South Sudan's Sexual Violence Crisis - More Than a Wartime Phenomenon
South Sudan continues to grapple with a systemic crisis of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) that has transcended the immediate context of active hostilities to become a pervasive feature of the country’s fragile security landscape. Despite the 2018 Revitalised Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS), reports from the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and various human rights monitors indicate that sexual violence remains a tool of political repression and communal intimidation. The crisis involves a complex web of actors, including the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF), the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO), and various ethnic militias, all of whom have been implicated in widespread abuses. The failure of the state to provide security and the inability of international peacekeeping missions to effectively intervene have created a climate of impunity where survivors are often left without recourse or protection. From a legal perspective, this crisis highlights the profound disconnect between South Sudan’s domestic legal framework and its international obligations. While the Transitional Constitution of the Republic of South Sudan and the Penal Code Act of 2008 criminalize rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforcement is virtually non-existent due to a collapsed judicial infrastructure and a lack of political will. The legal significance of this failure extends to the international stage, as South Sudan is a signatory to the Maputo Protocol and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Furthermore, the persistent nature of these crimes may trigger the jurisdiction of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights or eventually the International Criminal Court, given that the proposed Hybrid Court for South Sudan—mandated by Chapter V of the R-ARCSS—has yet to be fully operationalized. For legal practitioners, this represents a critical breakdown in the rule of law where customary law often supersedes statutory protections, frequently to the detriment of victims. For attorneys and legal consultants operating within or advising on South Sudan, the primary takeaway is the necessity of navigating a dual-track justice system where formal mechanisms are often secondary to informal power structures. Practitioners must monitor the slow progress of the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing (CTRH) and the Compensation and Reparation Authority (CRA), as these bodies are intended to address the systemic roots of violence. Businesses and NGOs must exercise heightened due diligence to ensure their operations do not inadvertently support entities involved in these abuses, particularly in the extractives and security sectors. The ongoing failure to prosecute high-ranking officials for command responsibility suggests that legal risk remains high for any entity associated with the state security apparatus. Moving forward, the legal community should focus on advocating for the establishment of the Hybrid Court and the strengthening of mobile courts, which have shown limited but notable success in bringing some level of accountability to remote areas.
Read source