ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL POLITICS – THE GENDER DIMENSION

UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

SCHOOL OF LAW, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Master’s Program: “European and International Studies”

LESSON: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

PROFESSOR: KOSTAS YFANTIS

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

THE DIMENSION OF GENDER

Anna Karamanou

June 2005

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION
“Masculinity” and “Femininity”
The DATA or Who Rules the Planet?
SECURITY, DEFENSE, and MASCULINE HEGEMONY
The Man, the Theory of Two Spheres and the Causes of War
CONSTRUCTIVISM, BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM AND MASCULINITY
FEMINIST ANALYSIS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
FEMINIST THEORIES
SCHOOLS OF FEMINIST APPROACH
FEMINISTS AGAINST REALISTS
CONCLUSIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THE GENDER DIMENSION IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

Anna Karamanou

INTRODUCTION

The end of the Cold War seems to gradually alter the nature of international relations. From a focus on defense, armaments, and diplomacy, we have moved towards the search for different areas of foreign policy, with particular emphasis on human rights, health, education, poverty eradication, the rule of law, the environment, trade, demographic ratios, and the fight against organized crime and terrorism. Over the last fifteen years, gender issues have gained particular weight in many sciences, for the first time also in the theory of international relations. The starting point is the ongoing inequalities and discrimination based on gender.

Historically, women have been absent from formal international initiatives and decisions regarding war or peace. Even after the recognition of their rights and their entry into politics, women are absent from the UN Security Council and are underrepresented in international organizations. The number of women participating in the diplomatic corps is small and usually pertains to low-responsibility positions. Gender is an important variable that is unfortunately overlooked in the conduct of foreign policy. Women are not represented in the highest positions despite the fact that it has been established that they approach international relations in a way that usually leads to better cooperation and compromise solutions. High-ranking officials in foreign policy matters, NATO, defense ministries, and the relevant Directorate-General for Foreign Affairs of the EU are predominantly male.

The exclusion of women from foreign policy institutions and negotiations follows the exclusion trends found in all decision-making centers on a global scale and is primarily due to the patriarchal system, traditional stereotypes, social prejudices, and discriminatory practices that are perpetuated against women by those in power. According to the ancient Greek doctrine, “men are the city”…

Women overall, as a gender, throughout the historical trajectory of humanity, are not associated with acts of violent warfare. Having lived for centuries in the private sphere, they have developed pacifist qualities, the transfer of which to foreign policy and international relations could transform the culture of confrontation and violence into a culture of peace and understanding (Karamanu, 2003).

In the brief analysis that follows, I will try to support the following working hypothesis: The incorporation of the gender dimension in international politics and the balanced distribution of political power between the genders can lead to the peaceful coexistence of people (Kantian peace), global prosperity, and the resolution of crises through dialogue and negotiations.

“Masculinity” and “Femininity”

Gender does not pertain to biological differences, but to the interpretation of the behaviors of men and women, which are connected to culture (masculinity and femininity, Connel, 1995). Traditional international politics, with the emphasis it places on security, sovereignty, war, and survival, is the most male-dominated domain. The examination of gender highlights the influence of “hegemonic masculinity” on the core of international relations, as well as on the theoretical framework (Goldstein, 2001).

Many feminist approaches argue that gender plays a significant role in understanding international politics, particularly in war. These theories aim to change the theory and practice of “masculinity” in areas where it operates as an ideology justifying male dominance (ibid). The main question is why gender is so obscured in International Relations, since, as feminists argue, it is a central issue for understanding conflicts? It is a crisis of “masculinity,” claims Peterson (1997), while Maud Eduards (2003) states that “war is a story that speaks of men, violence, and aggressive masculinity.” A similarly resonant viewpoint is expressed by another famous intellectual, Francis Fukuyama. In his article “Women and the Evolution of World Politics” (1998), he provoked a storm of commentary and opposing views because he writes that “the world as we know it was created by men” and argues that “if women ruled the world, it would be less violent and more conciliatory and cooperative than the one we know today.”

The DATA, or Who Rules the Planet?

MEN:

95% of heads of state
96% of the ministers
94% of the highest governmental and intergovernmental positions

WOMEN:

50% of the population
They perform 1/3 of paid work and 2/3 of unpaid work.
They receive only 10% of the global income.
They hold 2% of the world’s wealth.
They constitute 60% of the illiterate.
80% of refugees
They have a higher life expectancy.
Low crime and aggression rates (Michel, 2005)

CONCLUSION: PROSPERITY AND POWER HAVE GENDER!

SECURITY, DEFENSE & MASCULINE HEGEMONY

The security and defense institutions play a central role in the field of international relations. Historically, these institutions have almost exclusively included men who produce norms and practices associated with “masculinity” and “hegemonic masculinity,” while simultaneously determining the agenda and policy of these institutions. Hegemonic power has many facets—military, political, and economic. The military, of course, is the most significant domain for identifying hegemonic masculinity. According to our patriarchal culture, a man’s honor largely depends on his ability to use violence, hence the word “bravery” is intertwined with heroism, courage in war, and the use of violence (Karamano, 2005). The heights of defense and military institutions provide a fairly convincing sample of “hegemonic manliness,” which has been hardly challenged by feminists or dissenting men (Connell, 1995).

It is a fact that when specific behaviors and practices have been established, it is extremely difficult to critique them, because establishment presents certain practices as “normal,” beyond any doubt. In the history of most military institutions, patriarchy is considered absolutely normal. As Connell (1995) argues, “hegemony can only be founded if there is a connection between culture and institutional power.” In an article titled “The Construction of Security in International Relations,” Nikos Tzifakis writes that “the traditional approach to security reproduces patriarchal power relations and legitimizes the creation of military organizations in which not only are the acceptable roles that women can play limited, but male behavioral norms prevail that expose women to the risk of abuse or rape.”

Maud Eduards in her study of the political organization of women in Sweden argues that it is a “forbidden act” to characterize men as a political category, to transform men “from a universal nothing into a specific something.” Indicating that “masculinity” has become a regime, “it is as if you are asserting that men are beings with gender and identifying the institutions historically occupied by men with male hegemony. However, studying something that has no name poses a methodological challenge with very great difficulties.” Certainly, there needs to be research of official documents, which will likely contain nothing relevant. For example, in a study conducted on recruitment in Sweden, nothing was found in the archives to justify why expectations for the defense and security of the country are directed only at men (Kronsell, 2003).

In Greece, there is currently a dispute regarding the recruitment of 6,500 professional soldiers by the Ministry of National Defense, from which women are excluded. It is clear that traditional security and defense institutions are not moved by the recognition of gender equality, nor by the mandates of the Constitution, the case law of the Council of State, and the European Court.

However, women, like theorists, will continue to question what is considered self-evident. Feminist methods challenge “beliefs” and “accepted and established practices,” as well as what is regarded as “natural” (Cynthia Enloe, 2004).

The Man, the Theory of Two Spheres and the Causes of War

The division of genders is reproduced through two main mechanisms. One is the identification of the human being with the man (in the French language, the words for human and man are the same (homme), while in Greek grammar, the masculine often includes the feminine). The second mechanism involves placing men and women in two different spheres of activity. In ancient Greece, the man was identified with power and freedom. Aristotle made the distinction between free male citizens and the rest of the population – women, children, and slaves. The life of a man was associated with war against other men or with intellectual pursuits. Honor and glory are given to those who are “brave, capable, and successful in war or peace.” The virtues recognized for men were courage, bravery, leadership ability, and intelligence. The only virtues acknowledged in women were beauty, and their sole purpose was childbirth. The public space belonged to men (the city is for men), and the private space to women.

Aristotle believed that all relationships are a result of negotiation and power balance, and he considered it utterly natural. It is known that competition and rivalry were central elements of Greek life. As Slater notes, “nothing made sense to the Greeks if it did not involve the defeat of someone else.” They competed for anything that could provoke a contest – from beauty, singing, physical strength, poetry, and drinking to the ability to stay awake. This desire for competition, for fame and glory, extended to the relationships between city-states, and of course, the wars that broke out destroyed them. (French, 1985). As is well known, Thucydides – the father of realism – has fully captured both the values system and the strategic doctrine of the Ancient Greeks.

War as a release of male aggression and as a “test of manhood” has become the subject of particular study. One only needs to read the correspondence of the author Dos Passos to be convinced. When he was fighting in France, his letters were filled with passionate violence. He confesses to his friend Arthur McComb that he has never been as happy as in the heat of battle: “I constantly feel the need for the intoxication of a great bombardment… there I feel alive, more than ever.” In other words, there I feel like a real man… (Peter G. Filene in “XY The Male Identity,” Batinder, 1992)

As Pierre Bourdieu says, to praise a man it is enough to tell him that he is a “man.” The man is therefore a kind of construction and as such always runs the risk of presenting flaws: defects in production, deficiencies in male equipment, that is, to come out as a deficient man.

CONSTRUCTIVISM, BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM AND MASCULINITY

The question then arises: is masculinity a biological given or an ideological-social construct? The question pits supporters of biological determinism against constructivists, as well as two contemporary feminist trends, one that advocates absolute dualism and the other that sees similarities and blurred boundaries between the sexes. The first viewpoint experienced a particular flourishing with the sociobiology founded by E.O. Wilson in 1975. Sociobiological theories argue that hereditary male aggression provides the biological foundations for male dominance, hierarchy, competition, and war (Batinder).

Feminist supporters of diversity encourage female solidarity and promote a maternal, woman-centered ideology that justifies the moral superiority of women. If, that is, women are by nature “maternal,” sweet, pacifying, peace-loving, it is automatically concluded that they represent the bright future of humanity. This theory was adopted and developed by supporters of ecological feminism. Opposed to anything that threatens life, they present themselves as champions of environmental and life protection. Based on the theory of biological determinism, sociobiology and gender diversity feminism arrive at similar conclusions: one gender is always favored at the expense of the other. Captive to a predetermined scheme, men and women are doomed to forever play the same roles and continue the same war.

Constructivism denies the view that gender is something uniform, immutable, and based on biology, and paves the way for the idea of the multiplicity of norms. If, that is, masculinity is learned and constructed, there is no doubt that it can also change. What has been built can be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. The two positions, biological determinism and constructivism, are diametrically opposed. However, the variety of behaviors disproves the supremacy of the biological factor, and the diversity of norms cannot impede the common characteristics of genders.

The theory of the feminist standpoint argues that the historically inferior position of women within a hierarchically structured patriarchal system creates conditions for women to see its functioning as normal. It is a fact that power relations create the conditions of knowledge. However, the same theory asserts that knowledge is also produced through the struggle of the oppressed and deprived, that is, through the experience of oppression. It is evident, however, that the marginal position of women in global politics and the economy is also due to the fact that they occupy roles that are either not explicitly connected to the dynamics of international relations, as traditionally defined, or are systematically undervalued, as happens with domestic work, for example. Enloe, however, argues that women’s experiences contain new perspectives for international relations. The question, however, is where, how, and when the historical experience and women’s approach to issues will be assessed and utilized.

Studying the overlaps between constructivism and feminism in International Relations, we find common ground in research that focuses on norms, rules, identities, and institutions. However, despite the common starting points, feminists and constructivists follow different paths. Feminists primarily examine how gender, race, class, and other identities operate as codes for discrimination in favor of or against. The emphasis, that is, is placed less on identity and more on the mechanisms of discrimination and power. Constructivists do not show sensitivity to the issue of power as a racial and social construction and lack the theoretical tools to explain how gender and power relations are reproduced (Locher & Prügl, 2001).

FEMINIST ANALYSIS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Feminist analysis aims at changing and transforming perceptions of global politics. It fundamentally involves the understanding of power: who holds it, on what basis, how it operates, and with what results. It argues that politics and the economy concern people, that power is not something vague but something that should be understood based on historically shaped social relations, in place and time. Feminists were the first to proclaim that politics pertains to both the public and private spheres. Feminist politics, with an emphasis on the private, were the politics of “here and now,” negotiating immediate changes in theory and practice. Feminist social analysis has contributed to changing perceptions and the very nature of politics. Recently, it attempts to transform perceptions of global politics, arguing that analyses of international relations should take into account patriarchal structures as dominant dynamic factors. Understanding patriarchy and how it affects global inequalities is one of the greatest contemporary challenges (Youngs, 1999).

Feminist analysis focuses attention on the traditional concept of “masculinity” as a decisive factor in shaping foreign policy preferences. Feminists examine the pressures and social expectations that create the standard of the “real man” and the impact it has on the structure of thought and behavior. Every official knows how dangerous it is for any public figure to project the image of being “soft” or, even worse, “feminine” (Enloe, 2000). Militaristic and “masculine” culture exerts tremendous pressure on politicians to appear tough and aggressive, especially on issues of security and defense. This political competition and pressure for “dynamism” result in a stifling limitation on the possibilities, for example, of American foreign policy to play a more useful role in creating a truly secure international community (ibid).

President Bush, in the way he manages foreign policy, is a “real man», aman’sman. He does not believe in alliances, diplomacy, and other soft forms of power (Deelstra, 2004). Ann Tickner argues that the war in Iraq is the result of a purely “masculine” approach. The emphasis on a strong military response excluded any other options. The war against terrorism – good against evil – reflects exactly this problematic dichotomous thinking, which excludes other intermediate solutions.

The European Parliament, over the last five years, has taken a stance against the imbalances and gaps in the international political system with two main reports on the subject: Theorin Report (2000), regarding the role of women in security and peaceful conflict resolution, and Karamanos Report (2001), on the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making processes. These two reports, which were adopted by the plenary of the European Parliament, argue that the exclusion of women from political decisions constitutes a serious disability for democracy, poverty, and deprivation of countries from the unexploited imagination, abilities, ideas, and value systems of women, which prioritize the protection of life, peace, and not war, … securing dialogue at all levels, cooperation among peoples, resolving differences through peaceful means, and shaping a foreign policy that rejects and excludes violence and war as means of resolving differences and promotes a fair distribution of the planet’s resources and the goods of science and technology… The vision of a world that regains its unity and balance through the conjunction of the values, ideas, visions, pursuits, abilities, priorities of both genders of humankind.

FEMINIST THEORIES

Feminist theory of international relations is the expression of a broader framework of feminist thought and approaches that started in the late 1980s. Feminists sought to challenge the boundaries and theoretical constraints of the tradition of International Relations, noting that a theory based on the functioning of states, in a quasi-anarchic and state-centric system, leaves little room for feminist theory (Tickner, 1997). Feminists fought for the abolition of the dividing lines between national/international and public/private and opened the dialogue on women’s human rights. The codification of women’s rights in international conventions, such as CEDAW, inevitably called into question the boundaries and limitations of international politics (Steans, 2003).

H Peterson and Runyan emphasize that feminist theories of international relations do not exclusively concern women, nor do they originate solely from women. Feminist criticism, as interpreted by non-feminist international relations theorists, seems to come from a different world, where “women’s experiences” represent a significant advantage that could enrich global knowledge. Feminist theory, very briefly, has the following contribution:

Reveals the androcentric nature of traditional international relations theory, particularly realism.
It develops the theoretical framework of gender.
It requires academics to acknowledge gender discrimination, despite their arguments about objectivity.
It provides empirical material that demonstrates the importance of the gender dimension in international politics.
It raises questions about the marginalization of women and the distinction between public/private.
Promotes alternative models against patriarchy.
It aims to overturn the historically unequal distribution of power between the two genders and to transform the structures and relationships of power.
He believes that the world would be less competitive and violent if women and men shared political power.
Promotes the model “Lysistrata” – women against war.

SCHOOLS OF FEMINIST APPROACH

Liberal: Equal rights, equal obligations: It argues that women possess exactly the same abilities as men and that male dominance in military institutions constitutes discrimination against women (sexism). Liberal feminism addresses inequalities from the perspective of classical liberal emphasis on individual rights. Women have the right to participate in all social and political roles (including warfare) without any discrimination based on gender. The exclusion of women from international relations and from positions of responsibility is unjust. Liberals do not believe that women’s participation would change the fundamental characteristics of the international system, nor the foreign policy of countries, nor that it would abolish war. Liberals also reject the idea that women are more peace-loving than men (Goldstein).

The criticism of liberal feminism primarily concerns that it asks women to forfeit many aspects of their gender identity in favor of male identity, without demanding a similar move from men. By integrating into existing structures of power, including the armed forces and the war machine, women merely support a male-dominated world, rather than changing it. However, opponents of liberal theory do not provide answers on how the system can be changed if women remain on the margins of the system and far from decision-making centers.

Marxist: Capitalism has caused the separation of the public and private spheres. The examination of women’s employment led Marxists to conclude that domestic labor is not that significant, which is why it is undervalued by the capitalist system. The idealization of the family obscured the real power relations between the private and public spheres and turned women and children into the property of men (Steans and Pettiford, 2003).

Socialist/Social Democratic: Capitalism and patriarchy are responsible for the oppression of women. It combines Marxist analysis with analysis of patriarchy and believes that a “critical” mass of women in power institutions can lead to the creation of a better world.

Radical: Changes in institutions. It criticizes the liberal school and accuses it of seeking equality within the patriarchy.

Critique: Based on radical ideas, it emphasizes the patriarchal nature of social and political institutions.

Postmodern: rejects liberalism – gender relations express power relations. It also rejects the transfer of Western experience to other countries.

FEMINISTS AGAINST REALISTS

Feminist theories primarily target the realist school, which they believe operates to the detriment of women, as the definition of power is directly associated with the male gender and ignores women. They argue that realists do not take into account the factor of “human,” but rather states as the protagonists of international relations. Women’s perceptions of power are entirely different from the prevailing views of realists. For women, power means energy, ability, and dynamism. Power is not secured only through violence but also through consent. Feminist theory challenges the existing state of affairs and poses questions such as: “why this world and not some other,” instead of simply describing “how this world works” (Tickner, 1997).

Feminist theories therefore cover a broad spectrum ranging from positivism to post-positivism and reveal how conventional international relations theory has overlooked the role of women. ROBERT KEOHANE argues that “feminist theory critiques theories created by men to place themselves at the center of politics… Feminists critically examine international relations from the perspective of those who have been systematically excluded from positions of power.” Keohane explored the commonalities between international relations and feminist approaches and argues that:

The reconsideration of the concept of power can help in redefining the concept of national sovereignty.
Feminist theory can strengthen the will of states to address the consequences of interdependence, instead of competing over who will control the other.

Peterson and Runian emphasize that: “The conventional lenses of international relations show us the tip of the iceberg. Feminist lenses lead us below the surface of the sea, to see the deep inequalities that shape international hierarchies, which erupt into international conflicts when they come to the surface.” Cynthia Enloe argues that masculinity and femininity play a decisive role in the militarization and demilitarization of society and wonders: “What are the gender relations on which the Cold War relied for 45 years?” Feminists argue that the Cold War was the creation of “Realist” irrationality. Because peace was not a priority as a national security issue, the content of international relations during the Cold War was the preparation for war (Coates).

Without a doubt, the transformation of sovereignty and power relations, under the influence of globalization, opens up political space today for a feminist approach to international relations. Since the sovereign state is no longer regarded as the exclusive representative of the population on the international stage, women can gain more representation in international law and also contribute to the creation of that law.

In a roughly similar vein moves the theory of democratic peace, which argues that the likelihood of armed conflict between democratic states decreases significantly (Regan & Paraskeviciute, 2001). However, the degree of democracy is also judged by whether equality of rights and obligations between the two sexes is recognized.

Among modern democracies, the Scandinavian countries stand out for their recognition of the role of women, the equal distribution of political power between genders, the strong welfare state, as well as for the peaceful role they play in international relations and peace initiatives. Therefore, does the fair distribution and balance of power between genders lead to both development and prosperity, as well as to a reduction of competition and violence in international politics? Certainly, when discussing the Scandinavian countries, one cannot fail to emphasize the role that social democracy played in building the rule of law and equality.

CONCLUSIONS

1. According to the preceding analysis and the example of the Scandinavian countries, it is likely that the working hypothesis is confirmed, namely that a balanced participation of the genders in international negotiations and political decision-making can lead to the rejection of war and violence as means of resolving disputes and to a new global order that prioritizes:

In strengthening international cooperation and supranational institutions, with the aim of a democratic global governance.

In the protection of life, dialogue, reconciliation, negotiation, fair distribution of the Planet’s resources, understanding of different viewpoints, respect for any differences – racial, religious, political – and the resolution of crises through peaceful means.

2. The dominance of “masculinity” and its identification with the strategy of power, under today’s conditions of globalization and interdependence, constitute an explosive mixture for international politics, with a cost to peace and prosperity.

3. Deep changes are needed in the orientation of international relations (and in teaching) and alternative, non-military security solutions.

4. Strategy for enriching traditional theories of international relations by incorporating the gender, experiences, and perspective of women, particularly in issues of security and defense.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goldstein, S.J., 2001, “War and Gender:How Gender Shapes the War System & Vice Versa”, Cambridge University Press
Connel, R., 1995, “Masculinities”, Cambridge, Polity Press
Enloe, C., 2000, ”Masculinity as Foreign Policy issue”, in “Foreign Policy – In Focus”, Vol.5, No 36, October 2000
Tzifakis, N., 2004, “The Construction of Security in International Relations,” in “Market Without Borders,” volume 10, issue 2, Sept., Oct., Nov. 2004.
French, M., 1985, “Beyond Power”,” Chicago Tribune Book World
Karamanou, A., 2003, article, “If Women Ruled the World,” newspaper “TA NEA,” p. 12, 12.08.2003
Eduards, Maud, 2003, “With Women’s Bodies as a Battlefield”, Conference, “Gender and Power in the New Europe, the 5^th European Feminist Research”, August 20-24, 2003, Lund University, Sweden
Michel, R., 2005, “Introduction to International Relations”, winter term 2005, University of Oregon
Karamanou, A., 2005, article, “Political Issue the Violence against Women”, newspaper “THEMA”, 03.04.2005, p. 28.
Batinder, E., 1992, “XY- The Male Identity”, ed. Katoptron
Kronsell, A., 2005, “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity”. Reflections from Feminist Standpoint Theory”, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7:2 June 2005, 280-298
Tickner Ann J., 2003, “The Growth and Future of Feminist Theories in International Relations”, An interview with Sarah Buchwalter, Jesse Finklestein and Luise Sherman, Providence, RI, 8.10.2003
Tickner, Ann J., 2004, “Feminist Responses to International Security Studies” in “Peace Review”, March 2004, 49-48
Tickner Ann J., 2005, “What is your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to I.R. Methodological Questions”, in “International Studies Quarterly”, (2005) 49, 1-21
Locher Birgit & Elizabeth Prugl, “Feminism and Constructivism:Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?”, International Studies Quarterly (2001) 45, 111-129
Youngs, G., 1999, “International Relations in a Global Age”, Cambridge: Polity Press
Peterson V.S., 1997, “Whose Crisis:Early and Post-Modern Masculinism” in “Innovation and Transformation in I.R.” by Stephen Gill & James H. Mittelman
Theorin, M.B., 2000, “Gender Aspects of the Prevention and Resolution of Armed Conflicts”, Report, European Parliament, 2000/2025(INI)A5-0308/2000, 30.11.2000, OJC228,13.08.2001, p.186
Karamanou, A., 2001, “Women in Decision-Making. Implementation of Council Reg. 96/694”, Report, European Parliament, (2000/2117COS)A5-0373/2000, 18 Jan. 2001, OJC262, 18.09.2001, p. 248
Steans, J., 2003, “Engaging from the Margins: Feminist Encounters with the «Mainstream» of International Relations”, British Journal of Politics, Vol.5, No 3, August 2003, pp. 428-454
Deelstra, J., 2004, “Gender Expectation is a Powerful Force in Politics”, Daily Trojan-Opinions, Issue:10.05.04
Tickner, Ann J.,1997, “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists”, in International Studies Quarterly (1997), 41, 611-632
Ceohane Robert O., 1998, “Beyond Dichotomy: Conversations Between International Relations and Feminist Theory”, International Studies Quarterly (1998) 42, 193-198
Fukuyama Francis, 1998, “Women and the Evolution of World Politics”, Foreign Affairs, 77 No 5, 24-40 S/O ‘98
Coates, Susan C., 1995, “Peace Feminism in International Relations”, www.du.edu./-suscoate/
Regan M.R. & Aida Paskeviciute, 2001, “Feminism, Social Constructions and the Democratic Peace: Women’s Access to Politics and Peaceful States”, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Anna Karamanou ,

04.07.2005