The chapter examines the application of intersectionality theory to feminist judgment writing at the International Criminal Court (ICC), questioning whose feminism is centered and which intersections matter. Drawing on Black feminist scholarship, Dawuni evaluates both the merits and limitations of intersectionality as a framework for judicial decision-making in international criminal law. The chapter argues that while intersectionality can illuminate how multiple identities shape experiences of victimisation and access to justice, careful attention must be paid to avoid reproducing marginalisation through oversimplified applications. It critiques the continued impact of coloniality on the ICC’s operations and questions the homogenisation of African experiences in international law. The analysis concludes with recommendations for judges, registry staff, and researchers, emphasising the need for continuous education on intersectionality, greater institutional diversity, and constant self-reflection about positionality and privilege. Dawuni argues that true intersectional justice requires transforming both the composition and operational culture of international criminal institutions.

At the time of writing in 2023, it was four years since the Office of the Prosecutor commenced an investigation into the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar in accordance with Article 15(4) of the Rome Statute. It was also six years since the mass displacement of Rohingyas from Rakhine state in Myanmar, which Pre-Trial Chamber III held may amount to the crimes against humanity of deportation and persecution on the ground of religion and/or ethnicity. According to the United Nations, around 10,000 people were killed in an alleged genocidal operation, and more than 700,000 people fled to Bangladesh. Most of these people have found themselves in the Kutupalong-Balukhali expansion site in Cox’s Bazar – the largest and most densely populated refugee camp in the world. Living conditions in the camp are challenging. Shelters are built from bamboo and tarpaulin and are closely packed together. Access to clean water, sanitation, healthcare, and education is limited. Residents must contend with overcrowding, outbreaks of disease, fires, monsoons, and cyclones. The COVID-19 pandemic added another layer of complexity to the crisis. The future for refugees in the camp remains uncertain, with limited prospects for safe and voluntary return to Myanmar, local integration in Bangladesh, or resettlement to a third country.

The chapter interrogates the value of applying the feminist judgment methodology (FJM) to the International Criminal Court (ICC), addressing skepticism about whether such projects are merely wishful thinking. Through the metaphor of fairy tales, McLoughlin examines tensions between feminist legal theory and judicial practice, arguing that feminist judgments are not simply acts of imagination but demonstrate real possibilities within existing legal frameworks. McLoughlin makes two key arguments for extending the FJM to the ICC. First, the ICC’s poor record on gender justice, including limited convictions for sexual and gender-based crimes, makes it an important site for feminist intervention. Second, the Rome Statute’s unrealised promise of gender justice - including provisions for gender expertise and representation - provides a firm foundation for feminist judicial approaches. The chapter concludes that feminist judgment writing serves to legitimise gender-sensitive approaches to international criminal law while acknowledging law’s limitations and demonstrates how the ICC’s commitment to gender justice could be meaningfully realised through feminist judicial practice.

The chapter reproduces Gopalan’s speech delivered at the International Criminal Court’s 20th anniversary conference at The Hague in 2022, examining intersectional approaches to investigating and prosecuting sexual and gender-based crimes in international criminal law. Gopalan explains intersectionality as an analytical framework that reveals how multiple identities and systems of oppression shape international crimes. Through case studies including Korean "comfort women," Srebrenica’s Muslim women, and Tamil male survivors in Sri Lanka, she demonstrates how factors like gender, colonialism, class, ethnicity, and religion intersect to create distinct patterns of harm and victimisation. Gopalan argues that while gender analysis has advanced understanding of sexual violence, examining gender alone is insufficient. Her analysis reveals how intersectional approaches can uncover overlooked structural inequalities and make visible what might otherwise remain unseen, enabling more comprehensive and survivor-responsive justice processes. The speech argues for expanding investigative and prosecutorial frameworks beyond single-axis analysis to better serve the complex realities of survivors.

The chapter presents a dialogue between Mudukuti and Chappell, examining critical challenges facing the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the lens of Mudukuti’s experience as practitioner, advocate, and trainer. Drawing on her work at the ICC, domestic courts, and civil society organizations, Mudukuti highlights the urgent need for greater intersectionality in international criminal justice. The conversation focuses on institutional reform at the ICC, addressing the Court’s problematic staff composition where over half of professional positions are held by individuals from Western European and Other Groups. Mudukuti argues a lack of geographic, racial, and gender diversity in leadership affects how cases are approached, evidence is interpreted, and justice is delivered. The dialogue examines the role of civil society in advancing reform and the importance of amicus curiae briefs in bringing diverse perspectives to ICC cases, particularly regarding sexual violence. Mudukuti emphasizes that intersectionality requires transforming both institutional composition and judicial understanding through continuous learning and openness to different disciplinary perspectives.

This chapter introduces the ICC decisions concerning the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases delivered in the context of the situation in the DRC, and the reparations order of the Lubanga case. It summarises the key facts and outcomes of each of these decisions and then considers how the authors of subsequent contributions have reimagined these ICC decisions from a feminist perspective. How the reimagined judgments depart from the original ICC decisions will be analysed and what makes them ‘feminist’ will be assessed. Finally, this contribution will conclude by critiquing the importance of the reimagined judgments in the context of ‘gender-sensitive’ ICC decision-making.

This sub-chapter provides a critical reflection on the feminist reimagining of five selected decisions from the two ICC situations in the Central African Republic (CAR), known as ‘CAR I’ and ‘CAR II’. It begins by providing background to the relevant conflicts, as well as the procedural history of the cases prosecuted at the ICC. It goes on to summarise the key facts and outcomes of the ICC proceedings, before discussing how the authors of the reimagined decisions have departed from the original in adopting a feminist perspective. The sub-chapter considers what makes each decision ‘feminist’ and reflects upon how gender justice might be effected if we were to act beyond the ‘existing rules’ of international criminal law.

Joy, for many,

it is made up
of the simple wonders of this life.

Sometimes we do not know it,
and it’s only at the end
we can recall
the feeling
of a tiny hand in ours:

cherubic face upturned,
wide-eyed with trust,

as we remind a young one
where to cross
 the road,
 their t’s,
 a stitch they dropped,
 their plastic knitting needles,
 fingers, when they tell a fib,
and oh,
their tiny hearts

The chapter synthesises key findings from the collection of feminist reimaginings of International Criminal Court (ICC) judgments. The editors Louise Chappell, Suzanne Varrall, Kcasey McLoughlin and Rosemary Grey first examine methodological lessons from feminist judgment writing, highlighting three key themes: the critical role of contextualisation in understanding gendered dimensions of atrocity crimes; the necessity of intersectional analysis in capturing how multiple forms of discrimination intersect; and the significance of temporality in judicial decision-making.

The chapter analyses opportunities and barriers for advancing gender justice at the ICC, examining both internal factors (like judicial diversity and training) and external pressures (including geopolitics and evolving conflict dynamics). While some contributors to the book argue the ICC’s structural limitations make it incapable of delivering gender justice, others contend meaningful progress is possible through better implementation of existing provisions rather than statutory reform. The chapter concludes that despite significant challenges, the ICC remains an important, if imperfect, vehicle for advancing gender justice in international criminal law.

In February 2003, violence erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region and quickly evolved into a civil war between the Government of Sudan and several organised armed groups, in particular the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Following the 25 April 2003 SLM/A attack on an airport in northern Darfur, the Government of Sudan, led by then-President Omar Al Bashir, issued a general call for the mobilisation of the Janjaweed militia in response. Sudanese government forces – including the Sudanese armed forces and their allied Janjaweed militia – launched a counter-insurgency campaign in Darfur, a core component of which were unlawful attacks on the civilian population, largely belonging to the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa communities, who were perceived to be aligned with one or more of the various armed groups.

This reflection addresses the feminist judgments concerning the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Uganda. It provides a background to the conflict in Uganda, before delivering an overview of the ICC in Uganda. A brief background of the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case (Ongwen case) is given, which is the only current ICC case in Uganda.

• Hey. Psst.

• Ya zalameh? Psst.

• Did you hear about the pregnant woman?

• The one who gave birth to a stillborn right here?

• They say it took the ambulance four hours – four hours – to drive two kilometres.

• Ya zalameh? Psst.

• Can you hear me? I’m talking to you.

• *

• Stillborn or not … You don’t say a thing.

• You don’t want to talk to the other Palestinian man in line because hopefully at least one of you will make it out.

• Or hopefully, he won’t drag you down if he doesn’t.

• *

• YOU! AT THE BACK. WITH THE BIG MOUTH. QUIET!

• DID I TELL YOU YOU CAN TALK?

• SHUT UP!

• STAND OVER THERE. DON’T MOVE.

• DON’T EVEN BREATHE.

• *

• How long have you been waiting?

• I just got here.

• How long have you been waiting?

• A few hours.

• How long have you been waiting?

• All night.

• How long have you been waiting?

• Since the day I was born.

• *

• YOU. STOP. YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED.

• EVEN YOUR SHADOW WILL NOT PASS THROUGH.

• NO, I’M NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

• STOP. YOU WANNA GET SMART WITH ME? I WILL SHOOT YOU.

• COME BACK TOMORROW. TODAY IS NOT YOUR DAY.

• *

• You breathe when they tell you to breathe. And you calmly nod and smile.

• That right there is resistance. It is survival.