An Anniversary in Challenging Times

Contested Times for Feminism

Twenty-five years after the adoption of Resolution 1325, the concerns of the WPS agenda are in danger of being pushed into the background. Anti-feminists are joining forces worldwide, and, along with men like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, as well as women like Georgia Meloni, serve as heads of government in powerful states. In the face of new and old wars, power politics, and militarization, peace movements and feminist approaches to foreign and security policy are taking a back seat and are increasingly being dismissed as merely “nice to have”. At the same time, the WPS agenda and its implementation are criticized in feminist circles as not ambitious or inclusive enough. What significance does the WPS agenda still hold in these times? What can it achieve in the face of increasing wars and conflicts? And how might the agenda be reimagined to realize its potential in a rapidly changing world?

These questions are at the center of a PRIF blog series edited by Researchers Clara Perras and Simone Wisotzki. Originating from a roundtable on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Resolution 1325, the series intends, according to Perras, “to create a space to critically reflect on the WPS agenda—on its achievements, but also on its limitations, its visions and future potentials.” In response to a call on LinkedIn, nearly twenty scholars, practitioners, and artists came forward. In their contributions, they address the knowledge systems that have developed around WPS—ranging from decolonial critique to the institutionalization of the UN agenda and the question of how it can be re-imagined for the future. In March 2026, the project culminated in the publication of an e-book.

The WPS Agenda—Origins, Content, Implementation, Criticism:

The adoption of Resolution 1325 was the result of decades of feminist lobbying and can be understood as a groundbreaking step toward recognizing the importance of gender-related issues for the realization of sustainable peace.

As put by co-editor and contributor Clara Perras: “The starting point was that there was an increasing body of research, reports, and experiences showing that armed conflicts affect women and men differently. However, women were—and unfortunately still are—almost completely excluded from peace negotiations and decision-making processes.” At its core, the resolution aims for the equal participation of women in peace processes, the consideration of gender-specific perspectives in the prevention of armed conflicts and wars, the protection of those affected from sexual and gender-based violence in the context of such conflicts and wars, and subsequent reparations. This is intended to ensure that “women are no longer perceived merely as victims of conflict but rather as an important and central group of actors capable of realizing peace and security.”

Since 2000, the four pillars have been supplemented and expanded by more than ten UN resolutions—for example, to addressing the protection of civil society and human rights defenders, as well as the accountability of states in the design and implementation of their action plans. As a result, Resolution 1325 has evolved into a political framework that, as the WPS agenda, has been translated into over 100 National Action Plans (NAPs) worldwide and adopted by regional organizations such as the EU, NATO, and the African Union. While the WPS agenda is regarded as a milestone and a normative compass for the recognition of gender issues in conflict situations and peace processes, it is often criticized in feminist circles as insufficiently ambitious. Accordingly, its promises have frequently fallen by the wayside in political practice. Women remain underrepresented in peace negotiations, and their participation is often merely symbolic. Furthermore, the perspectives of women from countries in the Global South, LGBTIQ+ communities, and other marginalized groups have been overlooked in implementation processes. Consequently, insufficient consideration is given to how experiences of racism, class, disability, ethnicity, and sexuality intersect with the experiences people have in the context of war, conflict, and peace. Once again, Clara Perras sums it up: “As a result, many experiences remain invisible—and exclusionary practices and injustices risk to be reproduced by the agenda.”

Furthermore, the global anti-feminist backlash threatens the achievements of the WPS agenda. Moreover, the current upheavals in the world order, rising nationalism, and a shift in priorities toward “strategic” interests in foreign and development policy are causing feminist concerns to take a back seat in large parts of the world. The announcement by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in April 2025 to completely terminate his department’s WPS program is just one example. While they continue to rhetorically affirm their support for WPS principles, nearly two-thirds of Western countries with a NAP have recently cut development funding for gender equality in favor of increasing military budgets or have not renewed their action plans.

The Blog Series: 25 Years of Women, Peace, and Security

Against this backdrop, the PRIF Blog series examines the central principles, implementation, and institutionalization of the agenda. What makes it unique is the focus of contributions on the lived realities of people in different regions of the world. In their texts, nearly twenty scholars, practitioners, and artists address very different perspectives and experiences that have shaped their view of the WPS agenda. For this reason the blog series offers a wide variety of perspectives from which to view the WPS agenda.

“We wanted to create a space to critically reflect on the WPS agenda—on its achievements, but also on its limitations, its visions and future potentials.”

Clara Perras on the idea behind the blog series

On the one hand, the blog series recognizes the WPS agenda as an important achievement and highlights its role as a central reference point for the work of activists and policymakers worldwide. Furthermore, its institutionalization in many parts of the world underscores the robustness of the agenda. At the same time, the contributions also reveal the limits of the agenda’s institutionalization practices, which are primarily characterized by its integration into inter- and supranational organizations, NAPs, and implementation indicators. A particular focus here is on the African Union (AU), which plays a pioneering global role through a combined approach of institutionalizing and mainstreaming the agenda. To date, 35 AU member states have adopted an action plan and established structures such as training opportunities, early warning systems, and hotlines for victims of sexual violence.

Sophia Birchinger, Researcher in Research Department Local Peace Orders and contributor to the blog series, explains that this institutional progress has, however, had a limited impact so far on the everyday lives of women on the continent. “The African Union is an example of a differentiated institutional framework in which mainstreaming has been remarkably successful, as it has been institutionally anchored at various levels. At the same time, however, criticism persists that this institutionalization renders invisible existing knowledge, local initiatives, and perspectives—or fails to adequately incorporate them.” The WPS agenda remains largely unknown outside of politics and civil society organizations; funding for its implementation is concentrated at the level of the AU—and deeply entrenched social norms thus remain unchanged. This is the conclusion reached by Sophia Birchinger and Cheryl Hendricks, Executive Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in Cape Town, who argue that “[t]o realize the potential of the WPS agenda not only in words but also in practice, solidarity, concrete measures, and financial resources are needed.”

Furthermore, this state-centered focus of the agenda often neglects the highly unequal living conditions women face within a society. For instance, Grace Akosua Dankwa, doctoral candidate at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, observes this with regard to Ghana’s NAP, which addresses “women and girls.” This well-intentioned, supposedly universal category neglects the diverse factors that shape women’s safety in the country. Consequently, measures and goals such as “educating women,” “raising community awareness,” and “building capacity” are listed without being tailored to the specific obstacles different women face due to their different roles in society.

At the same time, however, the blog series also shows that the WPS agenda is not implemented solely by state actors but can be linked to a wide variety of (feminist) practices and concepts. Its core principles can be found worldwide in the day-to-day peace work of feminist and local initiatives, even without any reference to the institutional framework. Accordingly, the WPS principles “are not only brought to life through state programs; they are brought to life through local, feminist practice,” emphasizes Laura Barrios Sabogal, who conducts research on peacebuilding, among other topics, in Research Department Internal Conflicts. In her article, she reports on an agricultural initiative in La Montañita, Colombia, where former fighters of the F.A.R.C.-E.P. guerrilla group are working alongside their victims.

“The WPS agenda remains a point of reference, a common language that progressive political forces can draw upon.”

Sophia Birchinger in PRIF Talk #16

Furthermore, feminist movements and grassroots initiatives are implementing the principles of the agenda even in places where no state action plan exists. Ipek Bahar Karaman-Yilmazgil illustrates this on the example of the “Saturday Mothers,” who have been demanding answers about the disappearance of their relatives in state custody through peaceful resistance in Istanbul since 1995. Bulbul Prakash highlights the case of India, where cohesion in conflict-affected communities is primarily sustained through women’s daily care work and resistance. Accordingly, a focus on this context-specific knowledge of feminist movements, civil society, and local initiatives could help to fill gaps in the implementation of the UN agenda, to rethink its principles—and to actually realize them. Against this backdrop, Clara Perras explains: “We should therefore look especially at how feminist movements, local communities, and civil society define feminist peace and security.”

Conclusions on the Project

Even if the WPS agenda is not perfect, the blog series as a whole makes it clear that, in light of the current anti-feminist backlash, the upheavals in the international order, but also in the face of challenges such as climate change, WPS will not lose its relevance in the future. That its concerns are being pushed into the political background makes them all the more necessary as lived practice. Especially in times when supposed security is once again increasingly sought through militarization and war, the WPS agenda continues to offer a framework for developing alternative visions of peace and security grounded in gender justice, human security, and peace. As Sophia Birchinger emphasizes: “The WPS agenda remains a point of reference, a common language that progressive political forces can draw upon.”

The blog series therefore calls for a reimagining of the agenda that goes beyond its current focus—whether in addressing current trends toward (nuclear) rearmament and militarization or in addressing the climate crisis. In light of the current backlash, however, the agenda will remain contested in the future. Accordingly, it is to be hoped that feminist actors can form strong alliances to resist these developments. (hbr)