Here for the Right Reasons: The Selection of Women as Peace Delegates

Abstract

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.

Human rights organizations and transitional justice agenda-setting: Evidence from peace agreement provisions

“…First, disaggregating the nature of HRO participation could yield additional insights. Case studies illustrate the diversity of HRO lobbying methods around peace agreements, ranging from informal to formal methods (Brannon and Best, 2022;Dayal and Christien, 2020). Important advocacy efforts often occur on the sidelines, through what Anderlini (2007) calls "corridor lobbying"-a term taken from Liberian women's groups that would catch negotiators in the corridors during the Accra peace talks-or public appeals in the media (Meyer et al, 2018).…”

“…Existing research emphasizes the powerful mobilizing functions of human rights organizations (hereafter HROs) and civil society. 1 They help domestic groups to mobilize (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011; Murdie and Bhasin, 2010), seek access to justice (Dancy and Michel, 2016; Simmons, 2008) and train public attention on governments’ abusive practices (Ausderan, 2014; Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Murdie and Peksen, 2014; Murdie and Davis, 2012). However, these accounts offer an incomplete picture of how HROs influence transitional justice policies in states emerging from armed conflict.…”