Almost a decade after Sweden first declared that it would follow a feminist foreign policy (FFP), a further eleven countries from across Europe, North and South America, and North and West Africa have adopted, or have signaled an interest in potentially adopting, an FFP in the future. These developments have been accompanied by a growing body of feminist scholarship. Although still in its infancy, this literature can generally be divided between more normative accounts and those that are empirically focused, with particular attention paid to the FFPs of Sweden and Canada. Yet, few studies compare FFPs’ uptake across different countries and regions, examine its connections to longer histories of ideas around women and gender, or unpack the policy intersections FFP (tentatively) engages. Contributing to these different areas, Part I provides an overview of the history of FFP, interrogates FFP in the context of Foreign Policy Analysis, and explores what FFP can achieve in the current (liberal) global system. Part II turns to consider policy intersections in relation to the climate crisis, migration, militarism, and bodies. Thinking through its origins, policy intersections, and potential future(s), the contributors to this Forum explore FFP's multiple and contested future(s). Ultimately, the Forum takes stock of this feminist turn in foreign policy at a critical point in its development and considers what future possibilities it may hold.

In contrast to earlier, more celebratory accounts, more recent scholarship on the United Nations Security Council's Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda reveals the racial–colonial logics deeply woven into the very fabric of the agenda that contribute to reproducing hierarchies, inequalities, and exclusions. Building on this body of literature, this article investigates in more detail how race shapes the United Kingdom's engagement with and institutionalization of the WPS agenda, reinforcing particular domestic identities. Drawing from a rich body of new empirical material, including documentary sources and interview data, the analysis excavates four interlinked racial–colonial practices: (1) the erasure of Britain's imperial and colonial history; (2) the production of new geographies of empire; (3) the construction of cultural inferiority of the “other”; and (4) nation branding efforts that construct the UK as the repository of leadership and expertise. I argue that the UK serves as an illustrative case that yields significant empirical and theoretical insights regarding how race is central to the institutionalization and implementation of the WPS agenda by national governments in the Global North and how, in turn, the WPS agenda enables those governments to identify as morally and culturally superior, thereby justifying racialized hierarchies in international relations.

No abstract

No abstract