Sexual Slavery and Customary International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hissene Habre trial and appellate judgments represent watershed legal decisions rendering long-denied justice to victims of the brutal Chadian regime. Delayed charges of credible sexual violence inflicted upon both males and females challenged the judges of the Extraordinary African Court (“EAC”) in Senegal. Legal characterizations of sexual assaults ultimately attributed to Habre represent significant jurisprudential advancements on rape, sexual slavery and torture as international crimes. The EAC’s observations acknowledge that sexual slavery constitutes part of the actus reus of enslavement as crime against humanity and of slavery as a war crime. While agreeing with the Chambers that sexual slavery is anchored in customary international law, this Chapter deepens the inquiry into the international legal prohibition of sexual slavery. The authors posit that, in fact, the 1926 Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (“1926 Slavery Convention”) proscribed what is identified as “sexual slavery” because sexual violence is and always has been part and parcel of both de jure (legal) and de facto (customary) slavery. Accordingly, the Habre Trial Chamber might have refined its distillation of sexual slavery as customary international law by noting that it as an intractable component of slavery, which was outlawed in the 1926 Slavery Convention. Sexual slavery, often mischaracterized as a recent or modern form of slavery, demands a more astute legal articulation. This Chapter clarifies the law on slavery, asserting that sexual violence or assaults on sexual integrity are integral to slavery in many — if not all — its forms. The authors endeavor to reorient the legal discussion toward a more nuanced, multidimensional understanding of the crimes of slavery and enslavement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".