizes that violations of CEDAW are occurring within Afghan territory.

2.5 Procedural Pathway to Litigation and Relief Under CEDAW

To initiate a case at the ICJ under CEDAW, an existing dispute between states regarding the convention’s interpretation or application is required, often identified through multilateral statements or bilateral exchanges such as a note verbale. Per Article 29 of CEDAW, states must first attempt to negotiate a resolution of their disagreement under CEDAW and, failing that, try to organise arbitration for six months. Only after these diplomatic efforts are exhausted, can states bring the dispute to the ICJ.

Once a case is filed at the ICJ, the procedure, as set out in Article 43 of the ICJ Statute, starts with the applicant state(s) submitting written observations on the court’s jurisdiction, admissibility, and merits. The respondent state then either acknowledges these claims and presents its observations on the merits or raises preliminary objections, often addressed in a separate public hearing. If the court confirms its jurisdiction and admissibility of the case, it then proceeds to hear the respondent state’s observations on the merits, followed by a public hearing. The process concludes with the ICJ issuing its final judgement.

As stipulated in Article 41 of the ICJ Statute, once a case is initiated, any state involved may request the ICJ to order provisional measures—obligatory temporary protective or injunctive relief—to safeguard their rights pending a final decision. These interim rulings are aimed at preventing the aggravation of the dispute, particularly critical in prolonged cases relating to situations of armed conflict, or when broad violations of human rights are at risk—as is the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan.

In cases brought under analogous core international human rights conventions, particularly the ICERD, the Court has consistently found the ‘irreparable harm’ required for it to issue provisional measures and has traditionally done so within days or weeks of receiving the request.[54] For example, the Court issued provisional measures within 18 days in a case Ukraine brought against Russia,[55] and within 28 days for a case filed by South Africa against Israel.[56]

And while the ICJ issued provisional measures in only 10 cases during its first 50 years of existence, the number has significantly increased in the past decade, with even more cases involving such measures.[57] In a CEDAW case against the State of Afghanistan, provisional measures could include, for example, orders to lift discriminatory restrictions on education, employment, and movement.

3. Diverse International Participation in Defending Afghan Women’s Rights

As explained above, multiple states parties to CEDAW may jointly file or intervene as third parties in the potential case. This approach is evidenced by cases like Ukraine v. Russia concerning the Genocide Convention, in which 32 states filed declarations of intervention pursuant to Article 63 (third party interventions) and the European Union also contributed information; as well as in Canada and The Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic, in which seven states thus far have filed declarations of intervention. In the recent case of South Africa v. Israel, scores of states have issued public statements about the case, and already a number of states announced they will intervene as a third party. Nicaragua, referring to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, filed an application for permission to intervene “as a party” in the case.[58] The strength of the case would be significantly enriched by the active participation of a broad spectrum of states from diverse regions.

Such involvement, with each state each bringing unique perspectives and regional insights, would ensure a more holistic and globally representative approach to the legal arguments and considerations. Unlike other human rights situations that can be politically divisive, the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan is a rare unifying issue that has garnered global condemnation. This unity should be reflected in the composition of applicants and interveners for the case. 

Given the cultural, religious, and geopolitical dimensions inherent in the case, it would be ideal for a diverse group of states (including from different regions) to come forward as co-applicants and interveners. This would provide the Court with a wide spectrum of perspectives and legal cultures, cultivating a balanced interpretation of CEDAW provisions and a more nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by Afghan women and girls. 

The involvement by states from various regions, particularly those outside the Western sphere, would also be crucial in countering the risk and perception of double standards and and could avoid reproducing a narrative rooted in historical grievances. The history of Western interventions in Afghanistan, coupled with the legacies of these actions, evokes justified frustrations, especially in the context of this case, where the narrative of ‘liberating’ Afghan women has previously been employed to justify military actions.[59] The de facto authorities have already referred to this narrative in the information they sent to the CEDAW Committee on 30 January 2023, asserting that ‘Western countries repeatedly stated that they came here to support Afghan women, but slowly and gradually this issue disappeared’.[60]Failing to confront this narrative could risk undermining the case’s prospects and could provide the Taliban with an opportunity to challenge its legitimacy, which would be counterproductive for the success of the case. States that might be particularly interested in championing this case include those that have adopted a Feminist Foreign Policy, which means that they commit to upholding equality and women’s rights in their bilateral engagements with other states and in multilateral forums.[61] Feminist Foreign Policy states’ participation in this case would aligned with their responsibility to implement tangible, feminist solutions to foreign policy challenges. Their active involvement, whether as co-applicants or interveners, is helpful for introducing a decolonial and intersectional feminist perspective to the proceedings, which includes among other things facilitating Afghan women’s effective and meaningful participation in the case. The engagement of these states is also crucial for addressing the nuanced issues involved, considering the intersectional nature of the various forms of oppression and discrimination experienced by Afghan women and girls.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and legitimacy of this case will rely on a diligent and respectful approach to the multilayered complexities experienced by Afghans. Case legitimacy is fundamental to ensure its effectiveness. As explained below, the enforcement of ICJ judgements relies heavily on the international community’s will to use the Court’s decisions in political negotiations, and on potential receptivity by the defendant state. An imperative is to ensure that the Afghan community, and especially Afghan women, are genuinely involved in the process—a process which is about them. An inclusive approach is fundamental to addressing the nuanced and intersecting challenges Afghan women and girls endure, providing a pathway to justice that respects the diverse contexts of their experiences.

4. Afghan Women’s Agency Over and ‘Participation’ in the Litigation

Ensuring and respecting the agency of Afghan women throughout this potential case is of paramount importance and a fundamental condition for the case to have true meaning. This should begin from the initial phase of building the case and extend throughout the implementation of any Court ruling. Effective and meaningful involvement of Afghan women in the case ensures it accurately represents their interests and addresses their longstanding exclusion from crucial discussions about their rights. Such active participation has the potential to transform this case into a groundbreaking platform for Afghan women to take control and assert their fundamental rights under international law.

The ICJ does not have formal procedures for direct victim/survivor participation in its proceedings. Article 34 of the ICJ Statute specifies that only states may be parties in court cases, precluding individuals from independently intervening. Despite this, there are ways for Afghan women victims, survivors, and witnesses to contribute and support claims against the State of Afghanistan. This can be facilitated through the applicant state(s), which can incorporate statements from Afghan victims and survivors into the case, and potentially ensure their presence at hearings.[62]This approach enables the voices and experiences of those directly affected to be better involved in the judicial process, especially following their longstanding exclusion from crucial discussions about their rights.

With that said, the involvement of Afghan women in the case should transcend any view seeing them solely as ‘victims/survivors of the Taliban’. They should be acknowledged as agents of change who lead and/or can effectively contribute to the case in various capacities should they want to—from gathering evidence and helping prepare case documentation to working in strategic communications, especially when communicating to the Afghan community. Afghan legal professionals should be part of the legal team, part of the decision-making process, and actively involved in shaping the litigation strategy, including legal argumentation and remedies sought, and where possible, leading oral argument. In this way, Afghan women’s own voices can literally be heard at the ICJ.

Nevertheless, one of the challenges will be to encompass the diverse range of violations and abuses endured by Afghan women and girls. Every effort should be made to ensure a comprehensive representation of the varied intersectional experiences of Afghan women and girls, particularly that of Afghan women who are still in Afghanistan, whose experiences of life under the Taliban are affected not only by their gender but by other factors including their age, disability, economic status, education level, location, sexual orientation, gender identity, and their religion and ethnicity, a concern particularly for women and girls who belong to marginalised religious and ethnic minorities, such as the Hazara.[63]

Ultimately, the effectiveness of the ICJ proceedings hinges not only on the final judgment but also on the inclusivity of the process. If Afghan women are not provided a platform for substantial and meaningful participation throughout the case, the true success of the proceedings, in terms of addressing and remedying their plight, cannot be realised. It will be the responsibility of the applicant state(s) to ensure that Afghan women are not only involved but are invited to be central to the entire legal process.

5. Potential Impact of an ICJ Case

Initiating a case before the ICJ presents a profound and substantive option for legal recourse, and perhaps one of the few available legal avenues to combat the oppressive measures the Taliban has imposed on the women and girls of Afghanistan. Such a case could have far-reaching implications not only for those within the country but also for Afghan women in the diaspora and would be precedent-setting for women’s rights globally.

5.1. Bolstering Diplomatic Efforts to Improve the Situation in Afghanistan

The Court’s rulings in contentious cases are not only legally binding on the states party to the proceedings,[64] but also significantly shape the legal and diplomatic landscape. Although direct compliance by the Taliban may seem unlikely per se, the influence of the ICJ should be considered in the broader context of ongoing diplomatic efforts. The ICJ’s decisions extend an authoritative legal narrative that extends beyond the immediate parties involved.

This would result in a ‘shadow of the law’,[65] wherein all states and other entities, like the UN, engaged in negotiations and interactions with the Taliban are compelled to prioritise the promotion and protection of women’s rights, rather than treating it as a peripheral issue in their conversations. As such, engaging with the Taliban in a context in which the ‘world’s highest court’ has pronounced Afghanistan in violation of women’s and girls’ fundamental rights places significant legal pressure on all interacting entities.

In addition, Article 41(2) of the ICJ Statute requires the communication of provisional measures to the UN Security Council, offering an opportunity to reinforce and bolster the focus on Afghanistan within the Council, particularly in relation to women’s rights. Furthermore, if an applicant state believes that Afghanistan has failed to fulfil its obligations under an ICJ judgement, it may bring the matter before the Security Council under Article 94 of the UN Charter, which, though underutilised, authorises the Security Council to determine the measures to be taken to give effect to a judgement.

5.2. Creating a New Forum for Afghan Women to Assert their Rights

There is mounting frustration among Afghan women over their strongly held view that the international community’s professed commitment to human rights and women’s rights in Afghanistan has not been matched by concrete actions. More than two years since the Taliban takeover, Afghan women continue to await meaningful international action. The proposed case aims to respond to Afghan women’s demands, offering a novel and dedicated platform to further champion their rights under international law. It provides an opportunity for Afghan women to actively participate in the pursuit of justice, advocate for their fundamental rights, amplify their grievances, and elevate their voices on a global stage from which they have been largely excluded.

Additionally, the litigation would grant survivors and victims of the Taliban an opportunity to share their experiences and help establish an official record of violations, which is important for future accountability measures and advocacy efforts. Despite the lack of domestic legal channels, there is hope for a future in which these crimes can be duly prosecuted, and this case could serve as a foundational step in building and enhancing the record for domestic or international accountability efforts.

5.3. Effect on Recognition of the Taliban

From a strictly legal standpoint, the Taliban’s appearance before the Court cannot result in their formal recognition.[66] Nevertheless, there is a valid concern that such litigation could inadvertently bestow some political legitimacy if the Taliban present themselves as state representatives. Yet, the likelihood of this conferring any significant legitimacy seems unlikely, and at most, it would only influence states already inclined toward recognising the Taliban—a scenario with no current examples.[67] Further, should the Taliban not appear to defend a case against Afghanistan, the case would still proceed, with the ICJ determining whether violations of CEDAW are occurring within the country.[68]

The proposed litigation could act as a substantial impediment to the Taliban becoming viewed as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. ICJ rulings, including provisional measures, that find that the Taliban has violated international law, would be an authoritative, legally binding determination that could impact Taliban efforts to gain international recognition and legitimacy. Notably, UN Security Council Resolution 2679 (2023) requested an independent assessment on Afghanistan which focused on the reintegration of Afghanistan into the international system. The assessment was circulated to the Council on 9 November 2023 and underscored the necessity of the Taliban’s adherence to Afghanistan’s international obligations, particularly under CEDAW, noting that key benchmarks must be fulfilled regarding progress on the rights of women and girls in accordance with the state’s treaty obligations. On 29 December, the Council adopted Resolution 2721, which, among other matters, took positive note of the independent assessment.

An ICJ decision that finds the State of Afghanistan in violation of CEDAW could be grounds for unilateral or collective (soft) measures by concerned governments against Afghanistan.[69] Additionally, such a decision could also deter countries considering sending back Afghan women and girls who have sought asylum and compel states to grant refugee status to female Afghan asylum-seekers solely on the basis of gender.

5.4. Advancing Women’s Rights through the First ICJ Adjudication of CEDAW

This case would mark a landmark moment as it would be the first time CEDAW, the world’s foremost treaty on women’s rights, is adjudicated by the ICJ.[70] It offers a significant opportunity to reinforce the principle of gender equality under international law, not just for Afghanistan, but globally. By spearheading this unprecedented case, involved states would establish an enduring legacy in the advancement of women’s rights.

5.5. Complementing Other Accountability Mechanisms that Address the Situation in Afghanistan

The quest for justice by the women and girls of Afghanistan is a multi-layered endeavor that benefits from the complementary roles of various international legal mechanisms in addressing the spectrum of violations they face. Each accountability mechanism has unique capabilities and limitations in delivering justice to Afghan women and girls, and none of them can substitute for another. The potential case before the ICJ too, when strategically employed and coordinated, can complement existing mechanisms and fill some of the accountability gaps.

Discussions around accountability in Afghanistan have primarily focused on criminal accountability, notably the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation[71] and the application of universal jurisdiction.[72] Both are vital for addressing serious international crimes, yet they are constrained in their scope. This includes jurisdictional limitations on the types of crimes prosecutable and practical limitations on the number of individuals who can be tried. Critically, both the ICC and the exercise of universal jurisdiction are also subject to the discretion of their respective authorities, in terms of who and what is prosecuted.

In contrast, the ICJ offers a venue to address responsibility for a broader spectrum of violations under international human rights law, in particular, CEDAW. This opens a pathway for holding Afghanistan, and the Taliban by proxy, accountable for a wider range of violations that might otherwise go unaddressed. Moreover, litigation at the ICJ could potentially move faster than criminal investigations and prosecutions, for instance through provisional measures, applying more immediate pressure on the Taliban.[73]

As such, a synergistic approach that combines the ICJ, ICC, universal jurisdiction, and tools like the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan’s mandate is essential. These mechanisms can reinforce one another through enhancing the vast range of legal principles involved, gathering evidence, and amplifying the severity of the situation on the international stage. This integrated strategy, as seen in situations like Ukraine and Myanmar, could hold out promises for a more comprehensive justice and reparations for Afghan women and girls for the myriad violations they have endured.

6. Conclusion

Amidst the harrowing situation for the women and girls of Afghanistan, the ICJ offers a novel option for justice and accountability. As the Taliban egregiously flout their obligations under CEDAW, other states who are parties to the Convention possess an opportunity to pioneer a historic move in the global pursuit for women’s equal rights. While such a case would be complex, it is legally feasible and has potential for meaningful impact. This avenue aligns with the increasing calls for justice-seeking efforts by Afghan women and girls and could contribute to restoring fundamental rights in the country and beyond.

***

***