Over the past several years, international crises, armed conflicts, and transnational threats have led many states to strengthen their defense capabilities and security apparatuses. In this context, marked by growing geopolitical tensions that have contributed, among other developments, to the war in Ukraine and to instability in Sudan, it is legitimate for states to seek to protect their populations and ensure their security. However, this trend is often accompanied by a renewed focus on security policies centered primarily on military approaches and a narrow understanding of security. On their own, such approaches appear insufficient to address the complexity of contemporary conflicts or to prevent the emergence of proxy wars.
From the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which sought to ease Cold War tensions, to the concept of human security formalized by the United Nations in 1994, the international community has gradually recognized that sustainable security also depends on prevention, dialogue, the inclusion of gender perspectives, and the protection of human rights.
In my role as Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Adviser within the Peace and Human Rights Division (PHRD) of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), and through my close collaboration with colleagues working on formal and informal peace processes, I observe that militarization can undermine the conditions necessary for women’s meaningful participation in peace processes. This trend reshapes political priorities, influences resource allocation, and determines which forms of knowledge and leadership are valued in decision-making processes. In many of the contexts where the PHRD is active, women peacebuilders already operate in fragile environments marked by violence and instability. As military approaches gain prominence, these actors often find their room for maneuver in public life shrinking. The gendered consequences of militarization are significant. The work of women peacebuilders can become increasingly difficult in contexts where dialogue and social cohesion remain essential.
We observe this in Sudan, Ukraine, and Colombia. Women are often among the first to respond to conflict. They assume multiple roles in supporting their communities, develop innovative local solutions, and mediate between conflict-affected groups. In doing so, they sustain formal and informal spaces for dialogue between divided communities and address the social and economic dimensions of violence that are too often overlooked in formal peace processes. Yet their participation remains limited in the decision-making spaces where peace and security policies are shaped.
A narrow conception of security reinforces this exclusion. It privileges hierarchical and state-centric forms of power, leaving little room for inclusive and locally driven approaches, despite their widely recognized importance for peacebuilding efforts. This is not to suggest that women are inherently better suited to promoting peace. Like men, women do not constitute a homogeneous group: their experiences, interests, priorities, and perspectives vary widely. However, in many contexts, the social roles assigned to women provide them with distinct experiences of community life and social cohesion. Taking these perspectives into account can enrich peace and security efforts.
The PHRD adopts a comprehensive approach to peace and security, shaped largely by the experiences and priorities of people affected by conflict. A key objective is to strengthen women’s participation in peace and governance processes. In Sudan, for example, the PHRD continues to work with Sudanese women in partnership with the Berghof Foundation despite escalating militarization and ongoing war. Grounded in a carefully designed mediation approach, the Entebbe Initiative has created spaces for dialogue in which women from different sides of the conflict develop ceasefire proposals, translate international humanitarian law into practical action, demonstrate their legitimacy as participants in high-level peace processes, and contribute ideas for a democratic political transition. This work is taking place in a context characterized by both intensified militarization and active conflict.
In some contexts, we have observed that legal frameworks adopted in the name of security can be used to restrict civil society or even place women at greater risk. Our partners frequently describe the growing dangers they face simply for organizing dialogue initiatives or speaking publicly about peace.
This trend also raises important questions about its impact on other dimensions of security, including the actual security of different population groups. When resources are invested primarily in military solutions, opportunities for prevention, mediation, and long-term peacebuilding are often pushed aside. When security is defined too narrowly, the everyday insecurities experienced by populations—economic marginalization, social exclusion, and gender-based violence—may receive insufficient attention, making sustainable crisis management more difficult.
Creating the conditions for lasting peace also requires strengthening preventive approaches, particularly through dialogue, mediation, and conflict prevention efforts. It means building bridges between security actors and civil society while placing human security back at the center of the debate. This is precisely the ambition of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which Switzerland has championed for decades, and which remains an integral part of its foreign peace policy.