Discussions during the United Nations’ first session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for negotiations toward a proposed treaty on crimes against humanity revealed growing support for codifying forced marriage as a specific violation. Although forced marriage has been prosecuted as a crime against humanity for more than 15 years, it has always been charged under the residual category of “other inhumane acts.” But reliance on a residual provision has led to uncertainty and recurring defense challenges. That has constrained recognition of the distinct harms captured by the crime, a point that surfaced during the PrepCom.
As states now develop proposals for concrete amendments to the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (Draft Articles) by an April 30 deadline, it will be important for those supporting such a provision to proactively propose such amendments. While there has been almost no articulated specific opposition, most states have not yet expressed a position, perhaps because the issue is not a priority, or because they may, as some countries have articulated, favor keeping the existing draft text mostly as is. Still others may oppose any measure aimed at gender justice. All the more important, then, to reflect the cross-regional support that has already emerged through written proposals.
A Treaty Decades in the Making
The PrepCom marked a major step forward in efforts to close a persistent gap in the international legal framework: the lack of a specific treaty establishing states’ obligations to prevent, punish, and cooperate in addressing crimes against humanity. (In contrast, treaties establishing state responsibilities with regards to other core international crimes, such as genocide and war crimes, have long been in force). The current treaty process builds on years of academic, diplomatic, and civil society engagement. In 2019, the U.N. International Law Commission (ILC) adopted the Draft Articles and recommended negotiating a convention. After years of stagnation, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a breakthrough Resolution 79/122 in December 2024, deciding to convene a Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity in 2028 and 2029 and establishing a Preparatory Committee and Working Group to facilitate consultations and the submission of formal amendment proposals.
That resolution invited governments to submit written proposals for amendments by April 30, 2026. Those amendments will then be consolidated into a compiled text with the Draft Articles, alongside the records of past discussions in the U.N. General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee on the Draft Articles, to serve as the basis for negotiations.
Importance of Codifying Forced Marriage
The ILC Draft Articles carried over the definitions of crimes against humanity found in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which do not include forced marriage as an enumerated act. In practice, forced marriage as a crime against humanity has been recognized by multiple international tribunals, including the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Prosecutor v. Ongwen. Across these decisions, courts have articulated core elements of this crime, focusing on the coercive imposition of a conjugal union and the denial of relational autonomy, which are distinct from, though often accompanied by, sexual slavery, rape, forced labor, or other forms of violence.
During the U.N. PrepCom, the Kingdom of the Netherlands mission hosted a side event on Jan. 22, co-sponsored by Canada and Mexico and the Global Justice Center (where one of us, Elise, is executive director) amid the Working Group deliberations on Article 2 of the Draft Articles. The article as it stands outlines specific covered crimes as well as one category of “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” None refer specifically to forced marriage. The side event offered the opportunity to examine forced marriage in greater depth, connecting jurisprudence, survivor experience, and treaty-drafting considerations.
There have been repeated arguments over whether the conduct is criminal at all and claims that it constitutes a “cultural” practice beyond the reach of international criminal law. Yet international law has long rejected such claims, recognizing that certain practices defended as cultural, including slavery and apartheid, constitute serious international crimes.
By recognizing the gravity of the harm and identifying the nature of the harm specifically, codification would be in line with the criminal law principles of fair labeling and legality, which require that criminal offenses be named and defined in a way that accurately reflects the distinct conduct and harm involved. This ensures that victims receive specific recognition for their suffering and perpetrators are on notice that their conduct is prohibited. In this context, explicitly enumerating forced marriage in the Crimes Against Humanity Convention would ensure that its unique elements are properly captured, rather than subsumed under a residual category, and would more clearly convey the seriousness of the crime itself. Codification would, moreover, ensure that the full scope of this conduct is recognized by societies and international institutions, and that victims receive appropriate redress.
As emphasized during the side event, codifying forced marriage would consolidate existing jurisprudence rather than alter the current legal framework, while clarifying its status and reducing persistent challenges to its recognition. Experts further noted that the Rome Statute was conceived as a foundational framework rather than an exhaustive list, allowing for the continued development of international criminal law in response to evolving understandings of harm and accountability.
Reflecting these considerations, civil society organizations and experts have proposed amendments to the list of prohibited acts in the draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention, including, but not limited to, adding forced marriage as an enumerated crime. The proposals are part of a broader effort to achieve a treaty-making process and text that ensures that gender-based harms are fully recognized, that the law reflects how harms affect different groups in distinct ways, and that victims’ experiences guide both the substance and implementation of the convention.
Increasing State Support
Over the course of the PrepCom, a number of States newly or more explicitly expressed support for, or openness to, codifying forced marriage in Article 2 of the draft convention. Together, the discussions in January reveal both continuity among those already on board and expansion of support to other states.
Among those newly weighing in were Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, France, Iceland, and Portugal. During the Working Group discussion on Article 2, France for the first time indicated openness to revisiting the list of prohibited acts in light of legal developments, and specifically identified forced marriage for potential inclusion, noting in a published statement that it “has notably been enshrined in the jurisprudence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers within the Cambodian courts and the International Criminal Court.” Representatives of Portugal and others also expressed openness to including forced marriage for the first time as part of the conceptual evolution of crimes against humanity since the adoption of the Rome Statute.
At the Jan. 22 side event, Iceland and Costa Rica expressed openness and support for the codification of forced marriage for the first time. Costa Rica has taken the view that forced marriage is already recognized by international tribunals, including the SCSL and the ICC, and identified the harm forced marriage causes as a form of gender-based violence.
New expressions built upon already articulated support or openness in previous Sixth Committee debates by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Sierra Leone, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, many of whom reiterated that position during this session. Mexico, for example, has repeatedly called for the treaty to include forced marriage, framing it as part of a comprehensive understanding of how crimes against humanity are committed today, identifying it alongside gender apartheid as conduct warranting explicit inclusion.
Canada also has consistently indicated that the convention presents an opportunity to codify forced marriage as a standalone prohibited act within the definition of crimes against humanity. During the Working Group discussion on Article 2, Canada stated: “We believe the time may be ripe for codifying forced marriage as a standalone prohibited act within the definition of crimes against humanity. We have heard various proposals made by States to add to the list of acts under draft article 2, paragraph 1. We note that some have been recognized as ‘other inhuman acts’.” Colombia also reiterated its position: “Colombia is open to the possibility of including new acts such as slave trade, forced marriage, or reproductive violence.”
Australia had indicated during the 2024 Sixth Committee session that it sees merit in considering codifying forced marriage as a distinct crime against humanity. Brazil has indicated that the new convention offers an opportunity to incorporate crimes relating to sexual and gender-based violence, including forced marriage, in line with the principle of strict legality, which requires that crimes be clearly defined in law. The United Kingdom has repeatedly emphasized that international criminal law already recognizes forced marriage as a crime against humanity, indicating that its explicit inclusion in the convention would align with established jurisprudence.
While Sierra Leone did not intervene on forced marriage during the PrepCom, it has previously emphasized the need to address such conduct within the Draft Articles, drawing on its experience during its civil conflict, in which women and girls were abducted, forced to ‘marry’ specific fighters, and repeatedly traded among the men as ‘bush wives.’ Sierra Leone has pointed to this conduct as one form of slavery and the slave trade, and argued for the explicit codification of the slave trade in response. Sierra Leone has not explicitly commented on whether it would support codification of forced marriage separate from the slave trade. Given the distinct violation of relational autonomy and imposition of the status of ‘spouse’ that these forced marriages entailed, experts have supported codification of both slave trade and forced marriage to reflect the full scope of harm. South Africa likewise did not speak on forced marriage during this session, but has in earlier discussions specified that it “supports calls for the inclusion of forced marriage as a crime against humanity.”
From Support to Codification
As States prepare written proposals ahead of the April 30 deadline, the question is whether codification of forced marriage will be reflected in the compiled text that is sent on to the negotiations. States should seize this moment by offering amendments to include forced marriage as an enumerated crime under Article 2. Such proposals should reflect existing jurisprudence and should ensure that the convention encompasses the lived realities of victims and survivors of crimes against humanity. Their experiences have already shaped international criminal law, and they remain at the heart of the convention’s purpose. That should be expressly recognized in the text.
(Authors’ note: The USC International Human Rights Clinic is conducting a project with the Global Justice Center tracking state discussions related to gender justice and the proposed Crimes Against Humanity Convention.)
