Kvinnor, fred och säkerhet : En feministisk analys av FNs säkerhetsråds resolutioner 1820, 1889 och 2467

It is recognized that international relations are reinforcing a patriarchal and western status quo. The study examines how the UN resolutions on Women, Peace and Security (WPS) have contributed to changing the gendered security discourse. Previous literature argues that the gendered discourse creates dichotomies dividing the genders, creating binary divisions stating women as peace/victims and men as war/agents. The study aims to investigate how the ”WPS” pillars of protection and par- ticipation are formulated in the UN resolutions. Grounded in a feminist theoretical framework con- stituted by prominent perspectives of Radical- and Postcolonial feminism, ideal types are con- structed. The study examines what indicators of radical- and postcolonial feminism are identified in the problem formulation of “WPS” in the strategically selected resolutions 1820, 1889 and 2467, and what in the formulation remains unproblematized. The methodology is based on Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) tool, suited for “postmodern” discourse analysis of policy documents. International relations have become more “reflexive” moving the security dis- course towards “Human security”. Similarly, contemporary feminism has become more intersec- tional when creating the women-subject. The analysis finds Radical feminist indicators, however implicit, throughout the material. Sexual violence is, in correspondence with human security, for- mulated as a structural/political issue. The women-subject is however created homogeneously, an absence of intersectionality is shaping formulations. Postcolonial feminism is merely found in solu- tion formulations of the most recent resolution 2467. The formulations in 2467 changed to include a more intersectional approach and a heterogeneous women-subject. Enabling some contextual fac- tors. Finally, the dominating subject construction identified in all resolutions is characterized as “women need protection”. The construction entails women’s deviance from the male norm. The formulation ultimately indicates that women still are separated from agency.