We held our first PSRP Summer School, Inclusive Political Settlements: Theory and Practice of Transforming Conflict in Edinburgh, 20 – 22 June 2015. During these three days, we had the pleasure to host 25 participants from 14 different countries and five continents. This was not only a great opportunity to debate the research questions and […]Read more
Tag Archive: Gendering Practices of Post-Conflict Resolution
Originally published on the SaferWorld Website as part of the blog series ‘Justice and peace‘ and ‘Gender‘. Republished with Permission. 15 February 2016 Including women at every stage of a peace process is vital to avoid replicating the structural injustices that are often at the root of conflict during the process of building peace itself, […]Read more
Fifteen years after the decision on the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security (WPS), a Global Study was launched this September to reflect upon its impact and to discuss ways of further improving and developing the WPS agenda. Although the Global Study was unanimously welcomed in the circles of advocates and activists […]Read more
Two PSRP members, Aisling Swaine and Eleanor O’Gorman, contributed to the 50.50 Inclusive Democracy article series on UN Resolution 1325 – 15 years on. In Implementing Resolution 1325: the role of National Action Plans, Aisling Swaine, underlines the need and challenges in implementing National Actions Plans to promote gender equality at national levels. On the frontline: women building peace, Eleanor […]Read more
cach lam banh nep han quocon
15 February 2016Including women at every stage of a peace process is vital to avoid replicating the structural injustices that are often at the root of conflict during the process of building peace itself, argue Monica McWilliams and Avila Kilmurray. Irish revolutionary James Connolly once referred to working class women as ‘the slaves of slaves’. Is the parallel in circumstances of violent conflict that women are all too readily cast as ‘the victims of victims’? Perhaps so. Women are more likely to experience sexual abuse during violent conflicts, usually in situations where they are seen as the communal ‘possessions’ of their ‘natural’ male protectors. But they are also ‘victims of victims’ during subsequent peace processes. Figures collated by UN Women reported that in 31 major peace processes over the period 1992-2011, women were noticeable by their absence. The facts speak for themselves – a meagre 4% of signatories to the peace agreements were women; 2.4% of the mediators involved in peace settlements were women; 9% of negotiators of peace agreements were women; and only 16% of the 585 peace agreements concluded since 1990 made one or more references to women and gender. Here in Northern Ireland, for example, the reference to women in 1998’s Belfast/Good Friday Agreement got in by the proverbial skin of its teeth. We were told that gender was not a subject of interest in the Peace Agreement’s leading ‘chapeau’ – the overarching initial paragraph from which all else flowed in drafting terms. Hence it followed that women could not be included as an explicitly named category. The fleeting reference to the enhancement of the representation of women in public life was only conceded when the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition successfully argued that women had been living in an ‘armed patriarchy’, and consequently any reference to political violence in the ‘chapeau’ automatically applied to the experience of women. Whilst this history of exclusions is of course a moral injustice, denying and failing to address the very particular experiences of women during conflict is also counter-intuitive to peace. In Northern Ireland, two significant initiatives that have tried to redress this trend include a community-based consultation on ‘Women and Peacebuilding’; and work to develop ‘Gender Principles for Dealing with the Past’. Guided by UNSCR 1325, the first project encouraged women to discuss their concerns and hopes about relief, rehabilitation, justice, violence prevention, political representation, and dealing with the past. The issues they raised included many that fell into the broader sphere of social justice as well as concerns around increasing domestic violence – issues that Catherine O’Rourke highlights in ‘Gender Politics in Transitional Justice’ as populating the ‘private sphere’. It was also clear that peacebuilding does not stop with a peace agreement, but has to be worked at over time and react to the changing dynamics of conflict and injustice that women experience. The second initiative to develop Gender Principles concluded in 2015, having thoroughly consulted victims and survivors on exactly what they needed in order to deal with the past. The project concluded that people’s experiences of injustice and conflict and their resulting needs and coping strategies were decidedly gendered and personal in nature, but responses were not. For example, whilst the vast majority of those killed in the Troubles were male, the majority of those bereaved were women: women who were then left to deal with both the sense of loss and the day-to-day realities of managing as single-headed households. Ongoing fear of re-victimisation was a theme that emerged – including, tellingly, re-victimisation resulting from the officially suggested processes and procedures for dealing with the past. The Gender Principles that were developed outlined ten priority areas:
- Gender integration: fully integrate gender into the processes for dealing with the past.
- Process-orientation: understand gender and dealing with the past as a process, not an event.
- Empowerment, participation, ownership and control: prioritise victim ownership and control of process.
- Inclusivity: be inclusive and accommodate diversity.
- Addressing structural obstacles: recognise and redress structural obstacles to inclusion such as poverty and women’s traditional roles in the home.
- Holistic approach: respond to the whole victim and survivor.
- Giving voice and being heard: honour individual stories.
- Macro analysis: be attentive to the bigger picture such as the patterns that emerge from victims’ stories.
- Equality and diversity: value gender expertise and lived experience.
- Local and global learning: craft bottom-up local responses that draw on international good practice.
Sabineon This week PSRP Programme Director Professor Christine Bell participated in two discussions on Sequencing Peace Agreements & Constitutions in Political Settlements co-organised by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. On February 21st, Professor Bell spoke about how peace agreements, interim arrangements and constitutions shape political settlements in situations of violent conflict at an interactive discussion at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City hosted by he Permanent Mission of Peru to the UN. The discussion attracted great attention with about 35 Missions and just under 100 in attendance. On February 22nd, Professor Bell participated in a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank event chaired by Thomas Carothers senior vice president for studies at the Carnegie and attended by policy makers and academics alike.
Daisy Rowley his explanationon In response to the peace agreement signature in between the Colombian government and the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces-Army of the People (FARC-EP) and subsequent referendum, PSRP researchers have commented on different aspects of the process. Take the opportunity to explore our series of blog posts on Colombia and relevant research Blog Post Series:
- Jan Pospisil investigates reasons behind its rejection in the fourth PSRP blog on the Colombia process entitled 'Colombia: Don’t they want peace?' (published on 4 October 2016) - See also the press version in Die Presse in German.
- In Getting to ‘not yet’: Colombia’s Peace Agreement Referendum, Prof Christine Bell, PSRP's Programme Director, addresses the result of the Colombian peace agreement referendum on Sunday, 2 October 2016 (published on 4 October 2016).
- Colombia: the Missing Actor, by Kristian Herbolzheimer, Director of the Philippines and Colombia Programmes at Conciliation Ressources. This piece addresses the absence of the insurgent National Liberation Army (ELN) in recent peace negotiations (published on 19 Septembre 2016).
- Colombia: Final Peace Agreement, Stakes and Challenges Ahead, by Dr. Virginia Bouvier, Senior Advisor at United States Institute of Peace. This blog analyses the Colombian final peace agreement resulting from the Havana Peace Negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP (published on 8 Septembre 2016).
- Conflict resolution: a hard sell in the political market? Lessons from Colombia, Dr Alexander Ramsbotham, PSRP researcher (published on 24 October 2016).
- No war and no peace in Colombia and the Philippines, by Kristian Herbolzheimer. This blog compares the Mindanao and Colombian peace negotiations and underlying political battles for public opinion in both the Filippino and Colombian contexts (published on 28 October 2016).
- ‘Symposium on the Colombian Peace Talks and International Law: Lex Pacificatoria Colombiana: Colombia’s Peace Accord in Comparative Perspective’, by Bell, Christine, AJIL Unbound (November 2016)
- ‘Different Violence, Different Justice? Transition and Transformation in Colombia’
- ‘Peacebuilding in South America: Colombia’