With the 25th anniversary of the landmark United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security (WPS) coming next year, it is high time to assess the widespread impact it and subsequent WPS resolutions (collectively referred to as the WPS agenda) have had on the international security landscape.
The topics of women’s inclusion and gender mainstreaming have become more prominent across activities, mandates and policies that pertain to the four ‘pillars’ of the WPS agenda—participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. However, the synergies between the WPS agenda and the governance of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) remain largely underexplored, let alone utilized. Indeed, WMD remains an ‘area for further action’ when it comes to linking the WPS agenda with arms control and disarmament, according to a 2020 study by the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. This SIPRI essay considers the WPS–WMD relationship, examining the potential benefits of and pathways towards further integration of these important global agendas.
Gender in WMD governance
The past decade has seen increased research and policy attention at the intersection of gender and WMD governance. In particular, there exists greater awareness of the likely gendered effects of WMD use. This is especially true in the nuclear realm, with research suggesting that women are more vulnerable to the effects of ionizing radiation than men, and in different ways. Because of social and cultural gender differences, women also suffer particularly negative effects from WMD use in terms of psychological impacts, social stigma and discrimination. Moreover, research on biological and chemical weapons suggests that levels of susceptibility to toxic agents and diseases differ between women and men, as do their experiences following exposure.
UN General Assembly Resolution 65/69 (2010) and a series of subsequent resolutions link the principles and objectives of the WPS agenda with disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. However, while these texts broadly encompass processes across all types of armament, they have tended to focus on small arms and light weapons. The content and modalities of the WPS agenda are often invoked or deployed only partially in gender-related discussions in multilateral WMD forums. When the WPS agenda does come up, it is generally in calls in national statements for the equal, full and effective participation of women in the forums. An exception has been the Meeting of States Parties of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which explicitly recognizes the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapon use on women and girls and includes a provision for gender-sensitive victim assistance.
In 2020 the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs reported that discussion of gender considerations was particularly lacking in multilateral forums on the governance of biological and chemical weapons compared with those on nuclear weapons. And during the 2022 comprehensive review by the 1540 Committee—tasked with supporting states’ efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery to non-state actors—some states argued that the WPS agenda had ‘not yet been included’ in the committee’s work; this might partly explain the mention of women’s participation in the resolution later that year, which renewed the committee’s mandate.
The promise of linking the WPS and WMD agendas
The WPS agenda should not ignore WMD. Widespread use of chemical weapons during the Syrian civil war illustrates the role that WMD continue to play in armed conflict. Given the prominence of women combatants in Syria and the manner in which conflict there has already exacerbated existing gender inequalities, the gendered dimension of WMD is critical to parse for its likely compounding negative effects on both the probability and the consequence sides of the risk equation. Indeed, research suggests that mortality rates linked to the use of chemical weapons in Syria have been disproportionately high among women. The alleged use of chemical weapons and sharpened nuclear rhetoric during the war in Ukraine further illustrate ways in which WMD and armed conflict remain intertwined.
If states try to further incorporate the WPS agenda into WMD regimes while also integrating WMD issues into the WPS agenda, this could have significant benefits for both processes. More thorough incorporation of the WPS agenda could contribute to a stronger culture of gender mainstreaming within WMD regimes. There is a groundswell of support in principle for gender perspectives, as was seen during the most recent review cycle for the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty—the final summaries of the first, second and third sessions of the Preparatory Committee all recognized the significance of gender. Such an approach could be applied more concretely and systematically across WMD regimes.
Doing so may also help to drive more regular reporting on national-level activities towards ensuring the equal and full participation of women, including in multilateral forums. And it could focus attention on the need for sex- and gender-sensitive data regarding the susceptibility to and impact of WMD, especially when it comes to chemical and biological weapons. This approach could be especially useful to realize treaty provisions on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, biological sciences and chemistry, for instance through the development of gender-sensitive capacity building, education and technical cooperation.
Drawing on the WPS agenda could help to advance discussions in other substantive ways, including by enhancing existing proposals and efforts to more thoroughly apply a ‘gender lens’ in implementing WMD-related treaties. Doing so could have the added benefits of creating a greater sense of ownership of gender issues among states parties and contributing to a greater culture of accountability that can extend beyond gender issues. Given current stresses on the disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control architecture, any positive movement towards collective action and a reversal of current trends in WMD governance can propel efforts towards the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security.
When it comes to benefits for the WPS agenda, more frequent consideration of WMD issues would help to underscore the centrality of gender issues across all forms and stages of conflict, including those that involve the most abhorrent weapons, indiscriminate in their targeting but not in their impact. WPS stakeholders can find ready champions of their agenda and amplifiers of their message in WMD regimes. For example, 16 states have committed to a feminist foreign policy (FFP)—the development of which is often articulated as a means to implement Resolution 1325. More directly addressing WMD issues could fulfil the promises of structural change that are inherent in some FFPs. Moreover, the evolution of gender issues in the WMD space over the past decade, notably through the humanitarian movement, could also offer invaluable lessons across all pillars of the WPS agenda. For instance, the TPNW provides an in-progress case study on taking forward gender provisions in treaty text, facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration and engagement, and mainstreaming gender considerations across all aspects of treaty implementation.
Ways forward
As indicated above, gender considerations are starting to feature in WMD regimes, with increasing references to participation and—less frequently—protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. Pursuing the further integration of the WPS and WMD agendas could take a number of forms.
To begin with, states could devote space to WMD issues within their WPS national action plans. In its 2019 updated action plan, Ireland underlined the role of disarmament and arms control, including nuclear arms control, as a tool for preventing conflict. It reported on its work in understanding and challenging the relationship between harmful masculinities and policies of nuclear deterrence. Besides this, just a handful of other states have ever mentioned WMD in their WPS national action plans—despite the relevance of WMD, and states frequently reporting on their broader activities in the area of women’s participation in disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation (especially after Resolution 65/69).
Related to this point, the UN General Assembly should consider directing the focus of its regular resolutions on ‘women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control’ on WMD. To date, they have focused particularly on the impact of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons on women and girls. For instance, they encourage the development of national action plans on this issue and call for data collection and further analysis mechanisms. In addition, they promote funding for gender-sensitive policies and programmes, advocacy, education, training and research, and suggest the development of effective risk assessment criteria to facilitate prevention. Many of these elements are alsohighly relevant and needed in the context of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Future General Assembly resolutions on women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control could recognize this and help to advance research.
States and other stakeholders, including in civil society, could also more effectively utilize the language, framing and modalities of the WPS agenda to incorporate gender considerations across WMD regimes. Non-permanent members of the Security Council in particular could inject fresh perspectives into established discussions about WPS. As part of the 1540 Committee’s 2022 review, Mexico and Norway produced a non-paper that included a series of concrete recommendations on integrating WPS considerations into the 1540 regime, including, among other things, regular consultations with women practitioners and women’s organizations when developing non-proliferation strategies and policies; the provision of gender and sex-disaggregated data; and the enhancement of training opportunities in the context of capacity-building and assistance programmes. States parties to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention in particular could follow suit and develop working papers on gender considerations, drawing on pertinent modalities from the WPS agenda and advances in research by civil society.
Conclusion
The WPS agenda has been highlighted for its transformative potential, not just for gender equality but also for addressing the root causes of armed conflict. Yet in order to fulfil that potential, and to achieve international peace and security, stakeholders must grapple more directly with the weapons that pose the greatest threats to humanity. Not only are these weapons shaping the contours of some of today’s armed conflicts, but the possibility of their use in current and future conflicts remains all too real.
In the run up to Resolution 1325’s milestone anniversary, there will be a lot of re-evaluation. Stakeholders can take this opportunity to use the WPS agenda as a blueprint for mainstreaming gender considerations across their WMD policies. By successfully carrying this through, they might enable a more nuanced, informed and accurate representation of the threats of WMD—and so bolster the efforts of existing and future multilateral regimes to address them.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Dr Wilfred Wan is the Director of the SIPRI Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme.
With the 25th anniversary of the landmark United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security (WPS) coming next year, it is high time to assess the widespread impact it and subsequent WPS resolutions (collectively referred to as the WPS agenda) have had on the international security landscape.
The topics of women’s inclusion and gender mainstreaming have become more prominent across activities, mandates and policies that pertain to the four ‘pillars’ of the WPS agenda—participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. However, the synergies between the WPS agenda and the governance of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) remain largely underexplored, let alone utilized. Indeed, WMD remains an ‘area for further action’ when it comes to linking the WPS agenda with arms control and disarmament, according to a 2020 study by the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. This SIPRI essay considers the WPS–WMD relationship, examining the potential benefits of and pathways towards further integration of these important global agendas.
Gender in WMD governance
The past decade has seen increased research and policy attention at the intersection of gender and WMD governance. In particular, there exists greater awareness of the likely gendered effects of WMD use. This is especially true in the nuclear realm, with research suggesting that women are more vulnerable to the effects of ionizing radiation than men, and in different ways. Because of social and cultural gender differences, women also suffer particularly negative effects from WMD use in terms of psychological impacts, social stigma and discrimination. Moreover, research on biological and chemical weapons suggests that levels of susceptibility to toxic agents and diseases differ between women and men, as do their experiences following exposure.
UN General Assembly Resolution 65/69 (2010) and a series of subsequent resolutions link the principles and objectives of the WPS agenda with disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. However, while these texts broadly encompass processes across all types of armament, they have tended to focus on small arms and light weapons. The content and modalities of the WPS agenda are often invoked or deployed only partially in gender-related discussions in multilateral WMD forums. When the WPS agenda does come up, it is generally in calls in national statements for the equal, full and effective participation of women in the forums. An exception has been the Meeting of States Parties of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which explicitly recognizes the disproportionate impact of nuclear weapon use on women and girls and includes a provision for gender-sensitive victim assistance.
In 2020 the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs reported that discussion of gender considerations was particularly lacking in multilateral forums on the governance of biological and chemical weapons compared with those on nuclear weapons. And during the 2022 comprehensive review by the 1540 Committee—tasked with supporting states’ efforts to prevent the proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery to non-state actors—some states argued that the WPS agenda had ‘not yet been included’ in the committee’s work; this might partly explain the mention of women’s participation in the resolution later that year, which renewed the committee’s mandate.
The promise of linking the WPS and WMD agendas
The WPS agenda should not ignore WMD. Widespread use of chemical weapons during the Syrian civil war illustrates the role that WMD continue to play in armed conflict. Given the prominence of women combatants in Syria and the manner in which conflict there has already exacerbated existing gender inequalities, the gendered dimension of WMD is critical to parse for its likely compounding negative effects on both the probability and the consequence sides of the risk equation. Indeed, research suggests that mortality rates linked to the use of chemical weapons in Syria have been disproportionately high among women. The alleged use of chemical weapons and sharpened nuclear rhetoric during the war in Ukraine further illustrate ways in which WMD and armed conflict remain intertwined.
If states try to further incorporate the WPS agenda into WMD regimes while also integrating WMD issues into the WPS agenda, this could have significant benefits for both processes. More thorough incorporation of the WPS agenda could contribute to a stronger culture of gender mainstreaming within WMD regimes. There is a groundswell of support in principle for gender perspectives, as was seen during the most recent review cycle for the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty—the final summaries of the first, second and third sessions of the Preparatory Committee all recognized the significance of gender. Such an approach could be applied more concretely and systematically across WMD regimes.
Doing so may also help to drive more regular reporting on national-level activities towards ensuring the equal and full participation of women, including in multilateral forums. And it could focus attention on the need for sex- and gender-sensitive data regarding the susceptibility to and impact of WMD, especially when it comes to chemical and biological weapons. This approach could be especially useful to realize treaty provisions on peaceful uses of nuclear energy, biological sciences and chemistry, for instance through the development of gender-sensitive capacity building, education and technical cooperation.
Drawing on the WPS agenda could help to advance discussions in other substantive ways, including by enhancing existing proposals and efforts to more thoroughly apply a ‘gender lens’ in implementing WMD-related treaties. Doing so could have the added benefits of creating a greater sense of ownership of gender issues among states parties and contributing to a greater culture of accountability that can extend beyond gender issues. Given current stresses on the disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control architecture, any positive movement towards collective action and a reversal of current trends in WMD governance can propel efforts towards the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security.
When it comes to benefits for the WPS agenda, more frequent consideration of WMD issues would help to underscore the centrality of gender issues across all forms and stages of conflict, including those that involve the most abhorrent weapons, indiscriminate in their targeting but not in their impact. WPS stakeholders can find ready champions of their agenda and amplifiers of their message in WMD regimes. For example, 16 states have committed to a feminist foreign policy (FFP)—the development of which is often articulated as a means to implement Resolution 1325. More directly addressing WMD issues could fulfil the promises of structural change that are inherent in some FFPs. Moreover, the evolution of gender issues in the WMD space over the past decade, notably through the humanitarian movement, could also offer invaluable lessons across all pillars of the WPS agenda. For instance, the TPNW provides an in-progress case study on taking forward gender provisions in treaty text, facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration and engagement, and mainstreaming gender considerations across all aspects of treaty implementation.
Ways forward
As indicated above, gender considerations are starting to feature in WMD regimes, with increasing references to participation and—less frequently—protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. Pursuing the further integration of the WPS and WMD agendas could take a number of forms.
To begin with, states could devote space to WMD issues within their WPS national action plans. In its 2019 updated action plan, Ireland underlined the role of disarmament and arms control, including nuclear arms control, as a tool for preventing conflict. It reported on its work in understanding and challenging the relationship between harmful masculinities and policies of nuclear deterrence. Besides this, just a handful of other states have ever mentioned WMD in their WPS national action plans—despite the relevance of WMD, and states frequently reporting on their broader activities in the area of women’s participation in disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation (especially after Resolution 65/69).
Related to this point, the UN General Assembly should consider directing the focus of its regular resolutions on ‘women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control’ on WMD. To date, they have focused particularly on the impact of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons on women and girls. For instance, they encourage the development of national action plans on this issue and call for data collection and further analysis mechanisms. In addition, they promote funding for gender-sensitive policies and programmes, advocacy, education, training and research, and suggest the development of effective risk assessment criteria to facilitate prevention. Many of these elements are also highly relevant and needed in the context of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Future General Assembly resolutions on women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control could recognize this and help to advance research.
States and other stakeholders, including in civil society, could also more effectively utilize the language, framing and modalities of the WPS agenda to incorporate gender considerations across WMD regimes. Non-permanent members of the Security Council in particular could inject fresh perspectives into established discussions about WPS. As part of the 1540 Committee’s 2022 review, Mexico and Norway produced a non-paper that included a series of concrete recommendations on integrating WPS considerations into the 1540 regime, including, among other things, regular consultations with women practitioners and women’s organizations when developing non-proliferation strategies and policies; the provision of gender and sex-disaggregated data; and the enhancement of training opportunities in the context of capacity-building and assistance programmes. States parties to the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention in particular could follow suit and develop working papers on gender considerations, drawing on pertinent modalities from the WPS agenda and advances in research by civil society.
Conclusion
The WPS agenda has been highlighted for its transformative potential, not just for gender equality but also for addressing the root causes of armed conflict. Yet in order to fulfil that potential, and to achieve international peace and security, stakeholders must grapple more directly with the weapons that pose the greatest threats to humanity. Not only are these weapons shaping the contours of some of today’s armed conflicts, but the possibility of their use in current and future conflicts remains all too real.
In the run up to Resolution 1325’s milestone anniversary, there will be a lot of re-evaluation. Stakeholders can take this opportunity to use the WPS agenda as a blueprint for mainstreaming gender considerations across their WMD policies. By successfully carrying this through, they might enable a more nuanced, informed and accurate representation of the threats of WMD—and so bolster the efforts of existing and future multilateral regimes to address them.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)