Scholarly debates and contested meanings of WPS

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

This chapter sets out some of the critiques that have emerged over the past decade with respect to the WPS agenda. It examines the theoretical accounts that highlight the conceptual and institutional limitations of WPS, specifically the centrality of the victimhood and protection dialogues in the promotion of the agenda. Moreover, this chapter examines the geographies where WPS has purchase, as well as the locations where it struggles to gain meaningful support. This chapter also explores the contributions of feminist institutionalism to the theory and practice of WPS. In doing so, it reveals a more nuanced understanding of the success and failure of WPS. We point to the importance of a layered understanding of how institutional actors advance this agenda or pose sizeable barriers to its success. Our analysis reveals that the limits of its practical success (or the complexity of the success that has been realized) underscore some of the broader conceptual and historical analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace, and Security
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages53-66
Number of pages14
ISBN (Electronic)9780190638276
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Conceptual analysis
  • Conceptual limitations
  • Feminist institutionalism
  • Historical analysis
  • Institutional actors
  • Protection dialogue
  • Victimhood dialogue

Cite this

Aoláin, F. D. N., & Valji, N. (2018). Scholarly debates and contested meanings of WPS. In The Oxford Handbook of Women, Peace, and Security (pp. 53-66). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190638276.013.4