The role of women in peacebuilding and conflict resolution processes has garnered significant attention in recent decades, particularly following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which underscores the importance of including women in peace processes (1325: Security Council Resolution on Women and Peace and Security, 2000). It acknowledges the disproportionate impact of armed conflicts on women and emphasizes their role in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Furthermore, in 2015, UN Security Council Resolution 2242 was adopted, which highlights the need to increase the number of women in peacekeeping forces (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2242, 2015). Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDG 5 and SDG 16, emphasize the necessity of gender equality and inclusive societies, underscoring the importance of women’s roles in maintaining peace and security. These documents call for ensuring women’s active participation in all peacebuilding processes, recognizing their contributions as essential for achieving lasting and sustainable peace.
Despite the creation of certain tools at the international level, quantitative indicators reveal that women’s participation in formal peacebuilding and conflict resolution processes remains low both globally and regionally, including in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. According to data published by the Council on Foreign Relations, from 1992 to 2019, women represented only 13% of negotiators, 6% of mediators, and 6% of signatories to documents in peace processes (Council on Foreign Relations, 2022).
Women’s Involvement in Formal and Informal Processes
Women’s Political Participation
Before addressing peacebuilding processes, it is important to first examine women’s political participation. Political participation lays the foundation for inclusive governance and decision-making, which are essential for effective peacebuilding.
Over the years, women’s participation in political processes in Armenia has gradually increased. In 1991, women held only 6% of parliamentary seats, which increased to about 9.9% in 2017. By 2023, women’s representation in the National Assembly had risen to 35.5%, attributed largely to the introduction of gender quotas. Despite this progress, women’s representation in executive positions remains limited, accounting for only 17% (Council on Foreign Relations, 2024). Compared to Azerbaijan and Georgia, Armenia has made significant progress in legislative representation, yet barriers persist concerning women’s involvement in the executive branch.
Women’s Participation in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Negotiation Processes
In the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, since the 1994 ceasefire, official peace negotiations have been predominantly led by male representatives from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and international mediators. At all stages of these processes, women’s participation has remained limited due to the male-dominated composition of negotiation teams.
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the discourse surrounding it can be divided into several stages. Until 1994, peace negotiations were driven by security forces. At this stage, key military and political figures participated in the negotiations, including Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who was the main figure of the negotiations, as well as Vazgen Sargsyan, who played a pivotal role as the Minister of Defense. The second stage, which started after 1994 during the presidency of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, included new figures. Vartan Oskanian, serving as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, actively engaged his team, including some women, in the negotiations. However, the process remained predominantly male-dominated (Hovhannes Nazaretyan, 2021; Lusine Sargsyan, 2021).
During Edward Nalbandian’s tenure, the format of negotiations changed, becoming restricted to ministerial and presidential levels. The final stage under Zohrab Mnatsakanyan expanded the negotiating teams, involving not only the minister and prime minister but also representatives from various agencies (Gohar Abrahamyan, 2021). In this context, Anna Naghdalyan, serving as the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, played a vital role in ensuring public awareness of the negotiation process.
The Minsk Group, led by representatives from Russia, France, and the United States, was instrumental throughout the negotiations. However, the limited involvement of women in the Minsk Group underscores a significant gender gap in high-level international diplomacy.
Along with these processes, the number of female ambassadors in Armenia’s diplomatic corps has never exceeded 15%, and women have never held key foreign policy positions (Oxygen, 2023). Currently, 14% of Armenia’s ambassadors are women, but there are no women among the permanent representatives (European Union, 2024). While the role of women in diplomacy has increased, it remains constrained, reflecting the historically limited nature of their participation in negotiation processes.
Steps Taken by Female Representatives of Civil Society and Expert Community (Semi-Formal and Informal Negotiations)
Following the 1994 ceasefire, numerous informal (Track 2) initiatives emerged over the span of two and a half decades, aiming to resolve or transform conflicts (Peaceful Change Initiative, 2019). In these initiatives, the involvement of women is higher. One of the earliest examples is Anahit Bayandur, a deputy of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia (1990-1995), a member of the Armenian National Movement faction and the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia, who believed that the two peoples were ready for peace and directed her efforts in that direction. In 1993, Anahit Bayandur and Arzu Abdullayeva, chairpersons of the Armenian and Azerbaijani national committees of the Helsinki Civil Assembly, respectively, were awarded with the Olof Palme Peace Prize for their work in promoting peace and public diplomacy in the region (Wikidaran, 2024). However, such efforts were curtailed because of the growing tension between the parties.
Later, peacebuilding programs, initiated and implemented by civil society and expert community, did not always receive clear support from Azerbaijani authorities. Nevertheless, Armenian women participated in initiatives that built communication bridges between the two societies. A number of feminist, research and youth organizations contributed to such initiatives.
Public Perceptions and Challenges of Women’s Involvement
Although women’s participation in informal dialogues has been higher, it is clear that women’s engagement in diplomacy is still very low. This is particularly concerning, given that women’s participation can bring fresh, multi-layered approaches essential for addressing such complex processes. Public discourse on this issue is also limited. Notably, throughout the conflict, women have often been perceived as victims or direct targets rather than figures involved in formal negotiations.
This is evidenced by the indicators of women’s participation in various political spheres. Although Armenia is a regional leader in terms of women’s participation in politics, it is important to consider the extent to which the quantitative data reflect the quality. To analyze this issue, it is necessary to assess where women are positioned on the ladder of participation and, even when perceived as victims or targets, how they have been included or represented in negotiation processes. This impartial assessment will reveal the extent to which women have been involved not just as representatives but as decision-makers.
Throughout all historical stages of the negotiation process, the “men about women” approach has persisted. This approach indicates that men predominantly control the discourse, limiting opportunities for women’s participation, which once again underscores the gender inequality. Discussions with experts highlight that, historically, the conflict was framed primarily as a security issue, managed by security forces. Furthermore, women did not occupy high-ranking positions in these structures, which is also a problem. The reasons are numerous, ranging from state policy to societal stereotypes and distribution of roles. However, experts agree that women’s participation could provide the negotiation process with a multi-layered, human-centered, and rights-based perspective. This is particularly vital because women can introduce approaches that uncover new pathways, foster innovative solutions, and emphasize the significance of human rights in peace processes.
Although in recent years there has been a change in approaches to negotiation processes, especially from the perspective of human rights, the level of direct involvement of women has not increased. This fact indicates that the changes have not yet had an impact on the full involvement of women, which is important for the effectiveness of negotiation processes. Many experts note that this change could have occurred earlier and been subject to in-depth discussions, expanding to the areas of cultural heritage, human suffering and human rights protection, if women had been more widely involved in negotiation processes.
However, public stereotypes and misconceptions prevail in this regard. At the state level, there is a tendency not to include women in negotiation processes, but to talk about them. For example, the Second National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security for 2022-2024 does not envisage any specific steps that would address the inclusion of women in formal negotiations (Second National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security for 2022-2024, 2022). This reflects the fact that the state still does not recognize the importance of women’s involvement in the negotiation process, which in turn hinders the search for more comprehensive and lasting solutions.
The second important issue is that the absence of women in the delegations of the conflicting parties in the negotiation process has also led to the perception that Armenia’s attempt to include women may be perceived as a frivolous step. Another frequently mentioned reason is the lack of human resources. However, neither of these is evidence-based, as women have achieved success in informal peacebuilding processes, which speaks of the existing potential, not its absence. Moreover, various studies clearly show that women’s involvement significantly increases the long-term sustainability of peace agreements, in particular, women’s participation increases the probability of a peace agreement lasting at least two years by 20 percent, and for a fifteen-year period, this indicator increases by 35 percent (UN Women).
Armenia, as a state that has ratified international documents and has chosen the path of democracy, must be guided by the principle of inclusiveness, becoming a pioneer in involving women in formal negotiation processes.
Bibliography
- 1325: Security Council Resolution on Women and Peace and Security, S/RES/1325 (2000). https://peacemaker.un.org/node/105
- Council on Foreign Relations. (2022). Women’s Participation in Peace Processes. https://www.cfr.org/womens-participation-in-peace-processes/
- Council on Foreign Relations. (2024). Women’s Power Index [Map]. https://www.cfr.org/article/womens-power-indexhttps://www.cfr.org/article/womens-power-index
- European Union. (2024). COUNTRY GENDER PROFILE ARMENIA: EU4GENDEREQUALITY REFORM HELPDESK. https://euneighbourseast.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/eu4genderhelpdesk_armenia_countrygenderprofile_2024-cgp_v3__compressed.pdf
- Gohar Abrahamyan. (2021, September 24). The Nikol Pashinyan Administration: 2018-Present. EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/magazine-issues/the-nikol-pashinyan-administration-2018-present/
- Hovhannes Nazaretyan. (2021, September 21). The Levon Ter-Petrosyan Administration: 1991-1998. EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/magazine-issues/the-levon-ter-petrosyan-administration-1991-1998/
- Lusine Sargsyan. (2021, September 22). The Robert Kocharyan Administration: 1998-2008. EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/magazine-issues/the-robert-kocharyan-administration-1998-2008/
- Manisha Sarade. (2024, November 18). Gendered dimensions of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [Blogpost]. LSE. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2020/11/18/gendered-dimensions-of-the-nagorno-karabakh-conflict/
- Nika Musavi. (2024, October 5). The Psychological Consequences of the Karabakh Wars in Azerbaijan: The Womanly Face of Trauma. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Logo Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. https://ge.boell.org/en/2024/05/10/psychological-consequences-karabakh-wars-azerbaijan-womanly-face-trauma
- Oxygen. (2023). RESEARCH REPORT ON PERSPECTIVES FOR WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION IN SECURITY AND PEACE PROCESSES IN ARMENIA [Research Report]. Oxygen. https://oxygen.org.am/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Research-Report-WEPS_ENG-05.03.2023-final.pdf
- Peaceful Change initiative. (2019). Youth Participation in Decision-Making and Peacebuilding in Armenia. https://peacefulchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/REPORT_ENG_FINAL.pdf
- Sheila Paylan. (2024, July 15). A Peace to Fail All Peace Why the Armenia-Azerbaijan Normalization Process is Doomed. EVN Report. https://evnreport.com/opinion/a-peace-to-fail-all-peace/
- UN. (n.d.-a). Sustainable Development Goal 5. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5
- UN. (n.d.-b). Sustainable Development Goal 16. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal16
- United Nations Security Council Resolution 2242, 7533rd meeting, 15-17716 (E) (2015). https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2242.pdf
- Ziemer, U. (2020). Women’s everyday lives in war and peace in the South Caucasus. Palgrave Macmillan.
- “Women, Peace and Security” 2022-2024 Second National Action Plan for the Implementation of the Provisions of Resolution N 1325, N 803-L, Government of the Republic of Armenia (2022).
- Wikidaran: (2024, January 20). Anahit Bayandur [Online post].