On 30 April 2026, the UN renewed the mandate of UNMISS, the peacekeeping mission in South Sudan. In addition to reducing troop numbers, the renewed mandate quietly scaled back the language referring to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) and to the Women, Peace and Security agenda. This move suggests that the Security Council sees justice for sexual violence as an obstacle to peace. Still, evidence from the last five months suggests the opposite – that, in fact, justice is a precondition.
Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) is a relatively new idea in international law, bringing violence against women into the public sphere and leading the UN to recognise it as a punishable crime rather than an ‘inevitable by-product’ of conflict. Instances of CRSV are varied, with proposed explanations of its occurrence ranging from strategic use as a ‘weapon of war’ (e.g., in the Bosnian genocide) to opportunism enabled by permissive commanders with insufficient control over their soldiers (the principal-agent problem). In South Sudan, CRSV has been prevalent throughout the conflict but has been increasing since 2024 due to societal breakdown and mass displacement. The victims of CRSV are ethnically targeted, and weak military structures fail to punish perpetrators because CRSV can play a militarily useful role as a reward for combatants and a bonding mechanism for soldiers. The nature and scale of this violence raise the question of why the Security Council has deliberately turned a blind eye to it.
One argument is that this is a temporary shift due to the current US foreign policy posture. As penholder, the US led negotiations and pushed for a stripped-back mandate to get ‘back to basics’; it was only after significant pushback from Colombia that limited CRSV language was reintroduced. However, this problem cuts deeper than US foreign policy trends and points to a structural issue in peacekeeping.
It comes down to the fact that it is much more difficult to facilitate a peace deal while also addressing CRSV. One cannot negotiate with a party while simultaneously holding them accountable for human rights violations. This is especially complicated for cases such as South Sudan, where CRSV is widespread and perpetrated by many actors, including forces supported by the government. As such, the political will to reach a settlement – and thus minimise civilian and combatant deaths – often trumps the desire to bring perpetrators to justice. The UNMISS mandate is a textbook example of this.
Historically, CRSV has not been prosecuted on the international stage because its prosecution is often seen as backsliding rather than as part of post-war, future-oriented recovery. For example, at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, the Allied powers did not pursue charges relating to the Japanese ‘comfort women’ program despite rape being included in the list of prosecutable crimes. Colson (2000) describes this tension as the clash between the ‘logic of peace’ and the ‘logic of justice’. The former is supported by the doctrine of realpolitik, which prioritises national security and therefore refuses to jeopardise peace negotiations by threatening those whose cooperation is needed for a ceasefire. The latter incorporates moral imperatives and historical perspectives; in official IR jargon, it embodies the ‘liberal’ approach over the ‘realist’ perspective.
The problem is that the UN has two fundamental aims, which are invariably at odds. On the one hand, it wants to set out strong international norms which support human rights (for example, the principle that heads of state aren’t immune from criminal responsibility); but on the other hand, enforcing such a norm comes at the cost of complicating peace negotiations, which require the cooperation of said heads of state. The solution to this problem may not be as simple as incorporating CRSV into rule-of-law reforms or strengthening local or national justice systems, as the ISS suggests. It requires the UN to clarify (both to itself and to others) whether its peacekeeping missions are guided by a logic of peace or by a logic of justice, as attempting to do both without specifying a division of labour risks self-contradiction and mission collapse. The UNMISS mandate signals that the UN is leaning towards peace, but this may come at a cost: firstly, the UN’s reputation as a champion of human rights is at risk; and secondly, Colson (2000) argues that it is actually not possible to achieve peace without justice, as justice is what heals societal scars.
Five months on from the mandate’s renewal, Colson appears to have been proved right. Following a visit to South Sudan in early September, the UN Commission on Human Rights diagnosed ‘persistent impunity’ as the main challenge facing the country. They called for the implementation of court proceedings that fully comply with international human rights standards and the full operationalisation of the Commission for Truth, Reconciliation and Healing and the Compensation and Reparation Authority. Without such measures to address impunity for serious human rights violations, South Sudan cannot build functioning justice institutions, nor break the cycle of violence. If it wants to achieve its peacebuilding aims, the UNSC should consider putting justice for conflict-related sexual violence back on UNMISS’s agenda.
Sources & Recommended Readings
Ajayi, T.F. and Mulukwat, K.H.L. (2026) ‘South Sudan’s sexual violence crisis: more than a wartime phenomenon’, ISS Today, 22 June. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies. Available at: https://issafrica.org/iss-today/south-sudan-s-sexual-violence-crisis-more-than-a-wartime-phenomenon.
Amnesty International Australia (2017) South Sudan: sexual violence ‘on a massive scale’ leaves thousands in mental distress amid raging conflict, 24 July. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org.au/south-sudan-sexual-violence-massive-scale-leaves-thousands-mental-distress-amid-raging-conflict/.
Colson, A.J. (2000) ‘The logic of peace and the logic of justice’, International Relations, 15(1), pp. 51–62.
Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan (2026) South Sudan: UN Commission warns of growing risks to civilians and democratic transition as violence and impunity persist. Press release, 10 September. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/09/south-sudan-un-commission-warns-growing-risks-civilians-and-democratic.
Koo, K.L. (2002) ‘Confronting a disciplinary blindness: women, war and rape in the international politics of security’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 37(3), pp. 525–536.
Security Council Report (2026) ‘UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS): vote on mandate renewal resolution’, What’s in Blue, 30 April. Available at: https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2026/04/un-mission-in-south-sudan-unmiss-vote-on-mandate-renewal-resolution-5.php
United Nations (no date) Conflict-related sexual violence. Available at: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/conflict-related-sexual-violence.
United Nations Mission in South Sudan (2026) Quarterly brief on violence affecting civilians: July–September 2025. Juba: UNMISS. Available at: http://unmiss.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2026-01/quarterly_brief_on_violence_affecting_civilians_july-september_2025.pdf .
United Nations Security Council (2026) Security Council adopts resolution 2820 (2026), extending mandate of United Nations Mission in South Sudan for one year. Press release SC/16354, 30 April. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16354.doc.htm
United Nations Security Council (2026) Resolution 2820 (2026), S/RES/2820, 30 April.