Members of sexual and gender minorities are often doubly victimized in times of conflict. For instance, Lebanese LGBTQI+ people who were displaced by Israeli bombing in 2026 often found that they were unwelcome in government-sponsored shelters. They were also less likely to be taken in by family members than their heterosexual, cisgender peers, making them more likely to be homeless. As a result, a few Lebanese LGBTQI+ CSOs mobilized to provide alternatives.
LGBTQI+ people remain largely overlooked in conflicts and peacebuilding processes, despite being targets of violence before, during, and after conflicts. In particular, little attention is paid to meeting their specific needs and how they can help rebuild post-conflict societies. The role of some LGBTQI+ individuals as perpetrators of violence is practically taboo. When we dug deeper into the state of research on these issues, these are the main lessons that we found.
Uneven Progress Across Peace Processes and in Research
Studies that investigate the inclusion of LGBTQI+ people in peacebuilding are conducted by a very limited number of scholars and experts. These analysts tend to focus on success stories, even if they mention challenges. Little is known about situations in which LGBTQI+ activism failed to influence peace processes or the content of final agreements.
Moreover, references to LGBTQI+ people and sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) in peace agreements – and in the academic literature on peace agreements – concern mainly Colombia in 2016, Northern Ireland in 1998, and South Africa in 1993. Countries such as Nepal in 2015 and the Philippines in 1998 have also included in peace agreements some provisions on equality based on sexual orientation. However, other countries, including Burundi in 2005 and Zimbabwe in 2013, incorporated discriminatory provisions against LGBTQI+ people, while SOGIESC issues are neglected in most conflicts and peace agreements, such as in Afghanistan or Peru.
The Impact of LGBTQI+ Activism
First, timing and context are important. In Colombia, for instance, the legal conditions in place in the 2010s, combined with decades-long activism, allowed women’s and LGBTQI+ groups to push for the inclusion of people with diverse SOGIESC in the peace process. In South Africa, the 1996 constitution’s protection for LGBTQI+ people “was a culmination of lesbian and gay [NGOs] becoming embedded in the antiapartheid movement; the coming-out of high-profile figures in the movement; and pressure from international groups,” as Fidelma Ashe concludes.
Second, LGBTQI+ groups are proactive, have strategies, and mobilize different tactics. In Colombia, they formed an alliance with women’s groups and prepared reports to make their case to the parties (the government and the FARC), and had international support.
Third, it is important to analyze marginalization before, during and after a conflict and in the peacebuilding process itself. Peace processes can have positive or negative impacts on LGBTQI+ people’s security, as was the case in Northern Ireland.
Inclusion Does Not Guarantee Change
When SOGIESC issues are included in peacebuilding processes, it does not mean that discrimination and violence cease, that there is political will to fully implement the agreement or that truth and reintegration processes follow smoothly. Moreover, even when LGBTQI+ people were included in peacebuilding, CSOs and activists faced important challenges.
In Colombia, for instance, LGBTQI+ groups struggled to be recognized as victims of sexual violence. Lesbians felt that the larger LGBTQI+ movement was failing to address specific cases of vulnerability and violence that they suffered during the conflict. The intersecting challenges faced by members of the LGBTQI+ community related to class, urban/rural divide and Indigeneity were neglected. LGBTQI+ organisations also faced dependence on international funding, while conservative sectors pushed back at the national level. In Northern Ireland, peace discussions were strongly shaped by ethno-nationalist and religious perspectives that privileged a uniform, binary, and archaic vision of gender and gender roles.
What’s Next?
The literature reveals that research, analysis, and programming need to be intersectional, focus on understanding the underlying causes of conflict and discrimination against LGBTQI+ people in each specific context, and consider the colonial past and legacies as well as the capacities of and initiatives by LGBTQI+ people locally. Relatedly, there is a need to stay close to local preoccupations and to foster communication between the local and the global to avoid a decoupling of the concerns of local activists from regional and global conversations.
Such an approach must also recognize differences, potential and existing inequalities within LGBTQI+ communities. Queer youth, for instance, face specific challenges, including reduced access to employment, as do transgender people. Hostility and violence against LGBTQI+ youth can hinder their participation after armed conflicts are over, such as in Colombia and Syria.
More research is needed, particularly research conducted in close collaboration with LGBTQI+ communities. Although carrying out research with marginalized groups can be challenging, especially in hostile environments, centering the perspectives and voices of LGBTQI+ individuals in research, policy and practice is essential, both for ethical and effectiveness reasons. Research institutions and funding bodies have a crucial role to play to encourage and support this type of studies.
The Women, Peace and Security agenda also requires further attention regarding its potential to integrate the concerns of LGBTQI+ groups. The same applies to the design, content and implementation of WPS National Action Plans. Jamie Hagen and her colleagues have led pioneering research on this topic in Colombia.
Moreover, most international attention focuses on violations of human rights and other norms, with far less paid to the implementation of the existing LGBTQI+-inclusive peacebuilding policies, guidelines and initiatives. For example, funding LGBTQI+ organizations may produce positive outcomes, but that is not always the case, and more empirical evidence is required to document results and to understand more precisely successes, failures and the trade-offs between different approaches.
The question is not simply whether peace agreements take SOGIESC into account or whether LGBTQI+ people are included in peacebuilding processes. It is also: What enables these agreements and processes to have a positive, long-lasting impact?
Keywords: LGBTQI+, queer, gay, lesbian, sexual minorities, SOGIESC, peace, peacebuilding, conflict, conflict resolution, participation, Colombia, South Africa
Morgane Rosier is a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Management at the Université du
Québec à Montréal, where she is also a researcher at the Canadian Research Institute on
Humanitarian Crises and Aid. Her research interests include the politics, policy and practice of
international solidarity, foreign aid, humanitarian action, risks and disasters, climate change and
island states and territories. Her doctoral thesis focuses on aid effectiveness in Vanuatu. She
currently works on climate change and disaster-related issues on island territories, as well as on
marginalized groups in development and foreign policy.
Stephen Brown is a professor at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa,
where he is also affiliated with the School of International Development and Global Studies.
His research focuses mainly on the intersection of domestic and international politics. He has
published extensively on democratization, political violence, peacebuilding and transitional
justice/rule of law in several African countries. He has also conducted research on foreign aid in
Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mongolia and Peru, as well as on global COVID-19 vaccine inequities.
He is now primarily carrying out research on international LGBTQI+ rights. His current projects
are on 1) how people in several African countries use domestic courts to try to force their
governments to decriminalize homosexuality, and 2) LGBTQI+ rights and Canadian foreign
policy. He has been a visiting scholar at universities and research institutes in Finland, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa and the United Kingdom. He maintains a website at
https://stephenbrown.xyz/. Pronouns: he/him.
