{"id":1687,"date":"2006-01-01T09:08:01","date_gmt":"2006-01-01T13:08:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/site\/?p=1687"},"modified":"2010-10-21T23:40:46","modified_gmt":"2010-10-22T03:40:46","slug":"issue_47-1_mackinnon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2006\/01\/issue_47-1_mackinnon\/","title":{"rendered":"Women\u2019s September 11th"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong> <\/strong><\/span><\/em><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>Introduction<\/strong><\/span>*<\/p>\n<p>The  configuration of acts and actors of September 11, 2001 is not one that  international law, centered on states, has been primarily structured to  address. Neither was most of men\u2019s violence against women in view when  the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and international human  rights guarantees were framed. The formal and substantive parallels  between the two\u2014prominently their horizontal legal architecture, large  victim numbers, and masculine ideology\u2014make both patterns of violence  resemble dispersed armed conflict, but the world\u2019s response to them has  been inconsistent.<\/p>\n<p>Since September 11th, the international order  has been newly willing to treat nonstate actors like states as a source  of violence invoking the law of armed conflict. Much of the  international community has mobilized forcefully against terrorism. This  same international community that turned on a dime after September 11th  has, despite important initiatives, yet even to undertake a  comprehensive review of international laws and institutions toward an  effective strategic response to violence against women with all levels  of response on the table, even as the \u201cresponsibility to protect\u201d from  gross and systematic violence is increasingly emerging internationally  as an affirmative duty. The post\u2013September 11th paradigm shift,  permitting potent response to massive nonstate violence against  civilians in some instances, exemplifies if not a model for emulation, a  supple adaptation to a parallel challenge. It shows what they can do  when they want to. If, in tension with the existing framework, the one  problem can be confronted internationally, why not the other?<br \/>\n<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><em>* This excerpt does not include  citations. To read the entire article, including supporting notes,  please download the PDF.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The configuration of acts and actors of September 11, 2001 is not one that international law, centered on states, has been primarily structured to address. Neither was most of men\u2019s violence against women in view when the laws of war, international humanitarian law, and international human rights guarantees were framed. The formal and substantive parallels between the two\u2014prominently their horizontal legal architecture, large victim numbers, and masculine ideology\u2014make both patterns of violence resemble dispersed armed conflict, but the world\u2019s response to them has been inconsistent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[41],"class_list":["post-1687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-print-archives","tag-foreign-affairs"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-rd","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}