Women's role in war must extend to peace

Despite all the progress that has been made toward gender equality globally, many are still tempted to view armed conflict as primarily the domain of men. In fact, women often prove decisive in such settings, including in combat, non-combat, and leadership roles. Nonetheless, they are routinely sidelined in formal peace processes and post-conflict governance. This pattern reflects a moral and practical failure.

- Carolyn Chisadza

During armed conflicts, women become more vulnerable to genocide, trafficking, slavery, and sexual violence, with all the associated health risks and psychological trauma. This alone earns them the right to participate in peace processes. But women are not only passive victims of conflict: as we have seen in Ukraine, they make profound wartime contributions on the battlefield, as well as in civil society and as peace advocates. In this sense, women often increase their agency during times of conflict, despite the risks they face. But when they are then excluded from peace negotiations and what follows — as is the case, so far, in Ukraine — these agency gains are reversed, with outdated gender norms reasserting themselves.

Legal frameworks promoting women's inclusion in conflict resolution, peace-building, and post-conflict reconstruction have so far failed to turn the tide. For example, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, adopted in 2000, "urges all actors" to increase women's participation and "incorporate gender perspectives in all UN peace and security efforts". But, as of 2018, the number of women signing peace agreements had not significantly increased.