Introduced by Micaela Frulli

Twenty years ago, on October 31 2000, the UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted landmark Resolution 1325 (2000) affirming the importance of the equal participation and full involvement of women in all efforts for maintaining and promoting peace and security.[1] This Resolution was followed over the years by a string of Resolutions (9) forming the so-called Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda.[2] The WPS agenda resolutions belong to the category of UNSC thematic resolutions, such as those devoted to the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, or to children in armed conflict which reflect the commitment of this body to crucial cross-cutting issues in the context of peace and security. The twentieth anniversary of Resolution 1325 (2000) seems a right time for taking stock of the progress made over the years on the WPS agenda and for drawing attention to some of its critical features.
With a view to assessing the UNSC commitment to the protection of women’s rights in armed conflict, Lourdes Peroni analyses the WPS agenda resolutions in light of its close connection to the General Recommendation No 30 on Women in Conflict Prevention, Conflict and Post-conflict Situations adopted in 2013 by the Convention on the elimination of discrimination against women (CEDAW) Committee. The analysis uncovers a lack of coherence in the WPS human rights discourse. Whereas all WPS resolutions focus – in different degrees –  on the importance of fostering respect for human rights law in general and for women’s rights in particular, they basically miss the opportunity to categorize as ‘rights’ various political, social and economic dimensions of conflict and post-conflict affecting women. In other words, it may be contended that a certain superficiality and vagueness characterize, at least intermittently, the WPS agenda thus lessening the positive sides of UNSC commitment to protect and advance women’s rights in conflict situations.
For her part, Sara De Vido tackles a more specific topic: the issue of sexual and reproductive health in the context of peace and security and focus her analysis on the two most recent UNSC Resolutions 2467 (2019) and 2493 (2019). She illustrates how access to sexual and reproductive health services was willingly excluded from the final versions of these resolutions – under the pressure of some of the permanent members of the UNSC – thus downplaying their achievements. She argues that international law might be the ultimate cause of violence against women’s health through acts – such as the two resolutions at stake – that deliberately fail to tackle the gender-based discrimination rooted in society (prior, during and after conflicts) and to address the violation of women’s right to sexual and reproductive health. On a positive note, De Vido contends that the WPS Agenda has at least triggered the action of other UN bodies, which directly or indirectly contributed to the recognition of the women’s right to sexual and reproductive health using international law itself as an instrument. The UN Secretary General, for instance, somehow attempts at acting as a guardian of women’s sexual and reproductive health by constantly referring to this dimension and very recently expressed concerns over potential regression in this field.[3]
Both of the contributions to this Zoom-in undoubtedly show that although the WPS agenda marked an important development towards the advancement of women’s rights in conflict and post-conflict environments, there is still a long way to go and the road is full of balks and traps.[4]

 

[1] UN Doc S/RES/1325 (31 October 2000).
[2] UN Doc S/RES/1820 (18 June 2008); UN Doc S/RES/1888 (30 September 2009); UN Doc S/RES/1889 (5 October 2009); UN Doc S/RES/1960 (16 December 2010); UN Doc S/RES/2106 (24 June 2013); UN Doc S/RES/2122 (18 October 2013); UN Doc S/RES/2242 (13 October 2015); UN Doc S/RES/2467 (23 April 2019); UN Doc S/RES/2493 (29 October 2019).
[3] ‘Marking World Population Day, Secretary-General Urges Vigilance against Backsliding on Women’s Sexual, Reproductive Health’ UN Press Release SG/SM/20171 (10 July 2020).
[4] For instance, on 18 May 2020, in a letter to the UN secretary-general António Guterres, John Barsa, the acting administrator for the US agency for international development (USAid), called on the UN to ‘stay focused on life-saving interventions’ and not include abortion as an essential service. See the text of the letter at <www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/may-18-2020-acting-administrator-john-barsa-un-secretary-general-antonio-guterres>.