Gender and war: Reflections on the future of Europe
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Ukraine, among others, are current candidates for the enlargement of the European Union (EU) that have experienced periods of war and grave human rights violations in the past or present. In the case of the countries of the former Yugoslavia, they underwent transitional justice processes in the 1990s and still attempt to address the consequences of the contentious past. In the case of Ukraine, the conflict continues, the future remains uncertain, and the claim for peace solutions is constant.
Following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the armed conflict once again became a significant issue on the public agenda. However, in this new stage of global tensions and armed conflicts, the lessons left by the conflict that occurred in the Balkan wars of the 1990s are not often mentioned. The oversights committed during transitions and the effectiveness of the institutional reforms that followed the transition were not deeply analyzed, despite the increase in initiatives that aim to strengthen peace achievements through rule of law mechanisms since the transition times (an issue that the EU has considered in the integration processes of the Western Balkans).
In the past, the EU has recognized the importance of supporting reconciliation processes and strengthening the rule of law. Documents such as the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions (2018) have emphasized that the Western Balkans (key actors for regional stabilization) must address issues such as consolidating reconciliation in response to the wounds left by the conflicts. This premise has been maintained over time, from the path leading to the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreements to recent communications such as that of the European Council on the “Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans” (2024) which insists on the development of measures that reinforce the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.
The implementation of these types of measures is important to improve the health of democracy. Nonetheless, no democratic or reconciliation project can be achieved by excluding the interests of women when deep social transformation and the maintaining of peace are pretended. Regarding this, the democratic transition in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s offers important historical lessons concerning the building of conflict narratives and the exclusion of women’s agency in those processes. Matter that paradoxically contrasts with the increasing support for gender agenda.
Indeed, bodies such as the European Parliament have stated that women are not only war victims but also peacebuilders and survivors, highlighting the importance of including a gender approach in this topic. Moreover, the EU has been engaged in developing measures to realize gender equality and women’s human rights, promoting legislation, gender mainstreaming, and specific measures for the empowerment of women. Despite this, it is criticized that the EU does not fully understand the principle of equality and gives it secondary importance, reinforcing a protective role instead of adopting a transformative approach to the structural causes of armed conflicts and gender inequality.
After the end of the aforementioned armed conflict, there was no doubt about the exacerbating consequences of war on women’s rights and the need to pursue gender-based crimes. Beyond this, it has been noted that one of the major failures during the transition was the inadequate protection of women’s interests during and after the conflict and the essentialization of gender by institutional actors. This problem is not unexpected, considering that international law usually associates gender roles in conflict with essentialist and stereotypical gender conceptions.
The role of gender in armed conflict
Historically, the understanding of war has been tied to assumptions such as internal enemies, legitimate or illegitimate aggression, military interventions, and other concepts associated with male values. Moreover, gender stereotypes have influenced the development of laws applicable to armed conflict, reducing gender matters to the protection of victims (women suitable to certain prototypes).
Women suffer intense violence during war, but after and before conflict, they are also vulnerable to domestic violence, lack of opportunities, employment discrimination, and others. In accordance with this, many studies investigate whether there is a difference between violence in times of conflict and peace. Regardless of the answer, it is generally concluded that law and judicial decisions often fail to capture the wide range of violence and its relation to broader phenomena such as structural violence.
In this regard, it is asserted that the legal framework applicable to armed conflict does not make gender distinctions except in some cases that set out special protection for pregnant women’s integrity and prevent acts of sexual violence, appealing to fragility paradigms. These references do not defend an equality status free of stereotypes, except for a few cases, such as Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, which promotes equality regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.
According to international law, the role of law is to control the immediate crisis scenarios and humanitarian disasters generated by the war. On this matter, it is pointed out that reducing war to an “extraordinary” fact disregards women’s interests because it puts aside the analysis of the interconnected series of events, including the structural inequalities that are precede and influenced by them. Also reinforces the ideals of the “protective” role (played by States, agreements, or organizations, that represent the white male imaginary) under which women’s lives are considered valuable only when their affectation endangers the stability of a State, or a hegemonic social group, in exceptional circumstances.
Despite this, the institutionalization of the gender approach and the struggles of the feminist movements, just as the judgments of the international courts, have transformed the content of the international framework, including many provisions related to gender issues. These developments have impacted both international law and local experiences of peacebuilding.
In particular, the convictions provided by the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda laid the groundwork for understanding gender crimes. And subsequently, the Rome statute recognized rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilization, etc., as grave crimes against humanity and war crimes. This recognition coincided with the revelation of the magnitude of the sexual violence that occurred in the former Yugoslavia, during the Second World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993.
Based on the previous notes, the advances in these matters have been remarkable. Nevertheless, as indicated by transitional justice studies, the most significant advances in matters of human rights protection of women focus on specific and symbolic cases, while major shortcomings persist in most cases due to issues such as revictimization. Concerning this, the reproduction of rhetoric that infantilizes women is criticized, overlooking the effects and causes of conflicts and the diverse roles women play in war, and reducing gender studies to condemning sexual violence.
Even in the more apparently successful experiences, multiple mistakes have been made in providing justice solutions for women, just as succeeded during the Yugoslavia trials. In these trials, women were subjected to inappropriate treatment because the processes were focused on the perpetrator prosecution and the goal of issuing convictions, a purpose materialized in contexts of threat and harassment to women. Besides, after finishing the trials, women confronted difficulties related to social and family reintegration, concerns ignored by authorities and society.
Transition in the former Yugoslavia and the gender issues
Transitional justice encompasses objectives such as delivering justice to perpetrators of past wrongs, achieving recognition and reparation for victims, establishing truthful and common public narratives for past wrongdoings, exploring new conditions for lawful order and social justice, etc., all aimed at overcoming and preventing war. Furthermore, as noted by Gray & Levin (2013), transitions not only represent unique opportunities to advance the goals of sustainable peace but also to address broader issues of justice, such as forms of gender injustice, which are crucial for achieving long-term social stability.
Addressing broader issues of justice does not fully resolve structural problems such as gender-based violence, which pre-dates the conflict and transcends the boundaries of transitions. Likewise, the inclusion or exclusion of women has not prevented the signing of peace agreements and the initiation of transitional processes. Nonetheless, the exclusion of women impacts the degree of resource distribution, marginalization, etc., concerns that are linked to the causes and consequences of conflicts. Indeed, as Rooney (2018) noted, a lower percentage of benefits for the most marginalized in a conflict-affected community “intensifies the value and contentiousness of any redistributive gain involved, be it material, cultural, or symbolic”.
In the countries of the former Yugoslavia, the signing of the Dayton Agreements represented a transcendental political, social, and economic change. Besides, the implementation of new democratic projects was not isolated from the goals of gender equality, which was already a predominant issue on the international public agenda. Nevertheless, women continued to face many obstacles in entitling their rights within both public and private life in post-conflict countries.
During the conflict, women occupied different social roles; however, when it finished, the demands of the patriarchal social context led women to return to their traditional roles (for instance, the motherhood). In this context, the violence increased (mainly in the domestic sphere), exacerbated by factors such as the deterioration of individual/collective mental health, as well as the challenge to rooted gender stereotypes. At the same time, the authorities took advantage of the essentialization of gender to release their responsibility in executing post-conflict politics. Hence, caregiving tasks related to social reconstruction measures were assigned to women appealing to the “innate peacemaker” stereotype.
On the other hand, regarding the administration of justice by judicial bodies, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) set an international precedent in recognizing the relationship between gender and the commission of certain crimes. This tribunal contributed to exposing the accountability of perpetrators in positions of power, enabled the representation of women in trials, and served as a deterrent and tool in the fight against gender-based violence within the international context. Despite this, it was also criticized for substantial shortcomings in both retributive and distributive justice, the slow advance of trials, and the secondary trauma inflicted on victims, particularly women. These failures had an impact on women, who years later established a people’s court in which women’s agency was vindicated.
Both the successes and the failures in peace-building processes have significant repercussions on the future of countries that choose to move from a period of serious human rights violations towards a more peaceful and democratic time. In the case of failures, their persistence over time hinders and delays objectives such as the reduction of internal conflicts. On the other side, excessive triumphalism delays necessary discussions on entrenched issues like inequality and the loss of goals realized during transitions due to the effect of weak democracies.
It is criticized that during the aforementioned transition, ethnic divisions and nationalist projects were institutionalized instead of tackling the structural causes of the conflict. Therefore, as happened in other cases, successes achieved in the prosecution of gender-based crimes became fragmented, leaving unresolved discussions such as the connection between poverty, gender discrimination, and war damages, as well as the complexity of structural discrimination or its consequences during wartime.
No armed conflict should be preferred over the possibility of peace, even considering the consequences of an imperfect peace. Nonetheless, the peace that excludes women from their own agency and voice is neither just nor lasting. In the Western Balkans, the transition ended a period of violence, and armed confrontation has not returned despite the social, economic, and political challenges faced by the countries. Notwithstanding, there are growing points of war tension around the world, sustained and compounded by structural injustice problems. In this context, it is always important to review the lessons learned in previous experiences, such as the importance of including gender approaches as the key to overcoming the violent past or present.
