The UN’s “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda: an assessment through the lens of feminist methodologies, 20 years later

Temps de lecture : 12 minutes

The UN’s “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda: an assessment through the lens of feminist methodologies, 20 years later

20.10.2020

Written by Maud Charpentier 

Translated by Matilde Fourey

31 October 2020 marks the twentieth anniversary of Resolution 1325^[1]UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), 31 October 2000, S/RES/1325 (2000)., adopted in 2000 by the Security Council of the United Nations (UN); the first of ten resolutions that make up the UN’s “Women, Peace and Security” agenda^[2]To access the ten resolutions of the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda: http://www.peacewomen.org/why-WPS/solutions/resolutions.

It marks the beginning of the UN’s reflections on the links between peace, security and gender and sets sights on challenging gender stereotypes during conflicts and peace processes. In this regard, for example, Resolution 1325 has been used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to hold governments accountable for their obligation to involve women in peace processes.

It is important to recall that Resolution 1325 was not adopted ex nihilo. It results from over a century of women’s engagement for peace, a period especially marked by the founding of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, in 1915. At the time, pacifist activism and demonstrations were seen as a way to oppose militarism and promote disarmament.

This activism was initially centered around women and mothers^[3]“[M]aternalist ideas were the predominant unifying force for the early international women’s peace movement”. Dianne Otto, “International Peace Activism: The Contributions Made by Women” … Continue reading.Over the years, their concept of gender evolved and two currents emerged:

1. Women‘s activism for peace, where gender is seen as a social construct that materializes in the emergence of vulnerabilities in war times^[4]“[I]t is not a woman’s biology that is the principal shaper of her experiences of war, but the gender arrangements within which she lives”. Carol Cohn, “Women and Wars: Toward a Conceptual … Continue reading,
2. Feminist activism for peace, where gender is seen as “a structural power relation“^[5]“Gender is, at its heart, a structural power relation”. Carol Cohn, supra no. 4, 3. that permeates the very institution that is the UN, and the Security Council in particular, which is seen as a tool for militarization and Western imperialism.

The “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda has inherited these evolutions and differences. In order to study the Agenda, it is therefore important to look at the history of feminist demands for peace and to analyze if it is possible to integrate them with international law. In this regard, feminist scholars and activists are still torn between hope and skepticism. For feminist jurist Charlesworth, international law only retains the pacifist message of feminist activists, to the detriment of their methodology^[6]“This underlines a distinction between feminist messages and feminist methods in international law. The former have been influential in rhetorical terms, while the latter have been ignored”. … Continue reading,

which is based on the analysis of institutions and law, but also of concepts such as peace, security and nationhood, through the prism of gender.

Assessing international law in light of feminist methodologies allows us to understand that law is not a simple set of neutral rules governed by institutions. On the contrary, it shows that international law is permeated by gender stereotypes and sets forth a rigid and reductive framework for feminist demands.

We must therefore go beyond a simple study of the resolutions conforming the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda that is focused of their positive and negative points. Indeed, according to feminist jurist Otto, this resolutions’ binary analysis has “helped to turn these feminist debates inwards, seriously limiting the frame of transformative vision“^[7]Dianne Otto, “Beyond stories of victory and danger”, in Otto, Heathcote (eds), Rethinking Peacekeeping, Gender Equality and Collective Security (Palgrave Macmillan 2014) 158.. 

This article shows a certain skepticism towards the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda and the idea that it embodies progress in the history of feminist activism for peace. Indeed, the notion of progress silences feminist voices that do not conform to the hegemonic conceptions spread by the UN on women’s security in times of conflict and the roles women should play in peace processes.

This article analyzes the extent to which feminist demands for peace are filtered when they are transposed into international law. Particular attention is paid to Resolution 2242, adopted in 2015. This resolution is interesting because it results from a report on the strengths and weaknesses of the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda since the adoption of Resolution 1325, in 2000^[8]Radhika Coomaraswamy, Preventing Conflict, Transforming Justice, Securing the Peace: A Global Study of UNSC Resolution 1325 (New York: UN Women, 2015)., and was intended to provide a gendered analysis of the Security Council’s action.

the “women” in the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda?

In the ten resolutions of the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda, the word “gender” and the word “woman” are used interchangeably, as if they were synonymous. Thus, the resolutions seem to define gender in relation to biological sex, considered as something natural and unalterable. However, according to the feminist philosopher Butler, “feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of “women”, the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought”^[9]Judith Butler, ‘Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire’ in Butler, Gender Trouble (Routledge 1990), 4.. En définissant le genre par « femme », les résolutions de l’agenda « Femmes, paix et sécurité » enferment les femmes dans des stéréotypes de genre immuables, au lieu de leur donner une capacité d’action. When they define gender by “women”, the resolutions of the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda lock women into unalterable gender stereotypes, instead of empowering them for action.

Paragraph 13 of Resolution 2242 is a perfect example of this: it certainly seeks to empower women, yet only in order to turn women into UN’s “agents” in their communities, to fight terrorism^[10]“Urges Member States and the United Nations system to ensure the participation and leadership of women and women’s organizations in developing strategies to counter terrorism and violent … Continue reading.

It assumes that women are inherently peaceful, while the men in their communities, on the contrary, are perceived as potential terrorists.

If we pursue this line of reasoning, it is possible to ask: is it women’s biological sex that gives them this “innate” ability for peace? Obviously not: gender is a social construct, which means that women and men are socialized to assume gendered roles, especially in times of conflict. In this case, people carrying out male roles have a monopoly on violence and people with feminine traits are seen as victims, passive and peaceful. In this regard, feminist jurist Cohn reminds us that the vulnerabilities that emerge in times of conflict are not related to anatomy, but rather sociall
y construed^[11]“It is not a woman’s biology that is the principal shaper of her experiences of war, but the gender arrangements within which she lives”. Carol Cohn, supra no. 4, 4..

Therefore, the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda needs to define gender as a social construct in order to challenge these gender stereotypes.

Moreover, contrary to what the resolutions of the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda suggest, being a woman is not a common denominator. Gender is a power structure that interacts with and reinforces other structures of oppression, such as “class, caste, race, ethnicity, age and sexuality“^[12]“[G]ender never stands alone as a factor structuring power in a society, but rather is inflected through, and co-constituting of, other hierarchical forms of structuring power, such as class, … Continue reading. The use of the “woman” category tends to homogenize women, especially those from the so-called Southern countries. As feminist legal scholar Heathcote notes, “the women, peace and security resolutions reinforce negative stereotypes of the non-western victim subject, to whom restricted agency and seemingly perpetual vulnerability are attributed”^[13]Gina Heathcote, “Participation, gender and security”, in Otto, Heathcote (eds), Rethinking Peacekeeping, Gender Equality and Collective Security (Palgrave Macmillan 2014) 50.. In this way, imperialism allies with sexism to portray women in conflict zones as passive victims. Gender allows Western powers, which consider themselves to be at the forefront of progress in gender equality, to justify military interventions in the Southern countries. In this regard, feminist jurist Charlesworth paraphrases David Kennedy, who sees international law “largely as a method of ducking responsibility for ethical and political choices”^[14] Hilary Charlesworth, supra no. 6, 18. 

Consequently, gender appears to be a power relation that permeates international institutions: in international law, in particular, the use of armed force is entrusted to White men from the Western elites. It is this particular use of armed force that causes the insecurities that women face in countries in conflict. According to feminist activists for peace, protecting women through the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda should therefore mean opposing militarism, and military interventions by the Security Council in particular, and starting to reflect on disarmament.

That is why it is dangerous to think that the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda embodies progress. It doesn’t allow to step back and look at the overall picture with perspective enough to identify the power structures that underpin international law, which in turn allows them to remain unchallenged.

How is the word “peace” valued in the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda?

Defining gender as a power relation takes us to an analysis of the UN and of the Security Council itself. First of all, it is interesting to compare Resolution 2242 with Resolution 2249, issued a month later. As mentioned above, Resolution 2242 is part of the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda and concerns violence against women by terrorist networks as well as women’s role of in the fight against terrorism. Resolution 2249, on the other hand, is also about the fight against terrorism but does not belong to the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda; women are not mentioned once^[15]Resolution 2249 refers only to “violent […] widespread attacks directed against civilians”. UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 2249 (2015), 20 November 2015, S/RES/2249 (2015), … Continue reading.However, paragraph 5 of Resolution 2249 incorporates a form of authorization for military intervention in Syria^[16]Résolution 2249, supra no. 16, para 5.

It is thus clear that the question of gender is limited to the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda and that military interventions do not encompass feminist reflection.

For feminist jurist Cohn, “war and peace are profoundly gendered at a symbolic level”^[17]Carol Cohn, supra n°4, 7. The fact that the Security Council restricts feminist reflection on gender to the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda is very revealing: militarism alone, considered a male domain, is seen as a means of maintaining peace. The “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda, on the other hand, is seen as part of the women’s domain and its capacity to maintain peace is discredited; the means put in place to maintain peace are seen as “a sign of ‘weakness’“^[18]Diane Otto, “A Sign of Weakness – Disrupting Gender Certainties in the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325” (2006) 13 Mich J Gender & L 113, 114

in the international arena. We must also emphasize that this gendered dichotomy between peace and war is at the heart of the UN Charter itself. Indeed, the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda is based on Chapter VI of the Charter, which deals with the “pacific settlement of disputes” and is non-binding, i.e. there is no obligation to abide by the resulting resolutions (soft law), contrary to the resolutions on the use of force, based on Chapter VII of the Charter, which are binding (hard law).

Taking feminist methodologies into account requires to radically change the way peace is defined by international law. Indeed, the Security Council defines peace as the opposite of war, i.e. as the absence of armed conflict (negative peace). However, peace and war are not stable categories: insecurity and violence do exist in times of peace. For example, philosopher Mbembe denounces the dichotomy of peace and war in the colonial context: “the colony represents the site where […] ‘peace’ is more likely to take on the face of a ‘war without end’“^[19]Achille Mbembe, “Necropolitics” (2003) 15 Public Culture 11, 23. Similarly, feminist lawyer Cohn, inspired by jurist Cockburn, explains that war never simply “breaks out”^[20]Carol Cohn, supra n°4,11.

It is rather part of a continuum of violence, especially against women, since militarization also happens in moments of “peace” and creates insecurities relating to gender.

Therefore, considering the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda as the embodiment of progress prevents us from questioning the structure of international law that causes feminist demands to only be transposed into non-binding law (soft law). It also prevents us from questioning the militarized masculinities that are maintained through Chapter VII of the UN Charter, while we know these very militarized masculinities are the cause of the insecurities women face in many countries.

What does “security” mean in the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda?

Rather than the absence of physical violence, according to feminist activists for peace, security should be defined by the presence of social justice and gender equality in daily life (positive peace). Is it possible to redefine security this way in a “discipline of crisis”^[21]Hilary Charlesworth, “International Law: A Discipline of Crisis” (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 377 » such as international law? Feminist jurist Charlesworth explains that international law jurists “stay glued to specific, climactic events and fail to see the larger picture“^[22]Hilary Charlesworth, supra no. 31, 386. But, as feminist theorist Enloe points out, patriarchy is the larger picture^[23]“Patriarchy […] is a principal cause both of the outbreak of violent societal conflicts and of the international community’s frequent failures in providing long-term resolutions to those … Continue reading. Is it possible to go beyond the patriarchal nature of international law and move towards feminist security?

In response to the dom
inant definitions of power and security within the field of international relations, international relations specialist Tickner has redefined power as “multilevel and multidimensional“^[24]Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press 1992) 66 », cooperation, i.e. a relational, rather than hierarchical power. This has indeed been the form chosen by feminist movements for peace since the mid-1970s^[25]Rawwida Baksh, Wendy Harcourt, “Rethinking Knowledge, Power, and Social Change”, in Baksh, Harcourt (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Feminist Movements (Oxford Handbooks 2015) 2: organized both locally and internationally (the so-called “glocal” approach), creating transnational networks to highlight the voices of women who are not part of the elite. These transnational solidarities are a method of action that allow to bypass nations, which are built on masculinist and militaristic conceptions.

However, some have pointed to the fact that these transnational networks and solidarities cannot be properly transposed into international law. Feminist anthropologist Mukhopadhyay explains “successful inclusion of feminist ideas in policymaking institutions is reversing the basic tenets of transnational feminist movements, which sought to decompose the production of the Third World woman”^[26]Maitrayee Mukhopadhyay, “Gendered Citizenship in the Postcolony: The Challenge for Transnational Feminist Politics”, in Baksh, Harcourt (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Feminist … Continue reading. Likewise, feminist jurist Otto indicates that “women’s grassroots struggles are compelled to reinvent themselves in liberal, technocratic or legalistic terms, or otherwise be discredited”^[27]Dianne Otto, supra no. 7, 166. 

In her analysis of the linguistic norms existing in the Security Council, feminist theorist Gibbins demonstrates that the voices of women from conflict zones are valued, but that these women must speak in universalist and pacifist terms if they want their demands to be heard at the UN^[28]“This imagined separation also exists at the UN, where women from conflict zones are invited to speak to the Security Council because they are viewed as bringing a ‘grounded’ voice that is more … Continue reading. Otherwise, they risk being discredited and labeled as “angry women”. This is what happened to Al-Khedairy and Al-Mufti in 2003, when they referred to the US-led invasion of their country, Iraq, “in nationalist and anti-imperialist terms that directly contradicted the UN vision of women (as inhabiting the universal, civil and humanitarian domain)”^[29]Sheri Lynn Gibbings, supra no. 30, pp. 531-532.

Consequently, these concepts of women and security, conveyed through the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda, pose the risk of taking power away from the women feminism is trying to empower.

Conclusion: should feminist hope be placed on the Security Council?

Feminist demands for peace cannot settle into the category that international law has formulated for them, the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda, without losing their raison d’être. In fact, when presented before the Security Council – a militaristic, hierarchical, opaque and hegemonic institution, everything that feminism fights against– feminist demands for peace are at best translated into a “rhetorical success”^[30]Dianne Otto, supra no. 7, 162

legitimizing both the Security Council and militarized masculinities. To celebrate the progress made with the “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda prevents us from having enough perspective to see that it is in fact an impasse for feminism and feminist praxis.

However, even if the notion of progress is dangerous, we need to create other feminist histories that would unite us in believing that a better future is possible, for which feminist hope and eutopia^[31]“a […] eutopian future, that is, one that would be much improved, if still no utopia”. Kum-Kum Bhavnani, John Foran, “Feminist futures: from dystopia to eutopia?“(2008) 40 Futures 319, 322.can be used as methodologies. The question then becomes: should feminist hope and eutopia be placed on the Security Council? Some people think so^[32]Madeleine Rees, “Can the Security Council work for Women?” Huff Post (10 October 2017)..

We face an endless debate in the field of gender studies: should change come from within or from outside the institution? Feminists must find the balance between deconstructing the patriarchal structures of international law, on the one hand, and working within these structures in order to be able to move the lines, on the other hand.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000), 31 October 2000, S/RES/1325 (2000)

UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 2242 (2015), 13 October 2015, S/RES/2242 (2015)

UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 2249 (2015), 20 November 2015, S/RES/2249 (2015)

Secondary sources

Press articles

Rees M, “Can the Security Council work for Women?”. Huff Post (20 October 2017)

Academic work

Baksh R, Harcourt W, “Rethinking Knowledge, Power, and Social Change”, in Baksh, Harcourt (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Feminist Movements (Oxford Handbooks 2015)

Bhavnani K-K, Foran J, “Feminist futures: from dystopia to eutopia?”, (2008) 40 Futures 319

Butler J, ‘Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire’ in Butler, Gender Trouble (Routledge 1990)

Charlesworth H, “Talking to ourselves? Feminist scholarship in international law”, in Kuovo, Pearson (eds), Feminist perspectives on contemporary international law (Hart Publishing 2011)

Charlesworth H, “International Law: A Discipline of Crisis” (2002) 65 The Modern Law Review 377

Cohn C, “Women and Wars: Toward a Conceptual Framework’’, in Cohn (eds), Women and Wars (Polity Press 2013)

Enloe C, “What if Patriarchy Is ‘the Big Picture’? An Afterword” in Mazurana, Raven-Roberts, Parpart, Gender, conflict, and peacekeeping (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2005)

Gibbings S L, “No Angry Women at the United Nations: Political Dreams and the Cultural Politics of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325” (2011) 13 International Feminist Journal of Politics 522

Heathcote G, “Participation, gender and security”, in Otto, Heathcote (eds), Rethinking Peacekeeping, Gender Equality and Collective Security (Palgrave Macmillan 2014)

Mbembe A, “Necropolitics” (2003) 15 Public Culture 11

Otto D, “Beyond stories of victory and danger”, in Otto, Heathcote (eds), Rethinking Peacekeeping, Gender Equality and Collective Security (Palgrave Macmillan 2014)

Otto D, “A Sign of Weakness – Disrupting Gender Certainties in the Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325” (2006) 13 Mich J Gender & L 113

Otto D, “International Peace Activism: The Contributions Made by Women” (2003) 82 ALRCRefJl 30

Mukhopadhyay M, “Gendered Citizenship in the Postcolony: The Challenge for Transnational Feminist Politics”, in Baksh, Harcourt (eds), The Oxford Handboo
k of Transnational Feminist Movements (Oxford Handbooks 2015)

Tickner A J, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press 1992)

To quote this article: Maud CHARPENTIER, “The UN’s “Women, Peace and Security” Agenda: an assessment through the lens of feminist methodologies, 20 years later ”, 20.10.2020, Gender in Geopolitics Institute