When the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into operation in 2012, it was considered by many to represent a significant a break with the past and set international criminal law on a new path. No new aspect of the Rome Statute stood out more than the gender justice articles that expanded the recognition of sexual and gender based crimes as well as made provision for the appointment of women and gender and sexual violence experts across the operations of the Court. Ten years on it is clear that these new provisions have not been implemented as quickly or as comprehensively as their designers intended. While some progress has been made, in terms of greater recognition and representation of gender justice concerns, and some redistribution towards women victims of conflict, many gaps remain. Two important limitations are the significant discrepancy in the number of women accessing the ICC’s victim redress regime, and weakness in the prosecution’s strategy in charging sexual violence crimes. Applying new institutionalist theory on informal institutions, this paper argues that these outcomes reflect the operation of old informal gender rules that undermine and distort attempts to challenge gender injustice in new institutions. It suggests that finding new tools to identify and to challenge these informal rules is key to advancing gender justice.
