Women, War, and the Law: Gender-Based Violence in Armed Conflict and the UN Response

Gender-based violence GBV in armed conflict remains one of the most pervasive yet under-prosecuted crimes in international law. This article examines the legal, institutional, and political dimensions of conflict-related sexual violence CRSV, situating it within international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and international criminal law. The purpose of the study is to evaluate how far the international legal framework augmented by the United Nations Women, Peace and Security WPS agenda has advanced the prevention, accountability, and redress of GBV in conflict, and to identify enduring enforcement gaps. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the article reviews treaty provisions, case law from ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court, and the evolution of UN mechanisms such as the SRSG on Sexual Violence in Conflict, MARA, and peacekeeping mandates. Key findings reveal that while normative progress is significant, systemic shortcomings including weak national prosecution, underreporting, political selectivity in sanctions, and inadequate peacekeeper accountability continue to fuel impunity. The study concludes that survivor-cantered justice, credible accountability mechanisms, and gender-responsive peace processes are indispensable to bridging the gap between law and lived realities, and calls for greater institutional commitment and sustainable financing to secure durable protections. GBV in armed conflict ranging from rape and sexual slavery to forced pregnancy, trafficking, and intimate partner violence remains pervasive despite a robust body of international norms. This article synthesizes the doctrinal foundations in IHL, international human rights law IHRL, and international criminal law ICL; maps key jurisprudence; analyses the United Nations’ Women, Peace and Security WPS agenda and related accountability pathways; and identifies persistent enforcement and implementation gaps. It argues that meaningful prevention and remedy require survivor-cantered practice, better-resourced institutions, credible accountability including for peacekeepers, and gender-responsive peace processes that integrate intersectional harms.