Hacettepe University Graduate School Of Social Sciences The Department of International Relations THE USE OF SEXUAL AND GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AS A WAR STRATEGY IN BOSNIAN WAR Vesile Nur DAŞTAN Master’s Thesis Ankara, 2019 THE USE OF SEXUAL AND GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AS A WAR STRATEGY IN BOSNIAN WAR Vesile Nur DAŞTAN Hacettepe University Graduate School Of Social Sciences The Department of International Relatios Master’s Thesis Ankara, 2019 iv ACKNOWLEGDMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitudes to everyone who gave their kind support for me in this hard and long road. Foremost, I would like to thank to my esteemed advisor Ayşe Ömür Atmaca for her guidance, understanding and patience that encouraged me to complete this process. I would also like to show my deepest appreciation to my thesis committee, Özlem Tür and Mine Pınar Gözen Ercan, for their valuable advices and contributions. I am grateful for my family- especially my mom- because I would not be able to succeed to end my master program without their endless love and support. And my last thanks to my fiancé for being my biggest source of motivation. v ABSTRACT DAŞTAN, Vesile Nur. The Use of Sexual and Gender Based Violence as a War Strategy in Bosnian War, Master’s Thesis, Ankara, 2019. Certain radical changes in the international system have paved the way for a transition from traditional perspectives defining the concept of security as state’s security to alternative perspectives putting emphasis on human security. One of these alternative perspectives is feminist theory. Feminist theory, as a perspective that advocates equality between men and women in all aspects of life, addresses the issues of human security but specifically women’s security by including the concepts of women and gender to the field of security, which is assumed as male-dominated. The discriminations and assaults that women confront with in their daily lives due to their gender become even more serious during the wartime. One of the major threats to women’s security in wartime is sexual and gender based violence. Especially in civil wars erupted by ethnic, national or religious reasons, civilians and predominantly women have become the target of the enemy. In these civil wars, rape serves as a war weapon to gain superiority to the opposing group. Bosnian war is the most significant example in terms of the use of rape as a war tool and strategic tactic. This war is also a turning point for prevention of the use of rape as a strategic tool in wartime by international law bodies. For this reason, this study examines how the rape is turned into a war weapon by using female body as a battleground in the ethnic cleansing project that Serbs attempted to defeat Bosnian Muslims, send them from their lands and destroy the ethnic purity of future generations. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to show sexual and gender based violence was used as a strategic tool in Bosnian war. The continuation of sexual violence and rape in the conflicts after the Bosnian war reveals the necessity to revise this issue. Keywords Feminist security theory, gender, sexual and gender based violence, mass rape, Bosnian war vi ÖZET DAŞTAN, Vesile Nur. Cinsel ve Toplumsal Cinsiyete Dayalı Şiddetin Bosna Savaşında Bir Savaş Stratejisi Olarak Kullanılması, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara, 2019. Uluslararası sistemde meydana gelen birtakım radikal değişimler, güvenlik kavramını devletin güvenliği olarak tanımlayan geleneksel bakış açılarından bireylerin güvenliğini ön plana çıkaran alternatif bakış açılarına geçisin yolunu açmıştır. İnsan güvenliği anlayışına sahip bakış açılarından birisi de feminist teoridir. Hayatın her alanında kadın ve erkek eşitliğini savunan bir görüş olarak, feminist teori erkek egemen bir yapıya sahip olduğunu varsaydığı güvenlik alanına kadın ve toplumsal cinsiyet kavramlarını dahil ederek, bireylerin ve özellikle kadınların güvenliğine yönelik konuları ele almıştır. Kadınların toplumsal cinsiyetleri dolayısıyla günlük yaşamda maruz kaldıkları ayrımcılık ve saldırılar savaş zamanı daha ciddi bir hale gelmektedir. Savaş zamanı kadınların güvenliğine yönelik ortaya çıkan başlıca tehditlerden birisi cinsel ve toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı şiddettir. Özellikle etnik, milli ya da dini sebeplerle ortaya çıkan iç savaşlarda siviller ve çoğunlukla da kadınlar düşmanın açık hedefi haline gelmiştir. Karşı gruba üstünlük sağlamak amacıyla tecavüz bir savaş silahı olarak görev yapar. Tecavüzün açık bir savaş aleti ve stratejik bir taktik olarak kullanılması açısından en önemli örnek Bosna savaşıdır. Bu savaş ayrıca tecavüzün savaş zamanı stratejik bir araç olarak kullanılmasının uluslararası hukuk organlarınca önlenmesi için de bir dönüm noktası niteliğindedir. Bu yüzden, bu çalışmada Sırpların Bosnalı Müslümanları yenmek, onları topraklarından göndermek ve gelecek nesillerin etnik temizliğini bozmak amacıyla giriştikleri etnik temizlik projesinde, kadın bedeninin savaş alanı olarak kullanılarak tecavüzün nasıl bir savaş silahına dönüştüğü incelenmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu tezin amacı, cinsel ve toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı şiddetin Bosna savaşında stratejik bir araç olarak kullanıldığını göstermektir. Bosna savaşı sonrası meydana gelen çatışmalarda cinsel şiddet ve tecavüz olaylarının görülmeye devam edilmesi, bu konunun yeniden gözden geçirilmesi gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır. Anahtar Sözcükler Feminist güvenlik kuramı, toplumsal cinsiyet, cinsel ve toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı şiddet, toplu tecavüz, Bosna savaşı vii TABLE OF CONTENTS KABUL VE ONAY…………………………………………………………………..i YAYIMLAMA VE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI BEYANI…….………........ii ETİK BEYAN……………………………………………………………………….iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………..iv ABSTRACT ..……………………………………………………………………......v ÖZET………………………………..……………………………………………….vi TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….......vii ABBREVIATIONS ……….……...………………………………………………....x TABLES ………...............……………………………………………………….......xi INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..………………..1 CHAPTER 1: FEMINIST PERCEPTION OF SECURITY....…………………...6 1.1. INTRODUCTION……….……………………………………………....6 1.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FEMINIST THEORY…….….7 1.3. FEMINIST THEORY MEETS THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS………………………………………………..…………......9 1.4. DIFFERENT FEMINIST IR PERSPECTIVES……..……………….10 1.5. FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE TOWARDS IR………………………....13 1.6. FEMINIST CRITIQUES TOWARDS THE MAIN CONCEPTS AND ASSUMPTIONS OF THEDISCIPLINE…………………………….......15 1.7. FEMINIST CRITICISMS REGARDING THE REALIST PERSPECTIVE OF SECURITY ISSUES……………………………...20 1.8. FEMINIST SECURITY THEORY…………………………………...…27 1.9. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………....31 viii CHAPTER 2: WOMEN AND CONFLICT…………………..…………………….32 2.1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..32 2.2. CHANGES IN SECURITY UNDERSTANDING……….…………….32 2.3. NEW WARS: CHANGES IN THE NATURE OF CONFLICT……...34 2.4. THE CONTRIBUTION OF FEMINIST IR THEORY: THE RELATION BETWEEN GENDER AND WAR……………………….39 2.5. THE INSECURITY OF WOMEN IN PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM…..46 2.6. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN WARTIME…………………….49 2.7. USING RAPE AS A WAR STRATEGY………………………………..56 2.8. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………...61 CHAPTER 3: THE USE OF RAPE AS A WAR STRATEGY IN BOSNIAN WAR…………………………………………………………………..63 3.1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………....63 3.2. BRIEF HISTORY OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA………..……….….64 3.3. THE USE OF RAPE AS A WAR STRATEGY IN BOSNIA………....69 3.4. THE EFFECT OF WARTIME RAPE IN PATRIARCHAL SOCIETIES…………………………………………………………….…76 3.4.1 The Effects of Wartime Rape on Individuals ……………………77 3.4.2 The Effects of Wartime Rape on Society.......................................80 3.5. THE PROBLEMS OF VICTIMIZED BOSNIAN WOMEN………….84 3.6. ESTABLISHMENT OF ICTY AND ICC……………..…………..……91 3.7. CONCLUSION………………………………………………..………….93 CONCLUSION………..………………………………………………………………94 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………….99 ix APPENDIX 1: ORIGINALITY REPORT.................…………………………..115 APPENDIX 2: ETHİCS BOARD WAIVER FORM…………………………...117 x ABBREVIATIONS FST Feminist Security Theory SGBV Sexual and Gender Based Violence ICTY International Criminal Tribunal fort he Former Yugoslavia ICC International Criminal Court xi TABLES Table 1: Extended Security Concepts…………………………………………….5 1 INTRODUCTION “Bosnia and Herzegovina is being gang raped. . . . I do not lightly apply the analogy of a gang rape to the plight of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As we know, systematic rape has been one of the weapons of this aggression against the Bosnian women in particular.”1 (Bosnian Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey, in a speech to the UN Security Council on 24 August 1993) The drastic changes in the structures of international system and world politics have paved the way for a transition from state-centric conception of security towards a more human-centric conception by causing changes in the scope, dimension and actors of the security concept in time. One of the IR theories that advocate the importance of human security over state security is feminist theory. Feminism, which in the most basic sense advocates the equality between men and women, has brought a new dimension to the security issue by questioning who should be secured and which security threats come from whom or where. One of the main concerns of Feminist Security Theory (FST), which uses gender as a unit of analysis, is the security problems that women experience in the wartime. The marginalization or subordination of women and gender especially in case of war and armed conflicts is criticized by feminist perspective. Because of the close association between war and masculinity, discriminations and assaults that women confront with in their daily lives become more serious and important during the wartime. The most common and problematic crime that is committed against women during conflict is sexual and gender based violence, for certain. Sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) in wartime is conducted as a way of asserting superiority and masculinity of an ethnic, religious or other identity groups over the opposite groups. Sexual violence- specifically rape- is used as a war weapon by using female bodies as a battlefield so as to both satisfy their masculinity by asserting sexual superiority over women and to also humiliate, dishonor and threat the enemy group. 1 Stjepan G. Mestrovic, The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism, (London: Routledge, 1994): xxi. 2 Rape, which deeply harms women and also the entire society through female’s body, has appeared as a war strategy in almost every war throughout the history. However, in the Bosnian war, it was clearly seen that rape carried out in a strategic and systematic manner was used as a tool of ethnic cleansing. With the influence of the patriarchal structure of society, rape served as an effective means of war by Serbs to achieve their ultimate goal which is ethnic cleansing. Within the scope of ethnic cleansing project of Serbs, which was carried out with the aim of cleaning the region from Bosniaks, Muslim women were exposed to mass rapes in specially designed rape camps until they became pregnant and were forced to give birth to Serbian children in order to pollute the ethnic purity of Bosnian Muslims. The horrible effects resulted from these mass rapes in Bosnia created a tremendous impression in the whole world. In this regard, the only positive aspect of these acts of rape, which has reached the level of genocide, is the recognition of wartime rape in international law as a crime against humanity and a war crime. Bosnian war is a turning point in terms of taking significant steps for preventing wartime rape, which has been considered as an ordinary result of war until that time. Nevertheless, the political and legal steps taken for this issue have not yet been able to ensure the fair and relieving judgment system for perpetrators, the comprehensive and successful treatment policies for victims or the prevention of future rape crimes. The continued use of rape as a war tool in the civil wars that emerged after the Bosnian war revealed the necessity of readdressing this issue. Although Bosnian case- which is notable for the brutal sexual violence, mass rape camps, forced pregnancies- has brought recognition to the concept of rape in the international legal area and aroused international attention towards the use of rape in armed conflicts, the use of sexual violence and rape as a war tool has been perpetuated by soldiers for their different aims such as terrorizing, humiliating or even committing ethnic cleansing. In this respect, sexual and gender based violence against women has been observed in recent conflicts in different regions including Rwanda, Liberia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote D’ivoire, and more recently Syria. All these cases should pave the way for examining why the sexual violence still recurs in armed conflicts in spite of the increasing worldwide attention towards this problem so the use of sexual and gender based violence in war should be 3 reconsidered through a comprehensive analysis by taking these recent cases into consideration. Accordingly, the main aim of this thesis is to examine the use of rape as a war strategy in Bosnian war from a gendered perspective. While examining the effect of rape as a strategic and deliberate tool of war, the patriarchal structure of Bosnian society is argued as the most important underlying factor for this effect. In Bosnian war, mass rapes were carried out in a systematic and strategic manner with the intention of social destruction through giving physical, psychological and moral damages to the whole community over female bodies. The fact that Bosnian women were get forced pregnancy and forced to give birth to Serbian children shows that the only aim of Serbs was not to satisfy their sexual desires in wartime. As shocking the whole world, the most significant steps of an ethnic cleansing project were taken in specifically designed mass rape camps. From this point of view, this thesis aims to analyze sexual and gender based violence against women and feminist approach toward this issue. In this respect, it will be tried to find answers to the following questions from the specific to the general: - How did rape serve as a war tool in Bosnian war? - How was women’s body used to carry out ethnic cleansing against Bosnian Muslims? - What are the security threats that women are subjected to in wartime and post-wartime because of their gender? While answering these questions, feminist perspective will be adopted in order to draw a clear theoretical and conceptual framework. In line with the arguments and criticisms of feminist security theory, sexual and gender based violence and the use of rape as a war strategy will be dealt with. The hypotheses underlying this thesis are based upon that issues regarding women and gender are disregarded or subordinated by traditional IR perspectives as feminist IR theory argues. Especially, the gendered and male- dominated structures of the fields such as war, security and military lead to exclusion of women from these fields and disregard of problems of women that they experience in wartime and post-wartime periods. In patriarchal societies where male domination and 4 gendered stereotypes are considerably widespread, women are more liable to experience this type of exclusion and ignoring. In this regard, this thesis will attempt to show how sexual and gender based violence takes the form of a strategic tool or deliberate tactic during an armed conflict by taking the Bosnian war as a case study. Furthermore, primary and secondary sources will be used and literature reviews regarding feminist theory and Bosnian war will be made through a qualitative analysis method. Primary and secondary sources that can be accessed from libraries in both printed and online forms related to feminist theory, sexual and gender based violence, international humanitarian law and Bosnian war will be used. While secondary sources such as books, articles, reports prepared by international organizations, published interviews and media news will be more included in the thesis, it will also benefit from primary sources such as articles, rules and agreements about international law and women’s rights. In this thesis, the use of sexual and gender based violence as a war strategy in Bosnian war will be studied. In this respect, in the first chapter, a theoretical framework will be provided to understand feminist perspective towards war and sexual war crimes through an in-depth analysis of feminist IR theory with regard to gender and security. Therefore, it will be explained how feminist theory meets with the discipline of IR as a result of the changes in perception towards the issues of international politics. The concept of gender will be argued in terms of its use as a unit of analysis by feminist IR theory to bring a new perspective into the gender-blind approaches dominating the discipline. By giving emphasis on security concept, the arguments and criticisms of feminist IR theory regarding the discipline through gendered lenses will be provided. In the second chapter, it will be explained the effects of the close association between masculinity and war on women’s security with a comprehensive analysis on sexual and gender based violence. In this section, the change in security conception from a state- centered approach to a more human-centered approach will be analyzed. It will be given the security threats against women appeared due to the changes in the content and scope of the war. By replacing the traditional interstate war with the civil wars, how civilians- and predominantly women- became the ones who were the most adversely affected will be discussed. In this respect, the victimization of women by the sexual and gender based 5 violence in wartime will be emphasized. After the definition of sexual violence in wartime, it will be analyzed the concept of rape as the most important form of sexual violence in terms of its use as a war strategy. Lastly, in the third chapter, it will be studied the use of rape as a war strategy against the enemy ethnic, national or religious groups by taking Bosnian war as a case study. Bosnian war will be addressed as a significant example of the use of women’s bodies as a battlefield and the use of rape as a war tool. Due to the special role of patriarchal social structure of Bosniaks, a great opportunity was provided for Serbs to use rape as the most effective weapon against their enemy in the war. In order to understand the underlying factors of these cruelties and violence occurred in the Bosnian war, it will be given the historical background of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The role of ethnic nationalism as an incentive for the ethnic cleansing project of Serbs and the role of rape as a strategic tool for this goal will be stated. How these mass rapes affected the lives of victimized women, their families and the entire group with the influence of patriarchal social structure of Bosnian Muslim will be presented. Ultimately, the legal steps taken by international institutions to accept the rape as a war crime and crime against humanity in order to prevent its use in wartime will be assessed. 6 CHAPTER 1 FEMINIST PERCEPTION OF SECURITY 1.1 INTRODUCTION The discipline of International Relations (IR) has known as a field that deals with political, social and economic relations between sovereign states. The prevailing studies of IR, which have addressed the relationships among sovereign authorities of states within the scope of public sphere, consider states as the main actor and issues of power and politics as the main subject. The ultimate concern that interests the scholars of IR is the “traditional power structures and coalition composition to explain interstate behaviors and conflicts”.2 As the discipline of IR restricts its field of study with certain actors and issues, it has been subjected to criticisms for ignoring issues which are considered important by other perspectives. Feminism, conducting one of these criticisms, seeks to reveal the gender dimensions of theories, structures and activities of IR through questioning the ontological and epistemological foundations of the discipline. Feminist IR perspective deals with the invisibility and exclusion of women in international politics as a result of the male- dominated structure of traditional approaches of the discipline. Since women are seen as an indivisible part of international area by feminist thinking, according to Atmaca and Gözen Ercan, gender cannot be left out of the most important issues of international politics.3 In order to eliminate the gender bias of the discipline, feminism uses gender “as an appropriate category and theoretical tool for analyzing global power relations and construct alternative world orders”.4 In this regard, the main aim of this chapter is to understand cognitive development of feminist IR theory in the historical process. It is essential to analyze events founding the 2 Patrick M. Regan and Aida Paskeviciute, “Women’s access to politics and peaceful states”, Journal of Peace Research 40, no.3 (2003), quoted in Katie Heaney, "Gender Inequalities and International Military Aggression: The Role of Feminism in Achieving Peace," Res Publica - Journal of Undergraduate Research 14, no. 59 (2009): 32. http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/respublica/vol14/iss1/9. 3 Ayşe Ömür Atmaca and Pınar Gözen Ercan, “Uluslararası Güvenliği Yeniden Düşünmek: Uluslararası İlişkiler Disiplininde Feminist Eleştiriler”, Uluslararası İlişkiler 15, no. 59 (2018): 20 4 Gülşen Aydın, “Feminist challenge to the Mainstream IR” European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 1, no.5 (May-August 2016):62. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/76314/. 7 entrance of feminist theory into the discipline of IR in order to comprehend the feminist perspective towards the main issues of IR. In this regard, it will be studied how domination of mainstream perspectives- especially realism- has led feminism to emphasize on issues that had been neglected with a different point of view that had not been taken into consideration until this time. Security issue in particular will be conducted on through the critiques of feminist IR theory about main concepts of realist IR with the gender-lensed perspective towards international security. 1.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FEMINIST THEORY Feminism is an approach that desires to expand the role of women in the society by advocating that all social, economic and political rights entitled to men should be given to women as well.5 In the most basic and general manner, the aim of feminism is to prevent discrimination against women and to promote the equality between men and women. Feminism believes that women and men are equal and accordingly argues they should have equal opportunity and should be equally free from any discrimination based upon their sexes.6 Therefore, feminism appears as an approach dealing with oppression and exclusion that women are exposed to because of their sex and striving for advancing the status and rights of women in social, political and economic life. It is required to consider appearance and historical development of feminist approach if not so the process of feminist IR theory cannot be understood clearly.7 The initial attempts with regard to struggle for enhancing women’s unequal positions which was termed as “first-wave” feminism- containing late 19th and early 20th centuries- focused on equal rights- especially voting right- for women.8 While it was aimed to bring 5 Andree Michel, Feminizm, trans. Şirin Tekeli (İstanbul: Kadın Çevresi Yayınları, 1984): 17. 6 Heaney,op.cit: 34. 7 Özlem Tür and Çiğdem Aydın Koyuncu, “Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımı: Temelleri, Gelişimi, Katkı ve Sorunları”, Uluslararası İlişkiler 7, no.26 (2010):5. 8 Jane Freedman, Feminism, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001): 4; Robbin Hillary VanNewkirk, “Third Wave Feminist History and the Politics of Being Visible and Being Real” (Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006): 9; Charlotte Krolokke and Anne Scott Sorensen, “Three waves of feminism: From suffragettes to grrls”, Gender communication theories & analyses: From silence to performance (2006):2-7. 8 political and legal identity to “white Western women”, women in other parts of the world and their other problems were not addressed in this period. 9 Moreover, in the “second-wave” of feminist movement prevailing in the 1960s and 1970s, feminism struggled to enhance women’s rights not only in political terms- as limited to suffrage- but also in all aspects of social life. In this phase, which is identified with “women’s liberation”, feminist thought succeeded to become a social movement.10 Furthermore, feminism, that performed works in scientific area in this era, started to question main assumptions of social sciences. It was argued that many assumptions on which social sciences are based are created with a male-dominated viewpoint and lead to women’s inequality. In this respect, it was offered that the works of social sciences should be re-examined with a feminist point of view in order to correct this situation which is against women.11 “Third-wave” feminism which was shaped by changings occurring in the world system in 1980s and continued until today aimed to bring a new perspective to feminist theory.12 In consequence of globalization, individualism and increasing in new security threat perceptions, feminism brought up issues such as human trafficking, child sexual abuse, and sexual health protection which have been disregarded or minimized until this time.13 Therefore, third-wave feminism strived for spreading feminist ideology around every segment of social life. 9 Estelle B. Freedman, No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women, (New York: Ballentine Books, 2002) qutoed in VanNewkirk, op.cit: 8-9; Muhittin Ataman, “Feminizm: Geleneksel Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorilerine Alternatif Yaklaşımlar Demeti”, Alternatif Politika 1, no.1 (2009): 3. 10 Fatmagül Berktay, “ Kadınların İnsan Haklarının Gelişimi ve Türkiye”, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları Eğitim ve Araştırma Birimi, Sivil Toplum ve Demokrasi Konferans Yazıları, no. 7 (2004):8-9. https://stk.bilgi.edu.tr/media/uploads/2015/02/01/berktay_std_7.pdf. ; Robbin Hillary VanNewkirk, op.cit: 9. 11 Teresa Tavares, “De-Americanizing American Studies and Feminist Studies: Notes of a Portuguese Feminist Americanist”, American Studies International 38, no.3 (2000): 104-105. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41262076. ; Sandra Harding, “Introduction: is there a feminist methodology?”, Feminism and Methodology-Social Science Issues, ed. Sandra Harding (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987): 3-10. 12 VanNewkirk, op.cit: 14. 13 Ibid, 23-24. 9 1.3. FEMINIST THEORY MEETS THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS In the wake of the historical development of feminist theory in itself, that feminism has started to take place in the IR discipline as a theoretical approach dates back to the 1980s. Although it did not gain an important ground in the discipline in initial years, a feminist perception towards international relations has begun to develop. Within this period, articles regarding feminism have been published in leading academic journals of IR such as Foreign Affairs, Millennium, and International Organizations14; gender issue has been more involved in academic studies and researches; academic meetings have been hold regarding feminist IR theory. 15 “Third debate”16, which occurred in the 1980s to question the traditional approaches of the discipline, has paved the way for securing the position of feminist theory in the discipline. Within the scope of third debate, empirical and positivist foundation of the discipline and the hegemony of realist/neorealist approaches in the discipline have been challenged. A pluralist era emerged in line with the rise of new critical approaches as alternative for questioning the main concepts and theories of IR. In this regard, feminism has been also incorporated into the general discourse of the discipline as an important alternative theory.17 Feminism, that brought criticism to androcentric and gender-blind structure of the discipline18, has engaged in not only women’s issues but also basic concepts of the IR as from 1990s. The discipline of IR whose agenda and structure changed because of the reasons such as end of the Cold War, dissolution of bipolar world system and increase in globalization tend towards more varied and extensive issues. In this new form of the discipline in which issues such as migration, minority rights, environment, 14 Diana Thorburn. "Feminism Meets International Relations." SAIS Review 20, no. 2 (2000): 1. https://muse.jhu.edu/ 15 Ataman, op.cit: 6. 16 Third debate can be describes as a contest between positivists and post-positivists in terms of their different epistemological and ontological approaches to international relations. For more information about Third Debate see Yosef Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era”, International Studies Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1989): 235-254. Also for a brief summary of theoretical discussions in the literature from the emergence of the International Relations discipline to the present day see Dario Battissela, “Théories des Rélations Internationales”, Presses de Sciences Po, (Paris, 2003): 73-109. 17 Thorburn, op.cit: 2 18 Tür and Koyuncu, op.cit: 7. 10 globalization, human rights, and arms smuggling are involved in the scope of analyses, feminism has become more significant and efficient theory since it focuses on these issues from feminist perspective.19 In view of the fact that IR is more unconcerned with gender issue in contrast with other fields of social sciences, it can be claimed that IR discipline is the last castle of social sciences to be conquered by feminism.20 Therefore, it was an expected process that the penetration of feminist theory to the discipline took a long time. 1.4. DIFFERENT FEMINIST IR PERSPECTIVES Feminism, which advocates that women are excluded in all areas of life and international relations, and that women should be liberated in these fields, has brought about different perspectives on the reasons for this exclusion and the ways of liberation. In spite of the diversity of feminist literature, the main ones of these different views can be represented as liberal feminism, Marxist feminism, radical feminism, constructivist feminism, standpoint feminism, post-structural feminism, and post-colonial feminism. However, before discussing these different approaches, it is necessary to mention some basic assumptions that apply to all of them. As Ataman summarized, the common basic principles as follows: 21 “[1] As a result of being, women who have had fewer opportunities than men to participate in non-domestic life of their societies, since ancient times and including today, have gained less reputation, status, power, and independence from men, and this is still happening… [2] Since it is not the case that women deserve fewer opportunities than men to have such opportunities, there is no moral reason for any obstacles that are still standing in front of their attainment, and they must be lifted… [3] Historically, there is a consensus on the main way in which women are not given equal opportunities… [4] There is also a consensus on the fact that women now have the same civil and political rights as men, but still have fewer opportunities to participate in non- domestic life in their own societies… [5] When the underlying factor of women’s 19 Tür and Koyuncu, op.cit: 8. 20 Muhittin Ataman, “Feminizm: Geleneksel Uluslararası İlişkiler Teorilerine Alternatif Yaklaşımlar Demeti”, Alternatif Politika 1, no.1 (2009): 8. 21 David Conway, “Free Market Feminism”, Choice in Welfare 43 (IEA Health and Welfare Unit, 1998): 7-8. 11 exclusion is not exactly legitimate, the fact that women are more likely than men to be discriminated against because of their gender is still a major influence on having less opportunities than men today…” Moreover, all perspectives gathered under the general framework of feminism accept these arguments as general rules but after these points they begin to show dissimilarities. In this regard, it is essential to focus on basic assumptions of these different feminist perspectives towards international relations. Liberal feminism, also known as classical feminism, focuses mainly on the women’s subordinated position in both social life and global politics and accordingly advocates the recognition of equality of opportunities for women and men in every field. It argues that there is no difference between men and women so women must also have all the social, political and legal rights that men already have. From the liberal feminist perspective, the best way to prevent gender discrimination is to recognize equal rights for women and men and with regard to the principal of equal opportunity, the number and participation of women in existing institutions and organizations of international relations should be increased.22 Marxist feminism bases discrimination between sexes and oppression of women on the capitalist system of production. According to Marxist feminists, it can be deduced how women are oppressed and subjected to discrimination in social life from analyzing equal status of women and men in work life. Marxist feminists, therefore, place the issue of social class at the center of their work rather than take gender as a unit of analysis.23 According to this perspective, the emancipation of the oppressed class from the pressure of capitalist system will also ensure the liberation of women from discrimination and exploitation.24 22 Laura Sjoberg, Gender and International Security:Feminist Perspectives, ed. Laura Sjoberg (London:Routlage, 2012): 3; J.Ann Tickner and Laura Sjoberg, “Feminism”, International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity (3rd ed.), ed. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013):208. 23 Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, (New Jersey: Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, 1988): 217-218. 24 Zillah Eissentein, “Constructing a Theory of Capitalist Patriarchy and Socialist Feminism”, Critical Sociology 25 no.2/3, (1999): 197-200. 12 Radical feminism attributes the reason of men’s domination over women to the patriarchal system, which affects all social structures25, and seeks the solution in the revision of perceptions and mechanisms constituting the international relations with a gender-based approach. According to radical feminism, the discipline of IR in which masculine values predominate must become more susceptible to the gender issue and go through radical changes in supposed gender roles. Constructivist feminism, on the other hand, claims that the concepts of international relations such as power, security, state, politics and sovereignty are social structures and accordingly they should be re-examined by adding social structure as a unit of analysis to the International Relations studies.26 It criticized the realist approach that considers states as unitary actors because it believes “states as the dynamic results of the social processes that constitute their existence”. Moreover, constructivist feminists emphasize that perceptions about gender shape global politics and are shaped by global politics.27 Standpoint feminism which initially emerged as in the context of Marxism offers an epistemological and methodological guideline for future feminist studies. In this regard, standpoint feminism makes an important contribution by claiming that feminist knowledge and cognition may only be possible through seeing the world from perspective of women –who are assumed as oppressed.28 Feminist post-structuralism deals with the ways of gendered linguistic constructions, which are dichotomies such as strong/weak, rational/emotional, and public/private, contribute to maintain the authority of men over women and to constitute global politics in this way. Therefore, the aim of feminist post-structuralism is to reveal and demolish these dichotomized constructions creating hierarchy between men and women in global politics.29 Another feminist international relations approach is post-colonial feminism that most of them are regarded as post-structuralist and that focuses on the secondary status of 25 Jane Freedman, Feminism, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2001): 5. 26 Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prügl, “Feminism and Constructivism: worlds apart or sharing the middle ground?." International Studies Quarterly 45, no.1 (2001): 113. 27 Tickner and Sjoberg, op.cit: 210. 28 Sandra Harding, The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies, ed. Sandra Harding (Psychology Press, 2004): 2-3. 29 Tickner and Sjober, op.cit: 211. 13 women in colonized world under the imperialist system. This approach opposes to the universalization of women, women’s problems and the way of women’s emancipation by stating that the experiences of Western women and Third World women do not necessarily correspond with each other.30 1.5. FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE TOWARDS IR Feminist IR theory which brought about one of the most critical approaches to the discipline of IR asserts that the discipline is male-dominated, masculine and gender- blind in terms of its structure and functioning. The point to be achieved with this assumption is that the number of men and the impact of male mentality are more influential than the number of women and the impact of female mentality in the invention, development and process of the discipline and also that the discipline fails to recognize this problematic structure. Feminist IR claims that the reason of this is the gendered structure of concepts, institutions and practices dominating the discipline.31 For that reason, in order to explain the behaviors of nation-states in the international system in a comprehensive manner, gender should be added as a unit of analysis to the other units and levels of analysis that are well-accepted in the discipline.32 In this regard, while being interested in issues of international relations, feminist theory aims to introduce how discipline would be when gender is included as a unit of analysis and when women are accepted as international actors. Moreover, in order to better understand the underlying causes of approaches and critics of feminist theory towards IR, it is conceptually, empirically and normatively essential to study on the gender issue. The term of gender is used to describe socially constructed sexual differences. Gender obviously does not contain the same meaning of sex which is used as an interchangeable term for gender in everyday language. In the simplest term, 30 Ibid, 212. 31 Jacqui True, “Feminism”, Theories of International Relations eds. Burchill S., Devetak R., Linklater A., Matthew Peterson, Reus-Smit C. and True J. (New York: Palgrave, 1996): 247. 32J. Ann Tickner “Searching for the Princess? Feminist Perspectives in International Relations”, Harvard International Review 21, no.4 (1999): 46. 14 sex implies to what is biological, and gender implies to what is cultural.33 Therefore, sex means that women and men have genetic, natural and unchangeable differences due to the biological factors. On the other hand, gender is composed of features that are constituted, unnatural and changeable as a result of social and cultural factors with the aim of creating discrimination between men and women. While using this concept, “they are not generally referring to biological differences between males and females but a set of culturally shaped and defined characteristics associated with masculinity and femininity”.34 Beyond its word sense, gender represents a symbolic system in a general framework. Within this symbolic system, in addition to defining individuals as woman or man, the perspectives of people on life are determined and people are expected to obey these determined rules. The features, attitudes and behaviors that are associated with men and women through gender discourses vary from a society to another society. However the common point existing in almost all gender discourses in every society is that gender paves the way to oppression, subordination and exclusion of women by creating a hierarchy between the concepts of masculinity and femininity.35 By the way of constituting a hierarchy between masculinity and femininity, gender reveals the existing power relations among men and women. Through using gender as a systematic discourse, characteristics that belong to people are divided into two opposite groups by taking account of their relative value. According to this division, mind is constructed as opposed to body, opinion to emotion, reasoning to instincts, objectivity to subjectivity, aggression to passivity, public to private, political to personal and so on. Accordingly, in all of these divisions, the attributes of former groups are related to male and attributes of latter groups are related to female in a deliberative manner.36 Moreover, while the characteristics such as physical strength, independency, rationality, courage and patriotism which are assumed more valuable by the society are associated with men, on the contrary characteristics 33 Joshua S. Goldstein, War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 2 34 J. Ann Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992): 9. 35 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 9. 36 Carol Cohn, “War, Wimps and Women:Talking Gender and Thinking War”, Gendering War Talk ed. Miriam Cooke and Angela Woollacott (New Jersey:Princeton University Press, 1993): 229. 15 such as weakness, dependency, emotionality, and timidity are equated with women. Considering the perception of societies throughout the history, the features associated with masculinity have been regarded as ideal, stereotyped or dominant so these have been valued above other features that are related with femininity.37 The essential point is not that gender signifies the unequal relations of power between men and women but is that gender is used to perpetuate this inequality through the meanings assigned to concepts of masculinity and femininity. Peterson explains the problematic structure of gender by defining it as “a systematically analytical category that refers to construction of (privileged) masculinity and (devalorized) femininity and their ideological effects.”38 As long as gender roles are embraced by people, the superiority of men becomes admitted and the maintenance of unequal power relations between men and women are ensured. In this respect, feminist theory aims to deal with gender issue through analyzing the dichotomy created between human characteristics and the hierarchy constituted between masculinity and femininity on the basis of international relations. 1.6. FEMINIST CRITIQUES TOWARDS THE MAIN CONCEPTS AND ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DISCIPLINE Feminism, that adopts gender lenses in order to show it is possible to see, think and know the world from a different perspective by claiming theories and practices of IR are constructed through androcentric lenses, has three significant criticisms and accordingly three essential projects regarding the IR. First of all, feminist IR theory claims that masculine values, norms and mindsets are dominant in the discipline. Since the foundation of the discipline was implemented by scholars, intellectuals and politicians whom most of them are male, the terms which are used in the field have been constructed through male perspective and have become a masculinized manner in that regard. Under the circumstances, that most of the knowledge in the discipline has been produced by men and also about men39 has been 37 Laura Sjoberg, Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Savaş ve Çatışma, trans. Onur Aydın, (İstanbul: Altınbilek Yayınları, 2014): 24. 38 V. Spike Peterson, “Feminist theories Within, Invisible to, and Beyond IR”, Brown Journal of World Affairs 10, no.2 (Winter/Spring 2004): 5. 39 Tickner and Sjoberg, op.cit:207. 16 inevitable. As Hooper states that considering the male-dominated structure of the discipline, “IR seems a particularly appropriate site for an investigation into masculinities, and particularly into their dominant, or ‘hegemonic’ forms”40. When considering the structure of IR, it is deduced that concepts such as state, sovereignty, power, politics, war and peace, which IR is most interested in, have become masculine through being created by a male point of view. The underlying factor that men have dominance in the discipline is the features that are associated with men. Men are considered to be indispensable elements of international politics because of the characteristics they are supposed to possess, and the characteristics that women are supposed to possess are perceived as insignificant, unnecessary and even damaging for international relations. Gender discourses create hierarchies between men and women by making binary distinctions in the political life as in every aspects of life. The roles assigned to women according to their assumed characteristics are regarded as “irrelevant” in the international area.41 Characteristics such as power, strength, rationality, and autonomy are associated with men and considered as more important and valuable in terms of states’ foreign policies. On the other hand, women’s involvement into the international relations is not preferred because of the features such as weakness, sensibility, emotionality, and dependency that are believed belonging to women.42 Considering the theories and the practices of IR, gender is used in order to make masculinity and male-dominated mentality become dominant and legitimate in the field. Tickner asserts the androcentric structure of the discipline by stating that “Drawing attention to gender hierarchies that privilege men’s knowledge and men’s experiences permits us to see that it is these experiences that have formed the basis of most of our knowledge about international politics”.43 As a result of this, the most important actor is regarded as men and the most significant values are regarded as masculine values in the international affairs. Since women are unnecessary, inadequate and undesirable, the characteristics and behaviors ascribed to femininity are excluded from the discourse of 40 Charlotte Hooper, Manly States (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001): 5 41 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 8. 42 Ibid, 7. 43 Ibid, 4. 17 the discipline. This is because “it is the only the ‘feminine’ emotions that are noticed and labeled as emotions, and thus in need of banning from the analytic process”.44 In accordance with this criticism of feminist IR theory, the initial project of it is to expose the extent and effects of masculinist bias.45 In this regard, it is aimed to reveal how constructs, practices and institutions that are associated with femininity are presented with a trivialized manner. Second criticism of feminist IR theory as a continuation of the first one is that the discipline does not provide enough opportunity for women in order to take place in the institutions and practices of international relations. As a result of establishing a close relationship between masculinity and politics46, the assumption that the political actor is constructed as a man underlies the Western political and philosophical tradition regarding international affairs.47 Accordingly, the features that one has to contain in himself/herself in order to be successful in the international relations and global politics come into existence as associated with masculinity.48 In the policies to be implemented in the international affairs, it is expected to act in accordance with male mentality and to behave proper for a real man. Masculine and gender-biased structure of the discipline of IR has inevitably brought about the unequal representation of men and women in the international politics practices and international organizations. As is the case with discourses of the discipline regarding the frame of international relations, women have been exposed to discrimination in terms of the representation rate in institutions and organizations of international politics. The number of women in government staff and management unit of states is far less compared to the male population. When examined even the most significant institutions and organizations in the field of international relations, inadequacy of women representation and so female mentality is blindingly obvious. According to facts and figures announced by UN Women, since 1995 the number of women parliamentarians increased from 11.3 percent to only 24.3 percent as of 44 Cohn, op.cit, 242. 45 Peterson, op.cit, 3 46 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 8 47 Sjoberg, op.cit. (2012): 39 48 Jean Bethke Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought (Oxford: Martin Roberson Press, 1981):52. 18 February 2019. As of June 2019, the numbers of women who are Head of State is 11 and who are Head of Government are 12. All over the world, the number of states in which women constitute less than 10 per cent of parliamentarians is 27 as of February 2019.49 Moreover, the women, already existing in the important positions, abstain from giving an opinion regarding war, security and terrorism that are counted as the most delicate issues because women’s opinion about these topics are considered as naïve, irrelevant and even ridiculous. In order to mainstream this argument through the discipline, it is dictated to all people and especially to women that international politics are so complicated, difficult and tough that cannot be comprehended by female perspective.50 Because of the socially constructed female gender characteristics, women and femininity are marginalized and disregarded in the issues that matter for states’ survival in international area. In a deliberative manner, “women in politics are channeled into certain arenas of public policy that are perceived as women’s issues”.51 The possibility that women become influential in positions which are assumed more important is relied upon their ability to get rid of femininity and behave like men. Considering the successful female politicians throughout the world, it is seen that all of them are described as “like a man” and their success are depended on the manly features and behaviors they have. While women politicians such as Margaret Thatcher, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright and Indra Gandhi are the exceptions as influential female actors in foreign policy, it is a fact that they shined amongst others because of thinking like a man.52 Eventually, the discipline of IR is conducted in a way so masculinized that the hierarchical gender relations become invisible and even normal. At this point, feminist IR theory deals with these hidden and rooted gender hierarchies in order to reveal how gender discourses cause to inequality in the representation of men and women in international politics as the second project to be achieved regarding the discipline. 49 “Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation”, UN Women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures. 50 Cynthia Enloe, Muzlar, Plajlar ve Askeri Üsler, trans. Berna Kurt and Ece Aydın, (İstanbul: Çitlembik Yayınları, 2003): 253. 51 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 6. 52 Enloe, op.cit. (2003): 253; Atmaca and Gözen Ercan, op.cit: 22. 19 The third important criticism of feminist IR theory is the gender-blindness of the discipline and in this respect the third project becomes the reconstructing the discipline.53 When considering the gendered structure of IR, it should be noted that not only women but also men are affected by this gender stereotyping. Since masculinity is constructed as “a source of authority”, men as well as women must contain certain masculine qualifications.54 When manliness becomes a measure to be a notable actor in international politics, women become unable to manifest their existence in terms of participation in international arena through both their opinions and also experiences. As long as women’s opinions and experiences are disregarded, both the foreign policy administrations and academic workings in international relations will continue to be overwhelmingly male populated.55 However, it is almost impossible to end the discrimination of women and the marginalization of femininity in the discipline until destroying socially constructed gender stereotypes. When examined these criticisms of feminist IR theory, feminists point out the necessity of rewriting the experiences of women in the field of international relations, of re-analyzing all international economic, military, political and ideological processes on the basis of gender, and of reconstructing mainstream concepts and theories.56 Feminist IR scholars advocate instead of taking some foundational constructs such as power, security, violence and dichotomies including public-private, international-domestic, anarchy-order for granted, these should be problematized in the discipline.57 From feminist perspective, gender relationships have been established in every unit of global politics but “the study of international politics has traditionally been ‘gender-blind’”.58 In this regard, feminist IR defends an attempt to mainstream gender into the construction of concepts and decision-making processes of institutions of the discipline by ensuring that, in advance of conducting any theories or practices, an 53 Peterson, op.cit: 5. 54 Simone De Beauvoir, The Second Sex, (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953) quoted in Cynthia Cockburn, “Gender Relations as Casual in Militarization and War”, International Feminist Journal of Politics 12, no.2 (2010): 146. 55 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 8. 56 Özlem Tür and Çiğdem Aydın Koyuncu, op.cit: 11. 57 Peterson, op.cit: 5. 58 Andrew Heywood, “Gender in Global Politics”, Global Politics (New York:Palgrave Macmillan, 2011): 412. 20 analysis is prepared to reveal their possible effects on women and men.59 When the effects of the hierarchies of power based on-specifically-gender on the lives of women and also men are recognized, it paves the way for attempting to de-gender international system. Nevertheless, from this point of view, the aim of feminism should not be only adding women to the already existing constructions and institutions in order to make women and femininity more visible in the international system. It is also not to change the masculine structure of the discipline with a feminized one. Rather, feminist IR theory should strive for demolishing gendered structures of international system and revaluation of the gender discourse. To sum up, feminist IR theory serves for reconsidering the widely accepted meanings of concepts and issues of global politics and the practices and theories of IR with the aim of bringing about new perspectives and comprehensive analyses to the discipline. By embracing a gender lens in this respect, feminist IR theory deals with revealing gender biases that spread over the theoretical framework and key concepts of mainstream IR theories, and more particularly realism. 1.7. FEMINIST CRITICISMS REGARDING THE REALIST PERSPECTIVE OF SECURITY ISSUE It has been stated that the underlying factor of inequality between men and women in both discourse and practices of the discipline of IR is the masculine construct dominating the field. As for the most important ground to sustain and encourage this masculine structure is the realist assumption regarding the International Relations. As is known, realism –and later neo-realism- declares its dominance as the most effective and accepted theory in the discipline. Realism is claimed to present positivist epistemologies60 with using objective and scientific explanations regarding the behavior of political leaders, political communities, and the structures of the relations among political communities. In the most general sense, realism sees the world as it is rather than as it should be. Therefore, the studies of realist theory about the international 59 Ibid, 417. 60 Gülşen Aydın, op.cit: 9. 21 matters concentrates on “’what is’ in contrast to the utopian visions of ‘what should be’”.61 Although realist theory, which is interested in only severe realities of the world, is criticized by other theories, there is not any serious opposition to preventing the supremacy of realism. Unless the antithesis are produced against the realist thesis on state, international relations and world politics, realism continues its existence as the mainstream theory in particular issues of the field. In this regard, feminist IR theory brings about serious criticisms towards realist IR perspective which is defined as patriarchal, state-centered and military-oriented. However, the most important issue that feminism challenges realist perspective is the security. From the feminist approach, security is one of the most male-dominated and gendered field in which women and their problems are disregarded. As Blanchard states, “national security discourses are typically part of the elite world of masculine high politics”.62 So, how is the approach of realist theory towards security concept? Is realist perspective really a factor in perpetuating the masculine structure of the issues of discipline? In order to answer these questions, it is essential to analyze main principles and assumption of realist IR theory regarding security.63 Security is one of the most controversial and complex issues of the IR discipline. Each perspective has approached to the concept of security with its own point of view and explained it in this direction. Hence, there is no universally accepted definition of security. However, the mainstream perspective in security studies has been the realist perspective through the commonly usage of realist terminology and discourses. From the realist perspective, security is defined in terms of political and military values. In the anarchic environment of international system composing of sovereign and self- interested nation states, the concept of international security involves issues regarding mostly war and peace with a particular emphasis on military power.64 As one of the first studies on international security, Arnold Wolfers shaped the classical security 61 Eric Blanchard, “Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory”, Chicago Journals 28, no.4 (The University of Chicago Press, Summer 2003): 1291. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/368328. 62 Blanchard, op.cit: 1289 63 In spite of the fact that realism is divided into different branches such as classical, structural, defensive or offensive realism, in this paper the term of realism is used in order to embrace all branches by covering main points. 64 Ibid. 22 perception by defining security as the absence of any threat to the values gained by states.65 Furthermore, security studies of realist IR scholars have been based on the assumption that “the protection of the boundaries and integrity of state against the dangers of a harsh international environment”66 and in this regard feminist security studies have been developed around attempting to expand the concept of security beyond traditional realist perception. Nevertheless, in order to understand the feminist challenge of realism, it is essential to analyze main assumptions of realist security discourse and feminist criticisms of them. Firstly, realist security perception is presented in the discipline by putting state in the center of studies. Realism characterizes the world order as a system of states contending for their own interests under anarchy.67 Moreover, definition of the security concept considers state as the main actor and explanation of its components are regarded from the eyes of state. However, such a security approach which is customized according to state leads realism to disregard social relations, particularly gender relations, in national and international security discourses. In line with this problem, realists underrate or even ignore the role of other international actors such as local and transnational non- governmental organizations, and agency of individuals and their identities in the security concept. Since international system is defined as consisted of states in which “no children are ever born, and nobody ever dies, in this constructed world. There are states, and they are what it is”68, realism does not deal with the association of internal structures and dynamics including individual, interpersonal or social relations within state. By putting the state at the center of security studies, it should also be noted that states are considered as consisted of characteristics of human beings. In this regard, states are perceived as a person with his (not her) assumed interests, intentions, rational actions 65 Arnold Wolfers, “National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol”, Political Science Quarterly 67 no.4 (1952): 485. 66 J. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001): 38. 67 David A. Baldwin, “Neoliberalism, Neorealism, and World Politics”, Neorealism and Neoliberalism, ed. David A. Baldwin, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993): 4; Barry Buzan “The timeless wisdom of realism?”, International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, eds. Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zaleweski, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996): 60. 68 Jean Bethke Elshtain, Women and War ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995): 91. 23 and unavoidable end which is death.69 Even if treating the state as a person is problematic on its own, the realist perception that what is human equals to what is masculine70 makes this situation more complicated. The features regarding the state government and statesmen such as strength, power, and rationality are attributed to the masculinity so the states are expected to be governed by masculine leaders in a masculinized manner. In this respect, within realist theory, states have been framed in an attempt to bestow a privilege on men’s ideas and experiences in both the discourse and practice of the discipline. When examined the studies of founding fathers of realism such as Machiavelli’s Prince, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Waltz’s Man, The State and War, the actors who have the power in state governance and foreign policy are related to male characteristics while the issues which constitutes problems are associated with female features.71 Furthermore, in the definition of state of nature, Hobbes directly points out the middle aged men as the referent object.72 In the same manner, Machiavelli describes the malevolent goddess figure of Fortuna as the ultimate threat to the security of the state.73 All these analogies consequently provide the basis for perception towards men as the only actor in international relations. Therefore, according to feminists, one of the major sources of gender bias in IR theory is perpetuated through the emphasis on males as citizens and political actors.74 Secondly, in Realist security studies, the source of insecurity in both national and international level are attributed to defective features of human nature and anarchic environment of international system. By putting the state in the center of analyses as the main actor, realism serves to indicate the ways that states pursue for power and secure their national interests against other states in consideration of an anarchic environment.75 Therefore, the main aim of the states is to survive in this international system by seeking power in order to preserve national interests in the lack of any higher 69 Sjoberg, op.cit. (2012): 38. 70 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 8. 71 Tür and Koyuncu, op.cit: 4. 72 Tickner, op.cit. (1999): 10. 73 Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (Hackett Publishing, 2008). 74 Rebecca Grant, “The sources of gender bias in international relations theory”, Gender and international relations, (1991): 9. 75 Tricia Ruiz, “Feminist Theory and IR: Feminist challange to realism and liberalism” (2003):3. https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/honors/documents/journals/soundings/Ruiz.pdf. 24 authority. In this regard, realism argues the content of international relations is liable to take shape by- especially- two basic determinants which are human nature and the absence of global governance.76 By putting emphasis on the assumption that human nature is selfish and malignant, it is asserted that anarchic structure of the international system provides a basis for individuals to burst out their state of nature. Therefore, anarchy not only enables but promotes the display of the worst aspects of human nature.77 However, feminists challenge this main assumption of Realism by problematizing “universal abstractions” of human nature. Rather, feminists leave the door open for “a more historical and cultural contextualization in order to understand the complexity of human agency adequately”.78 In this respect, feminist IR perspective criticizes the realist conceptualization of international system as an anarchic structure by claiming that anarchy itself is a masculine-constructed concept.79 While realism ignores the possibility of resolving disputes and conflicts through different ways from military measures, feminism claims it is possible to build a security perception based upon on cooperation and reciprocity which would have an impact on both relations between states and also relations between people.80 Thirdly, realist theory leads the marginalization of women from security issue through creating a hierarchy between International Relations issues as high politics and low politics. In this manner, realists make a hierarchy among issues of IR in order to determine states’ actions in accordance with the priority given to these issues in the international area. In this hierarchical categorization, “high politics” involves primary issues such as representing the state in the international level, signing international agreements, and recognizing other states. On the other hand, “low politics” composes of international activities such as supporting and organizing economic and social activities 76 Jack Donnely, Realism and IR (Cambridge University Press, 2000): 9. 77 Ibid, 10. 78 Gülşen Aydın, op.cit: 4. 79 Marianne H. Marchand. “Different Communities/Different Realities/Different Encounters: A Reply To J. Ann Tickner”, International Studies Quarterly 42, no.1, (1998): 202 quoted in Tür and Koyuncu, op.cit: 11. 80 Christine Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994):6-7 25 which are of secondary importance for states.81 Moreover, there is a general view of Realist IR theory that approaching to high politics issues as masculine and to low politics issues as feminine. Therefore, realism values the fields described as masculine above other fields which are labeled as feminine. Security, in this respect, is regarded as one of uppermost issues in the field of high politics with its dominating masculine features. As things stand, high politics issue including especially security are constructed in a gendered manner under serious influence of androcentric perspective of realism. Realism, which is a theory that preeminent, white and male dominates, does not see women as involving in high politics in the discipline so women are systematically excluded from this academic field.82 Since the security is perceived as public and women are located in the private sphere, women, their ideas and their experiences cannot find any place in the conduct of international politics including security studies.83. The number of women who participate in decision-making and implementation of security issue remains very limited. Accordingly, security perceptions of states remain as reflecting masculine thinking. In her book Bananas, Beaches and Bases, which is a cult of feminist IR theory, Enloe stands out against the restriction of security to the high politics. According to her, women are excluded from security issue in spite of the important tasks and roles that women carry out in the background.84 Even though women, who are charged with issues mostly regarding household, may have a chance to perform in important positions in theoretical or practical studies, they are not allowed to think as a woman. Lastly, Realism reduces the meaning of security to pursuit of power for the sake of national interests of states. When examined the traditional realist definition of security, it is explained as protecting state borders with military and political means and ensuring state integrity against the dangers of a hostile international system in an anarchic world. In this regard, for realists, what is implied with the security is security of states and secured state is defined as the one that guards its physical and valued boundaries from 81 Atmaca and Gözen Ercan, op.cit. (2018): 24; Mustafa Aydın, “Uluslararası İlişkilerde Yaklaşım, Teori ve Analiz", Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 51, no.1 (1996):111. 82 Ataman, op.cit: 23. 83 Elshtain, op.cit. (1981):50 84 Enloe, op.cit. (2003): 99-100 26 the anarchic structure of international relations.85 In this perception, state security which is protecting its national interests to survive in international system has precedence over human security or environmental security, which is also challenged by serious threats to be considered. Therefore, from feminist perspective, realist security studies, dominating the discipline, become “dysfunctional” to deal with the issues about human and environmental security.86 Another important point in ascribing the provision of security to the state is that, in this perspective, states become responsible for protecting and securing their members and national values from any threat coming from dangerous realm outside state boundaries.87 Through being in charge of ensuring the security of their nations, states remain their leading and dominating role in the international system. Since this responsibility gives states an irreplaceable and unquestionable role in security issue, states take for granted to perpetuate their masculine, state-centered and military-oriented behaviors. In this respect, states are rendered as “stable and masculine protectors” by “reifying themselves through performances of security”.88 However, this role of effective security supplier89 given to states by realist thinking is strictly rejected by feminist IR scholars since it paves the way for states to maintain masculine meaning of providing security. Moreover, in order to provide security of its borders and integrity from any internal or external threat, states are expected to attach great importance on the power, especially on military power according to traditional realist security perception.90 Feminists criticize the realist focus on the power issue since they consider the power as a masculine concept. In this regard, feminists demand reconsideration and redefinition of power concept with a gendered perspective in order to reach an objective security perception. 85 Çiğdem Aydın Koyuncu, “Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımları Açısından Güvenlik Konusunun Analizi”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 67, no. 1 (2012): 125. 86 Atmaca and Gözen Ercan, op.cit: 26; Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 3. 87 Blanchard, op.cit: 1289. 88 Sjoberg, op.cit. (2012): 40. 89 Tickner, op.cit. (2001): 62. 90 Koyuncu, op.cit: 119. 27 Therefore, realist security perception can be concluded as that state, which is perceived as a male character, is put at the center of international system and provision of security is entitled as the main responsibility of the states. When state and security are conceptualized in a masculine manner from realist perspective, it becomes inevitable that a disadvantaged situation is prepared for women in the security issue. In consideration of an approach in which state security is given more importance than human security, while it is predictable all individuals suffer from this approach, it is an obvious fact that women become the ones who get the most damage. 1.8. FEMINIST SECURITY THEORY Feminist theory, which brings about a critical viewpoint to almost every field of the discipline of IR, aims at introducing a new dimension to the security issue by approaching from its own perspective. At the core of the analysis of feminist theory on security issue is the critiques of the assumptions of realist thinking regarding security. While severely questioning the realist perspective that shapes the classical security conception of the discipline, feminism maintains that contrary to what realists defend, there is a social dimension in addition to the military and political dimension of security, and that gender must be used as a unit of analysis in examining security.91 In this regard, the state-centered security perception of realism is criticized by arguing that state security is crucial but it does not necessarily guarantee the safety of individuals and societies. Therefore, “no longer can state security be limited to protecting borders, institutions, values, and people from external aggressive or adversarial designs”.92 Especially in the post-Cold War era, as a result of the change of bipolar world system and the increase in globalization, the emergence of new threats towards security of both state and individuals have revealed the limitations and deficiencies of realist security concept. In this new system which paved the way for critical approaches, it is asserted that national interest, defined as power-driven by realists, is actually multidimensional, and that military measures to achieve these national interests are not sufficient so new 91 Kimberly Hutchings, “1988 and 1998: Contrast and Continuity in Feminist International Relations”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 37, no. 1 (2008): 100. 92 Sadako Ogata and Johan Cels, “Human Security: Protecting and Empowering the People”, Global Governance 9, no.3 (2003):275. 28 solutions based on cooperation and interdependence are necessary.93 Therefore, the significant changes in both the nature of international relations and the context of security have led to the question of traditional security and the necessity of redefining the concept of security which has become one of the most debated issues of discipline.94 Critical approaches that base their ideas regarding security issue upon the questions including “who is secured with security policies?” and “security for whom?” focus on especially human security instead of “state’s security” or “security for state” which are traditional answers of the discipline.95 Due to these approaches that require human security for reaching international security, security studies of IR have been divided into two groups which dissent whether or not traditional context of realist security conception should be expanded.96 Therefore, feminist approaches have taken the part of expansion side of this debate through their focuses on security threats encountered by specifically women. According to feminist perspective, international relations have been diverging from its structure consisting of political conflicts between nation states and transformed into another system by new threat perceptions at the individual and environmental dimension. Feminists consider security as multidimensional and describe it as “a reduction in all forms of physical, structural, and ecological violence.”97 In this sense, feminists lead individual-based approach to gain legitimacy as a functional security concept in the discipline by focusing on human security rather than state security. In order to provide security in the global level, human security should be ensured in the first place. According to feminist IR theory claiming that “the personal is international and the international is personal”98, behaviors of individuals and domestic politics of states are significant determinants of states’ behaviors in the international system99. 93 Tickner, op.cit. (1992): 37. 94 Koyuncu, op.cit: 120. 95 Peter H. Liotta, “Boomerang Effect: The Convergence of National and Human Security”, Security Dialogue 33, no.4 (2002): 474-475; Blanchard, op.cit: 1290. 96 Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies? Politics and Method”, Mershon International Studies Review 40, no.2, (1996): 229-230. 97 Atmaca and Gözen, op.cit: 23. 98 Enloe, op.cit. (2003): 252-53; Karen Brounéus, “Truth-Telling as Talking Cure? Insecurity and Retraumatization in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts,” Security Dialogue 39, no. 1 (March 2008): 55–76, 60. 99 John Hoffman, Gender and sovereignty: feminism, the state and international relations, (Palgrave, 2001): 102. 29 Therefore, the roles and experiences of individuals cannot be excluded from the international security issue. Feminist definition of security, based on the criticism of the definitions made on the basis of traditional security concept, addresses the threats perceived by women in the individual-centered manner. Therefore, feminism looks for answers to the questions of “who is secured” and “what kind of threats”- that create controversy between traditional and critical approaches of the discipline- in terms of “women’s security” and “threats perceived by women”.100 The threats toward security and dimensions of security that women confront within the family, within the state borders and within international system are different than those of men. Feminist IR theory argues that women usually constitute the most insecure, disadvantaged and marginalized unit of society in both private and public life.101 Thus, the security requirements of women should be examined separately from men. The provision of women’s security needs a multi- layered and multi-faceted analysis of feminist approach. According to feminists, there is a close association between public/private or national/international security threat perceptions. For this reason, all kinds of military, economic, and sexual violence must be terminated in all aspects of international relations for ensuring the safety of women. Since achievement of global security depends on the relations of states with their local affairs and their citizens, women’s security through absence of any threat or gender discrimination in the social level should be primarily provided. Nevertheless, the success of functioning such a security understanding which is based on women’s security is rendered more complicated due to the masculine nature of the discipline. The inclusion of women’s security into the security discourse of discipline is challenged by “the implicit genderization of the concept”.102 In this respect, the most fundamental theory that is criticized and one of the most basic concepts is security that is questioned in the security analyses of feminist approaches.103 100 Koyuncu, op.cit: 121-22. 101 Elaine Boulding, Cultures of Peace, (New York: Syracuse University Press Boulding, 2000): 107; United Nations, Women, Peace and Security, (New York: United Nations, 2002): 4–5. 102 Gunhild Hoogensen and Svein Vigeland Rottem, “Gender Identity and the Subject of Security”, Security Dialogue 35, no. 155 (2004): 158. http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/35/2/155. 103 Koyuncu, op.cit: 118. 30 Feminist perspectives are crucial in the discipline in terms of going beyond realism and its security conception shaped by patriarchal structure. In this respect, feminists seek for when gender is considered in the security studies, to what extent women’s security can be ensured and to what extent it has impacts on achieving global security. As Blanchard points out, “feminist working on security issues have articulated a normative ‘revision’ of what security could mean if gender were to be taken seriously.”104 Therefore, it aims at investigating the philosophical, academic and political backgrounds of the security problems occurring on the basis of gender in order to establish an alternative security perspective through using gender identity. However, in order to understand security through gender identity, feminists claim that it is necessary to revise the underlying patriarchal tendency of the discipline by reconsidering every field of it, particularly security issue, from gendered perspective.105 According to feminists, provision of national and international security can be achieved only if gendered hierarchies are demolished through a non-gender-biased manner. The main criticism of IR feminists regarding realism is based on the assumption that “realism, dominated by elite, white, male practitioners, is a patriarchal discourse that renders women invisible from the high politics of IR…”106 This assumption is maintained in the security issue by claiming that women are excluded and gender is disregarded from the traditional discourse. In this regard, feminist security theory takes realism to the center of its analyses with the aim of revealing the gender biased and androcentric framework of its core concepts. FST, in this respect, shapes its studies on two important critical points which are the lack of women in the ‘corridors of power’ and the gendered structure within the discipline of IR itself. In the first point, FST focuses on increasing the political visibility of women who are considered as a group in the security issue. However, the aim of feminist approach is not restricted with only “strategies for getting more women access to corridors of power”107 but also revealing gendered structure of IR. Therefore, the second point of FST is to contest with traditional security perceptions of the discipline 104 Blanchard, op.cit: 1305. 105 Hoogensen and Rottem, op.cit: 166. 106 Anne Sisson Runyan and V. Spike Peterson, “The Radical Future of Realism: Feminist Subversions of IR Theory.” Alternatives 16, no.67 (1991): 68–69. 107 Blanchard, op.cit: 1292 31 by focusing on developing a new security perception in which feminine values are also considered.108 On the grounds of these main criticisms, as Blanchard explains “FST has subverted, expanded, and enriched notions of security…by making at least four theoretical moves.” Firstly, feminists should question the lack of existence and involvement of women in conducting and decision-making processes of international security policies. Second issue to be questioned is that women are not adequately protected by the state in times of war and peace. Thirdly, it is essential to emphasize women’s participation in the war and their support for war instead of necessarily association of women with peace. And the fourth is regarding questioning the recent assumption that gendered security approaches express only women’s issues.109 To sum up, the security perception developed by feminism, which emphasizes human beings and humanistic values by criticizing realism that ignores individuals and especially women, aims not only to improve the condition of women but also to ensure the ultimate global security of the international system. 1.9. CONCLUSION In the first chapter, the foundation of feminist security perspective was introduced by explaining historical background and intellectual development of feminist theory, and by examining its criticisms towards realist security approach along with entrance of feminist thought into the discipline of IR. In the second chapter, the contribution of feminist IR theory regarding the position of women in the security issue through the transition from state and military based security understanding of realism into individual based security understanding will be analyzed. Especially during wartime, level of violence that women are exposed to increases and violence manifests itself particularly in the sexual way. Therefore, it should be analyzed the effects of sexual violence on whole society over woman body by means of the concept of gender. In this respect, it will be handled that using rape as a war strategy in order to destroy enemy in terms of physical, psychological and social. 108 Terry Terriff, et al., Security Studies Today (Polity Press, 2000):87; Tickner, op.cit (x) 109 Blanchard, op.cit: 1290. 32 CHAPTER 2 WOMEN AND CONFLICT 2.1. INTRODUCTION In this part of the thesis, firstly it will be studied how state-based classical security perspective, in which realist understanding is effective, is replaced with the new emerging human-oriented security perspectives. By examining the changes in meaning and scope of war along with the occurrence of concept of new war, it will be explained how civilians but mostly women are affected by these civil wars. The most irreparable impact of civil wars where violence is even exacerbated and manifested in many different forms on women and thereby on society appears as sexual violence. In this regard, after making definition of sexual violence, it will be dealt with the concept of rape as the severest form of sexual violence. Lastly, it will be emphasized on the use of rape as a war strategy, which has become important to be considered by especially the case of Bosnian war. 2.2. CHANGES IN SECURITY UNDERSTANDING Security studies have an important place in the discipline of IR. The concept of security is a major topic that has to been analyzed principally in the scope of discipline. Even though security means that basic values regarding individuals, groups, or states are free from external threats, it is not reached an agreement based on choosing which unit of analysis. Therefore, how to deal with the concept of security has been controversial and problematic among different theories and perspectives in the discipline of IR. As mentioned before, according to realist IR, which is relatively more dominant theory, the notion of security needs to be regarded as “national security”, so the focus of analysis becomes the “state”. While the extent of security is reduced to the security of state from the realist perspective, the contrary perspectives which use the individual level of analysis in their studies argue the importance of human security as an alternative view. For this reason, alternative perspectives use “individuals and groups” as the unit of analysis. In this regard, realist IR theory, whose main subject is the state and the object is state security, has been criticized by alternative theories in two points. 33 Firstly, reference point of security should be human and secondly, the main concern should be human security rather than state security. In the discipline of IR, classical security studies dominated by realism had led the way until Cold War. After that point, alternative security studies have started to gain prominence as a result of changing international system. As a result of changes in the structure of international relations and changes in the extent and dimension of the war in the post-Cold War, concerns such as what security means, how security should be dealt with and security for what have been brought to the agenda. In conjunction with Cold War, that the concept of globalization has begun to gain a broad place in the international relations has led to way for in-depth analysis and radical changes in the security fields as such in economy and law. With the détente period of Cold War, disarmament between the US and the USSR, and the signing of agreements in this context emphasized the beginning of a new era in the security studies.110 The critical changes in the international system has also caused theoretical debates, which are known as third debate as it is mentioned in the previous chapter, within the scope of security issue. Third debate contributed to reconsider of security issue by encouraging diversity in perspectives which challenged the hegemony of traditional approaches in the discipline. In spite of the traditional perspective focusing only on providing security by assuming that there are security threats which cannot be eliminated from the international system; alternative perspectives aim to solve security problems completely by getting the root of the issues. By means of alternative theories, a broader perspective and more common understanding have gained importance as moving away from the state-centered and military-oriented security concept. According to this understanding, one and only actor regarding security issue is not the state so individuals which compose the states and non-governmental and supra-state organizations which are influential in the international system should be considered. Therefore, it should come to mind that security means not only removing military and political threats that are able to destroy integrity and borders of the state but also eliminating all the threats risking human 110 Stephen M. Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies”, International Studies Quarterly 35, no.2 (June 1991): 217. 34 security. While security perception of state means sovereignty and protection of territorial integrity, it is determined for individuals and groups as ensuring safety of specifically identity shaped like sexual, ethnic, religious.111 In the 1994 UN Report, which be an indicator to show that alternative security studies started to assert dominance in the discipline, important points stand out against the traditional realist perception of security. This report focused on individuals rather than states as the reference point of security and takes non-military threats into account.112 Alternative approaches that have the common principles at the most basic grounds differentiate at the answers for questions such as “whose security?”, “security for what?” and “security from what/whom?”. Feminist security studies, as one of the alternative approaches emerging post-Cold War period, criticize taking state into consideration as the main actor of security since feminist theory believes that states represent certain gendered biases. As opposed to the classical security concept having its origins in realism, feminist theory creates a deconstruction process in which human security is the main concern. 2.3. NEW WARS: CHANGES IN THE NATURE OF CONFLICT In spite of the fact that security has had great importance throughout the history of nation-state, one of the biggest reasons why the debate between state security and human security is so intense is the emergence of the “new war” concept. The term of war, traditionally used to explain armed conflicts among two or more states, has continued to exist in almost every period of human history. However, with the dissolution of USSR, the bipolar system, which dominated the Cold War period, ended and the new world order began to be structured under the leadership of the Western world and the USA. The elements threating the security have been brought forward as ethnic or religious conflicts, weapons of mass destruction, international organized crime, human rights violations, environmental issues and terrorism, so states have 111 Ole Waever, “Insecurity, Security and Asecurity in the West European Non-War Community”, Adler, Emmanuel and Michael Barnett (eds.), Security Communities, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 48, 67. 112 Mohammed Nuruzzaman, “Paradigms In Conflict: The Contested Claims Of Human Security, Critical Theory and Feminism,” Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 41, no.3 (2006): 285. 35 begun to fight against these new threats. Therefore, traditional front battles, which had been dominant in the discipline until that time, were replaced by a new form of war. The concept of “new war” that emerged due to the end of the Cold War and spread of globalization was first used in 1999 by Mary Kaldor.113 Kaldor, who defines traditional front battles as armed clashes that last in a certain time between states or military groups with the aim of conquering lands, claims new wars appear as a conflict generally in unsuccessful states by means of non-governmental actors and government networks.114 Based on Kaldor’s definition of new war, it is deduced that “There is a tendency in areas of new wars…for centralized authority to break down and be replaced by criminal networks, multiple armed authorities, corrupt practices, mindless local barbarity, population expulsions and an orchestrated politics of fear instead of civil security.”115 The three major developments that give rise to the concept of new war are described as loss of state control, the asymmetricization of war, and the autonomy of forms of violence.116 In this respect, the features that make new wars different from traditional wars can be listed in this way: Non-state actors are also involved in the conflicts, so it is in the form of a civil war rather than an inter-state war. The monopoly of using violence and force no longer belongs to only the states. There is an asymmetry or unequal power relations between the parties of conflicts. The finance of new wars is provided by the global economy, so that international organizations and multinational corporations, aiming to arise conflicts by taking advantage of the disorder and instability in the weak or failed states, sustain these wars financially in order to take the lead in the competition in the globalization process. These wars burst out because of cultural, ethnic or religious identity movements rather than political ideologies. One of the most significant features of new wars is that the distinction between soldiers and civilians is vague.117 Therefore, it becomes crucial to discuss the security issue all over in the discipline as the traditional wars that are based on territorial dominance between two or more states or military forces under the control of states, and in which the distinction between processes of 113 Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, (Oxford: Polity Press, 1999). 114 Mary Kaldor, “The New War in Iraq”, Theoria, (April 2006): 1. 115 Christine Sylvester, “War Experiences/War Practices/War Theory”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40, no.3 (2012): 488. 116 Herfried Münkler, The New Wars, (Polity: 2005): 14-15. 117 Herfried Münkler, “The Wars of the 21st Cen