Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Conflict-related violence against women and girls (VAWG) has drawn increasing attention, yet scholars, policymakers, and practitioners focussed on conflict-related VAWG and those focussed on post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding have largely worked separately. Less attention has been given to VAWG during post-conflict transitions than during conflict itself. This article makes three major contributions to guide researchers and policymakers in addressing VAWG in post-conflict contexts. First, it identifies critical gaps in understanding the intersection between VAWG and post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. Second, it presents an ecological model to explore the drivers of VAWG during and after armed conflict. Third, it proposes a conceptual framework for analysing and addressing the intersections of VAWG with both post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding. The article concludes that application of this framework can help policymakers shape statebuilding and peacebuilding processes to more effectively institutionalise approaches to VAWG so that post-conflict transitions advance sustainable, positive peace.

Keywords

conflict ecological model gender-based violence peacebuilding post-conflict transition statebuilding violence against women and girls (VAWG)positive peace

It is increasingly acknowledged that post-conflict transition processes need to respond to the gendered experiences of women and girls during conflict and when seeking peace. Building on established peace theory that views sustainable, positive peace as more than the absence of violence (Galtung, 1969), feminist approaches suggest that sustainable peace cannot be attained whilst violence against women remains unaddressed and that a fulsome peace for women should be understood as “women’s achievement of control over their own lives” (Enloe, 1993, p. 65). It is important to consider a range of women’s rights’ concerns, including violence against women and girls (VAWG) when seeking sustainable, positive peace for all. Post-conflict transitional mechanisms have, however, been routinely ignored VAWG (Castellijo, 2012; Handrahan, 2004; Zuckerman & Greenberg, 2004). Transitional reforms must engage with the forms of VAWG that occur during the conflict period as well as in its aftermath to achieve peace for all.

This article addresses critical gaps between the perspectives of scholars, policymakers, and practitioners focussed on conflict-related VAWG and those focussed on post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. For the purposes of this article, statebuilding is understood to encompass “constructing or reconstructing institutions of governance [to make them] capable of providing citizens with physical and economic security” (Chandler, 2006, p. 1). Peacebuilding is understood to encompass measures that both “precede and follow formal peace accords” (Lederach, 2004, p. 20) and can extend from conflict prevention prior to the outbreak of armed violence, through the duration of conflict and into its aftermath (Porter, 2007). Whilst closely aligned, statebuilding and peacebuilding are largely examined and addressed in scholarship and policy as separate concepts or processes (Wolff, 2011). Whilst both are addressed concurrently in this article, the authors do not conflate these concepts but see them as overlapping elements of post-conflict transitional processes that have relevance for addressing VAWG.

This article proposes an integrated approach that practitioners and policymakers can use to better understand VAWG in conflict and post-conflict contexts and to establish programmes to prevent and respond to VAWG within statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. It presents three major contributions to addressing VAWG through statebuilding and peacebuilding. First, a literature review identifies critical gaps in understanding the intersection between these distinct issues. Second, an ecological framework is presented to explore interlinked drivers of VAWG during and after armed conflict. Third, a Combined Analytical Framework for understanding and addressing linkages between VAWG, statebuilding, and peacebuilding is presented. These contributions advance understanding of conflict and post-conflict VAWG and ways to address this issue through statebuilding and peacebuilding.

Linkages Between VAWG, Statebuilding, and Peacebuilding

A literature review was conducted through a systematic keyword search of databases including PsychINFO, MEDLINE, PubMed, PAIS International, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts and a wider Google search for grey literature. A very limited body of literature exists that specifically examines the intersections of VAWG with post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. One set of literature substantively focusses on conflict-related and post-conflict VAWG, whilst another separately examines post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. There is a further distinct body of work that theorises connections between gender and the efficacy of statebuilding and peacebuilding, such as gender analysis of disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) programmes; however, these rarely explore wider issues of VAWG. This separation of research and theory has kept statebuilding and peacebuilding processes relatively isolated from knowledge generated on VAWG and vice versa. Bringing these fields together is important to establish linkages across these three concepts and to generate cohesive policy that addresses their critical interrelationships in practice. An overview of key findings from the review is discussed below.

A very limited body of literature exists that specifically examines the intersections of VAWG with post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes

VAWG in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings

A growing body of evidence shows that women and girls experience mass public sexualised assault enacted by parties to armed conflict during warfare (Heineman, 2011), and this is used as a deliberate tactic by armed groups in some armed conflicts (Eriksson Baaz & Stern, 2013; Wood, 2009). Emerging research also evidences the broader forms of VAWG, such as intimate partner violence, that are enacted opportunistically in both public and private contexts during wartime (Stark & Ager, 2011; Swaine, 2015).

Feminist scholarship theorises that women experience continuums of gendered harm from conflict to peace and from public to private spheres (Cockburn, 2004; Kelly, 1998; Moser, 2001), but there is less empirical attention paid to the ways that women experience violence after conflict. Little quantitative data are available on forms and patterns of post-conflict VAWG, though useful studies are emerging (Bartels et al., 2011; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017). However, qualitative data theorise and evidence the ways that women and girls continue to experience violence, both directly and indirectly linked to the conflict (Meintjes, Turshen, & Pillay, 2001; Swaine, 2018).

There is a growing evidence base of the unique drivers of VAWG in conflict and post-conflict settings that compound the prevailing gender inequalities and patriarchal norms that underlie VAWG in all contexts (Davies & True, 2015; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017). These drivers include, for example, changes in traditional gender roles and increases in controlling behaviours and constraints on the liberty of women and girls (Bukuluki, Kisuule, Makerere, & Sundby, 2013; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017; International Rescue Committee, 2015); the political or military aims of armed actors who want to dominate or eliminate opposition groups (Isikozlu & Millard, 2010); leadership that encourages or condones the abduction of women and girls into armed groups including for sexual slavery and forced marriage (Isikozlu & Millard, 2010); the breakdown of the rule of law, governance, security, and justice mechanisms (Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017); cultures of impunity (Bukuluki et al., 2013; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017); and loss of economic, familial, and social capital (Bukuluki et al., 2013; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017; International Rescue Committee, 2015). Further, the application of political economy analysis lends critical insight into how inequalities within global political and economic systems have contributed to women’s vulnerability to violence (True, 2012).

There is voluminous literature examining the adoption of international legal and policy instruments addressing conflict-related VAWG (Engle, 2014; Merger, 2016; Otto, 2010). The literature shows that efforts to document and acknowledge conflict-related VAWG focus disproportionately on strategic rape by armed actors rather than on wider VAWG, socio-economic harms, or addressing the broader social context of the causes of violence (Buss, 2007; Davies & True, 2015; Heathcote, 2012; Mibenge, 2010; Ní Aoláin & Turner, 2007). VAWG is most often addressed at country levels through domestic policy instruments, but these are often developed due to the influence of international actors and frameworks, such as the United Nations (UN) Security Council’s Women, Peace, and Security resolutions (Swaine, 2018; Tripp, 2010). Post--conflict reforms often present countries with opportunities to adopt new legal and policy frameworks pertaining to VAWG, compared to countries that have not experienced political upheaval. However, implementation of these laws appears to be lacking (Tripp, 2010) whether due to lack of will or lack of resources (Abugre, 2008; Castillejo, 2011).

Post–conflict reforms often present countries with opportunities to adopt new legal and policy frameworks pertaining to VAWG, compared to countries that have not experienced political upheaval .

Gendered Approaches to VAWG in Statebuilding and Peacebuilding

Feminist scholars analyse the global political system, militarism, and social orders in which armed conflict, statebuilding, and peacebuilding take place (Enloe, 2014; Runyan & Peterson, 2014; Segal, 2008; Sjoberg & Via, 2010). Feminist scholars find that gender “hierarchically structure[s] relationships among different categories of people, and human activities symbolically associated with masculinity or femininity” (Cohn, 2013, p. 4). Armed conflict and gender power relations are understood as “mutually constitutive,” with gender and broader social, economic, and racial norms forming the basis for how conflict takes place and influencing the roles that women and men are expected to play and the conflict-related harms they may experience (Cohn, 2013, p. 1; Kaldor & Chinkin, 2013; Sjoberg, 2014). In respect to statebuilding and peacebuilding, this means that high levels of gender disparities and other overlapping social, racial, identity, and economic inequalities and structural violence characterise states transitioning from conflict (Castellijo, 2012; Crenshaw, 1991). These structural inequalities and unequal power dynamics reduce the ability of women to seek political power, limit political attention to women’s rights such as VAWG, and result in the exclusion of women from peacebuilding efforts such as DDR, transitional justice and peace processes (Castillejo, 2011; Cohn, 2013; Manchanda, 2005; True, 2013). This is reflected in a lack of acknowledgement of women’s rights and VAWG in these processes. For example, in 1,187 peace agreements from 1990 through 2017, only 5% referenced VAWG (Council of Foreign Relations, 2018). More specific attention to conflict and post-conflict VAWG is needed in post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes.

More specific attention to conflict and post-conflict VAWG is needed in post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes .

Whilst gender equality and VAWG are not fully considered in existing statebuilding and peacebuilding processes, they are important considerations for the success of post-conflict reforms. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) lays out four primary reasons why integrating gender into peacebuilding and statebuilding is important: (1) Gender equality is important in its own right for the rights of women and girls, (2) gender-sensitive approaches can enhance the achievement of statebuilding and peacebuilding goals, (3) gender-sensitive approaches are required to ensure statebuilding and peacebuilding efforts do not harm women and girls, and (4) gender equality advances both statebuilding and development (OECD, 2013, pp. 20–22). In addition, the participation of women in peacebuilding efforts and governance can lead to more equitable and sustainable peace and stability (Castellijo, 2012; Erzurum & Eren, 2014). For example, previous research has found that the participation of women in peace processes is correlated with the likelihood of a peace agreement lasting at least 15 years (Stone, 2014).

Addressing gender relations is central to a holistic conceptualisation of peace incorporating aspects of economic and social justice, equality, and human rights. Acknowledging gendered power relations, therefore, is critical to the success or failure of statebuilding and peacebuilding (Strickland & Duvvury, 2003). The combined potential of statebuilding and peacebuilding to address gender inequality and VAWG rests on how much they encompass and respond to the gendered realities of the systemic social order in which transition from conflict is advanced. Statebuilding and peacebuilding should aim to achieve an enhanced social position for all that accords “full citizenship, social justice and empowerment based upon respect for standards of women’s human dignity and human rights” (Chinkin, 2003, p. 11).

Addressing gender relations is central to a holistic conceptualisation of peace incorporating aspects of economic and social justice, equality, and human rights

Framing the Intersections of VAWG With Statebuilding and Peacebuilding

To foster integrated approaches, a new conceptual framework is proposed here to illuminate the intersections of VAWG (and its drivers) with key elements of post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. This consists of two parts: Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG and a Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding and VAWG to address the linkages of VAWG with statebuilding and peacebuilding processes.

Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG

Research on the drivers of VAWG has focussed on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in stable, high- and middle-income countries. The predominant “ecological model” establishes that an individual’s experience of violence results from the complex interplay of factors arising from an individual’s own biology and life history, and how these interact with external influences such as personal and wider social relations (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Heise, 1998). This model has advanced understanding of the drivers of VAWG in non-conflict settings and has been used to inform programming that both prevents and responds to VAWG.

As policy and programming responses to VAWG during conflict have advanced globally, there has been an absence of a similar model to underpin effective prevention and response approaches specific to conflict and post-conflict contexts. An “Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG” (Figure 1) is presented here to address this gap. The model brings together empirical and theoretical knowledge on drivers of VAWG related to conflict/post-conflict contexts as well as those evidenced outside of and prior to an armed conflict from the original ecological model.¹ The purpose of the model is to improve the development of prevention strategies to address VAWG in conflict and post-conflict settings based on deeper understanding of the forms and drivers of VAWG in these environments. It cannot, however, exhaustively capture all drivers and risk factors of VAWG in conflict given the complexity of different contexts and therefore would be most effective when adapted to specific contexts based on a full gendered conflict analysis (Swaine, 2018).

Figure 1.

Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG.

At the societal level, social and cultural norms that discriminate against women and girls and a culture of impunity are risk factors for gendered violence in conflict-affected contexts (Eriksson Baaz & Stern, 2010; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017). Recognition is required of economic, political, and social grievances that are at the root of specific forms of violence in armed conflicts, as well as key systemic issues of warfare, such as the evolution of hypermasculine and violent roles expected of men, that will contribute to forms of VAWG. In addition, for post-conflict contexts, lack of attention to conflict-related VAWG by all actors (in peace agreements, transitional justice measures, etc.) may compound cultures of discrimination and impunity and enable continued forms of VAWG after the formal cessation of hostilities (Sigsworth, 2008).

At the community level, poverty remains a factor which may be exacerbated by displacement, loss of homes and livelihoods, and increased risks for female-headed households (Bukuluki et al., 2013; International Rescue Committee, 2015). In addition, violence becomes “normalised” amongst both civilians and ex-combatants and the targeting of women and girls may lead to cycles of revenge attacks (Bartels et al., 2011; El-Bushra & Sahl, 2005; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017).

At the institutional level, state and non-state armed groups may use sexual violence as a tactic. Lack of response to VAWG through statebuilding or peacebuilding mechanisms, such as security sector reforms and transitional justice where women are under-represented or marginalised, may exacerbate tolerance of VAWG, compound stigma, and risk of further victimisation (Bastick, Grimm, & Kunz, 2007; Holvikivi, 2015). Informal institutions, such as customary justice processes or traditional and religious leadership structures, may compound blame on women and girls for the public harms they experienced and generate risk of re-victimisation through social punishment and ostracisation (Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017).

At the interpersonal level, conflict may increase household stresses due to poverty and displacement, which in turn may increase IPV (Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017). Gendered poverty patterns may also lead men to target female-headed households or adolescent girls for exploitation and abuse, and men’s controlling behaviours towards wives and/or daughters may increase (Ferris, 2007; Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee, 2017). In conflict, this may be exacerbated by the re-integration of former combatants or abductees who may have normalised violence or adopted negative coping strategies (Elbert et al., 2013; Eriksson Baaz & Stern, 2010). A perpetrator’s membership in an armed group may provide an additional layer of implicit impunity, authority, and communal protection, which extends to the post-conflict context, presenting barriers to women’s ability to seek help, redress, and/or leave violent relationships (Swaine, 2018).

Finally, at the individual level, a range of factors including age, education, employment/livelihoods status, childhood exposure to violence, own acceptance of VAWG, and drugs and alcohol affect risk of violence in non-conflict settings and will continue to influence women’s experiences of violence in the post-conflict context (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Kantor & Straus, 1989; Leonard & Quigle, 1999; Testa, Quiley, & Leonard, 2003). Through the ecological framework, we can see how these individual-level factors intersect with the overall identity of women and girls as a group with less power in society, which can lead to compounding vulnerabilities and unique experiences of VAWG for different subgroups such as women and girls of different racial or ethnic backgrounds (Crenshaw, 1991). In conflict-affected settings, individual identity factors, such as ethnicity and race, religious affiliation/identity, disabilities, sexual orientation, and gender identity, may result in deliberate targeting by some armed actors (Isikozlu & Millard, 2010).

Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding and VAWG

Several overarching conceptual frameworks for statebuilding and peacebuilding have been developed including the Department for International Development and UK Aid (DFID, 2016) Building Stability Framework and the Government of Norway Peacebuilding Palette (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004). Post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding frameworks should respond to the systemic social gendered order in which conflict takes place and specifically address women’s rights and VAWG as key components of positive peace. However, existing frameworks, whilst largely comprehensive and complementary, miss critical elements related to gender and VAWG (Castillejo, 2011).

To address these gaps, this article presents a new analytical framework. It builds on the Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG above by setting out how VAWG can be addressed through key post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. The Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding and VAWG (Table 1) follows the structure of DFID’s Building Stability Framework. The DFID framework sets out five building blocks that are theorised to contribute to long-term stability (see these five components listed in Table 1 and under “column 1” in next paragraph). This framework was selected as the basis for the proposed analytical framework because it captures relevant aspects of both statebuilding and peacebuilding. It includes the need to balance building state structures with people-centred approaches such as inclusivity and fairness, the need to address both local and national state structures and to acknowledge the roles that are played by of international actors and regional/global processes. In this way, it provides a solid basis for identifying entry points for addressing VAWG.

Table 1.

Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding, and VAWG.

Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Processes	Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Strategies Addressing VAWG and Gender Inequality	Positive Outcomes of Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Strategies for VAWG and Gender Inequality
1. Conflict resolution and peace processes Peace process and outcome agreements	Gendered conflict analysis informs the entire process, leading to the fulfilment of the following requirements: Gender balanced participation in the peace process; VAWG is included as a specific issue within the peace process and final peace agreement; Gender equality and inclusion of women in governance reforms (e.g., adoption of quotas); Amnesties for VAWG during conflicts are prohibited; and Women’s rights and VAWG are considered by transitional administrations and decision-making forums. Conflict analysis and monitoring mechanisms include indicators on VAWG.	Gendered dimensions of conflict and peace are understood and addressed in peace process. Accountability for perpetrators of conflict-related VAWG. Reduced stigma for conflict-related and ongoing forms of VAWG. Improved understanding/consideration of women’s rights and VAWG in governmental and decision-making bodies. Gender norms, relations, and practises that disadvantage women and girls and increase the likelihood of VAWG are identified and addressed. Behaviour–change communications including strategies to raise awareness of VAWG as an issue to help create peaceful homes and society. VAWG and attached stigma are recognised as potential triggers of conflict-related tensions.
Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration programmes	Gender norms, relations, and practices that disadvantage women and girls and increase likelihood of VAWG are identified and addressed. Specific provisions to respond to women and girls as combatants, forced recruits, forced marriages, and sexual slavery. Specific provisions to mitigate against VAWG in home and communities by returning combatants (e.g., tackling drug and alcohol use from conflict period). Address gender roles in communities upon return of combatants and the displaced, particularly during community reconciliation efforts.	Improved reintegration of women and girls associated with armed groups. Increased mechanisms and programmes to prevent perpetration of IPV and other forms of violence by returning combatants. Increased mechanisms and programmes that provide psychosocial support and reintegration for women who suffer negative experiences during conflict.
Transitional Justice	Gender balance is achieved in procedural makeup of judicial or quasi-judicial mechanisms including reparation. Specific provisions to document and address VAWG and broader experiences of women and girls in the conflict. Specific provisions to make connections to and address VAWG related to the pre- and post-conflict period, including establishment of justice systems that reduce or remove barriers to accessing justice for survivors of VAWG. Specific provisions to redress conflict-related VAWG, including reparation, fistula repair, long-term mental health support, and programmes to address social stigma, reparation, and compensation.	Reduced perpetrator impunity for VAWG in conflict and post-conflict periods by prosecuting perpetrators through the legal system. VAWG formally recognised as crime, helping to debunk myths, stigma, and health impacts that can lead to further exclusions and VAWG. Improved access to services (health, psychosocial, etc.) for survivors. Women and girl’s experiences receive formal acknowledgement and reparation. Messaging from justice mechanisms that conflict-related VAWG is related to pre- and post-conflict, and discriminatory norms.
2. Inclusive economic growth, employment and livelihoods	Economic interventions that stabilise households. Economic interventions tailored to men and women, male and female ex-fighters, and abductees. Reduction of barriers for women to participate in livelihoods’ programming and incorporation of gender into economic development initiatives. Gender analysis used to reduce, potential tensions between men and women in recalibration of roles post-conflict.	Increased empowerment and financial independence of women and girls. Increased number of interventions, including cash transfer programmes that reduce household financial stresses. Increased economic participation of women who were directly affected by the conflict.
3. Fair power structures and the policy environment state–civic relationship inculcated	Open and inclusive approaches are taken to formulation of laws, policies, and strategies on VAWG across government. Clear consultation strategies with civil society, including women’s organisations.	Improved relationship between governmental institutions and women’s rights organisations. Civil society organisations that support survivors of VAWG are strengthened and funded.
Voices of women and girls heard and responded to	Specific VAWG forums are held that are tailored to be inclusive to diverse demographics of women and girls (as part of efforts to promote social dialogue between government, communities, civil societies, etc.)	Increased forums and campaigns that address VAWG and incorporate the perspectives of girls and women themselves.
Policies and legal frameworks that specifically address VAWG	Policies and strategies are adopted specifically to address VAWG (during and post-conflict) in all sectors (gender, health, legal, security, etc.) Legal frameworks revised/adopted on VAWG and gender equality provisions.	Improved policies related to VAWG across sectors including national gender policies, protocols to care for and refer VAWG within the health system, policies to promote women and girls in security services, and so on. Existence of national laws with associated criminal sanctions for perpetrators.
4. Capable and legitimate institutions Health sector	Reform process includes provisions for gender balance and VAWG expertise in staffing. Specific measures in place to deal with health outcomes of conflict-related VAWG. Budget for health sector efforts to address VAWG.	Increased number of health units that have adopted mechanisms to deal with health outcomes of conflict-related VAWG. Increased proportion of health staff trained to prevent and respond to VAWG. Existence of specific governmental budget allocated to VAWG within the health sector.
Justice sector (and overall justice chain)	Reform process includes provisions for gender balance in judiciary. Resources are attributed to make justice chain responsive to VAWG (past conflict incidents and current incidents). Budget for justice sector efforts to address VAWG.	Increased justice for conflict-related and ongoing VAWG contributes to accountability deficit and peace. Increased number of women subjected to violence who report to the justice system. Existence of specific governmental budget allocated to VAWG within the justice sector.
Security sector	Reform process includes provisions for gender balance in recruits. Academy curriculum includes modules on prevention and response to VAWG. Availability of expertise and resources to address VAWG (past conflict incidents and current incidents). Budget for security sector efforts to address VAWG. VAWG considered as an early warning indicator for recurring political tensions.	Reduced VAWG perpetrated by security forces. Increased proportion of women enrolled in police and army forces. Increased security for women and girls in the community and public spaces. Increased safety and mobility for women and girls, which increases contributions to the economy and public processes. Existence of specific governmental budget allocated to VAWG within the security sector.
Education sector	Overall curriculum is revised vis-à-vis gender stereotypes and inequalities. Issues of conflict resolution in curriculum include VAWG. Ensure gender balance amongst teachers and administrators and take measures to address VAWG in schools. Budget for education sector efforts to address VAWG.	Existence of educational programmes that include actions to promote gender equality and prevention of VAWG, including modifications to the curriculum. Schools are seen as safe spaces for girls and VAWG is not a barrier for attendance. Increased proportion of women in decision-making positions within the education sector. Existence of specific governmental budget allocated to VAWG within the education sector.
Specific governmental ministry/department on gender equality/VAWG	Adequately resourced and politically supported to drive actions to address VAWG (past conflict incidents and current incidents) and address root causes of VAWG such as gender inequality. Budget for ministry/governmental efforts to address VAWG.	Increased ability for the state to build awareness of VAWG issues and offer response services. Increased national budget to address VAWG. Improved overall cross-government actions to address VAWG. Existence of specific VAWG and women, peace, and security programmes.
5. Supportive regional/global environment International community supports the process politically and financially	Regional, global, and national frameworks on gender equality and VAWG are used for development of and implemented through statebuilding and peacebuilding strategies. Frameworks for multilateral processes, such as OECD and United Nations Sustaining Peace agenda, consider the gendered nature of conflict and its impacts. External funding is earmarked to support women’s participation in statebuilding and peacebuilding and address specific issues of concern to women, including VAWG. External funding and political support are provided to post-conflict states to establish a national women’s machinery. External funding and political support are provided for post-conflict states to fulfil international obligations, including, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimation Against Women reporting obligations, developing national action plans on VAWG and on women, peace, and security. Funding baskets are established to address VAWG programming and women’s civil society, as well as attention to this issue through transitional justice mechanisms.	Global standards of women’s rights sustained through statebuilding and peacebuilding processes, inculcating inclusive and equitable processes, contributing to stability. Needs of diverse groups of women in statebuilding and peacebuilding are recognised by the international community and strategies to address these receive funding. Global normative frameworks are adopted to national context and used as barometer for statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. Multisectorial response programming is in place and working to prevent and respond to VAWG, contributing to stability within and outside the home.

Note. VAWG = violence against women and girls; OECD = Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development.

The Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding, and VAWG is set out in Table 1. The five DFID building blocks structure the areas of statebuilding and peacebuilding that the framework addresses (horizontal), whilst three columns set out areas of intervention, strategy, and outcomes (vertical), as follows.

Column 1: Statebuilding and peacebuilding processes

Key elements of post-conflict peacebuilding and peacebuilding processes are detailed under the structure of each building block of DFID’s Building Stability Framework: (i) conflict resolution processes, (ii) inclusive economic growth, (iii) fair power structures, (iv) capable and legitimate institutions, and (v) supportive regional/global environment.

Column 2: Strategies addressing VAWG

Related to each stratified domain of post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding, this column details strategies that actors may adopt to address the drivers of VAWG or to improve their ability to prevent and respond to VAWG.

Column 3: Positive outcomes of stability and peace strategies to address VAWG

This column articulates the potential positive outcomes of statebuilding and peacebuilding strategies for VAWG in conflict and post-conflict settings. The framework draws from the critical findings of the literature presented earlier. The thematic areas of intervention presented within the conceptual framework provide a sample of ways that statebuilding and peacebuilding address VAWG and are not meant to be exhaustive.

Application of the Combined Analytical Framework should be based on a gender analysis of the pre-, during, and post-conflict gender norms in each context. Global normative frameworks should also be considered and incorporated as relevant. For example, the OECD Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations provides guidance for engagement with fragile states (OECD, 2005/2008). Especially relevant are Principle 1: “Take Context as a Starting Point” and Principle 6: “Promote non-discrimination as a basis for inclusive and stable societies” directly applicable to addressing structural inequalities and VAWG. Application of this Combined Analytical Framework will aid conflict analysis, identification of entry points for addressing VAWG through statebuilding and peacebuilding processes, and promotion of a holistic approach to VAWG across post-conflict transition.

Application of the Framework: A Case Study of Nepal

To date, the framework has been piloted in a comparative research project across Nepal, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan. Systematic application of the framework shaped this research process to allow holistic analysis across different components of statebuilding and peacebuilding in the three case study contexts (Swaine, Spearing, Murphy, & Contreras, 2018). In Nepal, for example, Sections 1, 3 and 4 of the Combined Analytical Framework were used as the conceptual frame for gathering and analysing qualitative and secondary data for this research.

Through the application of the framework, the research found that the Nepalese conflict had explicit gender equality issues. For example, gender roles shifted as a result of women’s participation in the conflict, and the peace agreement prioritised some issues of women’s rights, equality, and VAWG to a greater degree than in other countries transitioning from war to peace. However, the application of this framework highlighted that despite relative advances, women and girls were still marginalised during peace talks and in subsequent transitional processes, whilst VAWG was not sufficiently addressed in practice in most statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. Application of Component 1 of the framework (conflict resolution and peace processes) in the research identified that whilst there was attention to certain forms of VAWG (such as IPV), this masked inattention to conflict-related sexual violence present in the transition period. For example, the Interim Relief programme, which offered financial reparations for those affected by the war, did not offer assistance to survivors of sexual violence (Ganguly, 2014). In addition, Nepal’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Bill initially allowed for a loose interpretation of amnesty for human rights violence, though it was amended to specify that rape and sexual violence were not eligible (Ganguly, 2014). Nevertheless, of the almost 60,000 cases submitted to the TRC, only about 300 were regarding cases of sexual violence (International Center for Transitional Justice & Martin Chautari, 2017), suggesting that stigma and other systematic barriers still prevent women from seeking justice through these mechanisms. Use of the framework evidenced the need for all forms of conflict and post-conflict VAWG to be addressed in these processes.

Application of Component 3 of the Combined Analytical Framework (fair power structures and the policy environment) and Component 4 (capable and legitimate institutions) of the framework to research in the Nepal context helped to identify that policy-level change, and public discourse on VAWG has been notable and resulted in the establishment of the Human Trafficking Act, Domestic Violence Act, Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act, and Elimination of Torture and Witchcraft Act during the post-war period. In addition, the development of a National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security was identified as a successful development during the transition. However, the use of the framework for the case study research was also able to identify that despite these legal and policy advances, implementation is lacking and institutions such as the Ministry of Women, Children, and Social Welfare require specific supports.

In the Nepal context, this framework showed that conflict-related VAWG was not comprehensively addressed within conflict resolution and peace processes. This contributed to distrust within broader efforts to bring reconciliation to the country, such as through the TRC. The framework illuminated the policy and legal advances that were made, whilst also evidencing the reality of lacking implementation and its affects both on the legitimacy of government structures and on the lives of women and girls at the grassroots (Swaine et al., 2018).

The experience of applying these frameworks through this research project allowed us to identify the key questions that can guide their further application to differing contexts globally. Researchers and policymakers can use these (and other) questions to guide their own adaptation of the frameworks to their work: What are the ways that pre-conflict gender relations and norms influenced the conflict and its violence? During the conflict, how did VAWG manifest? What were the particular factors that contributed to distinctive conflict-related forms of VAWG occurring? In a conflict-affected country, how is VAWG related to efforts to achieve peace and stability? How can VAWG be integrated and addressed within post-conflict statebuilding policy and programming? What effect do security and justice (and other) reform processes have on VAWG and on the lives of women and girls?

Conclusion

VAWG is a central issue to be addressed as both a driver and an outcome of conflict and fragility, and therefore a critical issue to be addressed within post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding processes. The interrelatedness of VAWG with statebuilding and peacebuilding requires an analytical framework through which these concepts and their impacts on peace and stability can be more closely examined. The Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG (Figure 1) provides researchers, policymakers, and service providers with a critical frame through which to develop analysis, understanding, and responses to VAWG during and after conflict. The Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding, and VAWG (Table 1) presents a framework for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to conceptually and practically address the linkages between VAWG, statebuilding, and peacebuilding and to tackle VAWG whilst advancing peace and security. In addition, application of these frameworks within academic and action research will improve knowledge and understanding of the gendered nature of conflict and its aftermath and will lead to improved strategies for addressing VAWG in statebuilding and peacebuilding. The conceptual frameworks presented in this article present critical entry points to enhance statebuilding and peacebuilding interventions by ensuring that they address critical gender issues and women’s rights violations such as VAWG. Further, the research and the frameworks successfully bridge the gap between currently siloed efforts of policymakers and practitioners in the statebuilding and peacebuilding fields, and those working to prevent and respond to VAWG. Going forward, it will be critical that these frameworks are used to advance comprehensive and integrated approaches to addressing VAWG across post-conflict statebuilding and peacebuilding and programming on VAWG.

In addition, application of these frameworks within academic and action research will improve knowledge and understanding of the gendered nature of conflict and its aftermath and will lead to improved strategies for addressing VAWG in statebuilding and peacebuilding.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is an output of the DFID What Works to End Violence Against Women and Girls (What Works) research programme. What Works is an international multidisciplinary partnership led by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) with George Washington University’s Global Women’s Institute (GWI) and CARE International UK (CIUK). Additional academic and research partners include the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), the Africa Population Health Research Center (APHRC) in Nairobi, Kenya, and Forcier Consulting in Juba, South Sudan.

Note

References

Abugre

(2008). Reviewing the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 1325 and 1820 what will it take? Women in the Land of Conflict Conference. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from http://www.peacewomen.org/sites/default/files/1325-1820_ReviewingImpl_WLC_Nov2008_0.pdf

Bartels

Scott

J. A.

Leaning

Kelly

J. T.

Mukwege

Joyce

N. R.

VanRooyen

M. J.

(2011). Sexual violence trends between 2004 and 2008 in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 26, 408–413.

Bastick

Grimm

Kunz

(2007). Sexual violence in armed conflict: Global overview and implications for the security sector. Geneva, Switzerland: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by design and nature. Cambridge, England: Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

Bukuluki

Kisuule

J. D.

Makerere

A. B.

Sundby

B. S. J.

(2013). Perceptions of the drivers of sexual and gender based violence in post conflict Northern Uganda. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 10, 84–102.

Buss

(2007). The curious visibility of wartime rape: Gender and ethnicity in international criminal law. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 3, 3–22.

Castillejo

(2011). Building a state that works for women: Integrating gender into post-conflict state building (Working Paper No. 107). FRIDE. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/131010/WP1O7_Building_State_Works_for_Women_Eng.pdf

Castellijo

(2012). Gender, fragility and the politics of statebuilding. NOREF. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://noref.no/Publications/Themes/Gender-and-inclusivity/Gender-fragility-and-the-politics-of-statebuilding

Chandler

(2006). Empire in denial: The politics of statebuilding. London, England: Pluto Press.

10.

Chinkin

(2003). Peace agreements as a means for promoting gender equality and ensuring the participation of women—A framework of model provisions. Expert Group Meeting, United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women.

11.

Cockburn

(2004). The continuum of violence: A gender perspective on war and peace. In Giles

Hyndman

(Eds.), Sites of violence: Gender and conflict zones (pp. 24–44). Oakland: University of California Press.

12.

Cohn

(2013). Women and wars: Toward a conceptual framework. In Cohn

(Ed.), Women and wars (pp. 1–35). Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

13.

Council of Foreign Relations. (2018). Women’s participation in peace processes. Retrieved December 18, 2018, from https://www.cfr.org/interactive/womens-participation-in-peace-processes

14.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

15.

Davies

S. E.

True

(2015). Reframing conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence: Bringing gender analysis back. Security Dialogue, 46, 495–512.

16.

Department for International Development & UK Aid. (2016). Building stability framework. London, England: Author.

17.

Elbert

Harald

Anna

Katharin

Tobias

Maggie

… Philip

(2013). Sexual and gender-based violence in the Kivu provinces of the democratic Republic of Congo: Insights from Former Combatants. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.

18.

El-Bushra

Sahl

I. M.

(2005). Cycles of violence: Gender relations and armed conflict. Nairobi, Kenya: ACORD.

19.

Engle

(2014). The grip of sexual violence: Reading UN Security council resolutions on human security. In Otto

Heathcote

(Eds.), Rethinking peacekeeping, gender equality and collective security (pp. 23–47). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Enloe

(1993). The morning after: Sexual politics at the end of the cold war. Berkeley: University of California Press.

21.

Enloe

(2014). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

22.

Eriksson Baaz

Stern

(2010). The complexity of violence: A critical analysis of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Retrieved September 23, 2018, from http://nai.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:319527/FULLTEXT02.pdf

23.

Eriksson Baaz

Stern

(2013). Sexual violence as a weapon of war: Perceptions, prescriptions, problems in the Congo and beyond. New York, NY: Zed Books.

24.

Erzurum

Eren

(2014). Women in peacebuilding: A criticism of gendered solutions in postconflict situations. Journal of Applied Security Research, 9, 236–256.

25.

Ferris

E. G.

(2007). Abuse of power: Sexual exploitation of refugee women and girls. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 32, 584–590.

26.

Galtung

(1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6, 167–191.

27.

Ganguly

(2014). Silenced and forgotten: Survivor’s of Nepal’s conflict-area sexual violence. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.

28.

Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee. (2017). No safe place: A lifetime of violence for conflict-affected women and girls in South Sudan. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from http://www2.gwu.edu/∼mcs/gwi/No_Safe_Place_Full_Report.pdf

29.

Handrahan

(2004). Conflict, gender, ethnicity and post-conflict reconstruction. Security Dialogue, 35, 429–445.

30.

Heathcote

(2012). Naming and shaming: Human rights accountability in security council resolution 1960 (2010) on women, peace and security. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 4, 82–105.

31.

Heineman

(Ed.). (2011). Sexual violence in conflict zones: From the ancient world to the era of human rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

32.

Heise

L. L.

(1998). Violence against women an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290.

33.

Holvikivi

(2015). What role for the security sector? An SSR approach to implementing the women, peace and security agenda. Connections, 14, 31–44.

34.

Hotaling

G. T.

Sugarmann

D. B.

(1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101–124.

35.

International Center for Transitional Justice, & Chautari, M. (2017). “We cannot forget”: Truth and memory in post-conflict Nepal. New York, NY: International Center for Transitional Justice.

36.

International Rescue Committee. (2015). Private violence, public concern: Intimate partner violence in humanitarian settings. Retrieved September 25, 2018, from https://www.rescue.org/sites/default/files/document/564/ircpvpcfinalen.pdf

37.

Isikozlu

Millard

A. D.

(2010). Brief 43: Towards a typology of wartime rape. Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC). Retrieved September 30, 2018, from https://www.bicc.de/uploads/tx_bicctools/brief43.pdf

38.

Kaldor

Chinkin

2013). Gender and new wars. Journal of International Affairs, 67, 167–187.

39.

Kantor

G. K.

Straus

M. A.

(1989). Substance abuse as a precipitant of family violence victimization. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 15, 173–189.

40.

Kelly

(1998). Surviving sexual violence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

41.

Lederach

J. P.

(2004). Building peace. Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

42.

Leonard

K. E.

Quigley

B. M.

(1999). Drinking and marital aggression in newlyweds: An event-based analysis of drinking and the occurrence of husband marital aggression. Journal of Studies of Alcohol, 60, 537–545.

43.

Manchanda

(2005). Women’s agency in peace building: Gender relations in post-conflict reconstruction. Economic and Political Weekly, 40, 4737–4745.

44.

Meintjes

Turshen

Pillay

(2001). The aftermath: Women in post-conflict transformation. London, England: Zed Books.

45.

Merger

(2016). The fetishization of sexual violence in international security. International Studies Quarterly, 60, 149–159.

46.

Mibenge

(2010). Investigating outcomes of a limited gender analysis of enslavement in post-conflict justice processes. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 5, 34–46.

47.

Moser

C. O.

(2001). The gendered continuum of violence and conflict: An operational framework. In Moser

C. O.

Clark

(Eds.), Victims, perpetrators or actors? Gender, armed conflict and political violence (pp. 30–52). New York, NY: Zed Books.

48.

Ní Aoláin

Turner

(2007). Gender, truth and transition. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 16, 229–279.

49.

OECD. (2013). Gender and Statebuilding in Fragile and Conflict-affected States. OECD Publishing.

50.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008). The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness (2005) and the Accra agenda for action (2008). Paris, France: Author. (Original work published 2005)

51.

Otto

(2010). Power and danger: Feminist engagement with international law through the UN Security Council. The Australian Feminist Law Journal, 32, 97–121.

52.

Porter

(2007). Peacebuilding: Women in international perspective. London, England: Routledge.

53.

Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2004). Towards a strategic framework for peacebuilding: Getting their act together. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kilde/ud/rap/2004/0044/ddd/pdfv/210673-rapp104.pdf

54.

Runyan

A. S.

Peterson

V. S.

(2014). Global gender issues in the new millennium. New Oxon, England: Routledge.

55.

Segal

(2008). Gender, war and militarism: Making and questioning the links. Feminist Review, 88, 21–35.

56.

Sigsworth

(2008). Gender-based violence in transition. Concept paper, violence and transition project roundtable. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237288295_Gender-based_violence_in_transition

57.

Sjoberg

(2014). Gender, war and conflict. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

58.

Sjoberg

Via

(2010). Gender, war and militarism: feminist perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International.

59.

Stark

Ager

(2011). A systematic review of prevalence studies of gender-based violence in complex emergencies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 127–134.

60.

Stone

(2014). Women transforming conflict: A quantitative analysis of female peacemaking. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from SSRN 2485242.

61.

Strickland

Duvvury

(2003). Gender equity and peacebuilding, from rhetoric to reality: Finding the way. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women.

62.

Swaine

(2015). Beyond strategic rape and between the public and private: Violence against women in armed conflict. Human Rights Quarterly, 37, 755–786.

63.

Swaine

(2018). Conflict-related violence against women: Transforming transition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

64.

Swaine

Spearing

Murphy

Contreras

(2018). Intersections of violence against women and girls with statebuilding and peacebuilding: Lessons from Nepal, Sierra Leone and South Sudan. What works to prevent violence in conflict and humanitarian crises. The George Washington University Global Women’s Institute, CARE International, The International Rescue Committee, UKAID.

65.

Testa

Quiley

B. M.

Leonard

K. E.

(2003). Does alcohol make a difference? Within-participants comparison of incidences of partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 735–743.

66.

Tripp

A. M.

(2010). Legislating gender-based violence in post-conflict Africa. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development, 5, 7–20.

67.

True

(2012). The political economy of violence against women. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

68.

True

(2013). Women, peace and security in post-conflict and peacebuilding contexts. NOREF. Retrieved December 18, 2018, from http://www.peacewomen.org/assets/file/true_noref_unscr1325_feb_2013_final.pdf

69.

Wolff

(2011). Post-conflict state building: The debate on institutional choice. Third World Quarterly, 32, 1777–1802.

70.

Wood

E. J.

(2009). Armed groups and sexual violence: When is wartime rape rare? Politics & Society, 37, 131–161.

71.

Zuckerman

Greenberg

(2004). The gender dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction: An analytical framework for policymakers. Gender and Development, 12, 70–82.

Exploring the Intersection of Violence Against Women and Girls With Post-Conflict Statebuilding and Peacebuilding Processes: A New Analytical Framework

Abstract

Keywords

Linkages Between VAWG, Statebuilding, and Peacebuilding

VAWG in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings

Gendered Approaches to VAWG in Statebuilding and Peacebuilding

Framing the Intersections of VAWG With Statebuilding and Peacebuilding

Ecological Framework for Addressing Drivers of Conflict and Post-Conflict VAWG

Combined Analytical Framework for Statebuilding, Peacebuilding and VAWG

Column 1: Statebuilding and peacebuilding processes

Column 2: Strategies addressing VAWG

Column 3: Positive outcomes of stability and peace strategies to address VAWG

Application of the Framework: A Case Study of Nepal

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Note

References