Making for “strange bedfellows”: the Women, Peace and Security agenda after UNSCRs 2467 and 2493
By: Jenna Sapiano (she/her/hers) and Natasha Singh Raghuvanshi (she/ her/hers)
It has been nearly a quarter of a century since the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted UNSC Resolution (UNSCR) 1325. It was the first resolution under the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) thematic agenda, a political framework intended to safeguard and promote women’s rights in conflict and post-conflict settings around the world. The resolution was significant for recognising women’s distinct experiences of conflict and acknowledging women’s varied roles in peace and security decision-making. The feminist movement behind the resolution was optimistic that the UNSC could be an avenue for safeguarding women’s rights in armed conflict. Other parts of the movement were more ambivalent because the UNSC’s militarist approach to peace made it an unlikely place for feminist ideas.
Since then, nine more WPS resolutions have been adopted, which fall under four pillars, typically understood as prevention; protection; participation; and relief and recovery. The two most recent WPS resolutions, UNSCR 2467 and 2493, were adopted in 2019, a year prior to the twentieth anniversary of UNSCR 1325. Instead of advancing the WPS agenda, the adoption of these resolutions saw an active pushback on women’s rights and security. In our recent article, we argue that the negotiations leading up to the adoption of these two resolutions and the modifications made to the final accepted language reveal how the mechanisms designed to protect and advance women's rights can also be employed to undermine them. The objection to draft language came from the US, Russia and China – all veto-holding members – demonstrating the power the permanent members have over the strength and efficacy of the agenda.
Germany tabled the draft resolution for UNSCR 2467 on addressing conflict-related sexual violence in advance of April’s annual Open Debate on sexual violence in conflict. The final resolution roots conflict-related sexual violence in the broader women, peace and security agenda. The draft included language on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) in a paragraph identical to operational paragraph 19 of UNSCR 2106, adopted in 2013. However, the US strenuously objected to the inclusion of any reference to SRH in the draft text. The US threatened to veto the resolution if all references to SRH weren't removed from the draft text, despite Germany's attempts to seek a compromise. In the end, Germany deleted the language from the draft to pass the resolution, which was eventually adopted without consensus when China and Russia abstained.
The second resolution, UNSCR 2493, was adopted in October 2019. The resolution, proposed by South Africa, pushed the UN to develop context-specific approaches for women's participation in UN-supported peace processes and for Member States to ensure women’s meaningful participation in all stages of peace processes. Reflecting its stance from six months earlier, the US was initially unwilling to support a resolution advocating for the 'full implementation' of the agenda, including provisions on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) from earlier resolutions (despite the draft resolution not explicitly mentioning SRH). Ultimately, the US supported the resolution. Another point of contention was the reference to women's human rights defenders (WHRD). Russia and China strongly resisted explicit reference to WHRD in the draft text. The final language in the resolution made indirect reference to WHRD (OP 6), a compromise position after a majority of Member States threatened to abstain from the vote if the language on WHRDs was excluded entirely.
In October 2020, on the formal 20th anniversary of UNSRC 1325, Russia tabled a draft WPS resolution that it argued commemorated and advanced the WPS agenda, but was criticised for weakening existing standards related to women’s rights. According to the NGO Working Group on WPS, the draft text undermined “core components of the WPS agenda such as human rights, accountability and the role of civil society”. Ten Member States abstained from the vote, preventing the resolution from being adopted. The following year, Ireland, Kenya, and Mexico made a joint commitment as non-permanent Security Council members to prioritise the WPS agenda during their respective presidencies. Several additional permanent and non-permanent UNSC members have signed onto the commitment, known as the “Presidency Trio Initiative.”
The adoption of UNSCR 2467 and 2493 has inevitably weakened the WPS agenda’s normative authority by undermining its provisions on women’s health and security. Our article argues that the global backlash against women's rights has demonstrated that we should be cautious in assuming that the advancements made to women’s rights are irreversible. As the 25th anniversary of the UNSCR 1325 approach, feminist scholars and activists must reexamine our relationship with the UNSC and think about alternate avenues—such as the General Assembly, as Catherine O’Rourke argues—for safeguarding women’s rights in armed conflict.
Read full article here: Making for “strange bedfellows”: the Women, Peace and Security agenda after UNSCRs 2467 and 2493
Each blog post gives the views of the individual author(s) based on their published IFJP article. All posts published on ifjpglobal.org remain the intellectual property and copyright of the author or authors.
Jenna Sapiano is a Research Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, USA. Before this, she was a Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Centre for Gender, Peace and Security (now the Global Peace and Security Centre) at Monash University, Australia. Her research focuses on mediation, the Women, Peace and Security agenda, and post-conflict constitutions.
Natasha Singh Raghuvanshi is a critical feminist scholar within the discipline of international relations and politics. She is currently a Research Fellow at the Global, Peace and Security Centre at Monash University, Australia. She was recently awarded a PhD from Monash University’s Department of Politics and International Relations. Her research critically investigates India’s engagement with the Women, Peace and Security agenda, foregrounding challenges faced by women to their protection and participation in building peace. She also analyses violence against women through the concept of gendered states to provide insight into the post-colonial state’s gendered identity and its security practices.