Does gender equality get better or worse following civil conflict? Given the plethora of research linking gender equality to less bellicosity, we aim to look at the relationship between post-conflict situations and gender equality. Specifically, we argue that circumstances surrounding how a conflict ends can better explain gender equality levels in a country in the post-conflict set up. We discuss whether outright victory for rebel groups will have the best impact for women due to the regime change and democratic process that typically follows. We conduct a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of 13 cases of intrastate conflicts in South and Southeast Asia for the years 1975–2006 along with an in-depth case study of Nepal. We find that rebel victory does have a positive impact on women in post-conflict situations when religious freedom was high, the conflict was centre seeking and wanted to establish a democratic regime.
AbramowitzS.MoranM. H. (2012). International human rights, gender-based violence, and local discourses of abuse in post conflict Liberia: A problem of ‘culture’? African Studies Review, 55(2), 119–146.
2.
AdhikariP.HansenW. L. (2013). Reparations and reconciliation in the aftermath of civil war. Journal of Human Rights, 12(4), 423–446.
3.
AdhikariP.SamfordS. (2013). The Nepali state and the dynamics of the Maoist insurgency. Studies in Comparative International Development, 48(4), 457–481.
4.
AolainF. D. (2010). Advancing women’s rights in conflict and post-conflict situations. Proceedings for the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 104, 568–570.
5.
AraújoC.GarcíaA. I. (2006). Latin America: The experience and the impact of quotas in Latin America. In DahlerupD. (Ed.), Women, quotas, and politics (pp. 83–111). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
AskinD. K. (2002). The quest for post-conflict gender justice. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 41, 509.
7.
BeckerM. (2015). Constructing SSLM: Insights from struggles over women’s rights in Nepal. Asian Studies Review, 39(2), 247–265.
8.
BlumbergR. L. (2001). Risky business: What happens to gender equality and women’s rights in post-conflict societies? Insights from NGOs in El Salvador. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, 15(1), 161–173.
9.
BistaB. G. (2003). Population policy and reproductive health (Population Monograph of Nepal, Vol. II). Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.
10.
CaprioliM. (2003). Gender equality and state aggression: The impact of domestic gender equality on state first use of force. International Interactions, 29(3), 195–214.
11.
CaprioliM. (2005). Primed for violence: The role of gender inequality in predicting internal conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 49(2), 161–178.
12.
CingranelliD.RichardsD. (2010). CIRI human rights data project. Binghamton, NY: State University at Binghamton.
13.
ClodfelterM. (2002). Warfare and armed conflicts: A statistical reference to casualty and other figures, 1500–2000 (2nd ed.). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
DoyleM. W.SambanisN. (2000). International peacebuilding: A theoretical and quantitative analysis. American Political Science Review, 94(4), 779–801.
17.
EnglebertP.TullD. M. (2008). Post-conflict reconstruction in Africa: Flawed ideas about failed states. International Security, 32(4), 106–139.
18.
EnloeC. (2000). Bananas, beaches and bases: A feminist introduction to international relations. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
19.
FalchA. (2010). Women’s political participation and influence in post-conflict Burundi and Nepal. Oslo: Peace Research Institute Oslo.
20.
FearonJ. D. (2004). Why do some civil wars last so much longer than others? Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 275–302.
21.
FearonJ. D.LaitinD. D. (2007 August). Civil war termination. Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4894/e3a3ba9778117453f15c17cfbd9c6280cf47.pdf
22.
GreenbergM. E.ZuckermanE., (2006). The gender dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction: The challenges in development aid (Research Paper No. 2006/62). Helsniki and Shibuya: UNU-WIDER and United Nations University (UNU).
HartzellC.HoddieM.RothchildD. (2001). Stabilizing the peace after civil war: An investigation of some key variables. International Organization, 55(1), 183–208.
25.
HughesM. (2007). Windows of political opportunity: Institutional instability and gender inequality in the world’s national legislatures. International Journal of Sociology, 37(4), 26–51.
26.
HughesM. (2009). Armed conflict, international linkages, and women’s parliamentary representation in developing nations. Social Problems, 56(1), 174–204.
27.
InglehartR.NorrisP. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KandiyotiD. (2007). Between the hammer and the anvil: Post-conflict reconstruction, Islam and women’s rights. Third World Quarterly, 28(3), 503–517.
29.
KarlR.SobekD. (2004). The dynamics of civil war duration and outcome. Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 303–320.
30.
KentR. (2008). Using fsQCA. Context, 45, 489–503.
31.
KreutzJ. (2010). How and when armed conflicts end: Introducing the UCDP conflict termination dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), 243–250.
32.
LacinaB. (2006). The battle deaths dataset, 1946–2005, version 2.0: Documentation of coding decisions. Oslo: International Peace Research Institute/International Institute for the Study of Civil War.
33.
LeathermanJ. (2011). Sexual violence and armed conflict. Cambridge: Polity Press.
34.
LickliderR. (1995a). The consequences of negotiated settlements in civil wars, 1945–1993. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 681–690.
35.
LickliderR (Ed.). (1995b). Stopping the killing: How civil wars end. New York, NY: New York University Press.
36.
LunaK. C.Van Der HaarGHilhorstD. (2017). Changing gender role: Women’s livelihoods, conflict and post-conflict security in Nepal. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 4(2), 175–195.
37.
MaclureR.DenovM. (2009). Reconstruction versus transformation: Post-war education and the struggle for gender equity in Sierra Leone. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(6), 612–620.
38.
MaddisonA. (2009). Historical statistics for the world economy, 1-2003AD. Retrieved from http://www.ggdc.net/
39.
MahoneyJ.GoertzG. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 227–249.
40.
ManchandaR. (2005). Women’s agency in peace building: Gender relations in post-conflict reconstruction. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(44/45), 4737–4745.
41.
ManjooR.McRaithC. (2011). Gender-based violence and justice in conflict and post-conflict areas. Cornell International Law Journal, 44, 11.
42.
MarshallM. G.JaggersK. (2007). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2007. College Park, MD: University of Maryland/CIDCM.
43.
MeertensD.ZambranoM. (2010). Citizenship deferred: The politics of victimhood, land restitution and gender justice in the Colombian (post?) conflict. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 4(2), 189–206.
44.
MelanderE. (2005). Gender equality and state human rights abuse. Journal of Peace Research, 42(2), 149–166.
45.
MoghadamV. M. (2005). Peace building and reconstruction with women: Reflections on Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. Development, 48(3), 63–72.
46.
ParasharS. (2010). Women, militancy, and security: The South Asian conundrum (pp. 168–187). In SjobergL. (Ed.), Gender and international security: Feminist perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.
PaxtonP.HughesM. M. (2015). Women, politics, and power: A global perspective. CQ Press.
48.
QuackenbushS. L. (2010). Territorial issues and recurrent conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(3), 239–252.
49.
QuackenbushS. L.VenteicherJ. F. (2008). Settlement outcomes, and the recurrence of conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 45(6), 723–742.
50.
RaginC. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
RaginC. C. (2008). Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In Janet M. Box-SteffensmeierHenry E. BradyCollierDavid (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology. Oxford University Press.
52.
SarkeesM. R. (2000). The correlates of war data on war: An update to 1997. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 18(1), 123–144.
53.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418.
54.
SinghS. (2017). Gender, conflict and security: Perspectives from South Asia. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 4(2), 1–9.
55.
TicknerL. (1992). Men’s work? Masculinity and modernism. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 4(3), 1–38.
56.
ToftM. D. (2010). Securing the peace: The durable settlement of civil wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
57.
United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. (1995, September). Action for Equality, Development, and Peace. Beijing, China.
58.
WagnerR. H. (1993). The causes of peace. In LickliderR. (Ed.), Stopping the killing: How civil wars end (pp. 235–268). New York, NY: New York University Press.
59.
WagnerR. H.. (2002). Committing to peace: The successful settlement of civil wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60.
WalterB. F. (1997). The critical barrier to civil war settlement. International Organization, 51(3), 335–364.
61.
Yuval-DavisN. (2016). Power, intersectionality and the politics of belonging. In HarcourtWendy (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of gender and development (pp. 367–381). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
62.
ZuckermanE.GreenbergM. (2004). The gender dimensions of post-conflict reconstruction: An analytical framework for policymakers. Gender & Development, 12(3), 70–82.
