header-logo header-logo

24 October 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7535 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Violence against men

The HLE blog releases a policy paper calling for action against sexual violence against men in conflict zones

A recent study of international human rights law by the University of California Law School found that while there are well over one hundred uses of the term “violence against women” (defined to include sexual violence), no human rights instruments explicitly address sexual violence against men. The use in some instruments of the term “gender-based violence”, which should in theory focus attention on violence against both genders, is in practice used solely in relation to violence against women.

So human rights advocacy work for men must rely on gender-neutral instruments which do not specifically address sexual abuse, such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—stretching these instruments to fit a problem for which they were not designed.

This legal lacuna has serious consequences. While it is generally assumed correctly that women and girls are the primary victims of sexual violence, according to one analysis of prevalence studies in 1999, 3% of men worldwide had been raped in their lifetime (as children or adults)—representing, at that time, 210 million victims.

The HLE policy paper on this subject urges the UK government to work towards an instrument short of a treaty at UN level. This, it suggests, should take the form of a non-binding Declaration of the General Assembly on Sexual Violence Against Men in Conflict, which would definitively state the UNs’ opposition to such violence, and commitment to work towards the protection of victims.

Read the policy paper, authored by Tom Hennessey and Felicity Gerry, on the HLE website.

Issue: 7535 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll