Tactical rape is not a new phenomenon. It is deliberate, widespread policy rape implemented with definite intent. Even with the increasing formal recognition of its pernicious effects and its threats to human and state security, tactical rape continues. “In conflicts around the world, armies and armed groups use sexual violence as a devastating tactic of war,” said Nisha Varia, women's rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. This does not mean that it is useless to insist on all possible steps to prevent it, to offer whatever protection possible against it and to bring perpetrators to account. Laws and normative rejection of other crimes such as murder, theft and corruption do not mean such crimes disappear. As considered in Chapter Three, feminist analysts have serious and credible concerns regarding the gendered nature of legal systems and existing law at international and national levels, and the impact of essentially patriarchal institutions of law on women. In 1991, Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin and Shelley Wright focused on developing an international feminist perspective, outlined the male organisational and normative structure of the international legal system, and applied feminist analyses to various legal principles.

The notion of law as objective and gender-neutral is questionable, and as such there are limitations to the usefulness of a focus on existing law and legal processes. However, it is a first step – and I argue that it is a useful step – to have a framework of laws as the basis for further progress. Similarly, it is useful to track and recognise progress made at international level such as in the UN Security Council, even though the irony remains that it is states that make UN resolutions and yet they are still often perpetrators of tactical rape. In March 2015, the Secretary-General reported to the UN Security Council: