Explaining variation in the implementation of global norms: Gender mainstreaming of security in the OSCE and the EU

Abstract

Why do regional security organizations choose different approaches to implementing global gender norms? To address this question, we examine how the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU) integrated requirements derived from UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) on women, peace and security into their security policies. We identify differences in scope and dynamics between the change processes in the two organizations. The OSCE simply adapted its existing gender policy and has not changed it since, whereas the EU introduced a new, more extensive and specific policy, which it has already amended several times. Drawing on historical institutionalism and feminist institutionalism, we found that, first, reform coalitions prepared the ground for gender mainstreaming in the organizations’ respective security policies; and that, second, embedded policy structures, including rules and norms about external interaction as well as existing policy legacies, were responsible for the different approaches of the EU and OSCE with respect to UNSCR 1325.

Gender and Crises in European Economic Governance: Is this Time Different?*

“…Moreover, gender mainstreaming was at the mercy of differing interpretations of its role and purpose, and differing understandings of the meanings of gender and gender equality Meier, 2008, 2006;Jenichen et al, 2018). Both of these findings point to the importance of actors within the adoption of gender mainstreaming, reflecting feminist analysis that pointed to the need for actors at various key points in the policy process to ensure the adoption of gender equality measures (Woodward, 2004).…”

The Politics of Normative Power Europe: Norm Entrepreneurs and Contestation in the Making of EU External Human Rights Policy

“…323–325). Such events create windows of opportunity that norm entrepreneurs can seize to create awareness and urgency for their concerns (Wunderlich, 2020, p. 40). Characteristics of the normative and institutional context: Transnational advocacy networks and their ideas, for example, ‘are more likely to be influential if they fit well with existing ideas and ideologies in a particular historical setting’ (Keck and Sikkink, 1998, p. 204), namely if there is a ‘cultural match’ (Cortell and Davis, 2000, p. 73) between candidate norm and institutional setting, for example, through the existence of matching policy legacies that norm entrepreneurs can connect their concerns with (Jenichen et al ., 2019). Strategies of norm entrepreneurs: Three strategies are primarily discussed in the literature – coalition‐building, information‐access exchange and framing.…”

“…Reservations, discrimination, harassment and violence against LGBTI people continue to be widespread and levels are considerably higher in some, primarily Eastern European, member states (European Commission, 2019; FRA, 2020; ILGA Europe, 2020). There are considerable legal and policy differences among member states with respect to anti-discrimination, criminal law, marriage, parenting rights, equal sexual offenses provisions, gay pride marches and national action plans to improve the security, welfare and equal opportunities for LGBTI 2 Further institutional arrangements within the organization, such as membership structure, mandate, formal and informal decision-making procedures and possibilities for participation of civil society actors also shape the strategies of norm entrepreneurs targeting international organizations (Jenichen et al, 2019). However, they hold more explanatory power when different international organizations or at least policy fields within one organization are compared and, therefore, are not further considered in the case studies later.…”

The Women, Peace and Security Agenda

“…Guerrina and Wright (2016: 309) attribute this situation to the lack of a clear EU external identity, and to the fact that the EEAS is still in its infancy. Other scholars demonstrate that the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), long neglected in scholarship on gender and security, has been relatively successful in expanding its gender policy from soft to hard security, despite some challenges (Jenichen et al 2018a; see also Jenichen et al 2018b). Another research shows that the OSCE played a key role in bringing attention to the widespread problem of gender-based violence in the conflict-affected Ukraine (O'Sullivan 2019: 16).…”