Strengthening gender justice in the Asia-Pacific through the Rome Statute
Many conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region have included sexual violence crimes targeted primarily against women. However, in comparison to other regions, Asia-Pacific states have been reluctant to embrace international law innovations to end impunity for such crimes into the future, as evidenced by their unwillingness to become signatories to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Of the 39 countries constituting the Asia-Pacific region, only 17—less than half—have joined the Rome Statute. This article initially surveys some of the reasons for non-ratification of the Statute. It further examines the role of civil society and the potential normative impact of the Statute to enhance national sexual violence legislation and prosecutions. Finally, it identifies some practical steps that the Australian government could take to encourage regional states to ratify, implement and enforce the Rome Statute in order to further protect all victims of international crimes and bolster the broader Women, Peace and Security framework.
Coalition for the International Criminal Court Questionnaire to Candidates for the Position of Registrar of the International Criminal Court Conscious of the critical importance of the Registrar of the ICC
As an independent judicial institution in the emerging international justice system, the International Criminal Court will:  Fairly, effectively and impartially investigate, prosecute and conduct trials of the most serious crimes;  Act transparently and efficiently; and  Contribute to long lasting respect for and enforcement of international criminal justice, to the prevention of crime and to the fight against impunity
Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence. Diversion or Effective Justice
Although the last few years have seen considerable advances in the theoretical clarification of restorative justice as well as proliferation of programmes putting the ideas into practice, there are still some important questions that remain unresolved. These revolve around the issues of the range of cases and offenders for which restorative justice is appropriate, and the extent to which restorative justice needs to incorporate due process safeguards and standards such as proportionality, which are important in formal criminal justice. After reviewing some of the issues that have arisen in established restorative justice usages (juvenile justice; less serious offences) the article looks at more controversial applications-domestic violence, sexual assault-and examines the arguments for and against their suitability for restorative justice processes. It is suggested that arguments against extension to these 'hard cases' usually envisage restorative justice as diversion, while arguments for its application to these seriously harmful and antisocial wrongs advocate restorative justice as effective justice. The author concludes that questions of range and questions of standards cannot be dealt with in isolation, and that the wider the range of offences and offenders restorative justice deals with, the more it may merge with formal criminal justice.