Women, Peace and Security (WPS) is at a critical juncture, facing significant challenges to its relevance. Every major anniversary of the WPS agenda has renewed attention to the agenda in both research and policy circles. Now, as we approach the agenda’s 25th anniversary, we should double down rather than step away from WPS commitments and issues.
A rise in violent conflict is undermining peace and security. Female participation in these conflicts has become more complex, with women now increasingly filling combat and political roles. Today, women are more unsafe than at any point since 2000, when United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325—the resolution that established the WPS agenda—was passed. According to the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security’s 2023-24 WPS Index, 600 million women, or 15 percent of women globally, live close to a conflict zone.
Rising extremism and democratic backsliding are fuelling gender backlash. Violent extremist groups and militarist, authoritarian regimes target women’s bodies and freedoms. These actors aim to control societies from the household up, forging an alternative international order based on patriarchal, strongman leadership.
To assess the momentum of WPS and look to the agenda’s future, it is worth revisiting the findings of a study on its international diffusion, conducted a decade ago to mark the agenda’s 15th anniversary. In 2004, the UN Secretary-General called for states to adopt WPS action plans (NAPs) to implement the terms of UNSCR 1325. By 2015, 55 countries and four regional organisations had done so.
According to the study, NAPs were adopted equally in the Global North and South, and in conflict-affected and non-conflict countries. Democracies were more likely to adopt, suggesting that women have a greater capacity to advocate for peace and security in democratic states.
States with unreserved commitments to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women were more likely to adopt a NAP, reflecting the alignment of WPS with other gender-equality norms. Members of regional organisations with WPS plans were also more likely to adopt NAPs, indicating the role of peers and their demonstration effect. Adoption rose around anniversaries, revealing the importance of global review and focusing events.
Today, we see similar patterns in global politics and the uptake of WPS. Conflict-affected countries and women continue to draw on the normative principles and practical guidance of WPS even as they face war and insecurity. Far from considering WPS irrelevant, Ukraine has revised and adopted its second NAP during the conflict on its territory. This commitment to WPS is considered vital to Ukraine’s democratic governance and the country’s alignment with international norms against Russia’s defiance of them. It signals the importance of women’s participation in the Ukrainian armed forces and national defence, and the country’s determination to prevent and prosecute conflict-related sexual violence.
The withdrawal of Western forces from Afghanistan in August 2021 allowed the Taliban’s forceful takeover of the country. These events were preceded by failed peace talks that barely involved women. But rather than submitting to the Taliban, Afghan women have protested against the brutal regime. To defend women’s security and fundamental rights, they have founded a transnational network of advocates, states and diaspora calling for international recognition of gender apartheid as a crime against humanity among other actions.
Closer to Australia, in 2022, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations developed a regional plan of action on WPS to implement and coordinate the agenda across ASEAN member states. Since then, more countries in the region, notably Vietnam and Cambodia, have adopted WPS plans, continuing a pattern of state uptake in response to regional uptake. WPS perspectives and expertise are being integrated into conflict prevention and disaster preparedness initiatives, demonstrating that WPS is a relevant agenda outside of overt conflict.
While the United States has backtracked on its WPS commitments by cancelling its WPS program and closing its Global Office on Women’s Issues, the WPS agenda does not depend on its underwriting. WPS has been carried forward by many states and organisations seeking to address the gender-specific effects of conflict on women and girls, promote female participation in security and support women’s roles in peace processes. The WPS consensus holds, as demonstrated by the 108 states with NAPs in 2025. Its agenda has considerable state agreement, if not the action and outcome of inclusive peace that we desire.
With conflict rather than peace predominating worldwide, there should be greater focus on documenting and responding to the gendered impacts of conflict, such as the use of conflict-related sexual violence against civilians. Researchers have drawn attention to visibly male-dominated peace processes by monitoring the inclusion of women signatories and provisions on the protection of women’s human rights and gender equality in peace accords. This data has influenced processes in Colombia, the Philippines and Nepal, for example. Future WPS analysts, advocates and policymakers should continue to closely monitor women’s participation across conflict-affected states to inform strategies to target support for peaceful change.