The field of international relations has long debated the meaning of security and its proper place in global politics (Ullman 1983). In recent years, this debate has focused on what should be considered in the realm of international security, and many scholars have made a practice out of securitizing issues that are not conventionally seen as matters of security. Issues, such as the environment (Deudney 1990; Kakonen 1994; Litfin 1999) and HIV/AIDS (Chen 2003; Elbe 2006; Price-Smith 2001; Prins 2004), are some of the nonmilitary issues that have been—for better or for worse—framed as international security concerns in both academic and policy circles. But while the security debate, especially in light of human rights discourse, is engaging conceptually (and even a useful teaching tool), as responsible scholars we must ask ourselves how the application of this security framework affects policy and practice for these nontraditional security issues. In other words, does the security framework really help bring global attention to issues and groups of people that are normally marginalized? Has it meant more resources and more involvement by state and non-state actors? Or has it resulted in narrow, self-interested, and even militaristic responses to complex social problems? This article sheds light on these questions by analyzing women and the issue of gender equality as it has been securitized by UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Using the securitization theory put forth by Buzan, Wver, and de Wilde (1998), it empirically explores the benefits and drawbacks of this process within the context of women's activism in the UN both in terms of political efficacy and normative implications.
展开▼
