Search

This introduction provides an overview of the gendered nature of politics and international relations, before a brief summary of the articles that make-up this special issue.

Across politics and public discourse, feminism is experiencing a global renaissance. Yet feminist academic work is divided over the burgeoning use of the term, particularly in reference to economic and international development policy. For some, feminism has been co-opted for neoliberal economic ends; for others, it remains a critical force across the globe. This article explores the nascent feminist foreign policies of Sweden and Canada. Employing a discourse analysis of both states’ policy documents, it asks what the term “feminist” meant in preliminary attempts at constructing a feminist foreign policy. It argues that although both use the term “feminist,” they understand the term very differently, with Sweden centering it in domestic and international commitments to change, while Canada places greater emphasis on the private sector. This suggests that this policy agenda is still developing its central concepts, and is thus ripe for intervention on the part of policymakers and civil society organizations.

Nationalism has long been understood to be a deeply gendered phenomenon. This article provides an overview of some of the key concepts and literature in the study of gender and nationalism, including women; gender; the nation and the intersection of sexuality, race, and migration; and gender within nationalist imaginations. It offers some future research agendas that might be pursued in work on gender and nationalism—namely the gendered dimensions of populism or “new” nationalism.

Since the inception of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) in 2000, feminist academia has been closely interested in the developing women, peace, and security (WPS) agenda in international affairs. The majority of this work has emerged from within feminist international relations (Mcleod 2015; Shepherd 2008) and feminist legal studies. Less attention has been paid to the WPS agenda by feminist political science. As a result, less consideration has been given to political institutions within the WPS framework.This paper argues that the design and implementation of postconflict political institutions is an important component of the WPS agenda and one which deserves greater attention. It demonstrates that using certain tenets of feminist political science, and feminist institutionalism in particular, can offer key insights into greater understanding of the importance of political institutions within postconflict societies.The article illustrates how political institutions have been underconsidered within academic work on the WPS agenda. It then argues that political institutions are an important part of the puzzle when it comes to implementing the WPS agenda. It shows how feminist institutional theory can help to provide key insights into the nature of postconflict institutions.

2018 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement and the establishment of devolved governance in Northern Ireland. Yet, whilst devolution has largely been held to have positive effects in Scotland and Wales with regards to both women’s descriptive and substantive representation, this impact has been less discernible in Northern Ireland. Of the four regions of the United Kingdom, politics in Northern Ireland is arguably the most unfeminised—women have routinely seen lower descriptive representation in the Northern Irish Assembly and policy-making in areas such as reproductive rights lies far behind the rest of the UK. The article explores why politics is so unfeminised in the post-conflict context in Northern Ireland, by looking at efforts to feminise formal politics (especially the various peace/inter-party agreements and attempts to include women in formal politics) and efforts to politicise feminist activism (the work of the women’s sector to influence policy-making in the province). It then explores some of the academic explanations as to why the feminisation of politics remains so difficult in Northern Ireland.

Feminist institutionalism is concerned with the ‘rules of the game’ in political institutions. It is interested to explore how institutions create gender-just conditions in terms of the policies and actions they undertake and the make-up of the elected representatives they contain. It also has a growing interest in how institutions can resist or obstruct positive gendered change. It is argued here that employing the concept of ‘critical actors’ alongside a feminist institutionalist framework can further our understanding of why some institutions resist change. Using the example of abortion legislation in Northern Ireland, this article illustrates how the literatures on feminist institutionalism and critical actors can, when combined, help to build a fuller narrative of why gendered policy change does not happen.

In divided societies gender research has a relatively low profile. In regions where divisions are perceived to be driven by ethnicity, research and activism focused on anything but ethno-nationalis...

Literature considering international human rights mechanisms stresses that they have the best chance of success when they are closest to ideas which already exist within national contexts. Research which addresses women’s human rights bodies, such as the Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325), argues that they function best when reinterpreted to fit the local context. Yet, situations where this domestic norm translation is occurring, but policy change is not achieved, have received little consideration. Why do some contexts, even where norm translation occurs, resist policy change? This article examines Northern Ireland, where these women’s rights bodies are used extensively in the women’s sector, but where change has not occurred. It argues that norm translation is not the only important factor, and that a greater consideration of local political structures is needed in order to more fully explain policy resistance.

Consociational democracy has become the most influential paradigm in the field of power-sharing institutional design and post-conflict peacebuilding. Consociation institutes representation for certain formerly excluded groups. However, it simultaneously inhibits effective political representation for groups that do not align with the societal divisions that consociation seeks to accommodate, specifically the ‘additional’ cleavage of gender. Given the extensive use of the consociational model as a peacebuilding tool in divided states and the growing awareness of the disproportionate negative effect of conflict on women, there is a surprising lack of consideration of the effect that consociational power-sharing has on women’s representation. This article considers the specific impact that the consociational model has on women’s representation. We argue that because gender is an integral factor in conflict, it should therefore be integral to post-conflict governance. With empirical reference to contemporary Northern Ireland, it is illustrated that consociationalism is a ‘gender-blind’ theory.

Reproductive rights are an under-theorised aspect of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, most clearly typified in United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1325 and successive resolutions. Yet reproductive rights are central to women’s security, health and human rights. Although they feature in the 2015 Global Study on 1325, there is less reference to reproductive rights, and to abortion specifically, in the suite of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions themselves, nor in the National Action Plans (NAPs, policy documents created by individual countries to outline their implementation plans for 1325). Through content analysis of all resolutions and NAPs produced to date, this article asks where abortion is in the WPS agenda. It argues that the growing centrality of the WPS agenda to women’s rights in transitioning societies means that a lack of focus on abortion will marginalize the topic and stifle the development of liberal legalization.

Feminist critics of power-sharing argue that power-sharing structures privilege ethnic/ethnonational identity and impede women's descriptive and substantive political representation. This paper extends these arguments to consider the extent to which consociational theory addresses the role of civil society and women's political voice in postconflict societies. We argue that power-sharing is overly concerned with formal representation to the detriment of understanding the role civil society can play in peace building. Whilst we acknowledge the importance of civil society retaining a critical distance from political institutions, we suggest several mechanisms for incorporating civil society into power-sharing arrangements. We argue that a consideration of civil society can highlight the gendered issues that are ignored in power-sharing settings, and we conclude that a broader understanding of both “politics” and “conflict” is required for power-sharing to be more equitable to women's descriptive and substantive representation.

In recent years, several decisions have been made regarding the devolution of abortion laws from central government at Westminster to the devolved regions of the United Kingdom. This article considers the decision to devolve abortion law to Scotland. It addresses Westminster debates from the time, employing a discursive analysis to examine the arguments made for this legislative move. It argues that the debate was largely a proxy argument for the broader question of Westminster–Edinburgh relations and Scottish independence. It further argues that utilising abortion in this way is problematic, and politicises an area which is better seen as an issue solely of women's rights.

Northern Ireland is the only region of the United Kingdom (UK) in which the Abortion Act of 1967 does not apply. Since the Abortion Act, little action has been taken from national government to address this discrepancy in the province. Furthermore, as the constitutional makeup of the UK has evolved in the wake of devolution, Northern Irish exceptionalism with regard to abortion has only increased. While abortion legislation was retained at Westminster for Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland was allowed to remain exempt from the 1967 Act and to legislate on termination of pregnancy at the devolved level. Working within a feminist institutionalist framework, this article asks why this remains the case and considers Northern Ireland’s limited place in national political discussion at Westminster since devolution. As such, it draws on and contributes to the developing literature on gender, devolution and multi-level governance. It argues that abortion in Northern Ireland has largely been understood at Westminster as a regional, devolved issue rather than an issue of women’s rights, and that the multiple political spaces now offered via devolution have not provided a greater number of venues for the promotion of more liberal abortion laws.

Westminster's legislation regarding marriage rights for same sex couples has not been extended to Northern Ireland. Similarly, Northern Ireland has never been under the jurisdiction of the 1967 Abortion Act, making abortion effectively illegal in the province unless it is necessary to preserve the long-term life or health of the woman. This article considers contemporary political debate around abortion and same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland to ask; how are controversial (but non-sectarian) issues such as abortion and same sex marriage dealt with in a divided society? Using data from the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey and selected debates from the Northern Irish Assembly, it considers how political parties and post-conflict governance have shaped debate on these issues.