Disclaimer:
All statements and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the views of WIIS Italy.
In recent years, the intensification of efforts to remove women from public life in countries like Iran and Afghanistan has raised a growing demand from experts, social movements, and activists to recognize gender apartheid as a distinct crime under international law. Gender apartheid refers to state systems that, through laws, policies, and practices, impose male dominance and the subjugation of women, denying them fundamental rights and freedoms. Unlike isolated crimes such as persecution, apartheid is built upon structures and institutions that perpetuate systemic and lasting oppression. Despite its parallels with racial apartheid and its clear violation of human rights, it remains unrecognized in international criminal law.
The Cases of Iran and Afghanistan
Gender apartheid goes beyond simple violations of individual human rights: it is a structured system of segregation and oppression rooted in the laws, social practices, and political structures of a regime It is a form of control that denies women fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement, physical protection, and access to essential services like health and education. In gender apartheid systems, laws arbitrarily establish what women can do, where they can go, what they can study, whether they can work, and even if they can leave their homes. This totalitarian form of control seeks to erase women from public life, reducing them to second-class citizens with no voice or right to participate in the decisions that shape their lives and the society they live in.
This description is particularly important when analyzing state practices in countries like Iran and Afghanistan, where gender apartheid has taken root in different forms, but with equally devastating consequences for women. In both Iran and Afghanistan, laws and enforcement tools, such as surveillance, punishment, and exclusion, are used to systematically subordinate women. These gender-based policies are widespread, organized, and implemented by state or de facto authorities. While both contexts reflect deeply entrenched systems of gender oppression, the scale and intensity of restrictions in Afghanistan remain unprecedented in their scope and severity. Nevertheless, what we see in both countries is not merely persecution, but the construction of governance systems rooted in gender-based domination and the erasure of women’s rights from public and political spheres.
In Iran, laws institutionalize gender-based violence, creating a rigid system of discrimination against women across various sectors, from legal rights to personal freedoms, demonstrating how gender apartheid regimes codify inequality and suppress women’s autonomy at every level of society. For instance, article 976 of the Civil Code denies women the right to pass nationality to their children, while Articles 1005 and 1114 of the same code grant husband control over their wives’ residence. Women who leave without permission, even due to violence, risk losing maintenance rights. In the Penal Code, Article 638 enforces compulsory hijab, with violations punishable by fines or imprisonment.[1] Iran’s legal framework entrenches gender-based control. Following the 2022 killing of Jina Mahsa Amini, authorities escalated repression. In 2023, a new law criminalized dress code violations, extended penalties to online behavior, and expanded surveillance. United Nations experts warn it may constitute gender apartheid, violating freedoms of expression, movement, education, and access to public services.[2]
On the other hand, in Afghanistan, the Taliban have imposed a systematic and total gender segregation, effectively erasing women and girls from public life, since their takeover. They are denied rights to education, work, healthcare, and political participation, and are banned from schooling beyond sixth grade and public employment. Women face strict dress codes, and are forbidden from dancing or singing at events. Severe abuses, including harassment, arbitrary detention, and public punishments like beatings, amputations, and stoning, are carried out without due process. The absence of legal safeguards has left Afghan women especially vulnerable to ongoing, institutionalized violations of their fundamental rights and dignity.
A joint report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan and the Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls concluded that Taliban policies may constitute gender apartheid. The report stresses that, under international law, religious or cultural justifications cannot legitimize such discriminatory practices, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on apartheid. In February 2025, the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan called for the recognition and codification of gender apartheid, highlighting it as a deliberate and systemic form of oppression designed to eliminate women from public life.
Why Gender Apartheid Matters in International Criminal Law
Gender apartheid is not a series of isolated acts, but a systemic structure of segregation, sustained by laws and institutions. It normalizes violence and discrimination, treating them not as exceptions but as the rule. Within this system, women are seen as inherently inferior and are subjected to constant control and restriction. The result is a cycle of structural violence, where women remain continuously exposed to harm and legally unprotected.
The Rome Statute offers a strong foundation for prosecuting crimes like gender-based persecution, even though, the lack of a clear definition of gender apartheid leaves a gap in holding perpetrators accountable for this form of systemic oppression. Likewise, it is important to note that the International Criminal Court (ICC) of the Rome Statute prosecutes individuals for crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including gender-based violence, whereas the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holds states accountable for violations of international law, whereby it has a critical role in addressing State responsibility, particularly in cases such as Afghanistan, where state policies may be directly involved in the oppression of women. However, the Rome Statute offers a more direct mechanism for prosecuting individuals involved in gender-based crimes, filling the gap in individual accountability.
The Rome Statute recognizes gender-based persecution as a crime against humanity, but it has not yet defined gender apartheid as a distinct crime. Persecution and apartheid are both enumerated as crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute—persecution in Article 7(1)(h) and apartheid in Article 7(1)(j). Both involve widespread or systematic attacks targeting civilian populations with the perpetrator’s knowledge. While persecution targets individuals based on identity markers, including gender, apartheid refers specifically to systematic oppression by one racial group over another.
A crucial distinction lies in apartheid’s explicit codifications of discriminatory policies to sustain the regime over time, absent in persecution. The current legal framework for gender-based persecution, as outlined in the Rome Statute, is inadequate. It requires that discriminatory acts be linked to other crimes such as torture or detention, but it does not address situations where gender-based discrimination is the foundation of governance itself.
Women living under gender apartheid are deprived of the legal support necessary to confront the discrimination and violence they endure. The absence of legal recognition of gender apartheid makes it even more difficult to seek justice. Not only do victims lack the opportunity to assert their rights against the injustices they face, but those who perpetuate and legitimize this oppression remain unpunished. The lack of a legal framework that explicitly condemns gender apartheid undermines any attempt at justice, accountability, and recognition of the crime itself. Without international legal recognition, survivors are unable to pursue justice, and perpetrators remain exempt from any sanctions.
Legal scholars such as Bennoune and Ashraph argue that such regimes should be treated as committing crimes against humanity, with their perpetrators considered hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity). They strongly advocate for explicitly codifying gender apartheid as a distinct crime under international law, alongside the existing crime of persecution. While persecution is already recognized in the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity, it often fails to capture the full structural and systemic nature of gender-based oppression. Bennoune and Ashraph propose adapting the existing definition of apartheid—originally framed around racial domination—to address gender-based systems of control. Their proposed definition retains the core elements of apartheid under the Rome Statute: (1) an intent to maintain domination by one gender group over another, (2) a context of systematic oppression, and (3) the perpetration of inhumane acts. They argue that recognizing gender apartheid as a separate crime would not replace persecution, but rather complement it. This dual recognition would allow for cumulative charges, better reflecting the full extent of harm and culpability in cases of gender-based oppression.[3]
Gender Apartheid and its Implications for the WPS Agenda
From the perspective of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, the implications of gender apartheid are significant. Without legal recognition of gender apartheid, the four pillars of the agenda—participation, protection, prevention, and relief—remain ineffective in the contexts where they are most needed. Explicitly recognizing gender apartheid as a crime under international law would provide a clear legal framework to hold accountable not only those directly involved in violence but also those who create, enforce, or benefit from policies that systematically oppress women. This recognition would allow the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute not only direct perpetrators of violence but also those who facilitate or legitimize this system of oppression. It would represent a significant step forward from the current legal framework, which mainly addresses crimes such as torture or detention but does not consider gender discrimination as a standalone crime. If gender apartheid were recognized as a separate crime, key figures such as heads of state, legislators, and security officials could no longer escape justice, even if their actions are not currently classified as specific crimes under international law.
The lack of a clear definition allows many oppressive regimes to justify their policies under the guise of “culture” or “religion,” while systematically violating women’s fundamental rights without consequences. Recognizing gender apartheid as a crime would not only open the door to justice for the victims but also deter future oppression. Governments that implement discriminatory policies would know that the international community will no longer tolerate such violations. This would close legal loopholes that currently allow discriminatory laws to persist without repercussions.
This is where the WPS agenda plays a crucial role. If gender apartheid were recognized as an international crime, the WPS agenda would be strengthened by a powerful legal tool to hold state and non-state actors accountable for perpetuating gender oppression. This would ensure that gender equality is not just an ideal but a fundamental principle for post-conflict peace and stability.
Author Bio: Giada Rubino is a human rights professional with extensive experience in Latin America and Europe, including work with the OHCHR and NGOs to advance gender equality and the rights of marginalized communities. She currently works as Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator at Peace Brigades International.
[1] Women Living Under Muslim Laws (Wluml), Iran: Gender Discrimination at Its Worst, For the UN Universal Periodic Review of Iran (2014) 3, <http://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/92778.> accessed 5 January 2024
[2] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Iran’s proposed hijab law could amount to gender apartheid – UN experts, (2023), <https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/09/irans-proposed-hijab-law- could-amount-gender-apartheid-un-experts>
[3] Sareta Ashraph, Gissou Nia, Akila Radhakrishnan, Nushin Sarkarati, and Alyssa Yamamoto, Why the Crimes Against Humanity Treaty Should Codify Gender Apartheid (2023) Just Security
Commenti recenti