Authored By: Ntivo Providence Rihlampfu
University of the Western Cape
Introduction
Afghanistan has become one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman.[1] That is the perception many hold when considering the women’s rights crisis under Taliban rule.[2] Yet this framing only tells part of the story. What is unfolding in Afghanistan is not merely a women’s rights crisis but a humanitarian disaster.[3]
In March 2026, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights warned that Afghanistan is witnessing the “systematic erasure of women from public life.”[4] Since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, a cascade of decrees has stripped Afghan women of fundamental rights.[5] Girls have been barred from secondary and higher education, women civil servants dismissed, and even access to healthcare now requires the presence of a male guardian.[6] These restrictions are not isolated measures but form a coordinated system of gender-based exclusion that dismantles institutions, silences women’s voices, and entrenches discrimination in law and practice.
This article argues that these policies amount to crimes against humanity under international law, specifically gender persecution as defined in the Rome Statute. The discussion proceeds in three parts: first, outlining the relevant legal framework; second, examining Taliban decrees against this framework; and third, assessing whether these policies meet the threshold of crimes against humanity.
Legal framework
International law provides a clear framework for assessing whether the Taliban’s policies amount to crimes against humanity. Under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), crimes against humanity are defined as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.[7] Among these acts is persecution on gender grounds, which involves the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law.[8] This provision recognizes that targeting women as a group is not merely discriminatory but can rise to the level of international criminality when carried out systematically.
The concept of gender persecution under Article 7(1)(h) requires two elements. First, that women are intentionally targeted because of their gender and second, that the deprivation of rights is severe and entrenched.[9] International tribunals, including the ICTY and ICC, have affirmed that persecution may take many forms, these include exclusion from education and employment to restrictions on movement and healthcare when these measures are imposed to oppress a group.[10]
Afghanistan’s obligations under international treaties reinforce this standard. As a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Afghanistan is bound to eliminate discrimination in education, employment, and public life.[11] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees equality before the law, while the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) protects rights to work, health, and education.[12] These obligations remain binding regardless of regime change.
Customary international law recognizes the prohibition of gender discrimination as a jus cogens norm, this is a peremptory principle from which no derogation is permitted.[13] This means that even if the Taliban reject treaty obligations, their decrees cannot escape scrutiny under international law.
Examining Taliban decrees against the legal framework:
The decrees issued by the Taliban since their return to power in 2021 reveal a systematic dismantling of women’s rights that stands in direct contradiction to Afghanistan’s binding obligations under international law.[14] The prohibition on girls attending secondary school and universities is perhaps the most striking example. Since September 2021, the Taliban has banned girls from secondary school.[15] By excluding women from education, the Taliban directly violate Article 10 of CEDAW, which guarantees equal rights in education, and Article 13 of the ICESCR, which enshrines the right to education. This isn’t just about schools, it’s about lost futures, lost livelihoods and communities trapped in poverty.[16] This exclusion also undermines Article 3 of the ICCPR, which requires equal enjoyment of civil and political rights by men and women.[17]
Employment restrictions provide another clear instance of systemic discrimination. Taliban decrees banning women from working in NGOs, government offices, and most professions contravene Article 11 of CEDAW, which guarantees equality in employment.[18] These measures not only deprive women of economic independence but also erode their capacity to participate in public life.
Restrictions on women’s freedom of movement and participation in public life further demonstrate the breadth of Taliban decrees.[19] The requirement that women travel only with a male relative when they leave their homes, even for short journeys. This ban violates Article 7 of CEDAW, which guarantees equality in public and political life.[20] These measures effectively erase women from the public sphere, creating a gender‑segregated society that is incompatible with Afghanistan’s international commitments.
Accessing healthcare has become increasingly difficult for Afghan women.[21] Taliban policies restricting women’s access to medical services and banning female healthcare workers directly contravene Article 12 of CEDAW which guarantee the right to health.[22] Scholarly research and human rights reporting confirm that these restrictions have left women without adequate medical care, compounding the broader pattern of systemic exclusion. Taliban policies meet the threshold of crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute.
Assessing Taliban decrees against the threshold of crimes against humanity:
The cumulative effect of Taliban decrees targeting women must be assessed under the framework of crimes against humanity as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Crimes against humanity encompass acts such as persecution and other inhumane measures when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.[23] The decrees restricting women’s access to education, employment, healthcare, and public participation are not isolated incidents but form a coherent policy of exclusion, implemented nationwide and enforced through intimidation and coercion.[24] This systematic nature satisfies the requirement that the acts be part of a broader attack rather than sporadic violations.
The nature of these measures is evident in their nationwide application, affecting millions of Afghan women and girls. Their systematic character is reflected in the consistency of enforcement, the issuance of formal decrees and the ideological justification rooted in Taliban governance. The intention is clear, women are targeted as a group, excluded from public life, and denied access to basic rights solely on the basis of gender. This intent satisfies the requirement that persecution be directed against an identifiable group, in this case women as a civilian population.[25]
Critical Analysis
The Taliban’s decrees do not merely restrict individual freedom. They expose a deeper structural problem in international law and humanitarian practice.[26] Despite Afghanistan’s ratification of treaties such as CEDAW, ICCPR, and ICESCR, enforcement mechanisms remain weak, allowing systemic violations to persist. This gap between formal obligations and practical enforcement is at the heart of the crisis.
The situation in Afghanistan should be understood as gender apartheid, a framework that captures the deliberate, institutionalised exclusion of women from public life.[27] Unlike women’s rights crisis which implies to a temporary or isolated problem, the concept of gender apartheid highlights the permanence and intentionality of these structures. The problem is twofold and in the form of legal gap in which international treaties guarantee rights but lack binding enforcement against regimes that openly defy them. Secondly, humanitarian dilemma in which aid organisations face the impossible choice of operating under restrictive conditions or withdrawing.
By naming the situation as gender apartheid, this paper argues for a shift in both legal and humanitarian discourse. Recognition alone is not enough. What is required is a framework that treats systemic exclusion as a crime against humanity, demanding coordinated international accountability.
Conclusion
The Taliban’s decrees reveal a systematic dismantling of women’s rights across education, employment, healthcare, and public participation. These measures constitute not only violations of Afghanistan’s treaty obligations but also a coherent policy of exclusion that international jurisprudence increasingly recognises as persecution and potentially crimes against humanity. This is why the situation in Afghanistan is now described not merely as a women’s rights crisis but as a form of gender apartheid. The deliberate exclusion of women demonstrates how institutions are being constructed on foundations of inequality, entrenching discrimination that will shape governance and social structures for generations to come.
The longer these conditions persist, the greater the danger that exclusion will become embedded as a permanent structure rather than treated as an emergency. The challenge is no longer only to recover what has been lost, but to ask whether systems once sustained by women’s participation can be rebuilt at all. Without decisive action, Afghanistan risks normalising gender apartheid as the basis of its institutions, leaving future generations to inherit structures designed to exclude half the population.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cases
Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez ICTY‑95‑14/2‑T (ICTY, 26 February 2001)
Legislation
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966
Journal Articles
Orfan Sayeed Naqibullah and Abdul Wahab Shams, ‘“Why I was born a woman”: Female students’ challenges in Afghanistan higher education under the Taliban rule’ (2025) 91 International Review of Education 1023.
Websites and Online Sources
Amnesty International, ‘Afghanistan: New criminal regulation targets women and minority groups with ever-harsher punishments’ (Amnesty International, 6 March 2026) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/afghanistan-new-criminal-regulation-targets-women-and-minority-groups-with-ever-harsher-punishments/ accessed 4 August 2026
Hatami Sepita, ‘The women’s rights crisis in Afghanistan is an ongoing humanitarian calamity’ (The Conversation, 11 May 2026) https://theconversation.com/the-womens-rights-crisis-in-afghanistan-is-an-ongoing-humanitarian-calamity-281686 (theconversation.com in Bing) accessed 4 August 2026
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Report – Afghanistan’s human rights situation “continues to deteriorate dramatically”’ (OHCHR, 30 March 2026) https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/afghanistans-human-rights-situation-continues-deteriorate-dramatically accessed 4 August 2026
UN Women, ‘FAQs: Afghanistan’ (UN Women, 2026) https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/faqs/faqs-afghanistan accessed 4 August 2026
Wampler J, ‘Jus Cogens and the Lack of a Universal Gender Equality Norm’ (Oxford Human Rights Hub, 15 June 2023) https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/jus-cogens-and-the-lack-of-a-universal-gender-equality-norm/ accessed 4 August 2026
[1] Sepita Hatami, ‘The women’s rights crisis in Afghanistan is an ongoing humanitarian calamity’ (The Conversation, 11 May 2026) https://theconversation.com/the-womens-rights-crisis-in-afghanistan-is-an-ongoing-humanitarian-calamity-281686 (theconversation.com in Bing) accessed 4 August 2026
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Report – Afghanistan’s human rights situation “continues to deteriorate dramatically”’ (OHCHR, 30 March 2026) https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/afghanistans-human-rights-situation-continues-deteriorate-dramatically accessed 4 August 2026
[5] ibid
[6] Amnesty International, ‘Afghanistan: New criminal regulation targets women and minority groups with ever-harsher punishments’ (Amnesty International, 6 March 2026) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/afghanistan-new-criminal-regulation-targets-women-and-minority-groups-with-ever-harsher-punishments/ accessed 4 August 2026
[7] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome, 17 July 1998) art 7(1)
[8] ibid art 7(1)(h)
[9] ibid
[10] Prosecutor v Kordić and Čerkez ICTY‑95‑14/2‑T (ICTY, 26 February 2001)
[11] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women GA Res 34/180 (18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981). Afghanistan ratified 2003.
[12] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights GA Res 2200A (XXI) (16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976); UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights GA Res 2200A (XXI) (16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976).
[13] Jonathan Wampler, ‘Jus Cogens and the Lack of a Universal Gender Equality Norm’ (Oxford Human Rights Hub, 15 June 2023) https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/jus-cogens-and-the-lack-of-a-universal-gender-equality-norm/ accessed 4 August 2026.
[14] Hatima (n 1)
[15] Sayeed Naqibullah Orfan and Abdul Wahab Shams, ‘“Why I was born a woman”: Female students’ challenges in Afghanistan higher education under the Taliban rule’ (2025) 91 International Review of Education 1023, 1025
[16] ibid
[17] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) art 3
[18] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (New York, 18 December 1979) art 11
[19] UN Women, ‘FAQs: Afghanistan’ (UN Women, 2026) https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/faqs/faqs-afghanistan accessed 4 August 2026
[20] CEDAW (n 5) art 7
[21] UN Women (n 6)
[22] CEDAW (n 5) art 12
[23] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome, 17 July 1998) art 7(1)
[24] Hatima (n 1)
[25] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998 (n 7)
[26] Sayeed Naqibullah Orfan and Abdul Wahab Shams, ‘“Why I was born a woman”: Female students’ challenges in Afghanistan higher education under the Taliban rule’ (2025) 91 International Review of Education 1023, 1025
[27] ibid
