There are some distinctly problematic tendencies in how women are categorised in both the ATT and the UNPoA, in ways that focus on their vulnerability rather than their agency. Neither instrument addresses women as militants or fighters. Only the BMS5 outcome document promotes women’s participation in SALW-related work. Neither text engages with the concept of gender, except in reference to gender-based violence in the ATT. Women as a vulnerable group Women tend to be treated in these texts as vulnerable victims, usually grouped together with children and the elderly. Women can indeed suffer disproportionate or differential impacts from the use or proliferation of weapons, depending on circumstance. We see this most easily with guns and other small arms. The illegal or poorly regulated arms trade results in weapons flows to areas of conflict and instability in order to generate profits. These sales often result in ample access to small arms, which are used in conflict and after it to commit gender-based violence, including sexual violence.3 Outside armed conflict, the widespread possession of small arms and lights weapons leads to an increase in gender-based violence, and in particular intimate-partner violence or domestic violence.4 Studies show that there is a direct correlation between femicide rates and the use of firearms. Firearms were used in a third of all femicides worldwide, reaching 60% in some Latin American countries such as Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.5 Even when women are not targeted for acts of gender-based violence, they can face different experiences from the use of weapons. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas, for example, can have a unique effect on women, such as in relation to their access to public places and services. Women affected by explosive violence often have fewer opportunities to engage with health care services and reconstruction processes. If heading the household, as women often do during armed conflict, they sometimes face systematic discrimination in trying to provide for their families. They also become more susceptible to further physical attack and sexual exploitation, especially when displaced from their homes.6 However, it is not correct that women (and children), as a particular “group” of civilians, “account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence” as the ATT asserts. Women are disproportionately impacted by certain kinds of violence and do face unique consequences from armed conflict and armed violence. But the vast majority of direct victims of armed conflict and armed violence are men, and this is also a manifestation of gendered structures and norms that all of the instruments fail to address. The framing of women as the most “adversely affected,” together with children, creates a narrative of their vulnerability in comparison to men—even though men are more likely to be the direct victims. But despite exposure to particular acts or consequences of armed conflict and armed violence, women are no more inherently vulnerable than men. Discrimination and sexism tend to make recourse to defence or remedy more difficult, but to suggest that women are more adversely affected is incorrect. Women are also not legally, politically, or physically comparable as a group to children or the elderly. Nor are women a homogenous group. Women are different ages, races, ethnicities, religions, and sexualities; are differently abled; have different political views, different socioeconomic statuses, and vastly different experiences in the world, in societies, in communities, and at home. As a result of this, women have different experiences before, during, and after armed conflict and armed violence. To group all women together, and to group all women with children and the elderly, as vulnerable or as victims, is to strip 50% of the population of its agency and its diverse identities, experiences, and capacities. It also reinforces persistent constructions of women as the “weaker sex” in need of protection, and of men as the more “powerful” sex with a given responsibility to “protect” women. There is a long social history to the construction of women as the “weaker sex,” especially in the context of armed conflict.7 Even in the relatively recent Geneva Conventions, women are framed 9 primarily as objects in need of protection and note that in all circumstances, “women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex.”8Whether made on the basis of a “biological” or a “social” model, the framing of women as vulnerable and in need of protection reproduces the idea that “women and children” are “innocent” while adult men are neither innocent nor vulnerable. Assuming all military-aged men to be “potential” or actual combatants or militants entrenches a tendency to support “violent masculinities”—a social construction in which masculinity is linked with preparedness to use military action and to wield weapons. Such social constructions underpin the tendency for men to make up the majority of those participating in military roles in conflict.9 By working to entrench such essentialisms, associating maleness with militancy increases the vulnerability of men in the immediate term, exacerbating other “gender-based vulnerabilities that adult civilian males face, including risks of forced recruitment, arbitrary detention, and summary execution.”10 We can also see this in the reported policy of using maleness as a signifier of militancy in the targeting and casualty analysis of drone strikes.11 Thus while such constructions promote a masculine role of “protecting” others, they also effectively devalue male life, producing a widespread acceptance of the relative expendability of men compared to women. Thus the automatic framing and emphasising of women as primarily vulnerable victims and innocent civilians exposes men to further violence and strips women of their agency. Women as participants Upholding ideas of women only as weak and in need of protection is an efficient way to enable their continued exclusion from authoritative social and political roles, which also weakens the potential effectiveness of those processes. The constant reproduction of these norms have concrete effects on how women are positioned in society, and as such undermine the promotion of women’s “full and effective” participation advanced in the BMS5 outcome document. BMS5 commits states to promote the role of women in preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in SALW, including through access to training, as well as through their meaningful participation and representation in policymaking, planning, and implementation processes related to SALW. In contradiction to this commitment, the participation of women is not included in either the ATT or the UNPoA. In both instruments, women are treated as victims and grouped with children. States and civil society groups alike sometimes seem to alternate their framing of women as agents and subjects depending on forum, audience, or political change being sought. This has serious implications for actual policy design and implementation. It also affects the quality of women’s participation in various situations. The idea of what is effective participation has not been publicly raised in the development of these instruments. But it is evident that the framing of women as weak and vulnerable is often used to construct “a feminized and devalued notion of peace as unattainable, unrealistic, passive, and (it might be said) undesirable.”12 Ideas about gender shape, limit, and distort political discourse and political processes through which decisions are made—especially when it comes to armed conflict. The devaluation of certain perspectives, ideas, and, interests because they are marked as “feminine,” coupled with the equation of masculinity with violence gives war positive value as a show of masculine power. At the same time the perception that not going to war is weak makes it more difficult for political leaders to take decisions not to embark on military action. Similarly, such constructions make it more difficult to cut military spending or engage in disarmament.13 This means that even if women do participate in negotiations or discussions on matters related to peace and security, their positions or ideas are often forced to conform to the dominant perspective—underpinned by notions of violent masculinity—in order to be taken seriously. This is not to say that women bring one perspective to a conversation and men bring another. It rather highlights the gendered understandings of war and peace, disarmament and armament, strength and weakness, which dictate what is considered “acceptable” by the dominant perspective in such conversations.
There are some distinctly problematic tendencies in how women are categorised in ways that focus on their vulnerability rather than their agency Neither instrument addresses women as militants or fighters Neither text engages with the concept of gender, except in reference to gender-based violence in the ATT Women tend to be treated in these texts as vulnerable victims, usually grouped together with children and the elderly Women can indeed suffer disproportionate or differential impacts from the use or proliferation of weapons, Even when women are not targeted for acts of gender-based violence, they can face different experiences from the use of weapons The use of explosive weapons in populated areas, for example, can have a unique effect on women However, it is not correct that women (and children), as a particular “group” of civilians, “account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence” as the ATT asserts the vast majority of direct victims of armed conflict and armed violence are men, and this is also a manifestation of gendered structures and norms that all of the instruments fail to address. The framing of women as the most “adversely affected,” together with children, creates a narrative of their vulnerability in comparison to men—even though men are more likely to be the direct victims. women are no more inherently vulnerable than men. Women are also not legally, politically, or physically comparable as a group to children or the elderly. Nor are women a homogenous group. Women are different ages, races, ethnicities, religions, and sexualities; are differently abled; have different political views, different socioeconomic statuses, and vastly different experiences in the world, in societies, in communities, and at home. As a result of this, women have different experiences before, during, and after armed conflict and armed violence. To group all women together, and to group all women with children and the elderly, as vulnerable or as victims, is to strip 50% of the population of its agency and its diverse identities, experiences, and capacities Assuming all military-aged men to be “potential” or actual combatants or militants entrenches a tendency to support “violent masculinities”—a social construction in which masculinity is linked with preparedness to use military action and to wield weapons associating maleness with militancy increases the vulnerability of men in the immediate term, exacerbating other “gender-based vulnerabilities that adult civilian males face such constructions effectively devalue male life, producing a widespread acceptance of the relative expendability of men compared to women. the automatic framing and emphasising of women as primarily vulnerable victims and innocent civilians exposes men to further violence and strips women of their agency. Upholding ideas of women only as weak and in need of protection is an efficient way to enable their continued exclusion from authoritative social and political roles, which also weakens the potential effectiveness of those processes. the participation of women is not included in either the ATT or the UNPoA In both instruments, women are treated as victims and grouped with children This has serious implications for actual policy design and implementation. It also affects the quality of women’s participation in various situations. the framing of women as weak and vulnerable is often used to construct “a feminized and devalued notion of peace as unattainable, unrealistic, passive, and (it might be said) undesirable.” The devaluation of certain perspectives, ideas, and, interests because they are marked as “feminine,” coupled with the equation of masculinity with violence gives war positive value as a show of masculine power. the perception that not going to war is weak makes it more difficult for political leaders to take decisions not to embark on military action such constructions make it more difficult to cut military spending or engage in disarmament even if women do participate their positions or ideas are often forced to conform to the dominant perspective in order to be taken seriously