Toni Haastrup, University of Manchester

Among global North countries like the UK, the implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda has primarily focused on its implications within international peacebuilding and its applicability to conflict settings. In this context WPS is seen as applying only to the foreign policy domain, in places impacted by challenges that are seen as irrelevant to Global North contexts. This view is endemic to many Western countries’ perceptions of who WPS applies to. It is based on an understanding of international relations that is imbued with racialised hierarchies – a view that feminist interventions, like the WPS agenda, were supposed to challenge.  

As the 25th anniversary of the WPS agenda draws closer, the world remains hostile to the safety of women, girls and other gender minorities. The forces that continue to challenge the aspirations of the WPS agenda are transnational – and relevant to the UK – and are not confined to ‘other’ countries in the Global South that appear more in need of WPS. As such, and in looking forward to the promises of the WPS agenda, the UK’s leadership on WPS must commit to looking inward to address the domestic implications of peace and security for women across diverse communities.  

In the current UK National Action Plan, there is already an opening for domesticating the WPS agenda, particularly in the intersections of violence against women. What this means in practice, however, remains vague. I argue that by committing more fully to domesticating WPS, the UK can apply its principles locally and be held to account when it lags at home or abroad. Domesticating the WPS agenda can challenge the status quo that sees WPS as mainly a ‘problem’ of the Global South, consequently designating countries like the UK beyond gendered insecurity. In this blog, I explore the domestic context and find new entry points for transnational solidarities with the WPS agenda that are essential to challenging the harms that persist when WPS is only a matter of foreign policy.  

Reframing ‘security’ via gender-based violence prevention in the UK 

The prevention pillar of WPS emphasises curbing violence against women and girls in conflict zones, yet the prevalence of gender-based violence in the UK underscores the need for stronger preventive measures domestically. Despite legal protections, women in the UK – particularly women from marginalised groups – face heightened risks, with socioeconomic factors and racism contributing to these vulnerabilities. The application of a WPS lens in the UK would help situate GBV within a transnational continuum of harms against women and girls. Drawing on actions and interventions that have been supported in other countries, the current UK government should prioritise community-based GBV prevention programmes. To do this, the government should engage civil society organisations working in communities in the UK and abroad to harness lessons for tackling the epidemic of GBV wherever it occurs. This also means funding research to identify areas within the UK that may experience higher levels of violence, working with law enforcement across the UK and in particular with devolved administrations. Such an approach must prioritise intersectionality, taking account of how, like racism, heterosexism and ableism have been implicated in perpetuating GBV.   

Interventions should pay attention to technology-facilitated GBV. In an increasingly digital world, online spaces have become a new front for violence against women. Gendered cyber threats – such as online harassment, doxing and cyberstalking – are serious issues that disproportionately impact women, especially those in the public eye or from marginalised communities. The experience of Member of Parliament, Diane Abbott, who received hundreds of abusive tweets in the run up to the general election earlier this year, is one extreme case of the real impacts of this type of GBV. Beyond highlighting why all interventions require an intersectional feminist understanding, paying attention to cybersecurity is necessary to the future success of the WPS agenda. Cybersecurity has typically been seen as only a geopolitical or national security concern, but this oversight has neglected the distinct gendered aspects of digital violence. Although the UK’s most recent WPS National Action Plan acknowledges the cyber domain, it presumes that Western nations are ‘safe’ or ‘secure’ when it comes to matters of cyberspace. This unfortunately diminishes the significant harms that women everywhere experience, including in the UK.  

Tech-facilitated GBV is transnational in character and calls for cross-border regulatory frameworks. While UK legislation has begun to shine more attention on this particular issue, attempts to challenge the norms that underpin this form of GBV often go unchallenged. This is where the work that transnational civil society has done over the years, as part of international development support, can be applied in the Global North. As the UK addresses these transnational issues through domestic lenses, it can strengthen the link between local actions and global WPS obligations – making the agenda more impactful. 

What’s at stake in the call for domestication? 

As I have previously shown with colleagues, there is more than one entry point to the domestication of WPS in the UK. More importantly, however, is that domestication can help us move beyond the domestic/international binary. For example, even as strides towards greater equality have been made in the UK, there are significant gaps in meaningful participation – another pillar of the WPS agenda. Just recently, the ongoing debate about how to make UK parliament more family friendly underscored a continued barrier to women’s participation, despite a record number of women being elected at the last general election. We can see how many of the challenges of fulfilling the WPS agenda in other countries are applicable to the UK, even if they manifest differently.  

Another area that would benefit from broadening perspectives beyond the domestic/international binary is the UK’s defence apparatus itself. Often closed from democratic scrutiny relative to the Home Office or the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, it is also mandated to lead on the implementation of the WPS agenda. The work that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) does in this arena is still relatively under-researched, however. The MoD has also come under significant scrutiny recently, having to apologise for racism and misogyny within its ranks and towards those entrusted to its care. In the latter case, where British soldiers have been accused of abuse over several decades, WPS is only viewed as relevant for others not the UK. Both cases demonstrate that the MoD, as part of the UK government’s WPS architecture, has failed in its responsibilities. As such bringing WPS in is also essential. 

Challenging racialised global hierarchies through transnational solidarities  

Domesticating the WPS agenda must be rooted in transnational solidarities. It must challenge the idea that the WPS agenda is irrelevant to the Global North and challenge the racialised hierarchies that exist in practices related to the agenda, including those that reinforce a division between the domestic and the international. The UK must pay attention to how transnational challenges are manifesting within its own borders, and also to how the UK internalises WPS implementation abroad. This requires introspection within the UK’s WPS architecture. Applying WPS to the domestic UK context and across relevant institutions is essential to meeting global commitments. By expanding the WPS agenda inward, the UK can also challenge the hierarchies of governance embedded in its international relations.