Search

This paper examines how participation in insurgency during conflict impacts notions of collective gender identity among low-level male combatants, using Nepal as a critical case. In addressing the ...

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security was a landmark resolution passed in 2000 that, for the first time, recognised the differing impact of conflict on women and girls and called for greater participation of women in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. This Resolution has now been followed by a further 8 Resolutions, which, together, make up the Women, Peace and Security Agenda. This paper examines United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security through the lens of the three GLOBUS conceptions of justice: justice as non-domination, justice as impartiality and justice as mutual recognition. The paper argues that in the process and adoption of the 2018 EU Strategic approach to UNSCR 1325, the EU has demonstrated a shift towards an approach to gender justice that is more closely assigned to justice as mutual recognition than in its previous approach to Women, Peace and Security, found in the 2008 Comprehensive Approach to UNSCR 1325 and 1820. Using empirical data from meeting notes and qualitative interviews, this paper demonstrates how the EEAS engaged in a surprisingly inclusive process within the consultations that led to the adoption of the new 2018 Strategic Approach, which enjoyed extensive inclusion of a diversity of civil society voices in the process. As a result, the document shows a shift towards a greater focus on (1) diversity, (2) civil society inclusion and (3) a gendered analysis. From the perspective of gender justice, this shows a shift from an approach previously aligned with justice as impartiality in the text of the 2008 document, but in actuality, through a lack of implementation, an approach more akin to non-domination, towards an approach to gender justice that can be more firmly associated with justice as mutual recognition.

This article examines the construction of gender agendas in left-wing populist movements that mobilise for armed struggle, by focusing on the case of the Maoist movement in Nepal. Feminist scholarship has highlighted how left-wing populism, when appealing to a generalized "people", tend to produce homogenizing discourses that erase inequalities and difference, even when such movements integrate a gender dimension. Examining the trajectory of the Maoist movement over time, we argue that this 'sameness' may become contested and utilized by women participating in the lower echelons of the movement, as the political reality shifts from conflict to post-conflict context. As our main contribution, we develop a bi-directional approach that employs the concept of collective identity and allows us to examine the construction of populist agendas as a two-way interaction between the leadership of a movement and its grass roots supporters. Through this approach we show how the gender dimension was not merely a bi-product but central to both the construction of the Maoist movement's war time 'progressive' identity, and the fragmentation of this identity and the movement’s populist appeal in the post-conflict context.

This paper examines competing understanding of gender justice between CSDP civil and military staff and representatives of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs). Using the three GLOBUS concepts of justice as an analytical framework the paper shows that there is a sharp contrast between CSDP staff discourse on gender justice and the implementation the Women Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, and discourse from CSOs. It finds that approaches to gender justice in CSDP missions have been largely dominated by a justice as impartiality approach, located in the language of universal human rights but when we look at the actual the implementation of the WPS agenda in the field (or lack thereof), an approach rooted in the state-centric model of justice as non-domination emerges. In contrast, CSOs tend to advocate for the inclusion of a more context specific approach, one that takes account of intersectionality and complexity, more aligned with justice as mutual recognition. This disconnect in understandings of gender justice is problematic because in order for missions to be successful, or to have any transformative power, there is a need for a level of engagement between mission staff and CSOs. This is in order to take a context specific approach to gender justice in CDPD missions and to avoid the curtailing of certain women’s voices. The paper uses qualitative data from interviews with civilian and personnel from within military field missions and representatives of a variety of CSOs from both the global North and South.