Since the Taliban swept to power in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of Australian and other allied troops in August 2021, it has issued more than 100 edicts targeting women and girls.
Decree No 18 ‘Code on Judicial Separation of Spouses’
In May the Taliban published Decree No 18, titled the “Code on Judicial Separation of Spouses.” Under its terms, a girl’s silence can be taken as consent to marry and a woman’s right to divorce has been further restricted, the decree adds. The source describes Decree No 18 as one of many measures that “inflicts cruelties on women and girls,” and says the new law legalises coercion of girls into marriages they cannot escape.
Daily life under successive edicts
The restrictions on women and girls have been broad and systematic. One of the Taliban’s first acts was to paint over the images of women on Kabul’s billboards — the thick paint used to blot out faces is described in the source as a metaphor for the group’s oppressive rule. Since then the regime has sought to remove Afghan women from public life: women are forced to wear clothing that conceals their entire bodies except for their eyes and cannot appear in public without a male guardian. They cannot work in most jobs, were banned from appearing on television and then radio, and are now described as unable “to speak above a whisper on the streets for fear of violent retribution.” The source also records public floggings and other forms of corporal punishment. Girls are denied the right to pursue an education beyond grade six.
An international legal avenue: the ICJ and the Open Society Foundations’ case
The Open Society Foundations has prepared a legal case that any government with jurisdiction can take to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), according to the source. The case would allege violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which Afghanistan ratified in 2003. The source notes that Australia, together with Canada, Germany and the Netherlands, took an earlier step in September 2024 by putting the Taliban on notice for its violations of the rights of women and girls — a move celebrated by Afghan and human rights communities and described as opening the door to a first case of its kind at the ICJ. The source emphasises that, while the ICJ has taken up major human rights cases in recent years, it has never before addressed the rights of women and girls in this way.
Humanitarian impact and international neglect
The humanitarian context is stark. Citing the UN OCHA Financial Tracking Service, the source reports that reported humanitarian funding for Afghanistan has fallen from US$2.04 billion (A$2.94 billion) in 2021 to just US$496.3 million in 2026 — a decline of around 76 percent. Nearly half of Afghanistan’s population needs humanitarian assistance, and women and girls are described as disproportionately affected: female-only clinics and schools have been shut down, and economic pressures have prompted families to force their daughters into child marriages. The source further notes that UN experts and the European Parliament identified these widespread and systematic abuses as “gender apartheid” in June.
How Australia, Afghan women and girls, and the ICJ are affected
- Australia (policymakers and diplomats): The source urges Australia to build on its earlier 2024 notice and to “act with the urgency this crisis demands,” using jurisdictional standing to bring or support a case at the ICJ that would be the first to focus on the rights of women and girls under CEDAW.
- Afghan women and girls (those affected on the ground): The source argues the case would force Taliban abuses “into the glare of international scrutiny” and could demonstrate solidarity with women who continue to resist by protesting or running businesses and schools from their homes.
- The ICJ and the international community (courts and diplomats): An authoritative, legally binding ruling from the UN’s highest court is presented as potential leverage because the Taliban seeks international acceptance — including a seat at the United Nations, embassies abroad and relief from sanctions — though the source also cautions the leadership could reject such a ruling as illegitimate foreign interference unless it is embedded in a broader diplomatic approach.
The source frames a clear policy choice: take the Open Society Foundations’ prepared legal route to the ICJ and compel international adjudication of the Taliban’s actions, or allow the current trajectory of repression and declining humanitarian support to continue. The source concludes that a ruling at the ICJ could be a powerful source of leverage — but only if it is part of a coherent diplomatic strategy that makes legitimacy conditional on the restoration of basic rights and dignity to Afghan women and girls.
