The Gendered Impact of Weapons on Women and Girls: an Overview
Lara Brett, Head of Communications YSC
What is the link between disarmament and feminism? What are the ways in which arms can uniquely impact women, girls and marginalised communities? As part of our ‘Women in Security series,’ we will examine how the arms industry perpetuates harm against vulnerable groups and how a greater understanding of feminist theory could enhance our understanding of this harm and help to create tailored solutions to help those most at risk.
Source: Pixaby (UserID: 34131767)
-
The term ‘disarmament’ generally refers to agreements to reduce or abolish the use of weapons and/or troops. ‘Arms’ control’ are attempts to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict starting (WAARP. n.d.).
-
In 1915, 1500 women from around the world attended the International Congress of Women in The Hague. They called for an end to the war in Europe and adopted 20 resolutions for peace, including one for “universal disarmament,” to prevent future conflicts (Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2020). Women also played a leading role in the organisation of peace camps across the world in the 1980s. In 2000, over 1800 women gathered in Hiroshima to protest against nuclear proliferation (United Nations, 2001).
Disarmament and gender roles
Research shows that “men tend to be the primary armed combatants,” with women typically assuming supporting roles. However, that is not to say that women cannot participate in armed conflict and that there is a strict binary of ‘powerful’ male fighters and ‘weak’ female victims (United Nations, 2001b). According to Acheson,
“The framing of women as the most “adversely affected,” together with children, creates a narrative of their vulnerability in comparison to men—even though men are more likely to be the direct victims. But despite exposure to particular acts or consequences of armed conflict and armed violence, women are no more inherently vulnerable than men. Discrimination and sexism tend to make recourse to defence or remedy more difficult, but to suggest that women are more adversely affected is incorrect. Women are also not legally, politically, or physically comparable as a group to children or the elderly. Nor are women a homogenous group.” Furthermore, such comparisons deprive women of their agency in disarmament processes, by reinforcing the idea that women are incapable of making effective decisions and render such processes ineffective. These gender stereotypes are also harmful to men. They cast men in the role of the protector, which necessitates their participation in conflict and makes their lives more expendable (Acheson, 2019).
It is also important to note that women are still endangered by weapons after the fighting has formally ended. For example, they may experience domestic violence at the hands of men reluctant to give up their weapons, which “may be symbolic of surrendering power and male identity” (United Nations, 2001b).
Indeed, research shows that “there is a strong correlation between carrying guns and notions of masculinity.” Armed conflict can also exacerbate what qualifies as ‘masculine’ behaviour, as peer pressure can encourage more aggressive behaviour and efforts to subjugate women (Reaching Critical Will, n.d). There is a need for more research on the intersections of gender roles and gun violence.
What is the link between disarmament and gender-based violence?
Gender-based violence is “violence that is directed at a person based on her or his specific sex or gender role in society. It is linked to the gendered identity of being a woman, man, intersex, transsexual, or transgendered.” It may manifest as sexual violence, physical violence, emotional and psychological violence or socioeconomic violence (Acheson, 2015).
Such violence may also be structural or cultural, termed ‘invisible violence’ by Acheson: “Patriarchal norms and tradition” shape the impact of armed conflict on women. As they are already socially subjugated, they are further disadvantaged by issues that stem from armed conflict, such as displacement, hunger and lack of infrastructure.
For example, men and boys are more likely to die from armed violence, whereas women, girls and marginalised genders “suffer disproportionally from gender-based violence (GBV).” One third of global femicides involve the use of firearms and Acheson also notes that all forms of weapons can facilitate GBV (Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2020). What is more, conflict increases the levels of violence directed towards women and puts them at greater risk of sexual violence, with survivors having little recourse to justice (Reaching Critical Will, n.db.)
The gendered impacts of arms on women
-
According to the 2005 International Tracing Instrument (ITI), ‘“Small arms” are, broadly speaking, weapons designed for individual use. They include, inter alia, revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns” (Overton, 2021).
The gendered impacts of small arms are complicated. Whilst men comprise the majority of victims of gun violence, they are also the majority of small arms owners and users. This is true for conflict and peacetime. On the other hand, women are more impacted by specific issues, such as domestic violence facilitated by small arms (United Nations, 2001b).
On the whole, “there is consensus that they [small arms] exacerbate conflicts and increase risks for civilian populations.” A gendered analysis of this issue highlights who is most impacted by the ownership and use of small arms proliferation, drawing attention to broader questions of how these weapons infringe upon the human rights of the victims (United Nations, 2001b).
-
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) defines a chemical weapon as one “used to cause intentional death or harm through its toxic properties.” This may include the chemicals used to produce such weapons (known as ‘precursors’) and ‘dual-use items,’ such as chemicals initially produced for peaceful civilian use which become later used for chemical weapons (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. n.d.)
The 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed these weapons and prompted widespread destruction efforts from eight states. In July 2023, the United States announced that it had destroyed the last of its supplies. However, chemical weapons have been deployed in Syria and there are concerns they could be used in Ukraine. Four countries, including North Korea, are yet to accede to the Convention (Auswärtiges Amt, 2023).
Exposure to chemical weapons can harm women’s fertility and cause miscarriages. Men and women may have different “levels of susceptibility [...] to toxic agents,” as gender roles may mean that women are exposed in different ways, due to their role as caregivers. Gender roles can also influence protocols for medical treatment. A greater understanding of the gendered impact of chemical weapons can consequently facilitate recovery from such attacks, which enhances social security (UNIDIR, 2021).
-
Explosive weapons include, but are not limited to, bombs, grenades, mines and missiles. They “use explosive force to affect an area around the point of detonation, usually through the effects of blast and fragmentation” (Reaching Critical Will, n.d.b). Such weapons can cause death and injury, as well as a multitude of psychological effects on survivors. Blast waves can cause pregnant people to miscarry, through damage to the placenta. Furthermore, women survivors are more likely to face social stigmatisation and marginalisation, as a result of disfigurement and societal pressure for women to meet certain beauty standards. According to the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS), the greatest proportion of landmine victims are male, but women face greater difficulties in accessing emergency care and rehabilitation services. Such difficulties are further compounded by destroyed healthcare infrastructure and by making people fearful to move around in times of conflict. This can also make it harder for humanitarian organisations to aid women. Explosive weapons that damage residential areas and markets can especially impact women, as they are responsible for running the household and buying goods. This can especially be the case if women have had to take on additional responsibilities, if the male heads of household have been killed or incapacitated by, or are absent due to conflict. In times of conflict, women may be at risk of domestic violence, if men feel humiliated by being unable to “play their traditional role as a provider [...] [or] “protect their family from harm.” Women heads of households may face “systemic discrimination [...] in the labour market,” especially one that faces additional pressures from conflict. They may also face physical and sexual violence. One example may be women “being forced to provide sexual acts in return for basic needs and protection.” Moreover, the destruction of houses and other social structures increase the risk of displacement. Displaced women are at an even higher risk of gender-based violence, such as rape and trafficking (UNIDIR, n.d.b).
Research on the gendered impacts of explosive weapons is limited. However, a report from Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) shows that explosive weapons have gendered effects on women in Iraq. Out of 30,521 incidents of explosive weapons documented there from 2003-2010, just 40% of civilian casualties recorded the victim’s sex.
Explosive weapons killed a higher proportion of women and children than gunfire. This may be because such weapons “may be used against targets at greater distance and/or may produce wider area effects due to greater explosive yield” (quoted in UNIDIR, n.d.b).
One particular gendered impact is that on reproductive health. Iraq has one of the region's highest maternal death rates and is also one of the countries most affected by explosive weapons. Better healthcare access could reduce maternal death rates by up to 80%, but the healthcare sector was dramatically impacted by the US-led invasion of Iraq. From 2003-2011, 628 health workers were killed and 18,000 out of the country’s 34,000 moved abroad This would have also limited the availability of healthcare after the conflict, as there would have been fewer personnel to train new staff, resulting in long-term staff shortages.
Finally, data from the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) showed that households led by women are especially vulnerable to the impacts of poverty, social discrimination and lack of access to basic rights such as clean drinking water (Reaching Critical Will, n.d.b).
Although “women are disproportionately impacted by certain kinds of violence and do face unique consequences from armed conflict and armed violence [...] the vast majority of direct victims of armed conflict and armed violence are men” (Acheson, 2019).
Hence, there is a need for disaggregated gender data to better comprehend the complex gendered impacts of explosive weapons.
-
There is growing concern over the impact of autonomous weapons systems on conflict. These weapons are programmed by humans to operate independently, using algorithms and data analysis to select their targets. As of 2020, 12 countries were thought to have deployed or developed over 380 partly autonomous weapon systems, such as China, Russia and the US.
It is argued that these weapons will be more “precise” than humans, which would reduce the risk to soldiers. However, opponents assert that such weapons would cause more civilian deaths, if they cannot distinguish between soldiers and civilians. There are also concerns that these weapons “comply with international humanitarian law or human rights law, make war more likely, encourage an arms race, destabilise international relations, and have moral consequences such as undermining human dignity.” This is because machines “lack the inherently human characteristics such as compassion that are necessary to make complex ethical choices.”
Such issues raise further questions of accountability. It is unclear whether soldiers, military commanders or programmers should be held responsible for any war crimes that the machines could commit. This would make it harder for victims to seek justice. Moreover, the “low risk” perception of these weapons could lower “the threshold for war,” facilitating violence or the use of machines for “border control and policing.” Acheson argues that eliminating the human impact of war could make citizens of the deploying country indifferent to conflict, which I believe would make it easier for governments to perpetuate attacks against opponents or minorities. Indeed, WILPF has expressed concerns over such weapons being programmed with “target profiles” that could select targets on the basis of their gender, race or other characteristics. Alternatively, such software could be programmed to respond only to certain groups. Research already suggests that facial recognition software cannot recognise people or colour or that voice recognition software may not respond to “women’s voices or non-North American accents.” Acheson also emphasises the vulnerability of autonomous weapons to cyberattacks or hacking (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, n.d.).
WILPF advocates for a legally binding international treaty that would “prohibit the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons.” The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (of which WILPF is a founding member) aims to raise awareness of the harm that such weapons could cause, especially to women and marginalised communities. Acheson believes that “technology companies, tech workers, scientists, academics, and others involved in developing artificial intelligence or robotics” should vow to “never contribute to the development of fully autonomous weapons,” as well as pledges of non-support from financial institutions (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, n.d.).
Twenty nine countries from the Global South and post-colonial countries have already called for fully autonomous weapons to be prohibited. Within the UN, the Non-Aligned Movement advocates for a legally binding instrument for this purpose.
Austria, Brazil and Chile tabled a recommendation for states “to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to ensure meaningful human control over the critical functions” of such weapons in 2018. That year, the European Parliament adopted a resolution for the “an international ban on weapon systems that lack human control over the use of force.” France and Germany also proposed a political declaration that highlights the need for human control and accountability (which is significant, given France’s use of autonomous weapons). Such measures are blocked by Australia, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States, on the grounds of these mechanisms being “premature” (Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, n.d.).
Disarmament treaties
-
The UNGA’s Programme of Action to Prevent (UNPoA), Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (UN Small Arms Process) came into force in 2001. This non-legally binding agreement addresses some aspects of the illegal trade of small and light weapons (SALW) (SIPRI, n.d.).
Since 1945, three multilateral arms control treaties have incorporated gender provisions: the Arms Trade Treaty (2013), the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017) and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (2018) (UNODA, n.d.).
In 2010, the United Nations’ General Assembly adopted resolution 65/69 on women, disarmament, nonproliferation and arms control. As of 2021, there were nineteen UNGA disarmament resolutions that take into account the gender impact of arms (UNODA, 2021).
-
This treaty applies to a variety of weapons, such as battle tanks, warships and small arms and light weapons (Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2020).
It is the first treaty that establishes “common standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons” (Woolcott, 2013). Since entering into force in 2014, 112 countries have signed the treaty and 29 are yet to ratify it (Arms Trade Treaty, n.d.). It was the first treaty to acknowledge the correlation between the international arms trade and gender-based violence (GBV). The ATT outlines that countries exporting weapons must conduct risk assessments that “take into account the risk of the conventional arms [covered by the ATT] being used to commit or facilitate serious acts of gender-based violence or serious acts of violence against women and children” (Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2020).
Activist Ray Acheson had argued that the ATT and the UNPoA do not “engage with the concept of gender, except in reference to gender-based violence in the ATT.” They assert that the treaties focus on women’s “vulnerability rather than their agency,” without, for example, acknowledging that women may be militants. Acheson further argues that other major agreements, such as UN General Assembly resolutions on women, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control and UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security sufficiently “incorporate a comprehensive gender perspective into their conceptions of power in relation to weapons use, trade, and proliferation.” Nevertheless, they stress that “they mostly do better than the ATT and UNPoA on their own in terms of promoting women’s participation in peace and security initiatives and in recognising the different roles that women and girls can inhabit.” Furthermore,
“The Convention on Cluster Munitions and the UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security (WPS) require certain actions to mitigate this harm, whether through victim assistance or mechanisms to prevent gender-based violence (GBV), particularly sexual violence, in armed conflict. This fits well with the ATT’s legally binding provision aimed at preventing arms transfers that risk facilitating acts of GBV” (Acheson, 2019).
How are UN entities promoting gender equality within the context of disarmament?
The 2010 UN General Assembly was the first to address gender equality within this context (Resolution 65/69). The adoption of Resolution 75/48 called for women’s full and equal participation in disarmament processes and for Member States to comprehend the intersection of gender-based violence and weapons proliferation (UNODA, 2021).
Ms Izumi Nakamitsu has led the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs and High Representative since 2017 and she is also an International Gender Champion (Rushing, 2022). This means that she cannot participate in single-sex panels and must challenge sexism through the non-Gender-Based Violence Pledge. UNODA has undertaken various measures to implement gender equality. It produces annual reports on the United Nations accountability framework for gender mainstreaming to measure its own progress (UNODAb, n.d.). UNODA also “advocates for applying a gender lens to all disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation discussions and activities, taking into consideration the different realities and approaches of Member States” and “collects disaggregated participation data from all activities it organizes,” among other initiatives (UNODA, 2021). Moreover, the ambassadors of Ambassadors of Australia, Ireland, Namibia, the Philippines, and the Director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) co-chair the International Gender Champions Disarmament Impact Group. This forum “seeks to promote dialogue, shared knowledge and the pursuit of concrete opportunities to advance gender-responsive action within disarmament processes” (UNIDIR, n.d.).
However, it could be argued that some ATT State Parties do not uphold the Treaty, by providing arms to areas of conflict. Sweden was the first country to adopt a Feminist Foreign Policy and advocated for the advancement of the WPS agenda during its non-permanent participation in the UN Security Council from 2017-2018. Researchers have noted that Sweden did not adequately address the impact of weapons on women’s safety and that it exported weapons to actors implicated in the war in Yemen during that time. Germany is also a State Party to the ATT. Its current National Action Plan for the WPS stresses German support for women’s participation in conflict prevention, including disarmament, but does not make specific mention to conflict prevention as a whole. The Campaign Against Arms Trade notes that Germany exported 200 million Euros’ worth of SALW and ammunition to the US in 2019. Although the US is not a warzone, its frequent and devastating cases of gun violence have been a widely documented threat to women and marginalised communities. Furthermore, out 26 out of 84 NAPs in 2019 made reference to disarmament (Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2020).
Gender equality within the context of UN disarmament initiatives - the reality
Despite these measures, the UN itself has a long way to go in closing the gender gap in the field of disarmament. The 2019 study ‘Still behind the curve’ by the UNIDIR found that women comprised just a third of the diplomats present at 84 multilateral meetings on arms control and disarmament. States with just a single representative almost always send a male candidate, with low-income states tending to have less gender-equal representation. The Latin American and Caribbean Group and the Western European and Others Groups were those with the highest number of women delegates. Women were also less likely to be in senior roles. On the whole,
“The proportion of women participating in disarmament diplomacy has grown steadily over the last four decades, from less than 10 per cent of participants in 1980 to approximately 30 per cent in 2015. However, given that women are 50 per cent of society at large, they still remain underrepresented in this area of diplomacy” (UNIDIRb, n.d.).
Such discrepancies may be explained by factors such as “the perceived binary hierarchies between male–female and hard–soft policy issues, the military nature of the subject matter, work-life balance, and institutional and informal practices that sustain gendered hierarchies and divisions of labour” (Dalaqua, Kjølv Egeland, Graff, 2019). Regarding the UN Security Council, ten members and groups referenced disarmament or reduced military spending in the 2021 open debate on the WPS Agenda. This compares to mentions from three out of the 15 members the previous year (UNODAc, n.d.). Research by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) found that out of the 98 UN Member States that have a National Action Plan on the WPS Agenda, just 31 reference disarmament (UNODAc, n.d.).
Bibliography
Acheson, Ray. 2015. “Gender-Based Violence and the Arms Trade Treaty.” 2015. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/GBV_ATT-brief-2015_2nd-edition.pdf.
Acheson, Ray. 2019. “Women, Weapons and War: A Gendered Critique of Multilateral Instruments.” March 2019. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/women-weapons-war-2nd-edition.pdf.
Arms Trade Treaty, n.d. “The Arms Trade Treaty | Home Page.” n.d. ATT. https://thearmstradetreaty.org/.
Auswärtiges Amt. 2023, July 11. “Milestone along the Way to Disarmament: Last Officially Declared Chemical Weapons Have Been Destroyed.” German Federal Foreign Office. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/aussenpolitik/themen/-/2607678.
Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy; Heinrich Böll Stiftung. 2020. “Policy Brief: Why the International Arms Trade Is a Feminist Issue - and What Germany Can Do about It.” Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy, November. https://centreforffp.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/CFFP_hbs_policybrief_internationalarmstradefeministissue.pdf.
Dalaqua, Renata Hessmann, Kjølv Egeland, and Torbjørn Graff Hugo. 2019. “Still behind the Curve: Gender Balance in Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Diplomacy.” UNIDIR. 2019. https://www.unidir.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/still-behind-the-curve-en-808.pdf.
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. n.d. “What Is a Chemical Weapon?” n.d. OPCW. https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon.
Overton, Iain. 2021. “What Is a Small Arm?” AOAV, July. https://aoav.org.uk/2016/what-is-a-small-arm/.
Reaching Critical Will, n.da. “Critical Issues.” n.d. https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/4741-gender-and-disarmament.
Reaching Critical Will, n.db. “Women and Explosive Weapons.” https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/WEW.pdf.
Rushing, Elizabeth. 2022. “‘Catching up with the Curve’: The Participation of Women in Disarmament Diplomacy.” Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog, August. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/08/25/catching-curve-participation-women-disarmament-diplomacy/.
SIPRI, n.d. “Differences between the ‘United Nations Programme of Action’ and the ‘United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.’” n.d. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/research/disarmament/dualuse/pdf-archive-att/pdfs/iansa-differences-between-the-united-nations-programme-of-action-and-the-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty.pdf.
UNIDIR. 2021. “Gender Equality in the Chemical Weapons Regime.” 2021. UNIDIR. 2021. https://unidir.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/UNIDIR_Factsheet_Gender%20and%20Chemical%20Weapons_2021.pdf.
UNIDIR, n.d. “Partners and Publications | UNIDIR.” n.d. https://unidir.org/partners-and-resources.
UNIDIR, n.db. “Gender Balance | Gender and Disarmament | UNIDIR.” n.d. https://www.unidir.org/gender-balance.
United Nations, 2001a. “What Are the Linkages between Gender Perspectives and Weapons of Mass Destruction?” 2001. The Department for Disarmament Affairs in Collaboration With the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women,United Nations. March 2001. https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/HomePage/gender/docs/note1.pdf.
United Nations, 2001b. “What Are the Linkages between Small Arms Issues and Gender Perspectives?” 2001. United Nations the Department for Disarmament Affairs in Collaboration With the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and the Advancement of Women. March 2001. https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/HomePage/gender/docs/note3.pdf.
UNODA, 2021. “UNODA Gender Policy 2021-2025.” 2021. UN Office for Disarmarment Affairs, December.
https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/unoda-gender-policy.pdf.
UNODA, n.da. “Gender in Disarmament Resolutions and Treaties – UNODA.” n.d. https://disarmament.unoda.org/topics/gender-in-disarmament-resolutions-and-treaties/
UNODAb, n.db. “UNODA Gender Policy – UNODA.” n.d. https://disarmament.unoda.org/topics/gender-policy/.
UNODA, n.dc. “Women, Peace and Security and Disarmament – UNODA.” n.d. https://disarmament.unoda.org/topics/women-peace-and-security-and-disarmament/.
WAARP. n.d. “A Short History of Disarmament and Arms Control | War and Peace.” https://warpp.info/en/m7/articles/m7-01.
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. n.d. “A WILPF Guide to Killer Robots.” n.d. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/wilpf-guide-aws.pdf.
Woolcott, Peter. 2013. “Arms Trade Treaty.” UN Audiovisual Library of International Law. April 2, 2013. https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/att/att.html.
This article was written and researched as part of our new social media and website series on women in security, which aims to cover women’s representation, participation, and influence in security, peace building and development.
Want to keep reading? See here for a selection of our other publications or click the ‘Publications & Media’ section:
