From ‘No Means No’ to ‘Only Yes Means Yes’··· The EU moves to unify the definition of ‘rape’ - 경향신문

This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.

On the 28th (local time), the European Parliament passed an important resolution. The gist is simple.

“Sex without explicit consent is rape.”

European Union (EU) member states intend to adopt this principle as a common standard. The vote was 447 in favor and 160 against, an overwhelming margin. International human rights organizations called it “a big step for social change.”

Gisele Pellico, recipient of France's highest honor. Kyunghyang Shinmun

What ignited the discussion was the “Gisele Pellico” case, a gang rape case that shocked French society. Gisele's husband mixed drugs into food and drinks to render his wife unconscious and, over more than ten years, recruited more than fifty men online to rape her.

At the heart of the courtroom battle was how to interpret the concept of consent. Under France's previous legal framework, rape was often deemed to require physical coercion such as violence, threats, force, or surprise. Thus, even though Gisele was raped while unconscious due to drugs, some defense attorneys argued that she had not expressly refused. The logic was that it was hard to consider it rape because the victim did not actively say no or resist.

In the wake of the case, voices grew in France to make the principle of “no consent, rape” more explicit in law. A social consensus formed that consent in sexual relations must be assessed comprehensively, taking into account situations such as violence, power dynamics, drugs, sleep, illness, and disability. Ultimately, in October last year the French parliament amended the law, redefining rape as “any sexual act without explicit and voluntary consent.”

Until now, EU member states have applied varying definitions of rape. Some countries recognized rape only when there was physical violence such as assault or threats. Germany, Austria, and Poland applied the ‘No Means No (no means no)’ principle, making it key whether the victim had clearly expressed a refusal.

By contrast, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, and the Netherlands adopted the ‘Only Yes Means Yes (only yes means yes)’ principle, under which any sexual act without explicit and voluntary consent is considered rape.

The Gisele Pellico case sparked a Europe-wide debate on legally clarifying the concept of ‘consent.’ In this resolution, the EU stipulated that “silence, the absence of resistance, or past consent or relationships cannot be interpreted as consent.”

Evin Incir, a Swedish Social Democratic member of the European Parliament, explained that “this legislative push is meant to ensure that only ‘yes’ is genuine consent in sexual relations and that all laws against sexual violence in the EU are grounded in the consent principle.” She also emphasized that “women should not have to resist or show injuries to prove a ‘no’; rather, the ‘absence of consent’ itself must be the core criterion.”

What will change if the definition of rape is unified?

When crimes are defined at the EU level using a common standard, legal differences among member states are reduced, and cross-border cooperation in investigation and adjudication can become much easier. In particular, if rape is included in the EU's common standards, all member states will have to apply at least the same minimum criteria, which is expected to reduce legal blind spots.

Victim protection and punishment of perpetrators could also be carried out more consistently. With a shared definition of the crime, victims who are harmed in another EU country can receive a similar level of legal protection. And if evidence and judgments are mutually recognized, offenders who flee across borders are more likely to face punishment.

Victim support systems could also be strengthened, since all member states would have to provide a baseline level of services such as legal advice, medical care, and specialized counseling. For victims, this would mean having minimum rights guaranteed no matter which country they are in.

In the end, citizens would gain confidence that their rights are protected equally even when living in another EU country. This could tangibly strengthen the EU's much-emphasized “area of freedom, security, and justice.”

Controversy remains. France and Germany opposed during the 2024 discussions, arguing that the EU lacks the authority to impose common criminal standards because rape is not designated as a cross-border crime under EU treaties. Since criminal law is a core realm of national sovereignty, they contend, the EU has no authority to set a definition applicable across Europe.

Even so, international human rights organizations said the resolution's passage represents meaningful progress not only in legal change but also in improving social awareness. Amnesty International issued a statement the same day saying, “A ‘culture of sexual violence’ is sustained by deeply rooted harmful stereotypes and false myths about sex, and sometimes even by attempts to justify them,” and “this resolution is an important opportunity to change that.”

This discussion is significant not merely for changing a single provision of law, but for spreading across Europe the social message that in sexual relations the most important thing is clear consent.

What remains now is for the European Commission to pursue actual legislation. Can the “ball set in motion by Gisele” roll across the whole of Europe?