Month: November 2017

One of the more exciting parts of interpretivist research is how deeply focused one can get into the ins and outs of a specific discourse. I would like to look at the way UN Security Council Resolutions on women, peace and security discuss women and how peace processes should deal with women and women’s issues. In particular, I the discourses I would like to focus on cover whether or not the resolutions are characterizing women as victims only or agents of peacemaking, how the role of sexual assault in conflict should be handled in peace agreements, and the types of ways that women can be included in processes. The resolutions I would like to begin with are 1325 (2000), 1820 (2008), 1888 (2009), 1889 (2009), 1960 (2010), 2106 (2013), 2122 (2013), and 2242 (2015).1
The representations of women in the resolutions are particularly important, because they have the potential to affect very deeply global norms about the participation and inclusion of women both in peace processes, and in post-conflict societies. Furthermore, how violence against women, particularly sexual violence, is dealt with by the resolutions has influence over how it is dealt with in peace agreements. The resolutions assist in the construction of international norms about women, and help construct the identities and roles of women in post-conflict societies.
The UN Security Council Resolutions are just a start, because the research question I’m edging towards for this sketch deals with the relationship between the work of the Security Council and the dialogue about women in peace agreements, possibly how do the UNSC Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security influence peace agreements? I would likely pick a specific agreement to analyze for this question, most likely one that has several of these discourses prominently featured.

1. UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/1325/2000, 31 October 2000.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/1820/2008, 19 June 2008.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/1888/2009, 30 September 2009.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/1889/2009, 5 October 2009.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/1960/2010, 16 December 2010.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/2106/2013, 24 June 2013.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/2122/2013, 18 October 2013.
UN Security Council, Res. S/RES/2242/2015, 13 October 2015.

For a small-n research project my research question would have to change once again, this time to, on a general scale, what explains the success or failure of peace processes? More specifically, how does the inclusion of women influence the durability of peace processes? My dependent variable is the success or failure of peace agreements, which the literature usually measures in years; five years is typically the marker used to define the success of a peace agreement, but that is a simpler measurement of my dependent variable than I would like to use.1 After speaking with my mentor, I would like to include, with the durability of a peace agreement, the degree to which its implementation is successful as the measures of success or failure. My mentor pointed me to a database of peace accords, the Peace Accord Matrix, which tracks over 50 peace agreements and includes detailed information on factors that are significant to the durability of an agreement, and gives implementation scores based on how well the agreement is holding up.2
In terms of operationalizing my dependent variable, at the moment it has a couple of different parts. First of all, I can use the length of time the agreement has lasted as a basic measure of its success or failure.3 Secondly, to measure implementation, I will look at what types of enforcement, constitution building, and other parts of the agreement were included in the accord, and then track whether each part was actually implemented using the Peace Accord Matrix. At this point in time I do not have cases selected, but my mentor suggested arbitrarily picking a case in Europe, Africa, and Latin America while I focus on the question and variables to check how feasible and substantial my data is. Therefore, at the moment I’m using the Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement, the Accra Peace Agreement, and the Chapultepec Peace Agreement.4 The Good Friday Agreement has an implementation score of 95%, the Accra Peace Agreement a score of 88%, and the Chapultepec Peace Agreement a 96%, all after 10 years of their implementation.5

1.Suzanne Ghais, “Inclusivity and Peacemaking in Internal Armed Conflicts” (Ph.D., American University, 2016), 3.
2.“Peace Accords Matrix,” Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, last modified 2015, accessed November 8, 2017, https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/.
3. Ghais, 3.
4. “Peace Accords Matrix.”
5. Ibid.