No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Although authoritarian regimes often repress the rights of women, many autocrats have committed to international treaties protecting women’s human rights. Scholars have typically overlooked this engagement, focusing instead on autocrats’ commitment (and violation) of treaties protecting civil, political, and physical integrity rights. Yet existing explanations for autocrats’ ratification of these treaties—such as appeasing domestic opposition groups—do not necessarily apply to women’s rights (von Stein 2013). As authoritarian international law is increasingly viewed as an important area of study (Ginsburg 2020), scholars should explore how authoritarian regimes navigate participation regarding women’s rights issues, including their engagement with the main women’s rights treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). After taking a closer look at how autocracies shape, commit, and challenge women’s rights internationally, we suggest several research directions to build this area of study.

Despite decades of success, abuse has pervaded UN peacekeeping. This article argues that there has been a combination of incremental, conditional, and tenuous accountability for UN peacekeeping personnel accused of perpetrating sexual exploitation and abuse against civilians. This article argues that the relationship with accountability has been shaped by the reliance on troop-contributing countries to supply peacekeepers. This has limited the ability and desire of the UN to institute full accountability for peacekeeper actions. Looking at examples and trends of abuse and punishment, the article demonstrates that there has been a push-pull relationship of accountability between the media and nongovernmental organization reporting on one side and UN reliance on troop-contributing countries and institutional reluctance on the other side.