Imagine if the Taliban regime restricted the basic rights and freedoms of all men based on their race, systematically excluding them from public spaces. Would this not constitute apartheid — an international crime that obligates every state to avoid complicity and seek justice for the victims? If apartheid has no place in a rules-based international system, then gender apartheid should be treated with the same legal seriousness. States that have embraced Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) have a unique opportunity to take the lead in addressing this issue, aligning their international commitments with their stated values of gender equality and justice. Therefore, I argue that failing to recognize gender apartheid as an international crime undermines the credibility of both international law and the U.N. system.
Ein Blogbeitrag von Lina Abraham
In August this year, the world watched as the Taliban regime in Afghanistan imposed yet another crackdown on women’s rights. The so-called “Law on the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice” even banned the sound of a woman’s voice outside of her home (Art. 13 (3)). The OHCHR’s Chief Spokesperson, described this as an attempt to turn women into “faceless, voiceless shadows”, which is “in clear violation of Afghanistan’s obligations under international human rights law”.
The Taliban are the only governing group to have systematically violated nearly all basic rights of women and girls. In response, many, including four women Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, have called for recognizing the Taliban’s system as gender apartheid and expanding the scope of the UN Apartheid Convention (see #EndGenderApartheid 2024). However, the term “apartheid” has mostly been avoided by international actors and U.N. bodies in the context of Afghanistan.
What does Apartheid mean, and where does it come from?
“Apartheid” is an Afrikaans word meaning “apartness” or “separation”. In its original sense, apartheid refers to policies of racial segregation that formed the governing ideology and legal framework in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. Analogous to racial apartheid, gender apartheid refers to the systematic gender-based separation and oppression, where laws and policies codify the superiority of men. Targeting based on gender is not limited to women and can include victims who identify as nonbinary, and LGBTQI+ persons.
Racial apartheid in South Africa structured society along racial lines, similarly to how the Taliban regime divides Afghan society along gender lines. For instance, apartheid laws segregated public spaces by race, enforcing restrictions through “pass laws”. Under the Taliban, women are barred from public spaces and must be accompanied by a male relative to move “freely”. Just as racial apartheid limited non-white women’s healthcare and reproductive rights, the Taliban severely restricts female and reproductive healthcare while domestic violence rises. Racial apartheid also banned non-whites from education and employment, with the Taliban similarly excluding women from most sectors and education beyond grade six.
Like apartheid in South Africa, the state under the Taliban rule becomes the primary agent of discrimination, enforcing and institutionalizing a system of segregation and inequality that permeates all aspects of society.
Legal Obligations under the Apartheid Convention and the Role of FFP-Aligned States
In response to apartheid in Southern Africa, the UN adopted the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid in 1976, recognizing that discrimination as a governance model starkly contradicts the UN Charter. The 1998 Rome Statute codified apartheid as one of the worst crimes possible: a crime against humanity (Art. 7, (2 (h)).
Interestingly, the Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977) classified apartheid as applicable “without any geographical limitation” (Art. 85, (4)(c)), allowing the convention to be applied to situations beyond Southern Africa.
The core elements of the crime of apartheid can be summarized as follows:
(1) intent to maintain domination by one racial group over another;
(2) a context of systematic oppression by one racial group over another; and
(3) inhumane acts.
Now, substitute “racial group” with “gender”. This strikingly mirrors the situation in Afghanistan. Like racial apartheid, gender apartheid is rooted in discrimination — but it is its all-encompassing, systematic nature that sets it apart. Apartheid goes beyond isolated injustices; it infiltrates every aspect of existence, stripping individuals of their humanity in a deliberate, state-sanctioned manner. While discrimination can vary in intensity and even serve constructive purposes, such as gender quotas, apartheid is fundamentally dehumanizing. It institutionalizes oppression on a totalizing scale, leaving no aspect of life untouched. There is and was no refuge from apartheid, neither in South Africa nor in Afghanistan.
Today, the U.N. system still primarily classifies Taliban policies as unlawful discrimination. But ordinary anti-discrimination norms such as the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women” are insufficient because they focus mainly on individual violations rather than systemic ones.
For all states that uphold the UN Charter, especially those committed to FFP, broadening the Apartheid Convention to include gender apartheid is not only a moral imperative but a policy obligation. Failing to address this significant gap in international law denies victims of gender apartheid access to justice and disregards the magnitude of the injustice inflicted upon them. Such neglect would seriously undermine the credibility of international law. For FFP, it risks reducing its principles to mere rhetoric, eroding its legitimacy and purpose of advancing gender equality and promoting human rights.
The Dangerous Normalization Trend
A possible reason for the reluctance to classify the Taliban’s policies as gender apartheid is that it would impose “erga omnes obligations” on signatories of the Apartheid Convention, meaning states would have a collective responsibility to prevent, suppress, and punish apartheid, regardless of where it occurs. Additionally, the International Law Commission recognized apartheid as an international crime in Art. 15, cmt. 4, establishing the “Responsibility of Third States”, which obligates countries to avoid recognizing or aiding regimes that perpetrate such practices.
There is a concerning trend of increasing normalization of the Taliban emerging. In September 2024, Kyrgyzstan, once a U.S. ally, quietly removed the Taliban from its list of banned terrorist organizations. Kazakhstan followed suit, driven by growing economic ties with the Taliban. Russia, which has maintained high-level contacts with the Taliban, hosted the Moscow Format Consultations on Afghanistan in October 2021, with participants, including China, Iran, and Pakistan, expressing intent to cooperate with the Taliban, regardless of formal recognition.
Although no country has officially recognized the Taliban, over a dozen states, including all six of Afghanistan’s neighbours, have allowed Taliban diplomats to control Afghan embassies or consulates. China, Kazakhstan, and the UAE have accepted accredited Taliban envoys. This raises serious concerns that formal recognition without human rights conditions may soon follow.
States committed to FFP must take decisive action to counter this trend of normalization.
The Need for International Action
The situation is critical. Even now, international law offers limited means to deal with actors like the Taliban, who openly reject the rule of law and whose leaders are already listed under U.N. Security Council sanctions. One of the few remaining paths for change depends on how other states respond to Taliban policies. International actors, particularly those committed to FFP, must label the situation as “apartheid”, pressuring governments, international organizations, and corporations to distance themselves from the Taliban and emphasize their status as hostis humani generis — enemies of humanity.
A similar response has proven effective in the past. In the case of South Africa, the adoption of the Apartheid Convention played a crucial role in dismantling the regime, resulting in its diplomatic, economic, and cultural isolation. Likewise, it is entirely feasible that the Taliban regime could collapse if the international community upheld its moral and legal standards and acted in unison. By contrast, the absence of a stronger response to a regime whose misogynistic policies strip women of their humanity sends a harmful message: that women’s rights are expendable. For the international community, particularly states committed to FFP, to truly uphold human rights, they must recognize that the Taliban’s policies in Afghanistan constitute gender apartheid, a crime against humanity. FFP-aligned states are in a unique position to drive this change, setting an example for others and pushing the global community to take decisive action against gender apartheid.
Lina Abraham joined Polis180 in early 2023. She actively contributes to “Gender & International Politics” and co-leads a blog series on “Peace & Conflict.” Lina studied law, sociology, and political science in Heidelberg and Paris and is now pursuing a Master’s in Conflict Studies in London. She also works as a conflict researcher focusing on the Arabian Peninsula.
Bildquelle via Pexels.
Polis Blog ist eine Plattform, die den Mitgliedern von Polis180 & OpenTTN zur Verfügung steht. Die veröffentlichten Beiträge stellen persönliche Stellungnahmen der AutorInnen dar. Sie geben nicht die Meinung der Blogredaktion oder von Polis180 e.V. wieder.
Zurück