Women, Peace and Security at 25: Assessing Implementation through Gender Perspectives in Peace Agreements

The year 2025 marks the 25^th anniversary of the landmark UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). It also marks the fifth year of PeaceRep’s analysis of the PA-X Peace Agreement Database for references made to women, girls, and gender in peace agreements. In 2000, UNSCR 1325 acknowledged the differential impacts faced by women in conflict and recognised the key role of women in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and peace building. In this 25^th anniversary year, the ambitions underpinning UNSCR 1325 are confronting increasing numbers of violent conflicts, growing fragmentation of these conflicts and the means of resolving them, and a rapidly evolving global landscape presenting new challenges to peace and security.

Following the launch of Version 9 of the PA-X Peace Agreement Database, this analysis looks back not only at peace agreements signed in 2024, but also at broader trends in the implementation of the WPS agenda over the last quarter century of Resolution 1325 and the last five years of our own evaluations of these trends. One way that the success of the WPS agenda can be assessed is through the lens of peace agreements. Though only one aspect of often messy timelines, these agreements offer a glimpse at the inclusion of women in peace processes and how these processes incorporate a gendered perspective (if at all). Peace agreements provide blueprints for conflict transformation, set precedents for future constitutional designs and procedures, and establish arrangements and institutions that comprise post-agreement political settlements. From outset to outcomes (that is, from ceasefires and pre-negotiation talks to implementation), peace agreements have consequences for women, gender minorities, and sexual minorities.

In this blog, we draw conclusions from analysis of peace agreements included in the PA-X and PA-X Gender Databases and consider these in light of broader global trends in conflict and peacebuilding. Our quantitative analysis shows that UNSCR 1325’s central ambition that “all actors involved, when negotiating and implementing peace agreements, […] adopt a gender perspective” is not being reached. Not only do peace agreements often lack references which consider the differential and intersectional needs of women, girls, and sexual/gender minorities, but they often struggle to meet other requirements set out by 1325, such as incorporating measures to support women’s inclusion in peace processes and provisions expressly directed to upholding women’s human rights. Beyond peace agreement texts, peace processes cannot be considered to have taken a gender perspective without fully consulting women on negotiation structures and fora and assessing the implications of peace agreement provisions on people of different genders.

Although a relatively high number of peace agreements were recorded in 2024 and 2023 in comparison to years prior, this number of agreements does not address the increasing prevalence and bloodiness of violent conflict worldwide. The rate of gender provisions and provisions that discuss violence against women in peace agreements have also not increased, although reports of conflict-related sexual violence are climbing rapidly. Moreover, some of the world’s most violent conflicts have yet to reach formal peace agreements.

_________________________________________________________________________________

1. Peace agreements with references to women, girls, gender, and/or sexual violence in 2024

The PA-X Database hosts all peace agreements between 1990 and 2024, and the PA-X Gender sub-database includes those agreements that contain provisions referencing women, girls, gender, and/or sexual violence. PA-X publishes open-access annual data releases tracking both gender provisions in peace agreements and the actors who signed those agreements as parties or third parties, alongside analysis of the substantiveness of gender provisions and longitudinal trends.

In May 2025, PeaceRep launched Version 9 (V9) of the PA-X Peace Agreement Database, which comprises 36 (excluding local) new agreements reached in 2024.^[1]

This is a decrease from the 50 agreements reached in 2023, which was the highest number of agreements reached in any one year since 2014 (52). The high frequency of peace agreements recorded over the last two years (following 18 formal, written agreements recorded in 2022, 25 in 2021, and 21 in 2020) can be better understood through consideration of one key factor: peace processes in Colombia. Peace agreements from the Petro Peace Dialogues with the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), and connected dissident splinter groups, make up 62% of agreements in 2023, and 61% of agreements in 2024. This explains the relatively high number of peace agreements reached in 2023, as peace process documentation practices in Colombia provide for greater recordability (for example, agreements are frequently written and then published online, making them accessible and qualifying for publication in PA-X). Colombia’s significant contribution to peace agreement data has implications for analysing gender provisions in peace agreements for recent years, which we will address later in this analysis.

Peace agreements listed on PA-X for 2024 (excluding local) come from peace processes addressing conflict in Colombia, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, Haiti, Israel and Lebanon, Mali (Azawad), the Philippines (Mindanao), South Sudan, Sudan, and Yemen. These agreements were produced by the following 10 peace processes: the Colombia VII – Petro Peace Dialogues with ELN and the Petro Peace Dialogues with FARC-EP; the Angola-led process for Eastern DRC; the post-2022 Caribbean Community process in Haiti; the Israel-Lebanon peace process; the Inter-Azawad peace process in Mali; the Mindanao process in the Philippines; the South Sudan post-secession process; the Sudan Transition Process; and the Yemen peace process.

Analysis drawn from PA-X in June 2025 illustrates recent trends in gender provisions in peace agreements in 2024:

• 31% of peace agreements (11 out of 36 agreements) reached in 2024 included at least one provision referencing women, girls, gender, or sexual violence. Although this is an increase on gender provisions in 2023 (20%), and part of a positive trend since 1990, 31% is roughly in line with annual proportions over the last six years. Each year since 2018, the percentage of agreements referencing women, girls, gender, or sexual violence has ranged from between 20-30% of total peace agreements. The only year since 1990 that gender references have appeared in more than 50% of agreements was in 2015 (52%).

• In 2024, conflict parties signed peace agreements in ten peace processes; however, only four processes in three countries produced agreements which contained gender provisions: Colombia, South Sudan, and Sudan. The recent peace processes between the Colombian government, the FARC-EP, the ELN, and associated splinter groups, appear to be driving the prevalence of gender references in 2023 and 2024. These processes are generally more gender inclusive than other peace processes globally — both in terms of women’s and LGBTQI+ participation within the processes and in terms of resultant agreements. The percentage of peace processes with at least one agreement that contained a gender provision in 2024 (40%) is consistent with recent years (27% in 2023, 33% in 2022, 29% in 2021, and 43% in 2020).^[2]

• Gender provisions in 2024 primarily focused on women’s and LGBTQI+ effective participation in peace processes and political life, violence against women, equality and non-discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, conditions for women in detention, and the need for care and psychological first aid with a gender perspective in peace process fora.

• The “Tumaini Initiative: Protocols for Initialling” document in South Sudan was the only peace agreement in 2024 containing a gender quota, in which parties committed to “representation of … at least 35% of women across public institutions”. However, agreements from Colombia also set out specific commitments to women’s “direct, real and effective participation” in the FARC-EP process, and elements of the differential and rights-based approaches for women and LGBTQI+ people in the ELN process.

• In 2024, only two peace agreements included references to gender-based violence and violence against women, in Colombia and Sudan respectively. The ALPS Group Humanitarian Access Agreement in Sudan referred to the “ongoing…gross violations against women”, and a commitment from one of the conflict parties (the Rapid Support Forces) to “issue command directives to all fighters throughout their ranks to refrain from violations, including violence against women or children”. However, reports from Sudan in 2025 continue to name the RSF as responsible for perpetrating conflict-related sexual violence against women and girls. It’s also important to note that this agreement does not include similar commitments from the Sudanese Armed Forces, due to the contested nature of the talks.^[3] UN Women reported that between December 2023 and December 2024, there was a 288% increase in survivors of gender-based violence seeking support in Sudan, with all parties to the conflict being accused of perpetration.
• Only one peace agreement in 2024 included a reference to women having a role in implementation of the agreement and only one agreement was signed by a representative on behalf of women in 2024.^[4] This is consistent with PA-X longitudinal signatory data since 1990, although substantive reading of Colombian agreements in 2024 suggests that women’s representatives did participate in peace processes with the ELN and the FARC-EP, without necessarily signing on their behalf. For example, Acuerdo No. 28. Acuerdo Sobre El Desarrollo Del Proceso de Participación de La Sociedad en La Construcción de La Paz says, “according to what the women and men involved in this process have stated…” As Colombia demonstrates, the absence of a women’s representative signatory does not always mean women did not participate. However, signatory data is still a useful barometer for peace processes either not including women’s representatives as active, primary participants, or perhaps not considering their public endorsement as important for the agreement’s success.

2. Trends in gender provisions in peace agreements

• Quantitative analysis shows us that whilst there is a slightly positive trend in peace agreements containing textual references to women, girls, and gender since 1990, the percentage of peace agreements with gender references has ranged from between 20-30% since 2018. The only year since 1990 that gender references have appeared in more than 50% of agreements was in 2015 (52%). Given the small numbers of agreements involved, and the historic time lag in collecting and publishing agreements, it is too early to say whether this 20-30% plateau is here to stay. It is also difficult to posit how this might evolve, due to current flux within the international system, and recent or forecast cuts for WPS activities from leading donors, which is likely to impact gender advocacy work to influence peace processes.

• Qualitative analysis of peace agreements since 2020 also suggests that contemporary peace processes vary greatly in terms of the extent to which they incorporate a gender perspective.^[5] Whilst some peace processes have developed comprehensive, intersectional approaches to peace that attempt to mainstream gender, many continue to be high-level, exclusive negotiations that produce gender-blind peace agreements, or, at best, brief, sometimes rhetorical, references to ‘women’.

• Gender references in peace agreements have therefore generally not changed since the assessment made by the UNSG in their 2015 report that “very few of the examined agreements reflect comprehensive gender equality or women peace and security considerations”. Many UN member states that publicly support WPS are clearly struggling to translate their support into tangible, inclusive, gender-responsive peace process outcomes.

• The low number of references to Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CRSV), Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), and Gender-Based Violence (GBV) in peace agreements in recent years stands in stark contrast to the backdrop of rising levels of armed conflict globally since 2013. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) recorded 61 state-based conflicts worldwide in 2024, an increase from 2023, and “the highest number since statistics began in 1946”. According to UN Human Rights Office, “between 2023 and 2024, approximately four times more children and women were killed in armed conflicts compared with 2021-2022.” The lack of references to CRSV, VAWG, and GBV in most peace agreements in 2024 is even more concerning considering that data on these forms of violence in conflict are widely considered to be underreported and to not fully capture the scale of the problem, suggesting that gendered forms of violence are still not considered in peace process addressing conflicts where they are likely to be endemic.

• Furthermore, as in recent years, no formal peace agreements have been reached in some of the world’s most violent conflicts, including Gaza, Ukraine, and Myanmar. This means that reproductive genocide in Gaza, GBV in Ukraine, and CRSV in Myanmar are all gendered issues that could be addressed by mediation and political dialogue, but prospects for reaching agreements that embed a gender perspective in these conflicts remain low.
• PA-X did not record any comprehensive agreements at the inter-state and intra-state level in 2024, which was also the case in 2023. There may be several reasons for this: some current conflicts did not reach a formal stage of producing written agreements in 2024; and some of the parties in 2024 peace processes were concentrating on early stages of agreeing on how they will continue to talk (pre-negotiation). However, this could also reflect the current multiplicity of mediators and mediation activities taking place, which may reach more short-term or pragmatic agreements between distinct groupings of conflict parties but not bring together most conflict parties and relevant third parties into a coherent process with a clear goal of an overarching settlement.
• This lack of comprehensive and collaborative approaches to ending conflicts could have consequences for gender perspectives in peace agreements, given that research suggests that gender references are more commonly included in comprehensive agreements than at any other agreement stage. Similarly, an increase in pre-negotiation agreements in recent years could be a concern for gender equality advocates due to the often-closed nature of this process stage, with conversations held between high-level, mostly male, political and military elites. However, it is also an opportunity to rethink the gendered power dynamics of early stage talks and pre-negotiation processes to better understand how gender perspectives could be integrated into this important stage of agenda-setting.

Conclusion

PA-X Version 9 arrives in time to evaluate the trajectory and impact of UNSCR 1325 at a critical moment, not only at its 25th anniversary, but also as violent conflict is on the rise worldwide and prominent WPS donors are retreating from global leadership. Though only one indicator for measuring the progress of the WPS agenda, peace agreements allow us to discern broader trends in gender perspectives and women’s inclusion in peace processes.

Over the last five years our annual peace agreement analysis, we have assessed the WPS agenda and noted the changing nature of conflict — peace processes, like conflicts themselves, are increasingly fragmented. Gender-blind agreements remain the majority of peace agreements produced, and even those agreements that do mention gender rarely provide substantive references to violence against women. The inclusion of women in peacebuilding processes (as recorded) remains limited, and conflict is intensifying. What does this mean for UNSCR 1325 and advancing gendered perspectives in 2025 and beyond?

We are in a very different world than when Resolution 1325 was written and passed. The nature of conflict is changing rapidly, and peace-making is changing as well. From a gender equality perspective, these peace-making shifts present new challenges, at the same time as WPS advocacy faces a wider backlash. From international aid cuts to an emboldened anti-gender movement, bolstered patriarchal orders are threatening long-standing efforts to ensure women’s participation in peace-making and the incorporation of gender perspectives in conflict prevention and resolution. However, the text of 1325 remains rooted in women’s lived experiences of conflict, and the work of women peacebuilders’ tireless activism to mainstream those experiences into international peace-making architecture. Its aims remain relevant and important, and the problems it seeks to address are unrelenting.

After 25 years of actions, investment, and initiatives, the WPS agenda appears to be facing a moment of existential crisis. Though on paper, our world has become more aware of the widespread gendered harms of violent conflict, in practice, these differential impacts are not being addressed. We cannot, however, accept this as the norm. In the words of UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada Al-Nashif, “when women do not have an equal place at the table we all lose: that was the impetus behind Security Council Resolution 1325 adopted twenty-five years ago.” At this critical juncture, representation and inclusion matter, and strategies to ensure this must be re-evaluated, adapted for the modern day, and reinvested in, as we continue to push for women’s meaningful participation in every stage of preventing conflict and building peace.

[1] PA-X Peace Agreements Database, Version 9, 2024. PA-X includes agreements from a wider variety of negotiation practices – including some local agreements that are not associated with conflicts in which there have been more than 25 battle-related deaths (UCDP conflict threshold). These types of local agreements can be excluded from the search if all Agreement/Conflict levels are selected, except for Intrastate/local (other) [IntraLocal]. The analysis in this submission excludes local agreements.

[2] Analysis based on PA-X Version 9, using metadata Peace Process, Agreement Stage (to exclude local), Date, and Women, Girls and Gender (PA-X Main). This analysis attempts to address the high percentage of peace agreements from Colombia in 2024, by comparing gender references across peace processes rather than agreements.

[3] See agreement description for more information about the agreement and its inclusion in PA-X Version 9. Sudan, 23/08/2024, ALPS Group Humanitarian Access Agreement in Sudan. Agreement ID: 2732. https://www.peaceagreements.org/agreements/wgg/2732/

[4] Bridget Nagomoro signed the Tumaini Initiative: Tumaini Consensus for Sustainable Peace in South Sudan: Protocols for Initialling with the affiliation ’Women’. South Sudan, 15/07/2024, Tumaini Initiative: Tumaini Consensus for Sustainable Peace in South Sudan: Protocols for Initialing. Agreement ID: 2614. https://www.peaceagreements.org/agreements/wgg/2614/; For how PA-X codes for Women’s Representatives as signatories, see Bell, C., et al. (2025). PA-X Gender Peace Agreements Database and Dataset, Version 9. www.peaceagreements.org/wggsearch

[5] The textual variation of provisions in peace agreements means that qualitative approaches are essential for analysing peace agreements from a gender perspective. Two agreements may both have a value 1 on PA-X Gender for references to women’s participation, but one of those agreements could include a commitment to promote the participation of women in the political process, whilst the other agreement could include a reference providing for a numerical quota for women representatives in a transitional government. Although both gender references are hard-won, and value judgements should be avoided, the second reference is more specific as to how women will tangibly participate, and would be easier to monitor for implementation, therefore holding parties to account for their gender commitments. Whilst peace agreements with a higher PA-X Gender ’score’ (containing references in more than one sub-category, and therefore addressing more than one gendered issue) could be thought of as more substantive than an agreement with a provision in only one category, there could still be an important qualitative difference in the strength of the language and the robustness of the commitment.

About the authors:

Laura Wise is a Senior Research Fellow and Programme Coordinator at PeaceRep, based at the University of Edinburgh, researching peace processes and the politics of inclusion.

Fiona Campbell is a Research Assistant at Edinburgh Law School, focusing primarily on peace processes, the role of regional organisations, and Women Peace and Security.

Explore PA-X Gender

Peace Agreements in 2024: Insights from the PA-X Database