Disclaimer:
All statements and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the views of WIIS Italy.
Despite the transformative ambitions of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda, forcibly displaced women—particularly those navigating Europe’s externalized border regimes—remain at its margins. Although the agenda acknowledges displacement, its attention is still confined largely to women physically located in conflict zones.
As migrant and asylum-seeking women navigate increasingly securitized spaces—from detention centers to remote processing hubs—they are rendered invisible by a WPS framework still anchored in static notions of conflict zones. Yet these women are not merely recipients of protection; they are political subjects and peacebuilders. Bridging the WPS and refugee protection agendas is not only overdue – it is essential to addressing the gendered insecurities embedded in EU external policies and reclaiming the transformative potential of WPS for all women, including those Europe seeks to keep at arm’s length.
Who Gets to Count in the WPS Agenda?
As we mark the 25th anniversary of the WPS Agenda, we must confront a pressing truth: the global landscape of insecurity has changed. Migration, externalization, and detention are no longer peripheral concerns—they are central to how Europe manages the aftermath of conflict. Yet the WPS framework remains geographically anchored, largely overlooking women on the move.
UNSCR 1325 was a landmark in recognizing the gendered impacts of conflict. But its operative paragraphs—such as paragraph 12—explicitly tie implementation to women in “conflict-affected areas” and “refugee camps.” This reinforces an outdated binary: conflict is “there,”and peace is “here.” Once women flee, they are written out of view.
As Holvikivi and Reeves argue, the “conflict-affected woman” becomes invisible once displaced. She is neither sufficiently local to influence national policy, nor refugee enough to fit into formal asylum frameworks. This double erasure reflects a systemic blind spot in how security is conceptualized—even within feminist approaches.
Nowhere is this more urgent than in the EU’s expanding web of migration deals. Take the Italy–Albania agreement: a bilateral deal that outsources asylum processing to Albanian territory. In theory, “vulnerable” individuals are exempt from transfer—but the criteria are vague, the procedures opaque, and the burden of proof falls on the woman herself. How does one demonstrate trauma in a legal grey zone with limited access to lawyers, interpreters, or even basic healthcare?
Moreover, gender-based violence doesn’t stop at the border. Women in transit and detention face heightened risks of sexual violence, coercion, and institutional neglect. Yet these spaces remain outside the protective and participatory scope of the WPS agenda.
Reclaiming the WPS Agenda Beyond Borders
If the WPS agenda is to remain relevant, it must evolve. The categories of “conflict” and “peace” are no longer bounded by geography—they follow people in motion. Migrant and refugee women live in a continuum of insecurity: from war zones to sea crossings, from detention centers to marginal life in host countries. These spaces demand feminist attention.
Yet most EU and national WPS action plans maintain narrow definitions of both protection and participation. When refugee women are mentioned, the references are often inconsistent—and rarely accompanied by mechanisms for meaningful inclusion. Yet this is precisely where the WPS framework holds untapped potential for growth
Participation must mean more than a seat at the peace table. It must extend to asylum governance, reception center policies, community consultations, and local integration programs. Migrant women should not merely be subjects of humanitarian concern—they must be partners in shaping the systems they navigate.
There is also a deeper ideological challenge. Over the past decade, WPS has itself been partially co-opted—absorbed into militarized, securitized frameworks that prioritize state stability over human security. Peacekeeping missions and border surveillance have borrowed feminist language while abandoning feminist goals. To reclaim WPS for displaced women, we must return to its core: inclusion, dignity, justice.
One promising avenue lies in the integration of WPS principles into the EU’s external migration policies. Just as climate commitments now shape trade agreements, gender-based peace frameworks should inform migration deals. The consequences of externalization can no longer remain unseen or unchallenged. As policies push asylum processing and border control further from EU territory, they also displace responsibility—intensifying vulnerabilities for women in transit and obscuring accountability. These practices must be interrogated—and transformed—through a feminist security lens that centers the lived realities of displaced women.
From Victims to Political Agents
One of the founding pillars of the WPS agenda is participation: the recognition that women are not only victims of conflict but also agents of peace. Yet when women cross borders in search of safety, this principle is often abandoned. Displaced women—especially those fleeing war, repression, or gendered persecution—are framed as passive recipients of aid rather than political actors.
This framing obscures the lived realities of displaced women. As documented by Carmen Geha in Displaced and Dispersed (IEMed, 2023), many women in exile remain politically active, even under precarious conditions. The publication highlights women who were feminists, journalists, or activists in countries like Syria, Iraq, or Libya. Forced to flee, they now face silencing not only through the dislocations of displacement, but also by restrictive European asylum regimes—and, at times, by exclusionary dynamics within their own diaspora communities. Building on this, research by McIntyre Miller and Atwi (2023) shows that forced migration can also open up what they describe as a “liminal space”—a condition in which displaced women develop new forms of leadership rooted in resilience, social capital, and community care. Through grassroots networks and informal organizing, these women become anchors of survival and agents of belonging—often without recognition from policymakers.
This is a critical blind spot. If the WPS agenda is to uphold its original ambitions, it must extend participation rights to migrant women—whether rebuilding their lives in EU cities, resisting exile in Berlin, or organizing in transit zones. Their political agency is not secondary to peace—it is central to it.
WPS at a Crossroads
The invisibility of conflict-affected women at Europe’s borders is not a technical gap. It is a political choice—one shaped by deterrence policies, legal outsourcing, and institutional neglect. But 25 years after Resolution 1325, the world has changed. Conflict and displacement are entangled. Peace and security cannot stop at the border.
If Europe is serious about gender equality and sustainable peace, it must stop externalizing its responsibilities and start reframing what security means. This includes identifying and addressing the specific risks migrant women face, holding states accountable for externalized violence, and creating meaningful spaces for displaced women to influence the policies that affect them.
Only then can the promise of Women, Peace and Security be fulfilled—not as a static resolution, but as a living agenda for justice in motion.
* Clara Zaffino ha conseguito un master in Studi Europei al Collegio d’Europa (Natolin), con specializzazione in migrazioni e cooperazione allo sviluppo. Ha maturato esperienze in ambito umanitario e progettuale in Uganda, Moldova e Spagna.
Commenti recenti