17. Juli 2025
What significance does the UNSCR 1325 or Women, Peace, Security (WPS) Agenda have in view of the growing gender backlash both internationally and in peacebuilding contexts? To mark the 25th anniversary of the resolution, Simone Wisotzki conducted an interview with expert Thania Paffenholz.
What role has UNSCR 1325 played in your work?
UNSCR 1325 has deeply shaped my work, especially over the last decade. In 2015, UN Women launched a major review of the implementation of UNSCR 1325, and I lead a large-N qualitative study titled, “Making Women Count, Not Just Counting Women”, which directly informed the UN review report. We found that simply including women into formal peace processes doesn’t automatically lead to better outcomes. However, it does so when women’s networks are able to exert real influence over the agenda, process, and outcomes. In other words, there’s a big difference between representation and influence.
That insight was a paradigm shift in the WPS community. Until then, advocacy and implementation efforts had mostly focused on getting women to the table – not on ensuring they had influence at the table, alongside the table, and beyond. As part of a larger multi-year study on participation in formal peace negotiations (which was used for the WPS study) I developed several “inclusion modalities” that are now widely used in the field.
At Inclusive Peace, we work on three levels:
- Policy Level: We support the UN, regional organisations, and national governments in translating research into action. We contributed to the aforementioned 2015 Global Study, informed national action plans of serveral governments, and regularly advised the UN Security Council and the annual UNSG WPS reports. We’ll do the same during the upcoming 25th anniversary events in New York this October.
- In-country Level: We work directly with women’s groups in countries like Colombia, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, helping them develop effective strategies to participate in and influence peace processes.
- Process Design: We advise mediators and conflict parties on designing inclusive peace processes in a number of countries, such as Afghanistan, Syria, Colombia, and Sudan. This includes advising on how to move beyond token participation toward inclusive outcomes.
For example, Nepal’s national dialogue introduced the quotas used during the Dialogue process not only for women, but also as affirmative action for minorities and underprivileged groups. These quotas have since also become societal norms, applied in schools, government, and universities. In Ethiopia, by showing how research-backed strategies can transform outcomes we helped the National Dialogue Commission and the national women’s coalition secure both a 30% quota and an additional delegation for women.
Where do you see the strengths and weaknesses of UNSCR 1325?
The strength lies in its existence. It provides a global norm that women can invoke and use to find allies among governments and institutions. It also fostered transnational learning where women’s groups could share experiences across borders. Between 2015 and 2023, there was a real implementation peak, supported by states championing the agenda and embracing feminist foreign policy frameworks. However, the weaknesses are substantial:
- No enforcement: There’s no accountability mechanism. For instance, the African Union adopted a 35% quota for women in all peace processes and even missions. But who enforces it?
- Overfocus on formal processes: What counts as a peace process? Syria had no formal process post-2024, yet an inclusive government formed. Years of activism suddenly bore fruit, but only when the context shifted.
- Co-optation of coalitions: Our research showed the power of women’s coalitions but international donors began funding them through INGOs or the UN, undermining local ownership and legitimacy. Not all women’s groups want to or can be merged into one coalition. That diversity is often ignored.
- Protection and prevention pillars: The protection pillar of the WPS agenda has drifted into human rights and away from peacebuilding. The prevention pillar is nearly absent, reflecting broader weaknesses in long-term peacebuilding. Good examples like Nepal show how quotas and inclusive peace and government structures can prevent future conflict, but these are rare.
UNSCR 1325 turns 25 this year. Is implementation still worth the effort? What’s changed recently?
Celebrations are underway, but the mood is far from festive. At the recent WPS focal point meeting in Oslo, it felt more like a funeral. Geopolitical shifts, authoritarianism, and gender backlash are dominating. Polarisation is the new norm.
Militarised language is everywhere, especially in Europe. Formal peace processes are rarely taking place. Rearmament dominates headlines, while peacebuilding and women’s empowerment are sidelined. How can we push for women’s inclusion when there’s no table to join?
We now see mostly crisis management efforts, not actual peace processes. That’s a fundamental challenge to the WPS agenda.
In a militarised world, what role can women’s rights activists still play?
First: don’t give up. Don’t sink into frustration. We must look ahead, envision inclusive societies, and design strategies country by country. This is a long game – it might take a decade or more.
We need a narrative shift. The Cold War taught us the power of people-to-people dialogue, exchange, and long-term engagement. Those strategies are needed again.
We should also build alliances for change—like public health campaigns. A colleague of mine compares violence to a disease: if so, what are the treatments?
Women’s rights activists must return to their roots. Don’t depend solely on donor funding. Rediscover voluntary activism. Yes, the NGO sector is professionalised, but we must focus on what truly matters. Seek out philanthropies with activist-led steering boards. Partner with those business leaders who think long-term.
And yes, continue to lobby parliaments. Push for peace budgets. If 5% of a budget goes to military spending, why not 1% for peacebuilding?
Germany recently dropped its Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP). Can the WPS Agenda fill that gap? What are your hopes for German foreign policy?
No – WPS cannot replace FFP. FFP was broader, meant to influence all areas of foreign policy. WPS is narrower, focusing specifically on peacebuilding.
I’ve always questioned whether Germany had a true feminist foreign policy. It often felt like “feminist” branding with more funding for women’s projects without real systemic change.
Today, the focus is all on Ukraine and military buildup. But what are the actual threats Europe faces? Climate change. Nuclear risk. Societal polarisation. Conventional war. We need policies that address all those realities comprehensively based on evidence from peace research. But sadly, in Germany, even peace researchers are echoing militarised talking points. The line between academics and policymakers is blurring in ways that are deeply troubling. Where is the evidence?
Peace researchers must step up, offer comprehensive strategies, and stay grounded in data.
The interview was conducted by Dr. habil. Simone Wisotzki.
