Resolving civil wars is a particularly challenging endeavor. After the conclusion of an interstate conflict, those that were fighting one another tend to return home. Continued interactions with one another are not much of a concern, at least to the individuals involved. Civil wars, however, are very different in this respect. The fighting is already occurring ‘at home.’ Those who have been violently attacking each other must now learn to live alongside one another again. When these disputes end through a peace or ceasefire agreement (approximately 25% do, according to research by Joakim Kreutz), those who had previously been killing each other are now charged with forging a new future together as they implement the peace. Third party assistance is crucial in helping civil war states transition from war to peace as a result. Further, civil war peace agreement processes have expanded significantly in the post-Cold War era as efforts to improve post-agreement success have evolved.
Early efforts to resolve civil wars tended to focus solely on those at the table, which often meant women were not part of the peace process. This was the case despite the reality on the ground that women were heavily impacted by the war itself, directly and/or indirectly. As a result, in 2000, the United Nations sought to expand the inclusion of women in resolving civil wars and in implementing peace agreements. These efforts led to a general expansion of gender provisions in civil war peace agreements. These are provisions that mention women or girls specifically. My co-authors and I sought to evaluate the types of gender provisions included in agreements from 1990-2018, and whether or not those provisions were found in post-conflict environments where they were perhaps most needed.
We suggest that gender provisions focus on one of two things: they may empower women or they may address female victimization. Empowerment provisions seek to improve women’s political access, while victimization provisions focus on accountability for and/or healing from violence targeting women during conflict. Of the 231 agreements examined, 35.5% included empowerment provisions, 19% had victimization provisions, and 15.6% included both types. Civil war peace processes provide a unique opportunity for marginalized groups, including women. These processes often involve building new institutions and other mechanisms aimed at preventing future conflict.
Given the difficulty in resolving civil wars, most civil war peace agreements tend to emerge with third-party assistance or mediation. In an effort to make for more enduring peace, mediators tend to advocate for the rights of marginalized groups. Globally, women tend to be marginalized relative to men. In fact, according to the World Bank’s Women, Business, and the Law 2022 report women tend to have about 75% of the rights of men. The experience of women, however, varies depending on the society in which they live. Some societies are simply more resistant to women’s rights. For this reason, we suspected that gender provisions in civil war peace agreements designed to empower women were more likely to be found in post-conflict societies where women were already relatively politically active, and unfortunately, not where they are perhaps most needed. Comparatively, we proposed that victimization provisions would find their way into peace agreements where they were most needed (i.e., where civilian victimization was particularly high), but also where women were active in civil society organizations (i.e., advocacy groups). In essence, we suggested that victimization provisions are generally less threatening to the existing hierarchy, and therefore, would be included as needed compared to empowerment provisions that do indeed threaten the status quo.
Our findings seem to confirm our expectations. While it does appear that gender provisions are increasing due to the efforts of third-party mediators, particularly the United Nations, empowerment provisions seem unlikely to find themselves in societies where women are most marginalized. Victimization provisions, however, seem to find less resistance. Where the violence has been most intense, particularly civilian targeted violence, provisions designed to address that victimization are more likely. Progress in empowering women through peace initiatives will require persistence, but also perhaps new approaches to breaking down those who continue to resist such efforts the most.
This article is a summary of a research article entitled “Civil War Peace Agreements and Gender Inclusion,” originally published in Defense and Peace Economics in 2022.
