Sexual violence in armed conflict is often framed as opportunistic or a breakdown of discipline, yet patterns in South Sudan suggest a more organised logic. Evidence indicates that such violence is shaped by command environments, ethnic targeting, and strategies of displacement, making accountability as much a question of organisational responsibility as individual culpability. Situated within debates in international humanitarian law, feminist legal theory, and transitional justice, the manuscript examines how conflict-related sexual violence operates as a structured component of warfare rather than an incidental byproduct. Focusing on South Sudan, the study addresses three interrelated questions: what evidence supports the claim that sexual violence has been deployed deliberately as a tool of terror, ethnic targeting, and community destruction; how command structures, unit cohesion, and identity dynamics within the SSPDF, SPLA-IO, and affiliated militias shape variation in patterns of abuse across time and space; and which accountability pathways—under the Rome Statute, the proposed Hybrid Court for South Sudan, or regional human rights mechanisms—remain legally viable and politically feasible given the dominance of implicated actors within the current settlement. Methodologically, the study combines systematic analysis of UNMISS human rights reports, African Union Commission of Inquiry documentation, and field reporting by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International with legal analysis of command responsibility doctrine across ICTY, ICTR, and ICC jurisprudence. It is further informed by interviews with survivors (conducted under trauma-informed protocols), prosecutors, and civil society advocates. The findings show, first, that available evidence supports interpreti
Strategic Sexual Violence (Thu,) studied this question.