Adopting a feminist perspective, this article focuses on the protection of women's right to reproductive health during armed conflicts and, in particular, on access to safe abortion services for rape victims. Indeed, although women are disproportionately affected by conflicts, and their sexual and reproductive needs are exacerbated by the spread of sexual and gender-based violence, there is a lack of specific attention on this topic in the literature. The article therefore aims to investigate whether an obligation to provide access to safe abortion services for rape victims can be interpretatively derived from the set of international rules governing armed conflict. To this end, it will start by focusing on abortion as part of the non-discriminatory medical treatment that states must provide to the wounded and sick. It will then address the interpretation of the absolute obligation to treat humanely persons who are taking no active part in the hostilities, and investigate what such treatment entails when it comes to pregnant women who are victims of rape in armed conflicts. Finally, state practice and the practice of the UN Security Council in the framework of the Women, Peace and Security Agenda will be investigated.

Among the increasingly frequent acts of non-compliance with, and grievous violations of, international humanitarian law around the world, especially in non-international armed conflicts, attacks on objects and persons enjoying special protection, and their abuse, as well as the misuse of the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, come as no surprise. Although a repressive approach to the problem – through the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators – cannot completely prevent such occurrences, an effective and appropriate judicial stigmatisation can significantly contribute to making them as rare as possible. In this regard, the court proceedings held before the War Crimes Chamber in Belgrade and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague in connection with the events in and around the Vukovar Hospital and Ovčara farm have provided an appropriate judicial response. This is notwithstanding the fact that, at least for now, not all perpetrators have been prosecuted for their acts (or failure to act) at the time of the commission of these grave crimes.

Armed conflicts have numerous adverse health consequences for the affected populations, many of which occur in the long-term. This article analyses in detail how international humanitarian law (IHL) and the right to health complement each other in obliging states to mitigate the direct and indirect health consequences of non-international armed conflicts. With its historical origin and purpose of protecting wounded and sick combatants of standing governmental armies, IHL focuses on the protection of the wounded and sick suffering from the direct health consequences of armed conflicts, such as injuries resulting from ongoing hostilities. The right to health is more expansive: it obliges states to prioritise the provision of primary health care through creating and maintaining an accessible basic health system. This focus enables it to highlight and address the indirect health consequences of armed conflicts, such as the spreading of epidemic and endemic diseases and rising child and maternal mortality and morbidity.