Codifying Forced Marriage in the Crimes Against Humanity Convention: From Jurisprudence to Treaty Text

Key Takeaways

• UN PrepCom sees growing state support to list forced marriage explicitly
• France, Portugal, Iceland, Costa Rica express openness to codify forced marriage
• Codifying moves forced marriage from residual acts to a distinct crime
• Inclusion aligns treaty with ICC jurisprudence and survivor‑centered justice
• April 30, 2026 deadline invites states to submit amendment proposals for Article 2

Pulse Analysis

The United Nations’ push for a Crimes‑Against‑Humanity Convention marks a watershed moment for international criminal law, filling a gap that treaties on genocide and war crimes have long covered. While the draft articles borrow definitions from the Rome Statute, they omit forced marriage, relegating it to a residual category that has generated interpretive disputes. By proposing a dedicated enumeration, advocates aim to solidify the legal framework, ensuring that the distinct harms of coerced conjugal unions receive the same clarity and enforceability as other core crimes.

Legal scholars argue that explicit inclusion advances the principle of fair labeling, a cornerstone of criminal legality that demands offenses be precisely defined. Courts in Sierra Leone, Cambodia and the ICC have already recognized forced marriage as a crime against humanity, yet the lack of treaty language leaves room for defense challenges and inconsistent application. Codification would embed established jurisprudence into treaty text, granting victims specific recognition and obligating states to prevent, punish, and cooperate on this gender‑based violation. Moreover, a clear definition facilitates domestic incorporation, enabling national courts to prosecute without relying on ambiguous residual clauses.

Politically, the momentum is evident: dozens of states—from France and Canada to Brazil and the United Kingdom—have signaled openness or support, while newcomers like Austria and Iceland have entered the conversation. With the April 30, 2026 amendment deadline looming, states have a strategic window to shape the convention’s final language. Successful inclusion could set a precedent for future treaty‑making, embedding gender justice into the core of international criminal accountability and influencing how the global community addresses evolving forms of mass atrocity.