Introduction
Despite the existence of a comprehensive international framework designed to promote women’s involvement in peace and security, women remain significantly underrepresented in formal peace negotiations. Over two decades ago, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1325, a landmark resolution acknowledging the disproportionate impact of armed conflict on women and stressing the importance of their equal participation in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. However, progress has been slow and inconsistent. Statistics show that women are still largely excluded from the negotiating table. For instance, data from UN Women reveals that between 1995 and 2019, women constituted, on average, only 13% of negotiators, 6% of mediators, and 6% of signatories in major peace processes worldwide (UN Women, 2022). This essay seeks to explain why this gap between international commitments and reality persists. It will first outline the international framework established by UNSCR 1325 before analysing the key political, structural, and social barriers that continue to prevent women's meaningful participation in peace negotiations. It will argue that underrepresentation is not due to a lack of legal norms, but rather because peace processes tend to replicate the male-dominated power structures that define the conflict itself.
The International Framework: UNSCR 1325 and the Implementation Gap
The primary international instrument addressing this issue is UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325), adopted in 2000. This resolution was historic as it was the first time the Security Council addressed the specific impact of war on women and their crucial role in peacebuilding. UNSCR 1325 calls on all actors, particularly member states and the UN itself, to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional, and international institutions for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict (United Nations Security Council, 2000). The resolution is built upon four pillars: participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery. The ‘participation’ pillar is central to the question of representation in peace talks.
However, a key reason for the persistence of underrepresentation is the gap between these commitments and their implementation on the ground. UNSCR 1325 and the subsequent resolutions that form the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda are not international treaties with binding enforcement mechanisms. They create strong international norms and political commitments but do not legally compel conflict parties to include women in their negotiating teams (Cohn, 2014). Responsibility for selecting delegations rests with the conflict parties themselves—national governments and armed opposition groups—who may lack the political will to ensure gender diversity. The UN can encourage and facilitate inclusion but cannot force a sovereign government or an armed group to appoint female negotiators. This creates a significant implementation gap, where the normative framework exists but lacks the power to ensure compliance.
Political and Power-Based Barriers
A primary reason for women's exclusion is that peace negotiations are fundamentally political processes that reflect existing power structures. Typically, the individuals invited to the negotiating table are those who hold military or political power—the leaders of the government and the main armed opposition groups (Paffenholz, 2015). In most conflict situations, these positions are overwhelmingly held by men. Political and military institutions are traditionally male-dominated, meaning that the very criteria for having a ‘seat at the table’—control over territory or fighters—systematically disadvantages women.
This approach effectively militarises the concept of legitimacy, where the right to negotiate peace is granted to those who have waged war (O'Reilly, 2015). Women, by contrast, are often at the forefront of non-violent, community-level peacebuilding and civil society activism. While this work is vital for sustainable peace, it is often not seen as conferring the same political legitimacy as military command. Consequently, women’s peace groups may be invited to observe or consult on the sidelines of a formal process, but they are rarely given the status of official delegates with decision-making power. The selection process for negotiators thus reproduces the gender inequalities that were present during the conflict, making it difficult for women to enter these exclusive, high-level political spaces.
Structural and Institutional Barriers
Beyond the politics of who gets to negotiate, there are significant structural and institutional barriers that limit women’s participation. One of the most critical is funding. Women's civil society organisations are chronically underfunded, which restricts their capacity to organise, travel to negotiation venues, and sustain their involvement over the long term (UN Women, 2022). Without adequate financial and logistical resources, it is difficult to compete with well-funded government delegations or armed groups.
Furthermore, there is a crucial distinction between mere presence and meaningful participation. In some cases, women are included in a tokenistic way to satisfy international pressure, without being given a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome. A single woman on a large, male-dominated delegation may struggle to have her voice heard or her proposals integrated into the final agreement (UN Peacemaker, n.d.). They may be excluded from the informal, behind-the-scenes discussions where key decisions are often made. Meaningful participation requires not just being present, but having the power to shape the agenda, contribute to the substance of the negotiations, and see one's priorities reflected in the final peace accord. The failure to facilitate this deeper level of inclusion is a persistent institutional weakness.
Social Barriers and Security Risks
Cultural and social norms also play a role in reinforcing women's exclusion. Deep-seated stereotypes often associate men with leadership, security, and ‘hard’ political issues, while women are associated with ‘soft’ issues like family and community welfare (O'Reilly, 2015). This can lead to the perception that women are less capable or qualified to negotiate on matters of war and peace, such as ceasefires, security arrangements, and power-sharing. This perception ignores the fact that women often have a unique and essential perspective on these issues, particularly regarding the security of civilians.
In addition, women who step into public and political roles in conflict and post-conflict settings often face significant security risks. These can include threats, harassment, and gender-based violence aimed at intimidating them and forcing them out of public life (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2018). The risks are high for women who challenge traditional power structures or speak out on sensitive issues. A lack of adequate protection mechanisms for women peacebuilders and political actors can therefore act as a powerful deterrent to their participation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, women remain severely underrepresented in peace negotiations not for a lack of international standards, but due to a combination of persistent and interconnected barriers. While UNSCR 1325 established a vital normative framework, its weak implementation and enforcement mechanisms cannot by themselves overcome the entrenched realities of power politics. Peace negotiations continue to prioritise military and political power, which is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of men, thereby marginalising the contributions of women peacebuilders. This is compounded by structural obstacles such as inadequate funding and tokenistic inclusion, as well as social barriers rooted in gender stereotypes. The evidence shows that peace agreements are more durable when women are involved, meaning their continued exclusion is not only a matter of rights but also a critical failure of strategy that undermines the goal of achieving sustainable peace. Therefore, moving from normative commitment to meaningful representation requires a fundamental shift in how peace processes are structured, moving beyond a model that privileges the powerful to one that embraces genuine inclusivity.
References
Cohn, C. (2014) 'Women and Wars: Towards a Conceptual Framework', in The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict. Oxford University Press.
O'Reilly, M. (2015) Why are Women so Critically Important to Peace Processes? Inclusive Security.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). (2018) Price of participation: a high one for women in politics, says UN human rights expert. [Online] Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/10/price-participation-high-one-women-politics-says-un-human-rights-expert (Accessed: 15 May 2024).
Paffenholz, T. (2015) 'Unpacking the local turn in peacebuilding: a critical assessment of local ownership', Third World Quarterly, 36(5), pp. 857-874.
UN Peacemaker. (n.d.) Guidance on Gender and Inclusive Mediation Strategies. United Nations. [Online] Available at: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/Guidance-on-Gender-and-Inclusive-Mediation-Strategies_UNDPPA.pdf (Accessed: 15 May 2024).
UN Women. (2022) Facts and figures: Women, peace, and security. [Online] Available at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/peace-and-security/facts-and-figures (Accessed: 15 May 2024).
United Nations Security Council. (2000) Resolution 1325 (2000) [on women and peace and security]. S/RES/1325. [Online] Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/426069 (Accessed: 15 May 2024).
