Since the passing of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security more than two decades ago, there has been a global push to bolster the inclusion of women in these processes. When women are selected into peace delegations for the wrong reasons, they—like men—can hinder or stall progress. Yet, very little work has analyzed which women are included in peace processes, how they are selected, why they are selected, and how their individual experiences influence both their behavior and the outcomes of those processes. We identify four selection criteria used to select participants in negotiations: (1) reliability as assessed through either connections to elites or ideological purity; (2) qualifications such as experience in the armed forces, rebel forces, civil society, or academia; (3) personal appeal or ability to elicit sympathy based on factors such as victimhood, attractiveness, youth, or demographics; and (4) selection by a third party whose strength and size have allowed it to negotiate representation in the process. It is likely that in many cases, multiple motives and selection criteria are at play in the selection of individual women (or men). We consider how gender impacts the implementation of these criteria, drawing on a variety of peace processes, but especially the Havana Peace Talks between the Colombian government and Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarios Colombianos–Ejército del Pueblo. This framework sets the foundation for the development of three research agendas: the first relating to which women get a seat at the table, the second to how the individual backgrounds of the women selected into the peace process influence outcomes, and the third to issues of intersectionality and representation.

No abstract

The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) was one of the first international bodies devoted to gender issues and has played a foundational role in the promotion of gender equality globally. In this article, I explore representational patterns at the CSW and question when and why states choose to send men representatives. Novel data shows that while the commission was composed entirely of women representatives in its early decades, men’s representation has steadily increased—reaching parity in 2000. This paper argues that appointment choice can be explained by domestic levels of women’s political empowerment. The empirical results demonstrate a non-linear relationship between women’s political empowerment and appointment. States with higher levels of women’s political empowerment are more likely to appoint women representatives, until a threshold. At the highest levels of empowerment, states become again more likely to appoint men. I argue that this reflects a positive trend, in which men are taking a more active role in deconstructing pervasive gender inequalities. This paper has relevant implications for understandings of women’s representation in international institutions.

No abstract