This article is part of the “Feminist Federalist Project,” a series initiated by federalist activists with the aim of exploring intersectional relations between feminist and federalist thought. The piece is based on a master’s thesis the author has written at the College of Europe in Natolin, which received the award for the most outstanding thesis by the Chair of European Neighbourhood Policy 2023/2024.
Gender equality and the promotion of peace are not just ideals for the European Union, enshrined in Article 2 of the Lisbon Treaty. They are supposed to be guiding principles that shape its policies at home and abroad. In line with this, the EU took a major step in 2008 by adopting the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, known as the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda. This framework emphasizes the protection and empowerment of women and girls in conflict zones and calls for their meaningful participation in peace negotiations, post-conflict reconstruction, and efforts to prevent future violence. The WPS agenda is part of a broader shift towards feminist foreign policy – a concept that is gaining real traction within the EU. Countries like Spain, Germany, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands have made attempts to embrace this approach, while others are following suit in subtler ways.
In the frame of my master thesis, I delved into these questions and investigated to what extent the EU is succeeding in promoting the principles of the WPS Agenda in the specific case of Armenia, an EU neighborhood country that has been engaged in a militarised border conflict with its neighbour, Azerbaijan for over 30 years. Since the EU has historically been attempting to act as a peace mediator in post-Soviet territorial conflicts while Europeanising potential new member states through its “normative power,” I wanted to research how this is put into practice on the ground. For this endeavour, I traveled to Yerevan in spring 2024 and conducted interviews with EU actors, Armenian policy makers and politicians, as well as civil society organisations. The aim of this article is to explore how the underlying principles of a potential feminist foreign policy of the EU go hand in hand with federalist visions for Europe and how the investigated case of Armenia shows prevailing shortcomings in this regard.
The foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda
Being grounded on the historical achievements of feminist activism, such as the Women’s Peace Congresses in the Hague 1915 or Zurich 1919, and the later founding of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the concept of Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) emerged. Important pillars for it are the United Nations documents “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women” (1979), “Beijing Platform for Action“(1995) and the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on”Women, Peace and Security" (2000) together with its nine subsequent resolutions.
The concept of FFP is in a state of constant evolution, shaped by feedback between academia and the practical implementation of its principles. According to Thomson et al., FFP can be defined as:
“[…] The policy of a state that defines its interactions with other states, as well as movements and other non-state actors, in a manner that prioritizes peace, gender equality and environmental integrity; enshrines, promotes, and protects the human rights of all; seeks to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-dominated power structures; and allocates significant resources, including research, to achieve that vision.”
It is crucial to recognise that the term “feminist” is intersectional and encompasses a multitude of marginalised groups within a society, extending beyond the traditional definition of women. Furthermore, the notion of “feminist security” is a key concept. It implies that the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply security for marginalised groups, as violence continues to prevail. Security is understood to extend beyond the conventional understanding of nation-state “hard” security, encompassing a broader concept of “soft” security for all individuals in their everyday lives. This involves the absence of power dynamics, equal access to resources, and the absence of hunger, poverty, and unequal treatment, collectively referred to as “positive peace.” In order to achieve sustainable peace, it is essential to address the underlying causes of “structural" violence, which extends beyond the scope of violent conflict and arises from systemic inequalities and the unequal distribution of power and resources. This can be achieved through the implementation of conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategies.
First, the inaugural official declaration of “feminist foreign policy” was made in 2014 by the then Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström. Despite the official withdrawal from FFP by a new Swedish government in 2022, the 3R approach remains a significant foundation for subsequent FFP strategies. The three “Rs” represent the “rights” of women and girls and the fight against all forms of violence against them, the “representation” of women in all levels of decision-making, and the allocation of the necessary “resources” required to achieve these goals. Sweden was followed by Canada (2017), France (2018), Luxembourg (2019), Mexico (2020), Spain (2021), Libya (2021), Germany (2021), Chile (2022), and the Netherlands (2022) as further pioneering countries. Belgium and Cyprus are poised to follow suit soon, while countries such as Finland and Denmark adhere to these principles without explicitly identifying as such. It needs to be said, however, that this list is dynamic, with countries withdrawing from the policy due to changing governments.
The EU and Women, Peace and Security
Asking the question to what extent the EU has advanced certain elements of an FFP, its alignment with the WPS agenda is a good starting point. This commitment is reflected in the EU’s Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security for 2019–2024. The plan outlines six key goals: prevention, protection, assistance, reconstruction, participation, and leadership through gender mainstreaming. For each of these priorities, the EU has set specific criteria, indicators, and actions – turning principles into practice and making clear that gender equality and peacebuilding go hand in hand. At the forefront of these developments is the European Parliament, which has been issuing studies on FFP approaches for the EU in 2020.
Even though Foreign and Security Policy is not an exclusive competence of the EU, several so-called “soft security mechanisms” have been employed in its neighbourhood, such as the two projects EU4Peace and EU4Dialogue. The EU had moreover appointed a “Special Representative for the South Caucasus” in 2003 whose mandate includes the peaceful settlement of conflicts in the region, conflict prevention, and the promotion of the return of internally displaced persons, acts as a neutral mediator in the the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and has installed a civil mission in Armenia named EUMA. As part of the Gender Action Plan, the WPS has been put in the center, while nominally special financial and human resources, gender focal points in EU delegations, and monitoring mechanisms have been implemented.
Impressions from the research stay in Armenia, photos: Melanie Thut
The case of Armenia
Alongside other studies, my field research in Armenia revealed shortcomings of the EU’s aspirations as a peace actor. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict traces back to Soviet territorial policies of the 1920s, when the region, home to both Armenians and Azerbaijanis, was placed under Azerbaijani control. In 1988, amid the Soviet Union’s collapse, Nagorno-Karabakh voted to join Armenia, sparking violence and mass displacement. Following a brutal war from 1992 to 1994, Armenia seized Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas, creating the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh. Many Azeris were expelled from the region. A fragile ceasefire negotiated by Russia left the region in limbo, but tensions never eased. Recent years saw Azerbaijan launch offensives in 2016, 2020, and 2023, gradually reclaiming territory. In September 2023, Azerbaijan retook Nagorno-Karabakh entirely, triggering the exodus of around 100,000 ethnic Armenians. Today, disputes over borders and proposed corridors continue to fuel instability. The balance between territorial integrity and self-determination remains at the heart of the unresolved conflict.
The ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has deeply affected various groups of Armenian women: refugees from the 1990s, 2016–2022, and 2023; women living in border regions; and female leaders excluded from peace talks. Women from Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) faced life in a militarized and patriarchal society where social status often depended on male relatives. Displacement brought severe economic hardship, limited access to legal rights, and social isolation, especially as Artsakh women were perceived as more conservative compared to locals. Early refugee groups from the 1990s remain poorly integrated, often living in precarious conditions. More recent refugees, particularly women and children from the 2020 war, suffered food shortages, psychological trauma, and risks like survival sex due to the blockade of the Lachin Corridor. The latest wave in 2023, involving about 100,000 Armenians, exposed older women to heightened vulnerability. Rising rates of gender-based violence and difficulties integrating into Armenian society have left many women considering emigration. Border communities, too, face worsening insecurity, economic hardship, and increased risks for women, with some even abandoning farming activities. Civil society organizations highlight the urgent need for better labour market access, psychological support, and gender-sensitive shelters to address the growing crisis.
While the Armenian government itself has implemented some measures in the context of the WPS agenda, the EU’s intervention in Armenia’s WPS promotion is viewed as relevant but inconsistent. The EU has been engaged in gender equality and peacebuilding initiatives, but its influence has been limited by political factors, especially during early conflict resolutions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Decision-making is fragmented between Brussels and Yerevan, limiting local impact. While some civil society groups praise project structures, funding remains hard to access for others, and key WPS topics are often sidelined. Efforts to engage local women face cultural barriers and language challenges. Both government and civil society appreciate the EU’s support, particularly in areas like gender action plans and Women Resource Centres; however, some interview partners argued that Western values may not align with local Armenian contexts. The EU’s efforts are seen as crucial but need further alignment with Armenia’s realities and culture for greater impact.
Despite some notable efforts, the EU has struggled to ensure meaningful participation of women in peace processes. While it has influenced gender-equality legislation and encouraged women’s involvement in decision-making at the local level, these advances have not translated into substantial representation in formal negotiations. In the realm of conflict prevention, progress has often been indirect, primarily channeled through initiatives like EU4Dialogue; however, the 2023 EU Mission marked a shift toward more direct engagement, particularly in enhancing border security. When it comes to protection, the EU’s investments, such as support for women’s shelters and a physical presence in vulnerable regions, have delivered short-term relief, but these efforts fall short of addressing the structural roots of gender-based violence. Meanwhile, in the area of relief and recovery, EU assistance has largely remained general in scope, lacking a focused strategy for women refugees. This patchwork approach underscores the pressing need for more integrated, long-term support structures that center women’s specific needs in post-conflict settings.
During my research stay, I conducted interview with different relevant actors in Yerevan, photos: Melanie Thut
Towards a coherent feminist foreign policy of the EU incorporating federalist values
The recommendations for the EU that resulted from the study are closely aligned with federalist values. Besides a better coordination of the EU’s activities (and its member states) and the advancement of reforms inside Armenia, promoting peacebuilding and ensuring feminist security are key. The feminist approach to security stands contrary to the national security of states and puts the well-being of single individuals at the core. This also holds for a federalist understanding of peace based on the dismantling of patriarchal power relations in the form of nation-states. In conflict situations, particular attention should be paid to the most vulnerable groups, such as women in border regions or refugees.
Coming to a region in conflict as a federalist can be a naive standpoint since hard security aspects and the safeguarding of national sovereignty and identity are the priority (comparable to the situation in Ukraine). Nevertheless, the multi-ethnic region has seen attempts at federalisation through the Transcaucasian Federation of 1918 and the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (TSFSR) of 1922-1936, which was, however, paired with the later integration into the Soviet Union and can not be considered a completely free and democratic federalist project. Throughout history, attempts at self-governance and federal structures were suppressed by Russian hegemonic claims on the region.
When it comes to the EU, federalist values can manifest themselves in a federalist foreign policy closely connected with FFP approaches. A federalist foreign policy promotes positive peace, which goes beyond the sole absence of war but ensures sustainable peacebuilding and security. This can, however, only be put into practice if necessary changes to the treaties of the EU happen, a real European Democracy with a common foreign policy is established, and divisions within Europe are overcome. No country in Europe has so far successfully implemented a coherent FFP. Feminist and federalist values in external action can only thrive if national foreign policies are exchanged for a sovereign Europe dismantling global power relations and putting the well-being of the people at its core.
The history of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has shown that the absence of acts of war has not led to a safe and prosperous life for the people. Here, an intersectional federalist lens stressing the unity of humankind in peace can even expand the understanding of affected groups. Moreover, mandatorily including women in peace talks when the EU is the mediator would make Europe a real actor for peace in the world, based on the federalist values of democratic political representation of all groups of society.
In the end, promoting federalism means promoting peace in the world, giving the voice of communities on the ground a resonance chamber, and building a democratic federalist society governed by common institutions. Including feminist and intersectional thought is crucial to unpack certain levels of prevailing power relations and dismantle them. Concepts around FFP and the Women, Peace, Security Agenda are important tools for advancing the creation of a federalist society and should be approached in a much more integrated manner.
Follow the comments:
|
