cluded from the special forces, i.e., the Royal Marines.257 The Court stated that the special conditions for deployment of assault units, as well as the requirement of interoperability, allow for derogation of the right to equal treatment. 7. Harassment and Other Forms of Gender-Specific Discrimination In spite of the fact that women are de jure allowed to serve in armed forces in most countries, they still face de facto discrimination on the basis of gender. Though men and women are formally equal in most states, women do not enjoy the same status as men in the armed forces as a result of cultural and structural forms of inequality. Much of the resistance to integration is embedded in the prevailing male-dominated culture, which conceives the military as essentially a male institution. Gender discrimination also affects military recruitment and employment policies. Discriminatory practices range from biased recruitment and performance evaluation systems, and the absence of separate facilities for women, to the lack of legislation on maternity leave and exclusion from combat functions. Different career opportunities for men and women also explain why women are distributed over the ranks so unevenly. Moreover, double selection standards for men and women are often presumed to undermine women’s credibility and generate hostility from male colleagues. As a consequence, servicewomen feel that they must work twice as hard to receive the same respect as men. Furthermore, women who are seen as competent soldiers may have their sexuality questioned.258 Therefore, more open policies are needed at the level of recruitment, e.g., the adoption of gender-free physical selection standards (e.g., UK 259). Sexual harassment and sexual violence Sexual harassment is a form of sexual discrimination that has been defined as: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature ... when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.260 The above definition identifies two types of sexual harassment. The first is quid pro quo harassment, in which decisions on hiring, termination, promotion, or pay are made based on an employee’s response to sexual advances. The second type of sexual harassment involves the creation of a hostile work environment, in which female service personnel are targeted by their male peers simply because they are women, by, for example, being touched unnecessarily, being addressed with offensive language, or being subjected to pressure for sexual activity. Sexual harassment causes damage to the emotional or psychological well-being of the victims; it may also influence the quality of female personnel’s work performance 257  Sirdar v. The Army Board, Secretary of State for Defence, European Court of Justice, 29 October 1999, Case C-273/97, available on the Court’s website at <http://curia.europa.eu>. For comments, see G. Harries-Jenkins, “Women in Extended Roles in the Military: Legal Issues”, Current Sociology, Vol. 50, No. 5, September 2002, pp. 745-769. 258  L Miller, “Women in the Armed Forces”, in J. Callaghan and F. Kernic (eds.), Armed Forces and International Security: Global Trends and Issues (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2003), p. 222. 259  Woodward and Winter, op. cit., note 249, p. 286. 260  “Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its causes and consequences”, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1997/47, 12 February 1997. 123 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel