From Global Norms to Regional Practice: A Comparative Analysis of the Implementation of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) Agenda in ASEAN Member States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68320/civiltry.v3i2.102Keywords:
Women, Peace and Security, ASEAN, UNSCR 1325, Norm Localization, National Action Plan, Southeast Asia, Feminist Security StudiesAbstract
This article presents a comparative qualitative analysis of how four ASEAN member states—the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Myanmar—implement the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda as set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 of 2000 and its successor resolutions. Drawing on the frameworks of Feminist Security Studies and Acharya's Norm Localization Theory, the study examines how the global WPS norm is translated into diverse national and regional contexts through National Action Plans (WPS NAPs) and the newly adopted ASEAN Regional Plan of Action on WPS for the period 2023 to 2027. Departing from prior scholarship, which has been largely descriptive-narrative or single-country in focus (Cook & True, 2020; UN Women & ASEAN, 2021), this article develops a four-category typology of localization—deep localization, partial localization, ideological localization, and blocked localization—as a novel theoretical contribution to Acharya's (2004) Norm Localization Theory. To strengthen the empirical basis of this typology, the article draws on data from the Women, Peace and Security Index 2025/26 (GIWPS & PRIO, 2025), an internationally validated instrument comprising thirteen measurable indicators across three dimensions—inclusion, justice, and security—to map the comparative position of the four case countries. The analysis reveals significant variation in WPS commitment and implementation across the region, shaped by domestic political structures, conflict dynamics, and the degree of civil society engagement. The Philippines demonstrates the most advanced implementation trajectory, with a fourth-generation WPS NAP, whereas Myanmar has yet to establish a formal WPS framework amid ongoing armed conflict. Indonesia and Vietnam occupy intermediate positions with markedly different localization processes. The article argues that effective WPS implementation in ASEAN requires more than mere policy formalization; it demands the meaningful engagement of women in conflict prevention and peacebuilding at both grassroots and national levels. These findings contribute to the growing literature on the regionalization of WPS in Asia by addressing the theoretical and empirical gaps left by earlier studies, and offer practical implications for strengthening ASEAN's gender and security governance architecture within the 2023 to 2027 Regional Plan of Action cycle. The policy implications are directed at the ASEAN Committee on Women (ACW) and the ACWC with a view to strengthening accountability in the implementation of the Regional Plan of Action.
References
Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–275.
Acharya, A. (2011). Norm subsidiarity and regional orders: Sovereignty, regionalism, and rule-making in the third world. International Studies Quarterly, 55(1), 95–123.
Bélanger, D., & Khuất, T. H. (2008). Social policies and the challenges of Doi Moi. In B. Womack (Ed.), Vietnam's new order. Palgrave Macmillan.
Björkdahl, A., & Selimovic, J. M. (2015). Gendering agency in transitional justice. Security Dialogue, 46(2), 165–182.
Cohn, C. (2008). Mainstreaming gender in UN security policy: A path to political transformation? In S. M. Rai & G. Waylen (Eds.), Global governance: Feminist perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cook, S., & True, J. (2020). The ASEAN regional architecture and the women, peace and security agenda: More than a footnote? Global Governance, 26(3), 463–487.
Cortell, A. P., & Davis, J. W. (2000). Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: A research agenda. International Studies Review, 2(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00184
Davies, S. E., & True, J. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of women, peace, and security. Oxford University Press.
Ellerby, K. (2013). (En)gendered security? The complexities of women's inclusion in peace processes. International Interactions, 39(4), 435–460.
Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives. University of California Press.
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS), & Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). (2025). Women, Peace and Security Index 2025/26. GIWPS and PRIO. https://giwps.georgetown.edu/the-index
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, & Peace Research Institute Oslo. (2025). Women, Peace and Security Index 2025/26 [PDF]. Georgetown University. https://giwps.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/WPS-Index-2025-Report.pdf
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, & Peace Research Institute Oslo. (2025). Women, Peace and Security Index 2025/26: Data [Data set]. Georgetown University. https://giwps.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/WPS-Index-2025-Data.xlsx
Hamilton, C. (2025). The regionalization of women, peace and security: ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum. International Affairs, 101(6), 2173–2196.
Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110380439
McKay, S., & Santos, S. (2020). Women and peacebuilding in Mindanao: Challenges and opportunities. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 8(1), 25–47.
Otto, D. (2016). Women, peace and security: A critical analysis of the Security Council's vision. In F. Ní Aoláin et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and conflict. Oxford University Press.
Philippine Commission on Women. (2023). Fourth national action plan on women, peace, and security 2023–2033. PCW.
Pratt, N., & Richter-Devroe, S. (2011). Critically examining UNSCR 1325 on women, peace and security. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 13(4), 489–503.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. Wiley-Interscience.
Putri, S. D., & Sundrijo, D. A. (2024). Understanding Acharya's concept on norms localization: A lesson learned from localization of transnational norms on anti-female genital mutilation in Gorontalo, Indonesia. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 7(2), 920–930.
Shepherd, L. J. (2011). Sex, security and superhero(in)es: From 1325 to 1820 and beyond. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 13(4), 504–521.
Swaine, A. (2015). Assessing the state of affairs of national action plans. Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.
Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security. Columbia University Press.
True, J., & Shepherd, L. J. (2017). The politics of implementing WPS: The challenges of accountability. In S. E. Davies & J. True (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of women, peace, and security. Oxford University Press.
UN Women Asia-Pacific. (2023). ASEAN launches guidelines for member countries to adapt women, peace and security policy (Localization toolkit and guidelines for the ASEAN regional plan of action on WPS). UN Women.
UN Women Asia-Pacific. (2026). Thailand launches its first national action plan on women, peace and security. UN Women.
UN Women, & ASEAN. (2021). ASEAN regional study on women, peace and security. UN Women Asia-Pacific and ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation.
UN Women. (2023). Women, peace and security: National action plans. UN Women.
UNSCR 1325. (2000). United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security. S/RES/1325 (2000). United Nations.
