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.

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.

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.

In August 2021, the Taliban marched into Kabul and once again became the de facto government of Afghanistan, overthrowing the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan which held power from 2004 to 2021. The Taliban takeover came just a little less than two decades after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York that started the US-led ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan and beyond. For some, the Taliban takeover marks an end to the conflict: both the US forces and the elected Afghan president departed the country, leaving a security and governance void that the Taliban filled. For others, the relative stability of the first years of Taliban rule is simply a lull in the conflict. Since 1978, Afghans have experienced many phases of conflict, each with its own dynamic of human rights violations and war crimes.

This sub-chapter provides a critical reflection on the feminist reimagining of two selected decisions from the situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar at the ICC. It begins by providing background to the 2016 ‘clearance operation’ carried out by the government of Myanmar, as well as the procedural history of the situation at the ICC. It goes on to summarise the key facts and outcome 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.

This chapter reflects on the Mali situation and the cases before the ICC, including the reimagined judgments. It first offers background to the conflict in Mali, before outlining the ICC proceedings relating to ‘the situation in the Republic of Mali at the ICC. It then briefly introduces the original ICC cases in in this situation, the Al Hassan and Al Mahdi cases. The focus in on the Al Hassan judgment, sentencing decision, and reparations order, and the Al Hassan arrest warrant decision.

As noted in Chapter 2, the selection of situations and cases that authors have reimagined in this collection was shaped by several constraints. One of the most significant was the constraint of being limited to those situations and cases that have actually commenced in the ICC, thereby providing judicial decisions to rewrite. As editors and contributors, we struggled with this limitation in the feminist judgment method because it meant that the selection of cases and situations in this collection necessarily replicated the gaps and silences in ICC jurisprudence.