Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and

in Practice: An Introduction 1st Edition

Stephenie Foster
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/feminist-foreign-policy-in-theory-and-in-practice-an-int
roduction-1st-edition-stephenie-foster/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

International Economics: An Introduction to Theory and

Policy, 2nd Edition Acharyya

https://ebookmeta.com/product/international-economics-an-
introduction-to-theory-and-policy-2nd-edition-acharyya/

Governing Kenya: Public Policy in Theory and Practice

1st Edition Gedion Onyango

https://ebookmeta.com/product/governing-kenya-public-policy-in-
theory-and-practice-1st-edition-gedion-onyango/

Role Theory and Russian Foreign Policy : Rolling

Changes in National Role Conceptions 1st Edition Damian
Strycharz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/role-theory-and-russian-foreign-
policy-rolling-changes-in-national-role-conceptions-1st-edition-
damian-strycharz/

Prices Issues in Theory Practice and Public Policy

Almarin Phillips (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/prices-issues-in-theory-practice-
and-public-policy-almarin-phillips-editor/
Theory Policy Practice Development and Discontents in
India 1st Edition Suman Nath (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/theory-policy-practice-development-
and-discontents-in-india-1st-edition-suman-nath-editor/

An Introduction to Human Services: Policy and Practice

9th Edition Barbara Schram

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-introduction-to-human-services-
policy-and-practice-9th-edition-barbara-schram/

Indonesia’s Regional and Global Engagement: Role Theory

and State Transformation in Foreign Policy 1st Edition
Moch Faisal Karim

https://ebookmeta.com/product/indonesias-regional-and-global-
engagement-role-theory-and-state-transformation-in-foreign-
policy-1st-edition-moch-faisal-karim/

Islamist Foreign Policy in Sudan 1st Edition Mohammed H

Sharfi

https://ebookmeta.com/product/islamist-foreign-policy-in-
sudan-1st-edition-mohammed-h-sharfi/

An Introduction to Environmental Law and Policy in

Canada 3rd Edition Julie Williams

https://ebookmeta.com/product/an-introduction-to-environmental-
law-and-policy-in-canada-3rd-edition-julie-williams/
FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY IN
THEORY AND IN PRACTICE

Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and in Practice outlines the foundations of

feminist foreign policy and the fundamental concepts discussed and utilized
by governments, civil society organizations, and those in the academic
community as they define, formulate, and implement it.
This book furthers the global conversation around how countries can
develop and execute approaches to foreign policy and national security that
go beyond conflict prevention and resolution and use a feminist or gender
lens to increase gender equality and women’s leadership in the security
sector. It reviews how governments have implemented feminist foreign,
development, and trade policies at the multilateral and national levels, and
sets forth the unique global role of the U.S. government, using case studies
to discuss what would be needed to implement a feminist foreign policy in
the U.S. The authors provide a roadmap, stressing the necessity of applying
a gender analysis and perspective to all peace and security decision-​making
and involving women in all aspects of conflict prevention and resolution,
peacebuilding, post-​conflict reconstruction, and humanitarian relief. They
tie together the movements for human rights, women’s rights, feminism,
and peace and security, highlighting how each of these strands brings key
perspectives to the study of foreign policy.
This book complements the study of the women, peace, and security
agenda. It will be of great use to practitioners, including government officials,
addressing issues of foreign policy, multilateral and bilateral engagement, and
the promotion of gender equality and social inclusion. It will also be of interest
to students and scholars of foreign policy, security studies, international
relations, gender studies, development, governance, and political science.
Stephenie Foster is Co-​founder of Smash Strategies, former Senior Advisor/​
Counselor to the Ambassador-​ at-​
Large for Global Women’s Issues, and
Senior Advisor to the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts, U.S.
Department of State, and Professorial Lecturer and Executive-​in-​Residence
at the American University Women & Politics Institute, USA (2005–​2012,
2017–​2018).

Susan A. Markham is Director of HFXX and Co-​Founder of Smash Strategies,

former USAID Senior Gender Coordinator, former Director of Women’s
Political Participation at the National Democratic Institute and Lecturer for
Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Georgetown University, and
George Washington University, USA (2017–​present).
FEMINIST FOREIGN
POLICY IN THEORY
AND IN PRACTICE
An Introduction

Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham

Designed cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham
The right of Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham to be identified as authors
of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
Names: Foster, Stephenie, author. | Markham, Susan A., author.
Title: Feminist foreign policy in theory and in practice :
an introduction / Stephenie Foster and Susan A. Markham.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023016197 (print) | LCCN 2023016198 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781032281827 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032281667 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781003295617 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Women’s rights–International cooperation. |
Feminism–International cooperation. | International relations.
Classification: LCC HQ1236 .F67 2024 (print) |
LCC HQ1236 (ebook) | DDC 323.3/4–dc23/eng/20230621
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023016197
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023016198
ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​28182-​7 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​28166-​7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​29561-​7 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/​9781003295617
Typeset in Sabon
by Newgen Publishing UK
CONTENTS

Acknowledgments vi

Introduction 1

1 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 6

2 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals 27

3 Feminist Foreign Policy in Practice 53

4 The Global Role of the U.S. 86

5 Operationalizing Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S. 113

Appendix 1: Timeline of Selected Key Events 137

Appendix 2: Summary of United Nations Security Council
Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security 142
Index 146
newgenprepdf

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many individuals and organizations who helped us while writing
this book. Although we cannot name them all, we would like to acknowledge
Our Secure Future for its support for the genesis of our work on feminist
foreign policy and the International Center for Research on Women
for its leadership and partnership on the issue. We also acknowledge the
many government officials across the globe who are working to transform
institutions and to move toward feminist foreign policies.
Thank you, as well, to the reviewers of our initial book proposal: Dr. Joan
Johnson-​Freese, Dr. Michelle Jones, Carla Koppell, Dr. Karen O’Connor,
and Ambassador Don Steinberg. Their contributions and suggestions were
integral to our framing of this book.
Finally, thank you to our close friends and family who support us daily.
You inspire us to keep working for gender equality, women’s leadership, and
of course, a feminist approach to policymaking.
INTRODUCTION

The world today is both chaotic and interconnected. Current events,

including multiple ongoing conflicts, climate-​related upheavals, and global
health crises, have policymakers questioning traditional assumptions,
considering new ways of thinking, and conceptualizing new solutions. The
global balance of power is being transformed due to the rise of China and
other autocratic states. The connections between domestic and international
policy are clearer than they have ever been before. COVID-​ 19 and the
accompanying economic downturn made it abundantly clear that individuals
and nation-​states are globally interdependent. And in real time, the media
has highlighted, using data and anecdotal stories, the gendered nature of the
global events (Camera, 2022).1 All of this creates opportunities for paradigm
shifts and transformational change.
This opportunity includes reexamining traditional approaches to foreign
policy and questioning assumptions about international relations, power,
security, war, conflict resolution, and gender. Dr. Carol Cohn, the founding
director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights at the
University of Massachusetts Boston writes,

These ideas are deeply embedded in national security discourse, where they
underlie core assumptions about what makes us more secure, and what
counts as “rational,” “self-​evident,” and “realistic” in security policy.

1 For example, in the first few months of the pandemic in 2020, roughly 3.5 million mothers in
the U.S. with school-​age children either lost their job, took a leave of absence, or left the labor
market altogether, according to an analysis by the Census Bureau.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-1
2 Introduction

In so doing, they act as a preemptive deterrent to thinking complexly,

creatively, and truly realistically about security.
(Cohn, 2019)

Many security assumptions are gendered, including the belief that the use
of military force, often called “hard power,” is more important to national
security than the use of diplomacy, development, and other levers of soft
power. Other standard beliefs also under scrutiny include ones that hold that
the human dimensions of security are secondary to geopolitics and should
guide foreign policy and national security decisions.
Over the past decade, the theory of feminist foreign policy has emerged
to interrogate these traditional models of national foreign policy and
international security. Although the name “feminist foreign policy” prevents
some policymakers and thought leaders from considering it, feminist foreign
policy is an approach for government action that is based on historical events
and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has been adopted by
a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways already by the
U.S. government, and could be further operationalized.

Feminism and Feminist Foreign Policy

Feminism is the idea that all people, regardless of sex or gender, should have
equal political, economic, and cultural opportunities and rights. Feminism
is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression, and is
focused on dismantling the belief that sex and gender should define a
person’s role in society. The idea of feminism has been around for over a
century and encompasses at least four “waves” that correlate with women’s
right to vote and own property, legal frameworks of economic equality
and antidiscrimination, sexual and reproductive rights, the expansion
of the movement to account for the multiple and intersecting ways that
characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, (dis)ability, education,
economic status, gender and sexual orientation impact women’s lives, and
the role of technology within the current context.
Feminist foreign policy is a transformative concept that provides a new
way of thinking about global engagement as it integrates the goal of gender
equality across national foreign policy and international security. This
translates into foreign policy that looks at gender equality across diplomacy,
foreign assistance/​development, defense and security cooperation, and trade
as both a means and an end. Feminist foreign policy builds on women’s
movements and the work championed by feminists while bringing in multiple
other strands of thought and advocacy including feminist international
relations theory, human rights as women’s rights, and the women, peace, and
security agenda.
 Introduction 3

Feminist foreign policy widens the foreign policy aperture beyond

preventing and resolving conflict and looks to “rebalance” approaches to
global engagement, so that the full range of diplomatic, development, and
defense strategies are used by governments and multilateral institutions to
meet foreign policy goals and objectives. It also values the contributions of
all people, regardless of gender, addresses barriers to gender equality and
diversity, and ensures that chronically marginalized voices, most often those
of women, are part of policymaking processes.
Feminist foreign policy as a political framework unifies the various strands
of gender-​focused foreign policies and programs designed and implemented
by governments, whether in terms of advancing women’s political and
economic leadership, the women, peace, and security agenda, or a gender
focus in development assistance. It is a framework that allows the efforts
of governments to be measured and for those governments to be held
accountable for their commitments to women’s rights and gender equality.
Feminist foreign policy in practice acknowledges that governments can
take important steps that move closer to a more “gendered” and feminist
foreign policy without leading to transformation. These types of changes have
impact on their own and can also lead to longer-​term and sustainable changes.
They include “gender mainstreaming” within and across foreign policy and
national security, economic development, trade, aid, and humanitarian
policies and at all levels of decision-​making; the hiring of gender advisors;
the use of sex-​disaggregated data; international development assistance that
substantially targets gender inequality and seeks to address and transform
gender relations; a focus on women’s security and human rights as indicators
of state stability and international security as evidenced by commitments to
the women, peace, and security agenda; and other concrete mechanisms, such
as establishing ambassadors or envoys for global women‘s issues (Aggestam
& True, 2020).
Some argue these types of changes are a simple “add women and stir”
approach that tinker on the margins of foreign policy and national security
institutions, and that without wholesale institutional change, past mistakes
will be repeated, and traditional paradigms of colonialism and patriarchy
left in place. Others see these changes as key to shifting perspectives within
government and putting policies in place that reimagine the way government
does business. Both can be true. It is important to constantly evaluate
these policies to determine their impact, understanding that some scholars
and advocates will not see feminist foreign policy as truly successful unless
patriarchal and colonial structures are dismantled.
Sweden’s groundbreaking adoption of a feminist foreign policy in 2014
spurred this growing movement and a deeper consideration of how a feminist
foreign policy works in reality. Feminist foreign policy is now a rallying cry
globally for civil society advocates and academic literature is burgeoning. In
4 Introduction

the intervening nine years, additional countries have committed to a feminist

foreign, development, and/​or trade policy and multilateral institutions, such
as the European Union, have begun to adopt such a policy. But there has been
backlash, particularly to the use of the term “feminist.” Moreover, in 2022,
Sweden’s new conservative government retreated from its long-​ standing
policy, saying the label could be counterproductive, while still reaffirming its
commitment to gender equality.

Book Overview
This book examines the theory underlying feminist foreign policy by
outlining the numerous strands of thought, practice, and advocacy that shape
its formulation. It reviews the historical events and movements that led to
the current theoretical policy, examines the set of key principles that it is
based upon, assesses the versions of the policy that have been adopted by a
set of countries, evaluates how some feminist foreign policy ideas have been
implemented by the U.S. government, and looks at how it could be further
operationalized.
Chapter 1 sets forth the theoretical and historical underpinnings, in terms of
existing United Nations treaties, instruments, and conferences. This includes
treaties and agreements focused on human rights and women’s rights, United
Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace, and Security, and
the World Conferences on Women that led to the Beijing Declaration and
Platform for Action. All these treaties, agreements, and consensus documents
are foundational to feminist foreign policy.
Chapter 2 discusses the key principles of feminist foreign policy in
the context of gender equality, which is central to this framework. This
underscores that women, men, girls, and boys interact with each other and
with society differently due to several factors. These include laws, policies,
and practices; cultural norms and beliefs; gender roles and responsibilities;
access to and control over assets and resources; access to power and decision-​
making; and the impact of conflict and violence. Although there is not one
universally accepted definition of feminist foreign policy across sectors, there
are fundamental concepts that form the basis for the idea. These principles
include gender equality as a goal and strategy, a broadened definition of
security, the elevation of diverse voices, and a desire to address historic
power imbalances. This chapter outlines these fundamentals.
Chapter 3 reviews the countries that have committed to a feminist foreign
policy, a feminist development policy, and/​or a feminist trade policy, and the
specific contours of these policies. Sweden’s adoption of a feminist foreign
policy in 2014 spurred a deeper consideration of how feminist policy works
in the “real world” and how it might apply in other countries. Since then,
there has been a steady drumbeat of interest. Additional countries have
 Introduction 5

adopted such policies, including Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg,

Mexico, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain, and with others
beginning this process: Chile, Ireland, Liberia, Libya, and Scotland.
Chapter 4 covers the unique role of the U.S. government and its large
footprint in global economic and political affairs. It also discusses the shift
in the U.S. government’s approach from a focus on women’s leadership and
empowerment to gender equality and equity, mirroring global trends in the
feminist and women’s rights movements, and how this affects the development
of policies and programs.
Chapter 5 provides a set of specific policy recommendations for the
U.S. government, building on past and current work by the U.S. government
and civil society. These recommendations lay out a roadmap for national
security and foreign policy officials to promote security, gender equality, and
cooperation by integrating principles of gender equality and a gender analysis
into decision-​making and policy implementation. It provides an analysis of
the progress made to date toward a feminist foreign policy in the U.S. and the
openings that might accelerate such a commitment in an ever-​dynamic world.

References
Aggestam, Karin and Jacqui True, “Gendering Foreign Policy: A Comparative
Framework for Analysis.” Foreign Policy Analysis Vol. 16, No. 2 (April
2020): 143–​162, https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​fpa/​orz​026
Camera, Lauren, “White House Looks to Push Congress on Universal Child Care.”
U.S. News & World Report, 2022, available online at: www.usn​ews.com/​news/​
natio​nal-​news/​artic​les/​2022-​02-​22/​white-​house-​looks-​to-​push-​congr​ess-​on-​univer​
sal-​child-​care
Cohn, Carol, “Gender and National Security: Thinking Complexly and Creatively
about Security.” Ploughshares Fund, 2019, available online at: https://​ploug​hsha​
res.org/​iss​ues-​analy​sis/​arti​cle/​gen​der-​and-​natio​nal-​secur​ity
1
FOUNDATIONS OF FEMINIST
FOREIGN POLICY

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action. It is based on

historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has
been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways
already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized.
For over a century, women and men have advocated for human rights,
women’s rights, and the importance of peace and security in international
security and foreign policy. The feminist foreign policy framework has emerged
from these historical movements, associated international agreements and
documents, and the creation and development of the concepts of women’s
empowerment, gender equality, and feminism. This chapter outlines these
origins.

The Concept of Human Rights

The belief that everyone is equally entitled to human rights is a cornerstone
of feminist foreign policy. The concept of human rights is rooted in the
traditions and documents of many cultures and societies, some of which are
set forth later. Yet virtually all of these traditions and documents originally
excluded women from their frameworks as well as certain ethnic, social,
religious, economic, and political groups (Flowers, 1998).
Throughout much of history, people have acquired rights and
responsibilities through their membership in a group: a family, an indigenous
nation, a religion, class, community, or state. All societies, whether with
oral or written traditions, have had systems of propriety and justice as well
as methods to address the health and welfare of their members (Flowers,
1998). The Inca and Aztec codes of conduct and justice, the Hindu Vedas, the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-2
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 7

Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, the Bible, the Quran, and the Analects of
Confucius are some of the oldest written sources of individual duties, rights,
and responsibilities, and how individuals relate to governing institutions.
The Magna Carta (1215) introduced a rough concept of the “rule of law”
and the idea that “all persons” have defined rights and liberties, offering
protection from arbitrary prosecution and incarceration. Before the Magna
Carta, the rule of law, now considered a key principle in any modern
democratic society, was perceived as divine justice, to be solely distributed
by the monarch or the king (Flowers, 1998). The Magna Carta had mixed
provisions around the rights of women. Clauses 7 and 8 seem to provide
equal inheritance rights for noble women: “At her husband’s death, a widow
may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble.”
However, at the same time, Clause 54 weighted a woman’s testimony in court
less than that of a man: “No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal
of a woman for the death of any person except her husband” (Harris, 2015).
The English Bill of Rights (1689) outlined specific constitutional and civil
rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. The French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) introduced
the concept that all “men are born and remain free and equal in rights,”
and specified the rights of liberty, private property, the inviolability of the
person, and resistance to oppression (Harris, 2015). The U.S. Bill of Rights
(1791), the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, includes specific
prohibitions on governmental power in order to protect individual liberties.
As with earlier writings, these documents and frameworks were largely
gender blind. This reflected, at the time they were written, that women were
not seen as equal to men and did not have equal rights to own property, vote,
or control their own lives. In the U.S. context, First Lady Abigail Adams
famously wrote to her husband President John Adams in 1776:

I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and
favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power
into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if
they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are
determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by
any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
(Adams, 1776)

In that time period, there were other essays and critiques that advocated
for women’s rights. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of
Women: With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, for example, called
for women’s empowerment and was prompted by the refusal of the French
revolutionaries to extend educational rights to women (Wollstonecraft,
1792). John Stuart Mill, in The Subjection of Women, condemned the legal
8 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

subordination of women and argued that women and men are equal in
“privileges and power” (Mill, 1869).
By the 1800s, individual rights were defined by how a nation’s inhabitants
related to the rulers of that nation, but events of the time expanded the idea
of individual rights beyond national borders and governance, serving as a
precursor for the concepts of universal rights and accountability (Geddis,
2017). The antislavery movement, for example, worked to end a global
practice perpetuated by nation-​states against people who did not necessarily
have a connection to a particular country. This eventually led to nation-​states
agreeing to common rules of international behavior (Geddis, 2017).
The antislavery movement, and the organizations created to support
it, played a prominent role in building political will for universal human
rights, although the collaboration between abolitionists and women’s rights
groups was not always easy. In 1829, British born reformer Frances Wright
toured the U.S. and lectured against slavery. She was one of many women,
including Lucretia Mott and sisters Sarah and Angelina Grimké, who publicly
advocated to abolish slavery (Grimke, 1838).
These movements continued to grow and develop, leading to the abolition
of slavery in the U.S. and related legal reforms. Women’s movements also
continued to gain momentum, particularly around the fight for women’s
suffrage, both in the U.S. and around the world. As further discussed later,
the concept of universal human rights came to the forefront after the horrors
of World War II and the term entered the global vocabulary in the 1940s
(Moyn, 2012).

Women’s Rights Organizations and Movements

In the mid-​1800s, the first international women’s movement was built by a
small group of elite women in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany, and
France. Their goals were civic and political equality for women, the right
to vote and hold public office, and social justice in employment, education,
and access to health care (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004). These women connected
through a network based on letters, visits, a common body of published
writings, and shared tactics and issues.
Despite the unease of some antislavery activists, working to end slavery
was foundational to the women’s movement and, as a result, important
connections were made between the two groups of activists. In 1833, a
group of White and Black women founded the Philadelphia Female Anti-​
Slavery Society. Noted abolitionist and suffragist Lucretia Mott interacted
with parallel antislavery societies in the United Kingdom and the U.S. on
behalf of the Philadelphia group (Melder, 1997), strengthening relationships,
networks, and advocacy on both issues. Anti-​ Slavery International was
founded as the British and Foreign Anti-​Slavery Society in 1839 and was key
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 9

to both abolishing slavery and advocating for the equal rights of women and
other marginalized groups.
The Seneca Falls Convention was the first woman’s rights convention
held in the U.S. in July 1848. The convention launched the women’s suffrage
movement and decades of advocacy and activism for women’s right to
vote. Abolitionists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott boldly
proclaimed in the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments (U.S. National Park
Service, 1848) that “We hold these truths to be self-​evident; that all men and
women are created equal … [and] that to secure these rights governments
are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
These feminists outlined over 15 “repeated injuries and usurpations on
the part of man toward woman,” and among other things, demanded “their
sacred right” to vote. They foresaw the challenges they would face: “In
entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount
of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every
instrumentality within our power to effect our object.” Three hundred men
and women, including noted abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass, signed
the Seneca Falls Declaration.
But the relationship between abolitionists and suffragists was not without
tension. Some antislavery activists disapproved of women’s public role.
Frances Wright was mocked in a cartoon, which depicted her as a goose
(Lange, 2015). Ten years later, in 1840, the World Anti-​Slavery Convention
refused to seat women delegates, but women still continued as leaders and
organizers in some parts of the movement. When the Civil War ended, and
women were not included in the 14th and 15th Amendments, many suffragists
felt betrayed. Some in the movement refused to work for ratification of these
amendments (Weiss, 2020). At the same time, Black women in the suffrage
movement felt sidelined and marginalized, and there were racial overtones
to both the pro-​and anti-​suffrage rhetoric during these many campaigns
(Weiss, 2020).
The ensuing fight for women’s suffrage in the U.S. spanned the next
70 years. From the first referendum held in 1867 to ratification of the 19th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, U.S. suffragists were relentless
advocates. In an era preceding mass media, they took on 480 petition and
lobbying drives to get state legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to
voters; 277 campaigns to get state political party conventions to include
women’s suffrage planks in their party platforms; and 56 state referendum
campaigns. Women in the western U.S. gained the right to vote before women
in the rest of the country and in many places, women could vote for some,
but not all, offices (Weiss, 2020).
This struggle took place as women across the globe also fought for their
right to vote. Between 1918 and 1921, women gained the right to vote in
Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, and the United Kingdom.
10 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

The movement in the U.S. culminated in the passage and ratification

of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Despite the 19th Amendment, however,
many non-​White women were not able to vote immediately due to literacy
tests, poll taxes, and violence (Staples, 2019). Native American and Asian
American women did not gain the right to vote until much later, as they did
not hold U.S. citizenship at that time (Staples, 2019). Further, gaining the
right to vote did not end discrimination against women. It continued and was
embedded into numerous legal frameworks surrounding employment, jury
service, access to credit, and criminal justice (Brown, 1971).
A strong civil society was formed during this time in the U.S. and globally
as women organized across various sectors, around interconnected issues,
and in terms of affinity groups. Thousands of groups, of all sizes, advocated
for both broad and narrow issues of women’s rights and gender equality.
Examples from this “first wave” of feminism reflect a diverse set of issues.
The YWCA was founded in the United Kingdom in 1855 to support women
during the industrial revolution. It continued its fight for women’s rights
and human rights during the European refugee crisis after World War II, the
U.S. civil rights movement, and the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa
(YWCA website). The American Association of University Women (AAUW)
was founded in 1880 to advance opportunities for women to pursue higher
education and careers, and for equal treatment with men.
The League of Women Voters (LWV) was founded six months before
the 19th Amendment was ratified to help women carry out their new
responsibilities as citizens and voters. President Harry Truman later invited
the LWV to consult with the U.S. delegation at the United Nations Charter
Conference (League of Women Voters website). The National Federation of
Business and Professional Women’s Clubs (NFBPWC) was founded in 1919
to focus on the issues relevant to working women. The establishment of
the “Status of Women” commission in the U.S. in 1963 was due largely to
NFBPWC’s efforts (National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s
Clubs website). The National Council of Negro Women was founded in 1935
by Mary McLeod Bethune “to advance opportunities and the quality of life
for African American women, their families and communities” (National
Council of Negro Women website). Many of these organizations are still in
existence today and have been joined by numerous others.

Nongovernmental Peace Movements

Movements for peace and disarmament arose alongside the fights for human
and women’s rights and in response to World War I. Jane Addams and other
feminists organized the Woman’s Peace Party in 1915, which called for the
limitation of arms and weapons, mediation of the European conflict, and the
removal of the economic causes of war. The Women’s International League
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 11

for Peace and Freedom, founded in Europe in 1915, today remains one
of the world’s longest standing women’s peace organizations. The Second
International Congress of Women 1919 (the Congress of Women) was held
at the same time as the Paris Peace Conference to end World War I.
The Congress of Women supported the creation of the League of Nations
as an international platform to “represent the will of the people and promote
international cooperation,” but argued that the terms of the peace proposal
to end World War I violated the principles upon which a “just and lasting
peace can be secured.” The Congress of Women also called for the full
voting franchise for women, eligibility for women to serve in every position
at the League of Nations, equal pay and opportunities in employment and
education, economic support for mothers, and racial equality (Adams, 2014).
In the U.S., the Women’s Peace Union (WPU) was founded in 1921 by
former suffrage leaders and peace activists to focus on nonviolent means to
address conflict. The WPU lobbied to end aggression toward other countries.
It drafted a Constitutional amendment to make war illegal and prohibit the
U.S. from preparing for, declaring, or engaging in war or armed conflict
(Adams, 2014).
By 1940, the peace movement in Europe and the U.S. almost collapsed
after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii in December 1941. It
was very unpopular to oppose the use of military means against the Nazi
regime, Japanese forces, and even by the Red Army on the Eastern Front
(Johansen, 2013). But near the end of World War II, as described later, world
leaders came together and worked to establish the United Nations to avoid
future world wars, maintain international peace and security, and promote
international cooperation.
In the 1960s, movements for both peace and women’s rights gained
strength again. Women Strike for Peace formed in 1960 to oppose
nuclear testing, stressing women’s responsibility to stop nuclear testing
and protect future generations. The magazine Liberation was one of the
earliest publications to engage in a dialogue focused on militarism and
gender, promoting the writings of nonviolent theorist and activist Barbara
Deming, who critiqued the too easy adoption of violent methods and
support for wars of national liberation. In the 1970s, women became a
major constituency of the peace movement. Many feminist activists and
scholars addressed the issue of anti-​militarism, especially critiquing the
male language of strategy.
The UN Decade for Women (1976–​1985) led to increased global awareness
of, and involvement in, the peace movement by women. As noted, women
had already been active in peace movements, including the movement to
end the Vietnam War. This work continued and deepened and focused in
the 1980s on a nuclear freeze between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to halt the
testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons (Miller, 1982).
12 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

Globally, and at every level, women have been active participants in conflict
prevention and resolution. This work further informed and galvanized the
women, peace, and security movement, which is further discussed later. In
2011, former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian peace and
women’s rights advocate Leymah Gbowee, and Yemeni journalist Tawakkol
Karman were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their “non-​violent
struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation
in peace-​building work” (The Nobel Prize, 2011).

Key International Agreements and Events

During World War II, Allied leaders began to envision a new international
institution to ensure human rights, global peace, and cooperation once the
war ended. In 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, committing their
countries to international collaboration, common principles, and individual
rights. The Charter outlined their collective views on a postwar international
system (The Atlantic Charter, 1941). At later meetings in Tehran, Yalta, and
San Francisco, delegates from Allied nations planned for an organization
called the United Nations to replace the failed League of Nations.
In the U.S. the essence of these global principles had been captured in
President Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union Address where he spoke of
a world founded on four essential freedoms: the freedom of speech, the
freedom of religion, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. This
speech reflected President the Roosevelt’s hope that the U.S. would abandon
the isolationist policies that followed World War I, and set forth what would
become the ideological basis for involvement in World War II, framed in
terms of individual rights and liberties. This echoed calls from across the
globe for human rights standards to protect citizens from abuses by their
governments and standards against which nations could be held accountable
for the treatment of those living within their borders.
The concept of universal human rights came to the forefront after World
War II and the term entered the global vocabulary in the 1940s (Moyn, 2012).
In 1945, 50 nations signed the United Nations Charter, with a primary goal
of bolstering international cooperation and promoting human rights (Moyn,
2012). The UN Charter acknowledges that one of the UN’s purposes is “[t]‌o
achieve international co-​operation … in promoting and encouraging respect
for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion” (United Nations, 1945).
First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was the first chair of the UN Commission on
Human Rights. Under her leadership, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The
UDHR established, for the first time, that fundamental human rights are to
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 13

be universally protected and that both women and men have the same rights.
It states: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth [here]
without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status” (Pietilä, 2002). In 1968, Roosevelt posthumously received one of the
first United Nations Human Rights Prizes for her work.
The UDHR is widely recognized as having expanded the body of human
rights law, paving the way for the adoption of more than 70 additional
human rights treaties (United Nations, 1948). These treaties include the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1948), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (also known as CEDAW) (1979),
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1984), the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(1989), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990), and the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).
The idea of women’s rights as human rights, however, was still a radical
concept when the UN was first discussed. At that time, women had voting
rights in only 50 percent of UN member states. In the U.S., while most women
could vote, there were still barriers to voting and political participation. Sex-​
segregated job announcements were still common, women could still be
excluded from jury duty, could only obtain birth control if married, and
needed to have their husband’s signature in order to obtain credit. Many of
these restrictions on women’s human rights were not addressed for decades.
In order to implement the commitments set forth in the UN Charter
and the UDHR to equal rights for men and women, activists proposed the
formation of a UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Eleanor
Roosevelt opposed the creation of CSW because in her view, if rights were
equally protected for men and women, such a body would not be necessary
(Pfeffer, 1996). Despite her objections, however, CSW was established in
1946 as the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated
to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women. It still
meets annually each March.
From 1947 to 1962, CSW focused on setting standards and formulating
international conventions to change discriminatory legislation and foster
global awareness of women’s issues and rights (UN Women, 2019). CSW
drafted early international treaties on women’s rights, such as the Convention
on the Political Rights of Women that was approved by the UN General
Assembly in 1952. This Convention codifies international standards for
women’s political rights including women’s equal right to vote, run for
office, and hold public office, as well as women’s rights to exercise all public
14 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

functions, established by national law, on equal terms with men and without
discrimination.
CSW also drafted the first international agreements on women’s rights
in marriage. This included the Convention on the Nationality of Married
Women (1957) and the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age
for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages (1962). CSW also contributed to
conventions such as the International Labor Organization’s 1951 Convention
concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of
Equal Value, which enshrined the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) were both adopted in 1966. Both protected a range of civil and
political rights and prohibited discrimination based on sex. The ICCPR
included two key articles relevant to women. In Article 3, it provides that
parties “undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the
enjoyment of all civil and political rights.” Article 25 provides that every
citizen has the equal right to participate in public affairs, vote, and be elected
through universal and equal suffrage, and to have equal access to public
services (United Nations, 1966).
The UN General Assembly then declared 1976–​1985 to be the UN Decade
for Women to highlight the importance of women’s rights. During this
decade, several world conferences on women took place, drawing thousands
of delegates and observers. The conferences and associated gatherings built
momentum for gender equality broadly and for specific policy initiatives.
Preparing for these conferences was valuable to women’s civil society
organizations in terms of energizing advocates, gaining experience, forming
networks, and organizing around common goals. In particular, in this
time period, addressing violence against women became a central issue for
organizing and action (Pietilä, 2002).
In 1975, the first UN world conference on women took place in Mexico
City, Mexico with 133 governments participating and 6,000 civil society
representatives attending a parallel forum. At the Mexico City conference,
delegates developed a ten-​year action plan, and addressed issues such as the
importance of women’s economic empowerment and political participation,
the key role women play in promoting development and peace, and the need
for women’s equal access to education, health care, and family planning
services. The conference addressed several contemporaneous foreign policy
issues, such as control of the Panama Canal Zone, apartheid in South Africa,
and the situation of women in Vietnam and Chile (United Nations, 1976).
In 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention to End
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (UN Women, 1979), often described
as an international bill of rights for women. CEDAW explicitly defines
discrimination against women and provides an overarching framework for
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 15

gender equality by ensuring women’s equal access to, and equal opportunities
in, political and public life, education, health, and the economy. CEDAW is
the only human rights treaty that affirms the reproductive rights of women
and addresses culture and tradition as influential forces that shape gender
roles and norms.
CEDAW sets forth concrete steps for governments to take to eliminate
discrimination against women. In Article 7, parties to CEDAW agree to take
all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the
political and public life of their country and, in particular, to ensure that
women have the equal right to: vote in all elections and public referenda,
hold public office, and be elected to all publicly elected bodies; participate in
the formulation and implementation of government policy; and participate
in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and associations concerned with
the public and political life of the country.
By ratifying CEDAW, countries commit to incorporate gender equality
in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt laws
prohibiting discrimination against women, establish mechanisms and
institutions to protect women against discrimination, and ensure elimination
of discrimination against women. Countries that have ratified or acceded to
CEDAW commit to submit national reports to the CEDAW Committee, at
least every four years, on the steps they have taken toward their obligations
(UN Women, 1979). As of 2023, CEDAW has been ratified or acceded to
by 189 countries. As of early 2023, the six UN member states that have
not ratified or acceded to CEDAW are Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, and
the U.S.
In general, critics of CEDAW and other United Nations human rights
covenants argue that while UN institutions monitor and encourage compliance
with these declarations and treaties, there are no international enforcement
mechanisms in place. Moreover, countries can disregard commitments on
the ground of national security or make reservations to particular articles
on the grounds of national law, tradition, religion, or culture (Levine &
Kouvo, 2020). On the other hand, the commitments to equal rights and
nondiscrimination that are included in UN documents have encouraged
and supported action over time by activists and governments alike to end
discriminatory policies and laws.
The second UN world conference on women was held in 1980 in
Copenhagen, Denmark, with delegates from 145 member states participating
in the official session. The conference was initially planned for Tehran, but the
Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the Iran hostage crisis led to the conference
being hastily relocated to Denmark. The conference reviewed progress
toward the goals of the Mexico City conference, focusing its attention on
women’s employment, health, and education. An agreed-​upon Program of
Action called for stronger national measures to ensure women’s property
16 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

rights, rights to inheritance, and ability to pass along citizenship to their

children (UN Women, 1980). The conference addressed foreign policy issues,
including women in the Middle East, refugees, and apartheid.
In 1985, the third UN world conference took place in Nairobi, Kenya
with a mandate to move the goals of the UN Decade for Women (1976–​
1985) forward. Participants included delegates from 157 member states and
12,000 participants at a parallel civil society forum. The conference outlined
additional measures to achieve gender equality and promote women’s
participation in peace and development efforts (UN Women, 1985). The
conference document explicitly connects peace and development, outlining
that “peace cannot be realized under conditions of economic and sexual
inequality, denial of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, deliberate
exploitation of large sectors of the population, unequal development of
countries, and exploitative economic relations.”
There were also contemporaneous global movements to expand
reproductive rights, which the World Health Organization defined as the
basic right

of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number,
spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and
means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and
reproductive health.
(World Health Organization, 1994)

This includes the right to access birth control and abortion, be free from
coerced sterilization and contraception, and have access to information
needed to make free and informed reproductive choices.
The first international document recognizing these rights was the
nonbinding Proclamation of Tehran in 1968, which stated that “[p]‌arents
have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number
and the spacing of their children” (United Nations, 1968). In 1994, the
Cairo Programme of Action, adopted by 184 United Nations member
states, recognized that reproductive health and rights, as well as women’s
empowerment and gender equality, are critical to population and development
programs (UNFPA, 1993).
Around the same time, the Declaration and Programme of Action was
adopted by the UN World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. It concluded
that human rights are universal and that nation-​states are not allowed to
violate rights under the guise of cultural differences. With regard to gender
equality, the Programme articulated that the rights of women and girls are
fundamental parts of universal human rights (Sullivan, 1994).
In 1994, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) introduced
the concept of human security, which broadens the traditional definition
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 17

of security, looking to address how people view security and the need for
development to play a key role in building stronger societies. This is critical
to current discussions of how to define the concept of security, a building
block of feminist foreign policy. The associated UNDP Human Development
Report set forth a new paradigm of sustainable human development to
capture a potential peace dividend and restructure the system of global
institutions (UNDP, 1994).
All of these United Nations global meetings, documents, and campaigns
were the backdrop for the seminal UN Fourth World Conference on
Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace (the Beijing Conference),
held in China in 1995. Officials from over 180 countries gathered with more
than 17,000 participants, including 6,000 government delegates, 4,000
accredited NGO representatives, and 4,000 members of the media. A parallel
forum for NGOs was held in Huairou, China, over 30 miles from the main
conference site in Beijing. That forum drew 30,000 participants (UN Women,
1995a). It was at the Beijing Conference that then First Lady Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s remarks explicitly linked women’s rights and human rights (Clinton,
1995). In her words, “[i]‌f there is one message that echoes forth from this
conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights
are human rights, once and for all.”
By 1995, the issues addressed at the Beijing Conference, and by women
across the globe, reflected a broadened perspective on what constituted
women’s rights, with a focus on economic and political participation, equal
access to health care and education, and the need to address violence against
women. During the gathering, the official delegates unanimously agreed to
the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (the Beijing Platform), which
is not a binding treaty and is not enforceable. Nevertheless, it is still the most
forward-​leaning global statement and agreement about the rights of women
and girls and gender equality, reflecting the perspective that all issues are
women’s issues, and that gender equality is central to basic human rights.
The Beijing Platform was, and still is, a rallying cry for a wide range
of civil society actors, who have used it to advocate for changes to legal
frameworks at the local, national, and regional levels, and across numerous
issues. The Beijing Platform set out 12 cross-​cutting issues to achieve political,
social, economic, cultural, and environmental security: poverty, education,
health, violence, armed conflict, the economy, power and decision-​making,
mechanisms for women’s advancement, women’s human rights, the role
of mass media, the environment, and the importance of the girl child. It
highlighted the importance of governments mainstreaming gender and
integrating gender perspectives into all legislation, public policies, and
programs (UN Women, 1995b).
At its heart, the Beijing Platform set forth the principle that underlies the
women, peace, and security agenda, and the foundations of a feminist foreign
18 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

policy: that if women are to play an equal part in securing and maintaining
peace, they must be empowered politically and economically and represented
adequately at all levels of decision-​making (UN Women, 1995b). Accordingly,
the Beijing Platform called for an increase in women’s representation among
economic and political decision-​makers (UN Women, 1995b) and endorsed
quotas to guarantee that women are included at a prescribed minimum level
in political institutions, recommending a quota of 33 percent (UN Women,
1995b).
Notably, there has not been a world conference since Beijing, in large part
due to fears that growing global conservatism and authoritarianism could
lead to a weaker consensus document.
In 2000, building on decades of major UN conferences and summits, as well
as continued activism, world leaders adopted the United Nations Millennium
Declaration. This committed member states to a new global partnership to
reduce extreme poverty. It set out a series of time-​bound targets that became
known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were agreed
to by all countries and the world’s leading development institutions (United
Nations, 2015). The eight MDGs ranged from halving extreme poverty
rates to halting the spread of HIV AIDS and providing universal primary
education. Specifically, goal 3 of the MDGs focused on “promot[ing] gender
equality and empower[ing] women” with a key target to eliminate gender
disparity in primary and secondary education.
That same year, the UN Security Council passed UN Security Council
Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security (UNSCR 1325). It was
the first UN Security Council resolution to specifically address the impact
of war on women, and the importance of women’s contributions to conflict
resolution and sustainable peace. Further, the debate accompanying its
adoption was the first time the UN Security Council dedicated an entire
session specifically to women (Cockburn, 2011).
UNSCR 1325 was groundbreaking, and foundational to feminist foreign
policy, as it stressed the importance of women’s equal participation and full
involvement in maintaining peace and security and urged all actors to increase
the participation of women and incorporate gender perspectives in all United
Nations peace and security efforts. It called on all parties to conflict to take
special measures to protect women and girls from gender-​based violence,
particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse. UNSCR 1325 and related
resolutions address the disproportionate impacts of war and conflict on
women and reflect the pivotal role women should, and do, play in conflict
prevention, conflict management, and sustainable peace efforts.
Collectively, UNSCR 1325 and related resolutions recognize sexual
violence as a weapon and tactic of war (UN Security Council Resolutions
1820, 2008; 1888, 2009; 1960, 2010), link disarmament and gender equality
(UNSCR 2122, 2013), highlight the importance of government collaboration
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 19

with civil society (UNSCR 2242, 2015), recognize gender as a cross-​cutting

issue to address violent extremism and terrorism (UNSCR 2242, 2015),
recognize the women, peace, and security agenda as applicable to all countries
(UNSCR 2242, 2015), and urge meaningful inclusion of women in peace
talks (UNSCR 2493, 2019).
Under these resolutions (see Appendix 2 for details) nations commit to
engaging women in all aspects of conflict prevention, resolution, and post-​
conflict reconstruction. These resolutions were drafted and framed to guide
work to promote gender equality and strengthen women’s participation,
protection, and rights across all aspects of the conflict cycle. This framework
reflects how women, and a gender perspective, are relevant to negotiating peace
agreements, ensuring effective peacekeeping operations, and reconstructing
societies post-​conflict. UNSCR 1325 is broadly accepted across the globe and
to date has been translated into over 100 languages (Sen, 2020).
In 2015, UN member states adopted the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), a series of 17 goals for the year 2030 to drive global efforts for
sustainable change to benefit citizens in every country (United Nations,
2015). Unlike the MDGs, which had set goals and targets for developing
countries only, the SDGs apply to all countries, regardless of development
status (United Nations, 2015). While feminist analysts praised how the SDGs
built on the MDGs, they also criticized the SDGs’ promotion of traditional
economic models, as well as the SDGs’ failure to address the need for
structural reform, to address existing power imbalances, and to emphasize
the importance of human rights (Millard, 2017). These critics also noted
that the SDGs are either silent or very weak on LGBTQI+​issues and the
importance of using collective action and advocacy to meet the goals of the
SDGs (Millard, 2017).
Gender equality is both a stand-​ alone goal (SDG 5) and integrated
across virtually all the other goals. Having said that, SDGs 5 and 16 are
most relevant to a feminist foreign policy. As noted, SDG 5 is the primary
goal focused on gender equality, taking a human rights–​based approach,
and acknowledging the importance of women’s movements to activate and
energize people to meet the other goals on the agenda. Most critics view
SDG 5 as stronger than other goals in recognizing structural inequalities.
However, criticisms focus on how SDG 5 addresses political participation
and economic empowerment, equating the number of women in politics
with policy change, and assuming that women should participate in the
economy without recognizing that women are “over-​represent[ed] among
informal workers, [and face] pervasive gender wage gaps, and occupational
segregation” (Millard, 2017).
SDG 16 promotes human rights and the rule of law in order to create
peaceful and inclusive societies, strengthen institutions, and ensure access to
justice for all. SDG 16 has been criticized as redundant, vague, and based on
20 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

an incorrect premise that development assistance will serve national security

agendas (One Earth Future, 2015).
The Generation Equality Forum, held in 2021 because of the COVID
pandemic (UN Women, 2022a), was intended to celebrate the 25th
anniversary of the Beijing Conference and Platform and structured to track
progress on its implementation. It was the first global gathering of its kind
since the Beijing Conference. Looking forward, the Generation Equality
Forum sought to galvanize concrete actions and obtain commitments in
order to accelerate change. It was convened by UN Women and cochaired by
France and Mexico, in partnership with civil society and youth organizations.
The forum kicked off in Mexico City, Mexico in March and culminated
in Paris, France in late June, bringing together civil society, multilateral
institutions, governments, the private sector, and trade unions, with
approximately 50,000 people participating, most virtually due to restrictions
imposed by COVID-​19.
The Forum adopted a Global Acceleration Plan for Gender Equality.
The Plan addresses six critical issues that underpin gender equality: the
need to address gender-​based violence, ensure economic justice and rights,
ensure bodily autonomy and sexual and reproductive health and rights,
propel feminist action for climate justice, utilize technology and innovation
for gender equality, and promote feminist movements and leadership.
Governments and public sector institutions committed $21 billion to gender
equality investments; the private sector committed $13 billion; and the
philanthropic world pledged $4.5 billion (UN Women, 2022b).
Further, over 100 governments, UN entities, regional and civil society
organizations, academic institutions, and private sector entities signed the
Compact on Women, Peace, and Security and Humanitarian Action (UN
Women, 2022b). These signatories pledged to take concrete action on existing
commitments including increased focus and financing for women, peace, and
security initiatives, gender equality in humanitarian programming, economic
security, and protection of women’s rights in conflict and crisis. Tracking
these commitments and their impact is ongoing.

Women’s Empowerment, Gender Equality, and Feminist

Movements
The world events outlined earlier took place in parallel with, and as a
result of, country-​specific and global movements for women’s rights and
women’s equality. Broadly framed, these women-​led movements and the
activities associated with them can be grouped into four waves of feminism
(Daleo, 2021).
Beginning in the early 1900s, first wave feminism dealt with women’s
property rights and the right to vote and participate in public life. It is often
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 21

associated with the campaigns for suffrage and the ratification of the 19th
Amendment to the Constitution in the U.S. Second wave feminism, which
started around World War II, focused on the need for economic equality and
the enactment of antidiscrimination laws and frameworks. Other issues came
to the fore, such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, and workplace
harassment. Much of the movement’s energy in the U.S. focused on the
passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Second wave feminism had many
successes, including the approval of the contraceptive pill by the Food and
Drug Administration in 1960, the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the
right of women to hold credit cards and apply for mortgages in their own
name, the passage of Title IX in 1972, and Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Third wave feminism, which began in the 1990s, was a diffuse movement
with wide-​ranging goals and issues. It began around the time of the hearings
to confirm Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the
emergence of the riot grrrl groups in the contemporaneous music scene
(Daleo, 2021). Unlike first or second wave feminism, there is no single
piece of legislation or major social change that is associated with the third
wave: “The confusion surrounding what constitutes third wave feminism,”
writes feminist scholar Elizabeth Evans, “is in some respects its defining
feature” (Daleo, 2021).
Third wave feminism was a reaction to the second wave’s perceived
privileging of White, straight women and focused on a more broad-​based
approach to feminism. It embraced the concept of intersectionality, which
helps explain dynamic and complex power relations and encompasses the idea
that people’s identities are multifaceted. This concept of intersectionality was
introduced by Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw as a critique of feminism, rooted
in the experience of White women, and excluding Black women’s experience
(Crenshaw, 1989). Intersectionality, which has gained widespread traction
in recent years, reflects the idea that gender, race, sexuality, disability, and
social class shape how different individuals and groups experience life, and
create interrelated systems of discrimination or disadvantage. It has become
one of the guiding frameworks of both feminist studies and the broader
feminist movement in the West. Unsurprisingly, the term has emerged as a
central concept in feminist scholarship within the discipline of international
relations.
Fourth wave feminism began in the late aughts, building on intersectionality.
It is characterized by a focus on the empowerment of women and the use
of technology to share experiences of discrimination (Grady, 2018). This
wave began as social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter were
established and was firmly in place by 2012 when the Everyday Sexism
Project was founded so that women could share their experience of misogyny
online. The project embodies the feminist phrase “the personal is political,”
a term that initially emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, encouraging women to
22 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

understand how the issues they face are not individual but collective, and as
a result might have political solutions.
In 2017, the #MeToo movement exploded onto the global scene with
a social media hashtag. Although the phrase was first coined in 2006
by Tarana Burke, a Black activist, actor Alyssa Milano used the term
to encourage women and men to share their stories regarding sexual
harassment and assault online. Over a few weeks, the phrase was used over
12 million times on social media, demonstrating the widespread nature of
sexual assault and harassment and leading to an ongoing public dialogue
with survivors sharing their stories publicly without fear (Gordon, 2022).
As a result, several states passed laws prohibiting the use of nondisclosure
agreements in sexual misconduct cases and in early 2022, the U.S. Congress
passed legislation to end forced arbitration in workplace sexual assault
and harassment cases, allowing survivors to file lawsuits in court against
perpetrators (Wang, 2022). Several high-​profile cases, such as those against
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and former USA Gymnastics team
doctor Larry Nassar led to prison time for offenders and financial restitution
for survivors (North, 2019).

Summary
Taken together, these historical movements and global commitments to
women’s rights, human rights, and the women, peace, and security agenda
form the foundation of feminist foreign policy. Activists in the women’s and
feminist movements, the abolitionist movement, and the peace movement,
among others, created the conditions for these policies and legal developments
to flourish and to be propelled forward.
The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, CEDAW, the
Beijing Platform for Action, UN Security Council Resolutions, and multiple
other international agreements and reports have elevated both human rights
and women’s rights in policymaking across the globe. These frameworks
have arisen because of the actions taken by advocates and government
officials, and they have also spurred further action to transform and broaden
the opportunities available to all. They have also brought to consider a new
and more human-​focused definition of security.
Over time, these efforts have coincided with four waves of feminism to
empower women and girls in every part of society and in every part of the
world. These parallel movements first centered on the importance of women’s
leadership and its transformational potential and have evolved to include a
focus on gender equality, gender equity, and intersectionality.
Feminist foreign policy must be placed in this context, as it takes us to
the next step, connecting an increase in gender equality to an increase in
global security. With that step, feminist foreign policy becomes a framework
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 23

to connect domestic and global policy spheres and place gender equality at
the heart of foreign policy and national security.

References
Adams, Joshua, “All Aboard the Peace Train.” Arming All Sides website, 2014, available
online at: https://​arm​inga​llsi​des.org.uk/​case_​stud​ies/​all-​abo​ard-​the-​peace-​train/​
Bill of Rights Institute, Bill of Rights, 1791, available online at: https://​billof​righ​tsin​
stit​ute.org/​prim​ary-​sour​ces/​bill-​of-​rig​hts
Boles, Janet K. and Diane Long Hoeveler, Historical Dictionary of Feminism.
Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2004.
Brown, Barbara A., “The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal
Rights for Women.” Yale Law Journal Vol. 80, No. 5 (1971): 871.
Clinton, Hillary Rodham, “Remarks to the U.N. 4th World Conference on Women
Plenary Session.” 1995, available online at: www.ameri​canr​heto​ric.com/​speec​hes/​
hill​aryc​lint​onbe​ijin​gspe​ech.htm
Cockburn, Cynthia, “Snagged on the Contradiction: NATO, UNSC Resolution 1325,
and Feminist Responses.” 2011, available online at: www.cynt​hiac​ockb​urn.org/​
BlogN​ATO1​325.pdf
Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black
Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist
Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum Vol. 139 (1989): 139–​167.
Daleo, Margie, “A Brief Look at the Four Waves of Feminism.” The Humanist, 2021,
available online at: https://​theh​uman​ist.com/​com​ment​ary/​a-​brief-​look-​at-​the-​four-​
waves-​of-​femin​ism/​
Flowers, Nancy, “A Short History of Human Rights.” University of Minnesota
Human Rights Resource Center, 1998: Part 1, available online at: http://​hrlibr​
ary.umn.edu/​edu​mat/​hred​user​ies/​her​eand​now/​Part-​1/​short-​hist​ory.htm#:~:text=​
Docume​ n ts%20as ​ s ert ​ i ng%20ind ​ i vid ​ u al%20rig​ h ts%2C%20s​ u ch,of%20to​
day’s%20hu​man%20rig​hts%20do​cume​nts
Franklin, D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, “The Atlantic Charter.”
2016, available online at: www.fdr​libr​ary.org/​atlan​tic-​char​ter
Geddis, Andrew, “The Philosophical Underpinnings of Human Rights.” In
International Human Rights Law in Aotearoa New Zealand, edited by M.
Bedggood, K. Gledhill, and I. McIntosh, Wellington: Thomson Reuters, 2017, pp.
19–​59, available online at: https://​pap​ers.ssrn.com/​sol3/​pap​ers.cfm?abst​ract​_​id=​
3337​160
Gordon, Sherri, “What Is the #MeToo Movement?.” VeryWell Mind, 2022, available
online at: www.veryw​ellm​ind.com/​what-​is-​the-​metoo-​movem​ent-​4774​817
Grady, Constance, “The Waves of Feminism, and Why People Keep Fighting over
Them, Explained.” Vox, 2018, available online at: www.vox.com/​2018/​3/​20/​
16955​588/​femin​ism-​waves-​explai​ned-​first-​sec​ond-​third-​fou​rth
Grimke, Angelina, Letters to Catherine E Beecher in Reply to an Essay on Slavery and
Abolition Addressed to A. E. Grimke, 1838.
Harris, Carolyn, “Magna Carta and Women’s Rights.” Queen’s University Alumni
Review (2015), available online at: www.quee​nsu.ca/​alumn​irev​iew/​artic​les/​2015-​
11-​03/​magna-​carta-​and-​women-​s-​rig​hts#:~:text=​Magna%20Ca​rta%20was%20
not%20a,any%20per​son%20exc​ept%20her%20husb​and.%E2%80%9D
24 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

Johansen, Jørgen, “World War II and Peace Movements (1939–​ 1945).” 2013,
available online at: https://​jjohan​sen.net/​2013/​12/​30/​world-​war-​ii-​and-​peace-​
moveme​nts-​1939-​1945/​#:~:text=​In%20the%20USA%2C%20Fel​lows​hip%20
of,of%20t​hem%20r​emai​ned%20rel​ativ​ely%20sm​all
Lange, Allison, “Women’s Rights Movement Emerges from the Abolitionist
Movement.” National Women’s History Museum, 2015, available online at: www.
crusad​efor​thev​ote.org/​abolit​ion
League of Women Voters website, available online at: www.lwv.org/​about-​us/​hist​ory
Levine, Corey and Sari Kouvo, “Gender, Human Rights and Security.” In The Gender
and Security Agenda: Strategies for the 21st Century, edited by Chantal deJonge
Oudraat and Michael E. Brown. Routledge, 2020, pp. 196–​213.
Massachusetts Historical Society Adams Family Papers, “Letter from Abigail Adams
to John Adams.” 1776, available online at: www.massh​ist.org/​digit​alad​ams/​arch​
ive/​doc?id=​L177​6033​1aa
Melder, Keith E., Beginnings of Sisterhood: The American Woman’s Rights Movement,
1800–​1850. Schocken Books, 1997.
Mill, John Stuart, The Subjection of Women. London: Longman’s Green Reader and
Dyer, 1869.
Millard, Abigail, “Feminist Critiques of the Sustainable Development Goals: Analysis
and Bibliography.” Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, 2017,
available online at: https://​gender​ands​ecur​ity.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​Femi​nist​_​Cri​
tiqu​es_​o​f_​th​e_​SD​Gs_​-​_​Ana​lysi​s_​an​d_​Bi​blio​grap​hy_​-​_​CG​SHR.pdf
Miller, Judith, “3 Women and the Campaign for a Nuclear Freeze.” New York Times,
May 26, 1982.
Moyn, Samuel, The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Harvard University, 2012.
National Council of Negro Women website, n.p., available online at: https://​ncnw.
org/​ncnw/​miss​ion
National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs website, n.p.,
available online at: www.nfb​pwc.org/​herit​age
The Nobel Prize, “The Nobel Peace Prize 2011.” 2011, available online at: www.nob​
elpr​ize.org/​pri​zes/​peace/​2011/​summ​ary/​
North, Anna, “7 Positive Changes That Have Come from the #MeToo Movement.”
Vox, 2019, available online at: www.vox.com/​ide​ntit​ies/​2019/​10/​4/​20852​639/​me-​
too-​movem​ent-​sex​ual-​har​assm​ent-​law-​2019
One Earth Future, “Prioritizing Peace: In Defense of SDG 16.” 2015, available online
at: https://​one​eart​hfut​ure.org/​opin​ion-​insig​hts/​prior​itiz​ing-​peace-​defe​nse-​sdg-​16
Pfeffer, Paula, “Eleanor Roosevelt and the National and World Woman’s Parties.”
The Historian Vol. 59, No. 1 (Fall 1996): 39–​57.
Pietilä, Hilkka, Engendering Global Agenda: The Story of Women and the United
Nations, 2002, available online at: https://​dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/​rec​ord/​463​
757?ln=​en
Sen, Ashish Kumar, “Twenty Years after Resolution 1325: Women Remain
Undervalued in Peacebuilding.” United States Institute of Peace, October 27,
2020, available online at: www.usip.org/​publi​cati​ons/​2020/​10/​twe​nty-​years-​after-​
res​olut​ion-​1325-​women-​rem​ain-​unde​rval​ued-​peaceb​uild​ing
Staples, Brent, “When the Suffrage Movement Sold Out to White Supremacy.”
New York Times, February 2, 2019, available online at: https://​nyti.ms/​3qjU​dXr
Sullivan, Donna, “Women’s Human Rights and the 1993 World Conference on
Human Rights.” The American Journal of International Law Vol. 88, No. 1
(January 1994): 152–​167.
 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy 25

UN Audiovisual Library of International Law, Proclamation of Tehran. United

Nations, 1968.UNDP, Human Development Report 1994, 1994, available online
at: https://​hdr.undp.org/​cont​ent/​human-​deve​lopm​ent-​rep​ort-​1994
UNFPA, International Conference on Population and Development Programme of
Action, 1993.
United Nations, United Nations Charter, Article 1, 1945.
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966.
United Nations, Report of the World Conference of the International Women’s Year,
1976, available online at: www.un.org/​wom​enwa​tch/​daw/​beij​ing/​other​conf​eren​
ces/​Mex​ico/​Mex​ico%20con​fere​nce%20rep​ort%20op​timi​zed.pdf
United Nations, “The 17 Goals.” 2015. available online at: https://​sdgs.un.org/​goals
United Nations, The Millennium Development Goals. 2015. available online at: www.
un.org/​mill​enni​umgo​als/​bkgd.shtml
United Nations, World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality,
Development and Peace, 1985. available online at: www.un.org/​wom​enwa​tch/​
daw/​beij​ing/​cop​enha​gen.html
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1820, S/​RES/​1820 (2008); UNSCR 1888,
S/​RES/​1888 (2009); UNSCR 1960 S/​RES/​1960 (2010); UNSCR 2122, S/​RES/​2122
(2013); UNSCR 2242, S/​RES/​2242 (2015); UNSCR 2493, S/​RES/​2493 (2019).
UN Women, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW), 1979.
UN Women, World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality,
Development and Peace, 1980, available online at: www.un.org/​wom​enwa​tch/​
daw/​beij​ing/​nair​obi.html
UN Women, Report of the World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements
of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace,
1985, available online at https://​docume​nts-​dds-​ny.un.org/​doc/​UNDOC/​GEN/​
N85/​380/​36/​PDF/​N8538​036.pdf?Open​Elem​ent
UN Women, Fourth World Conference on Women, 1995a, available online at:
www.unwo​men.org/​en/​how-​we-​work/​interg​over​nmen​tal-​supp​ort/​world-​conf​eren​
ces-​on-​women#:~:text=​The%20Beij​ing%20con​fere​nce%20bu​ilt%20on,in%20
law%20and%20in%20p​ract​ice
UN Women, The Official Report of the FWCW containing the Beijing Declaration
and Platform for Action. 1995b. available online at: https://​www.un.org/​wom​
enwa​tch/​daw/​beij​ing/​pdf/​Beij​ing%20f​ull%20rep​ort%20E.pdf
UN Women, “Women, Peace & Security and Humanitarian Action (WPS-​ HA)
Compact.” 1995c, available online at: www.unwo​men.org/​en/​news/​stor​ies/​2021/​
7/​press-​rele​ase-​lau​nch-​of-​the-​comp​act-​on-​women-​peace-​and-​secur​ity-​and-​human​
itar​ian-​act​ion
UN Women, A Short History of the Commission on the Status of Women. 2019.
UN Women, Generation Equality Forum, 2022a, available online at: https://​forum.
gen​erat​ione​qual​ity.org/​about
UN Women, “Generation Equality Forum Concludes in Paris with Announcement
of Revolutionary Commitments and Global Acceleration Plan to Advance Gender
Equality by 2026.” 2022b, available online at: https://​forum.gen​erat​ione​qual​
ity.org/​news/​gen​erat​ion-​equal​ity-​forum-​conclu​des-​paris-​annou​ncem​ent-​revolu​
tion​ary-​comm​itme​nts-​and-​glob​alU.S. National Park Service, “[Seneca Falls]
Declaration of Sentiments.” 1848, available online at: www.nps.gov/​artic​les/​decl​
arat​ion-​of-​sen​time​nts.htm
26 Foundations of Feminist Foreign Policy

Wang, Amy, “Senate Passes Bill to End Forced Arbitration in Sexual Assault,
Harassment Cases.” Washington Post, February 10, 2022, available online
at: www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​polit​ics/​2022/​02/​10/​sen​ate-​sex​ual-​assa​ult-​for​ced-​
arbi​trat​ion/​
Weiss, Elaine, The Woman’s Hour. Penguin, 2020.
Wollstonecraft, Mary, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: With Strictures on
Political and Moral Subjects. Peter Edes for Thomas and Andrews, 1792.
World Health Organization, “Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH).”
1994. available online at: www.who.int/​teams/​sex​ual-​and-​repro​duct​ive-​hea​lth-​
and-​resea​rch/​key-​areas-​of-​work/​sex​ual-​hea​lth/​defin​ing-​sex​ual-​hea​lth
YWCA website: available online at: www.worldy​wca.org/​about-​us/​hist​ory/​
2
FEMINIST FOREIGN POLICY
FUNDAMENTALS

Feminist foreign policy is an approach for government action that is based

on historical events and movements, encompasses a set of key principles, has
been adopted by a small set of countries, is being implemented in some ways
already by the U.S. government, and could be further operationalized.
Based on the historical origins outlined in Chapter 1, the women, peace,
and security agenda was developed and implemented by governments and
civil society organizations and the field of feminist international relations
emerged from academia and think tanks. These two ideas now overlap
to frame and propel forward the movement for a feminist foreign policy.
With the commingling of these ideas, feminist foreign policy has moved
beyond the idea of women’s increased representation in peace negotiations
and policymaking positions to a broader lens on international security and
country-​specific foreign policy formulation and impact.
Today, although there is not one universally accepted definition of feminist
foreign policy across sectors, there are fundamental concepts discussed by
governments, civil society organizations, and those in the academic community
that form the basis for the idea. These fundamentals include gender equality
as a goal and strategy, a broadened definition of “security,” the elevation
of diverse voices, and a desire to address historic power imbalances. This
chapter outlines these fundamentals and how they are reflected today.

Before we go any further, it is important to define and distinguish some key

terms associated with how we discuss and understand feminism and gender
equality.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003295617-3
28 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

While “sex” refers to the biological characteristics that define a person as

female or male, “gender” is taught and refers to the economic, political, and
cultural attributes and opportunities associated with being male or female. How
gender is defined varies among cultures and can change over time (Markham,
2018). The term “gender” is often used interchangeably with “women and
girls,” but they are not the same.
“Feminism” is the belief that sex and gender should not define a person’s role
in society and a movement against gender-​based discrimination and violence
resulting from that belief.
“Gender equality” is the concept that everyone should be free to develop
their personal talents and abilities and make life choices without limitations set
by rigid gender roles. It does not mean that women and men are the same,
but that their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities should not depend on
whether they are born male or female (Markham, 2018).
“Gender identity” is a reference to how people experience their own sense
of being a gendered individual. Everybody has a gender identity whether it is
male, female, transgender, or nonbinary. “Sexual orientation” refers to whom
one feels sexually attracted –​if at all –​and with whom a person wants to have
sexual and/​or romantic relationships (Ehrt, 2019).

How Did We Get Here?

In any policy arena, it is important to understand the different stakeholders
involved in advocating for, and implementing, that policy. The same is true
for feminist foreign policy. These groups and individuals bring different
imperatives and perspectives to the development and definition of such policy,
depending on their roles as advocates, policymakers, program implementers,
or academic researchers.
In this landscape, the following types of institutions and individuals have
developed different, yet somewhat similar, definitions of a feminist foreign
policy: governments both shape and implement foreign policy; civil society
and NGOs draft policy proposals and advocate for them with governmental
and multilateral policymakers; and think tanks and academia research the
foundations of policy, place their work in context of research in different
academic fields, and advocate for policy change.

Government
Governments are responsible for developing policy and making it work –​
that is, for operationalizing it –​within the constraints and confines of their
political systems, political realities, and government bureaucracies. Their
policies are tailored to navigate the pressures and realities they face and guide
the day-​to-​day work of their officials at home and across the globe.
 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals 29

In 2014, Sweden was the first government to adopt a feminist foreign policy
and is still the model against which other governments structure and measure
their policies. Sweden established this policy after many years of promoting
gender equality and human rights nationally and internationally. According
to the Swedish Foreign Ministry at the time the policy was launched, it was a
response to systemic gender discrimination. As a result, as conceptualized by
Swedish policymakers, Feminist Foreign Policy was an agenda to strengthen
the rights, representation, and resources of all women and girls as well as
strengthen the effectiveness of Sweden’s foreign engagements (Government
Offices of Sweden, 2014). Sweden viewed the ability of women and girls to
enjoy human rights as an obligation within its international commitments
and a prerequisite to achieving Sweden’s broader foreign policy goals
of peace, security, and sustainable development (Government Offices of
Sweden, 2014).
This policy was structured to guide the actions of Swedish diplomats
and officials abroad and while serving at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
in Stockholm. The handbook for implementing this policy was “focused
on the practical implementation of the policy [and] … intended to support
the Swedish Foreign Service in its ongoing work, while also satisfying the
considerable national and international interest in Sweden’s feminist foreign
policy” (Government Offices of Sweden, 2014). The handbook reviewed
working methods to ensure impact and provided specific examples of policy
change in foreign and security policy, development cooperation, and trade and
promotion policy. In this regard, it was a guide for changing governmental
personnel, planning, budgeting, and leadership norms.
Government interactions with civil society organizations are complex
and sometimes acrimonious. Even when policymakers and civil society
leaders share values, the government officials’ ability to implement
policies based on those values is often constrained by their official roles
and the political realities and bureaucracies within which they operate.
Representatives from governmental bodies often consult with civil society
organizations in their policymaking process, however, they can balk at the
idea that nongovernmental actors should have an equal say in policymaking,
especially in foreign policy and security. In some cases, civil society leaders
join their respective governments as either political or career officials
and bring with them expertise and key contacts. These former advocates
can become frustrated at the often slower pace of government action or
government’s inability to develop cutting-​ edge policies due to political
pressure or bureaucratic challenges.

The United Nations

The women, peace and security (WPS) agenda is built on the theory that
women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution is integral
30 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

to more sustainable peace and security. This policy framework, first set
forth by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (UNSCR 1325) adopted in
2000, sets out four critical pillars reflecting a gendered perspective across
the conflict cycle: participation, protection, prevention, and relief and
recovery.
The participation pillar calls for the full and equal representation of
women at all levels of decision-​making in politics and policymaking. The
protection pillar stands for the need to protect women and girls in conflict and
post-​conflict settings. The prevention pillar stands for women’s engagement
at all levels of conflict prevention, mediation, and resolution and the need
to address the root causes of conflict. The final pillar, relief and recovery,
addresses the need to ensure that women and girls can access the services
they need to recover from conflict and conflict-​related violence (United States
Institute of Peace, 2000).
There are nine successor security council resolutions to UNSCR 1325:

• UNSCR 1820 explicitly addresses sexual violence in conflict and post-​

conflict situations and recognizes the use of sexual violence in conflict and
can impede the restoration of international peace and security.
• UNSCR 1888 recognizes that the empowerment of women and support of
women’s organizations are essential to peace and security.
• UNSCR 1889 reiterates the key role of women in conflict prevention and
peace building.
• UNSCR 1960 affirms that preventing sexual violence contributes to
international peace and security, and also puts sexual violence on the
agenda of the UN Security Council.
• UNSCR 2016 focuses on deepening accountability for perpetrators of
sexual violence in conflict, as well as increasing women’s political and
economic empowerment, and access to justice.
• UNSCR 2122 places gender equality and women’s empowerment as
central to international peace and security, recognizes the differential
impact of conflict on women and girls as well as the need to address root
causes of armed conflict.
• UNSCR 2242 focuses on countering terrorism and violent extremism as
part of the women, peace, and security agenda.
• UNSCR 2467 focuses on conflict-​related sexual violence and affirms for
the first time that a survivor-​centered approach is critical.
• UNSCR 2493 addresses the need for women’s participation in all UN-​
supported peace processes and urges timely support for the full, equal, and
meaningful participation of women in all stages of peace processes.

Pursuant to UNSCR 1325, the UN Security Council urged all countries

to develop a women, peace, and security national action plan. To date, 104
 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals 31

countries have adopted a national action plan (54 percent of countries)

(Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 2023). The first
countries to adopt a national action plan were Denmark (2005), Norway
(2006), Sweden (2006), and the United Kingdom (2006). According to
Inclusive Security, a civil society organization that provides technical
assistance on the development of national action plans, the plans with the
highest impact are designed to fit the local context and priorities; are created
in partnership with civil society; are clear about roles, responsibilities, and
timelines; and have strong monitoring and evaluation plans (Lippai &
Young, 2017). While over half of national action plans designate a role for
civil society in implementation, less than a third of them include an allocated
budget for implementation (Lippai & Young, 2017).
To date, despite many global commitments, resolutions, and national action
plans, women have been largely excluded from formal peace processes. On
average, according to the most recent data, women constituted just 13 percent
of negotiators, 6 percent of mediators, and 6 percent of signatories in major
peace processes (Council on Foreign Relations, 2019). About seven out of
every ten peace processes still do not include women mediators or women
signatories, the latter indicating that few women participated in leadership
roles as negotiators, guarantors, or witnesses.
Civil society advocacy was instrumental in the adoption of UNSCR 1325
(United States Institute of Peace, 2000). This was in part driven by women’s
intensified engagement in peace movements across the globe but also by the
changing nature of conflict. As war and conflict have become more irregular,
civilian targets have become more common, and many civilian targets
were women and girls. As a result, women’s groups became more vocal in
raising conflict-​related issues and demanding a global response (Johnson-​
Freese, 2018).
In fact, the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security (the
NGO Working Group), a coalition advocating for equal participation of
women in creating and maintaining international peace and security, was
formed specifically to call for a UN Security Council resolution focusing on
this set of issues (Tryggestad, 2009). Through advocacy, monitoring, and
gender analysis, the NGO Working Group continues to hold the UN Security
Council, UN leadership and member states accountable under UNSCR 1325,
and subsequent resolutions. Since 2000, it has also worked to bring the voices
of women’s rights defenders and local peacebuilders into UN peace and
security discussions at all levels (NGO Working Group on Women, Peace,
and Security website).
There are criticisms of UNSCR 1325. Feminist scholars criticize the
contents, framings, and implications of the women, peace, and security
agenda, as outlined by UNSCR 1325 and its successor resolutions, as
reinforcing ingrained gender norms (Basu, Kirby, & Shepherd, 2020)
32 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

They see this framework as focusing on the role of women only as victims,
peacemakers, and peacebuilders, needing protection, and reinforcing gender
stereotypes. This criticism is raised even though the resolutions call repeatedly
for women’s increased participation throughout the security sector and
acknowledge women’s agency.
Feminist scholars further posit that the set of resolutions do not address
institutional and structural barriers to women’s equality and participation.
For example, Professor Carol Cohn argues that UNSCR 1325 fails to
deconstruct and transform the international, national, or local institutions
which undercut gender equality in the long run (Cohn, Kinsella, & Gibbings,
2004). According to Dr. Cohn, UNSCR 1325 instead takes an “add women
and stir” approach, where women are given a seat at negotiations but with
little power, unable to determine their own place and contributions in a male-​
dominated system.
Another criticism of UNSCR 1325 is that it does not address social and
economic causes of inequality, such as poverty, lack of access to education,
and gender norms, and does not consider power relations inherent in
government and international organizations. These critics argue that the
gender mainstreaming approach of UNSCR 1325 reinforces existing power
structures (O’Connor, 2014). They also view this approach as silencing
feminist critiques of militarism and those who argue that there can be no
peace without gender equality (Rehn & Johnson Sirleaf, 2002). These critics
also argue that calling for increased women’s participation in the security
sector militarizes the peace movement (Skjelsbaek, 1998).
Finally, critics see the women, peace, and security agenda as dominated
by voices from the Global North (Basu, 2016), thereby replicating existing
colonial hierarchies and ignoring the impact of colonialism and patriarchy
(Parashar, 2019). For example, Soumita Basu, Paul Kirby, and Laura
Shepherd argue that the women, peace, and security agenda co-​opts gender
because the goal of “gendered peace may be accommodated in policies
without challenging or transforming the arena of international peace and
security.” These academics believe that the four pillars of UNSCR 1325
reflect a narrow view of security and subordinate a human rights or women’s
rights agenda (Basu, Kirby, & Shepherd, 2020).

Academic Community
Academic experts and scholars ground their analysis and development of
policy frameworks in a theoretical, and often historical, context. They place
work being done by governments and others in a broader context based on
their own research and understanding of trends in, and schools of, academic
thought. Their work often looks to bring different disciplines together to
create new ways of thinking about policy.
 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals 33

Any discussion of feminist foreign policy must be placed in the context

of international relations theory. The study of international relations is
structured to advise governments about how to manage bilateral and
multilateral relationships and advance their national interest. As traditionally
defined, those working in, or examining, foreign policy and international
relations look at the decisions made by those in power and the authority to
commit resources, usually nation-​states (Hudson, 2005). Until recently, the
field has addressed “macro” issues which are largely seen as gender blind,
with less focus on how policies, and the decisions that flow from them, affect
people.
This has begun to change. The academic community, practitioners, and
activists are raising the importance of understanding how foreign policies
impact the lives of individual people and not just relations between nation-​
states. Since the Cold War, this has been reflected by the emergence of
progressive foreign policy paradigms. Among the schools of thought around
progressive foreign policy, one elevates democracy and the protection of
human rights and argues for the use of power to promote these universal
values and standards. Another emphasizes the necessity of global cooperation
to address overarching challenges such as climate change, pandemic disease,
and economic inequality (Wertheim, 2022).
More recently, scholars are examining policy decisions through an ethical
lens, moving from the more traditional view that ethical considerations are
not part of foreign policy decision-​making. Political scientist Joseph Nye
argues for a moral foreign policy approach that looks at foreign policy
decisions in terms of weighing and balancing the intentions, the means, and
the consequences of a president’s decisions (Nye, 2019).
In general, scholars of ethical foreign policy argue that the presentation of
foreign policy decisions in “ethical” terms is based mostly on domestic political
imperatives and the need to increase political support for interventions (Nye,
2019). For example, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair used these arguments in
support of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan:

Look for a moment at the Taliban regime. It is undemocratic. … There is no

sport allowed, or television or photography. No art or culture is permitted
… Women are treated in a way almost too revolting to be credible. First
driven out of university; girls not allowed to go to school; no legal rights;
unable to go out of doors without a man. Those that disobey are stoned.
(Prime Minister Tony Blair, 2001)

Feminist international relations theory is a reaction both to traditional

international relations theory and the movement toward an ethical foreign
policy, both of which feminist scholars view as largely gender blind. These
scholars have constructed feminist international relations theory as a policy
34 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

framework that “embraces the stories and lived experiences of women and
other marginalized groups at the receiving end of foreign policy conduct”
(Aggestam, Bergman Rosamond, & Kronsell, 2019).
Feminist international relations theory focuses on how the core concepts
of international relations and foreign policy –​war, peace, and security –​are
themselves gendered. These scholars ask a broad set of questions about how
these issues are raised on the global stage (Aggestam, Bergman Rosamond,
& Kronsell, 2019). Feminist international relations scholars often link
their work to scholarship on how gender shapes the current global political
economy. They argue that a feminist foreign policy can expose injustices and
struggles for gender justice, which include an analysis of the empowerment
and protection of women and girls, the reduction of gendered inequalities
and the root causes of violence, as well as uncovering the experiences and
stories of other marginalized groups.
Feminist scholars Karin Aggestam and Jacqui True (Aggestam & True,
2020) weave together international feminist theory and foreign policy analysis
to address how power and patriarchy bear on comparative approaches to
what they call “pro-​gender” foreign policy decision-​making. In their work,
they identify four fundamental strands of “pro-​ gender equality” foreign
policies: to explicitly practice gender mainstreaming as a policy approach, to
ensure that development assistance targets gender inequality and transforms
gender relations, to focus on women’s security and human rights, and to
introduce institutional or legislative mechanisms promoting women’s
leadership within foreign policy (Aggestam & True, 2020). They also develop
a framework that acknowledges how patriarchal structures, like foreign
policy institutions, can both constrain pro-​gender equality actions and create
windows of opportunity at the same time.
Ensuring that the voices of those who are affected by policy are heard
is critical to these scholars. According to political analyst Dr. Cornelius
Adebahr, feminist foreign policy is not primarily about women’s rights, but
instead “puts the needs of all people first –​and not just those of the loudest
or most powerful. It’s about human rights and conflict prevention, economic
development and social participation, just as much as it’s about health and
the environment” (Adebahr, 2022).
As such, this academic work informs the work of both government
and nongovernment actors by developing a more theoretical analysis. It is
less likely to directly inform governments as they operationalize a policy
framework adopted by their political leaders and policymakers. However,
academic research builds a strong basis for policymaking and can serve as an
anchor for the work of both governmental and nongovernmental institutions.
Yet, with some exceptions outlined by Aggestam and True, few feminist
scholars focus on how to address gender norms in foreign policy (Aggestam
& True, 2020). It may be because of general skepticism that governments and
 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals 35

other institutional frameworks can, or will, further feminist political agendas.

These scholars view nations as ingrained with patriarchal, hierarchical, and
oppressive power structures (Aggestam & True, 2020) perpetuating social,
political, and economic inequalities (Aggestam & True, 2020). Another
reason may be a reluctance to engage with those in existing institutions, such
as diplomats, military, and foreign policy leaders. In this framework, women
operating within the system are not seen as change agents, but as accepting
and adjusting to masculinized norms and co-​opted by male-​dominated power
structures.

Civil Society
As governments strive to create and implement feminist foreign policies, civil
society organizations and advocates develop ideas with the goal of pushing
governments and policymakers as far as they can. Because these entities are
not responsible for implementing policy, these organizations are able to
look beyond what is possible today and envision what might be possible
tomorrow. They can also raise and weave in less popular, or less well-​known,
ideas and concepts and begin to socialize them with others.
There are many civil society organizations that focus on the implementation
of the women, peace, and security agenda. These organizations exist at the
local, national, and global levels and have often existed for decades. The
organizations that exist around the development of feminist foreign policy
are fewer in number and have emerged in the last decade.
The Coalition for a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States (the
Coalition), the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative, the Centre for a
Feminist Foreign Policy (Centre for an FFP), based in Berlin, Germany, and
the Heinrich Böll Foundation are examples of civil society organizations
that have created policy frameworks explicitly structured to disrupt the
traditional methods of viewing, developing, and implementing foreign policy.
These frameworks are central to the advocacy efforts of these groups as they
interact with governments and multilateral institutions across the globe.
The Coalition defines feminist foreign policy as a policy that guides
governmental engagement with other states, women’s movements, and
other non-​state actors. Its goal is to disrupt systems of patriarchy, racism,
white supremacy, and colonialism. The members of the Coalition advocate
that a feminist foreign policy should “prioritize peace, gender equality and
environmental integrity; enshrine, promote, and protect the human rights of
all; seek to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-​dominated power
structures; and allocate significant resources, including research, to achieve
that vision.”
The Coalition uses an intersectional approach, “one that takes a power-​
based analysis that reveals and works to dismantle disparate and intersecting
36 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

streams of discrimination and marginalization” (Coalition for a Feminist

Foreign Policy in the United States, 2020). Further, it wants governments to
“co-​create” policy with feminist activists, groups, and movements, at home
and abroad, expressly bringing these outside actors “into the room” where
policymaking occurs.
Similar to the Coalition, the Centre for an FFP defines feminist
foreign policy as a political framework centered around the well-​being
of marginalized people and “invokes processes of self-​reflection regarding
foreign policy’s hierarchical global systems” (Centre for a Feminist
Foreign Policy website). This framework explicitly “takes a step outside
the black box approach of traditional foreign policy thinking and its
focus on military force, violence, and domination by offering an alternate
and intersectional rethinking of security from the viewpoint of the most
vulnerable,” and “scrutinize[s]‌the destructive forces of patriarchy,
colonization, heteronormativity, capitalism, racism, imperialism, and
militarism” (Centre for a Feminist Foreign Policy website). Like the
Coalition, the Centre for an FFP seeks to elevate the voices and experiences
of women and marginalized groups.
The Heinrich Böll Foundation (Böll Foundation) is a political foundation
affiliated with the German Green Party. It rejects a single “rigid and
traditional” definition of feminist foreign policy and instead builds its
vision for such a policy on five core values (Scheyer et al., 2021). The Böll
Foundation argues that these values will help policymakers to think laterally
rather than hierarchically and move away from an international relations
theory centered on capitalism and colonialism. This flexible framework
should also allow different political realities to be part of the conversation.
The five core values offered by the Böll Foundation are intersectionality,
acknowledging and addressing multiple and various forms of discrimination;
the need to consider one’s own position within the existing power structure;
the need for substantive representation and participation; accountability of
policymakers to policy “beneficiaries”; and an active commitment to peace
and abolishing all structured methods of violence and sources of insecurity
(Scheyer et al., 2021).

Moving beyond Increased Representation

Over time, most decision-​makers –​in foreign policy, national security, and
in general –​have been men, often working in centralized and closely held
processes. This is true across every region of the world, and in almost every
sector. While there are more women today in high-​level political, foreign
policy, and national security positions than there have ever been in the past,
women are still underrepresented within these institutions and in terms of
providing input from impacted countries.
 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals 37

For over a century, women’s rights activists have raised the issues of who
makes decisions, the impact of those policies and decisions, and the need
to take a broader view of policymaking (Tickner & True, 2018). Beginning
in the early 1900s, for example, the Woman’s Peace Party in the U.S. and
the International Congress of Women (ICW) advocated for policies that
acknowledged the links between women’s equality, social justice, and peace
(Tickner & True, 2018). A key goal of this advocacy over time has been to
increase the number of women in leadership across the public and private
sectors. As early as 1915, the ICW called for women, and civilians more
generally, to participate in peace negotiations.
Proponents of this approach argue that increasing women’s participation
and leadership is necessary to institutions being more open to new paradigms
and eventually to transformation. Increasing the number of women in
foreign policy and national security fields is therefore an important strategy,
although it does not translate automatically into the use of a gender lens or
the adoption of feminist policies. Having said that, international relations
theory and the women, peace, and security agenda have both been criticized
for focusing too much on women’s participation in existing institutions and
policies, and not enough on transformational change.
In general, women’s participation in policymaking roles impacts
outcomes. Studies show that women in elected office raise different issues
and have different perspectives than their male colleagues. More women in
elected office often lead to policies that emphasize quality of life and social
protections (Pepera, 2018), such as a higher priority on health care access,
an increase in social policy spending, and a decrease in poverty. Countries
with more women legislators have higher childhood immunization rates and
infant and child survival rates (Swiss et al., 2012), spend more on education
(Chen, 2008), and are more likely to ratify environmental treaties (Norgaard
& York, 2005).
In addition, everyone brings their life experiences and perspectives to
policy debates. This is certainly true of women, who face different challenges
than men do, and often endure laws that impede access to full citizenship and
opportunity, or that do not reflect women’s disproportionate responsibility
for caregiving. In 2019, women in the Middle East and North Africa led
campaigns to reform laws that dictated a woman could only inherit half of
what a man could and changed laws restricting a woman’s ability to pass her
citizenship to a spouse from a different country, or to children she has with
that spouse (Bishin & Cherif, 2018).
Women bring these perspectives to not only issues that are often considered
women’s issues, such as education and health, but also to “gender neutral”
issues. For example, even an issue like transportation is not gender neutral,
as women use public transportation differently than men (Spector, 2012).
It is important that policymakers understand these differences as they make
38 Feminist Foreign Policy Fundamentals

decisions about routes, fares, and safety. In addition to working outside

the home, women have family responsibilities and run more household
errands. As a result, they often combine multiple stops and destinations
within a single trip, making public transportation more costly, since the
traveler may have to pay for numerous one-​way tickets (Spector, 2012).
Routes outside central commuter corridors may not have regular service
during off-​peak hours, when women likely need transport for caregiving
(Foster, 2018).
Specific to issues of conflict and peace, when women are part of peace
negotiations, agreements that arise from these negotiations are more likely
to succeed and last between 2 and 15 years longer than if women were not
involved (Council on Foreign relations, 2019). This is critical as most peace
agreements fail within five years (Bache, 2019). In addition to more attention
being paid to gender in the deliberations and the content of peace agreements,
women’s engagement shifts dynamics and broadens the range of issues
discussed. Women’s engagement leads to increased community support for
agreements and to addressing root causes of conflict. An analysis of 40 peace
processes since the end of the Cold War reflects that when women’s groups
exercised a strong influence on negotiations, there was a much higher chance
of an agreement being reached than when they had weak or no influence
(O’Reilly, 2015).
This research also found that women’s participation had the largest impact
when women’s civil society organizations were able to push parties to resume
stalled peace negotiations (O’Reilly, 2015). Examples include the Liberian
peace talks, where women organized to support a peace agreement to end the
second civil war. Leymah Gbowee, among others, mobilized an interreligious
women’s coalition and the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace network,
using pray-​ins and nonviolent protests to demand reconciliation and the
resuscitation of peace talks. This organizing was the basis for her Nobel
Peace Prize. Other examples include women’s advocacy to address the root
causes of violence in Burundi and Kenya in the context of those peace talks
(O’Reilly, 2015).
As previously stated, however, women’s increased representation in politics,
public life, and policymaking in government and the traditional foreign policy
sectors of defense, diplomacy, and development, while important, is only one
strategy within feminist foreign policy.

Fundamentals of Feminist Foreign Policy

There is not one agreed upon definition of feminist foreign policy across
governments, civil society, and academia. There are, however, a broad set
of principles that appear in many discussions of feminist foreign policy and
form the foundation of most definitions. These include the need to center
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Spread of Influenza in 1889–90.

Month. 1889–90.
First (October) St. Petersburg, Moscow, Courland, Livonia, Finland.
Second Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Sweden, Denmark.
Third London, Holland, Belgium, Balkan States, North America.
Fourth Capetown, Egypt, Honolulu, Mexico, Japan, Hong Kong.
Fifth San Francisco, Buenos Ayres, India, Sierra Leone, Scilly Islands.
Sixth Chili, Kamerun, Zanzibar, Basutoland, Tasmania.
Seventh British Bechuanaland, Barbados.
Eighth Gold Cost, Natal.
Ninth Trinidad.
Tenth Iceland, Madagascar, China, Senegal.
Eleventh Kashmir, Katunga.

Between the years 1889 and 1893 according to Leichtenstern there was no period
altogether free from influenza. Here and there individual cases or small epidemics
sharply localized were observed. In 1893 another epidemic appeared in many places and
became quite widespread. There was not, according to this author, the definite
geographic progression that had been observed in 1889. This was but a recrudescence, a
lighting up from endemic foci remaining after the first wide spread. In the first half of
1893 there was a light spring epidemic, and in November of the same year a larger
epidemic swept over the whole of Europe. The height of the latter was reached chiefly in
December.
The influenza incidence subsequent to 1893 will be discussed later.
 TABLE I.
Influenza epidemics previous to 1889.
Date. General Site of origin. Direction of Localities Rapidity of
features. spread. affected. spread.
1173 Rather meagre Unknown. Described in Not known.
description. Italy, Germany,
England.
1239 Described by Described in Invaded all of
1311 Zeviani. France. France.
Records not
definite. Not
generally
accepted.
1323 Mentioned by
Hirsch, Gluge
and Zeviani.
Most believes
it was a
typhoid
epidemic.
1327 Mentioned by Described in
Zeviani, Italy.
Hirsch and
Gluge. Rather
doubtful.
1358 Described by Savoy, Germany,
Zeviani. Not France,
generally Catalonia.
accepted.
1387 (Zeviani, Italy. Italy, France,
Schweich, Strasbourg,
Gluge, Hirsch Southern
and Germany.
Ripperger.)
Characteristic
description.
1403 A very short France. Described in
epidemic. France. In 1404
(Gluge, it invaded
Ripperger, Flanders and
Pasquier.) Germany
(Hirsch).
1411 Described only Described only Described by
in Paris. in Paris. Pasquier as in
Extent Paris.
unknown.
1414 Characteristic In Italy and
description. France in
February and
March. In the
Danube district
between
January and
April.
1427 Very Described in
 characteristic France.
description.
1438 Cited only by Described in
Zeviani. Italy.
1482 Very limited
description
by Mezeray.
1510 Widespread Malta (?) Generally, from Malta, Sicily,
over all of (Webster and South to Spain and
Europe. Hancock North. Portugal, Italy,
report that it France,
began in Hungary,
Africa). Germany,
Holland,
England,
Norway.
1557 All of Europe. Conflicting General direction Asia, 4 months from
information from South to Constantinople, Italy to
(Asia?). North in Sicily, Italy, Netherlands.
Europe. Spain, Sicily in June.
Dalmatia, Nimes in July.
Switzerland, Italy in August.
France, Madrid in
Netherlands, August.
England. Dalmatia in
September.
Netherlands in
October.
1562 Uncertain Only small
1563 information. epidemics at
most.
1580 True pandemic Orient (Hirsch) From Asia to Orient, North France in May.
covering the Africa and Constantinople Africa, Germany and
Orient, Africa Malta and in Europe Constantinople, Hungary in
and Europe. (Pechlin). from South to Malta, Venice, August.
North. Sicily, Italy, England and
Spain, Hungary Rhine Valley in
and Germany September.
to the Baltic, Saxony in
Bohemia, October.
France,
Belgium,
England,
Denmark,
Sweden.
1587 Apparently Described in Italy
quite and Germany.
localized.
1591 High mortality.
Indefinite
information.
1593 Spread over a Said to have Uncertain.
wide area in commenced
Europe. in Belgium,
“following a
violent
 earthquake,”
and gradually
extended over
all the cities of
Europe.
1626 Local. Described in
Italy.
1627 In America. Spread from
North America
to West Indies
and Chili.
1647 In America
(Webster).
1658 Local. England (?). Described in
England and in
Treptow near
Stettin.
1675 Over Western Germany (?). Germany, Germany in
Europe. Hungary, September,
England, England and
France. France in
October and
November.
1688 Apparently England(?). Described only in
localized in England and
Great Britain Ireland.
and Ireland.
1693 England and Dublin(?). Dublin, Oxford, One month from
the adjacent London, Dublin to
continent. Holland, London.
Flanders.
1709 A period of In 1712, onset in 1712, spread Italy, France, Six months from
1712 extensive Germany. from Germany Belgium, Germany to
endemics. to Holland and Germany, Italy.
Italy. Denmark.
1729 First epidemic Usually Russia through Moscow, Sweden, Moscow in April,
said to have designated as Sweden, Poland, Silesia, 1729. Sweden
originated in Russia Poland, Austria, in September,
Russia and (Moscow). F. Germany, etc. Hungary, England in
first Hoffman to Italy and England, November.
described as claimed to perhaps North Switzerland, Paris in
entering have seen the America. France, Italy, December.
Europe from epidemic in Iceland. Rome in
the Northeast Halle in February,
rather than February, 1730.
the 1729.
Southeast.
First spread.
Pandemic
period.
1732 Second spread. Over Europe and Germany in
Pandemic America. November.
period. According to France in
Pelargus it January, 1733.
again followed Spain and Italy
the route from in February.
 Russia through
the North of
Europe and
then South.
1737 Not generally England, North
recognized. America,
Barbados,
France.
1742 Slow spread Began either on Occurred in Germany, Germany in
1743 from the shores of Germany in Switzerland, January, 1742.
Germany. the Baltic Sea Jan. and Feb., Italy, France, England in
Recurrences or in single 1742, and then Holland, April, 1743.
in Germany cities in disappeared to Belgium,
up until 1745. Germany. reappear in England.
Switzerland in
the spring.
1757 A period of Began either France, Scotland, Barbados, Villalba states
1758 related first in North America, Germany, that the
1761 epidemics America and Finkler states Austria, epidemic in
1762 with spread thence that in 1762 Hungary, 1767 had
1767 complicated to Europe or influenza first Denmark, traveled over
geographic else began started in England, the whole of
pictures and spontaneously Germany and Ireland, Alsace. Europe in a
without clear in both spread thence period of two
cut direction hemispheres. in a very months.
of spread. irregular way
over Western
Europe. Gluge
and Hirsch
state that in
1767 the
disease
appeared
simultaneously
in Europe and
North
America.
1775 Slow spread First First spread to Germany, Italy, Invaded Vienna
1776 through appearances Vienna, and Austria, in June. Made
Western in Autumn of after a England, appearance in
Europe. 1775 in village quiescence Ireland, France. Italy in
of Clausthal in broke out in September. In
the Harz France and England and
mountains. England and France in
possibly October,
spread to November and
America and December.
China.
1780 Western January, 1780 in Spread to Alsace, Three months
1781 Europe and France. Germany and from France to
possibly Italy, and in Brazil.
Brazil and March
China. reported in Rio
de Janiero.
Appeared in
Sept. 1780 on
 Southern coast
of China.
1781 One of the most China and Through Siberia China, India, Moscow,
1782 widespread perhaps India and Russia to America, January, 1782.
pandemics. in Autumn of Petrograd, Russia, Riga, Riga,
Abundant 1781 (Hirsch). Finland, Riga, Germany, February.
literature. English Germany, etc. England, Germany,
writers Scotland, March.
connect onset Netherlands, England, April.
with Ireland, France, Scotland, May.
occurrence of Italy, Spain. Ireland,
influenza in France and
the British Italy, June.
Army in India, Spain, August.
Nov., 1781.
Wittwer and
others begin
its history in
Petrograd in
January, 1782.
1788 Throughout all Russia, in West and South. Russia, Germany, Seven months
1789 of Europe. March, 1788. Spread in Hungary, required to
One year “Apparently America in Denmark, cover this
later in independent 1789 England, territory.
America. origin in throughout Scotland,
America in United States France, Italy,
Sept., 1789.” from New York Switzerland.
North and
South and
finally
touching the
West Indies,
South America
and Nova
Scotia.
Recurrences in
single cities of
U. S. in 1790.
1799 Local epidemic Origin in Russia. Spread West and Russia, Galicia,
1800 confined to South. Poland,
Northeastern Germany,
Europe. Denmark.
1802 Local endemic First reported in No clear cut France, Germany,
1803 outbreaks France. direction. Italy, England,
covering Recurrences Switzerland,
considerable until 1805–08. Central Europe.
territory General
which follow dissemination
the last throughout
period by a North America
quiescence of in 1807.
five months.
There
appears to
have been an
unassociated
epidemic
 early in 1800
in China and
one in Brazil.
1811 Several 1807, onset in Usually from North and South 1815, one month
1815 epidemics in Massachusetts New England America. from Boston to
1816 North in February. West and New York, and
1824 America and 1815, onset in South. five months to
1826 to some Boston in South Carolina
extent in September. and Brazil.
South 1824, onset in 1824, three
America. Boston in months from
October. Boston to
Georgia.
1827 Widespread
epidemics
throughout
Eastern
Russia and
Siberia.
1830 Extensive China in To Manila in Entire earth. Ten months from
1833 influenza January, September, China to
period made 1830. 1830. Later to Russia. Four
up of two or South Sea months from
three Islands and Russia to
pandemic India. Germany. Two
periods. Appearance in additional
Russia in months
October, 1830, through
with France,
subsequent England,
spread West Scotland,
and South and Sweden,
on to North Belgium,
America (Feb., Switzerland.
1832). Six months
from Germany
to Italy.
1833 Second Probably Asia. After an interval Europe. (America Petrograd in
pandemic in of one year appears to have January.
above period. Europe was escaped this Berlin and
again visited second Constantinople
with an epidemic.) in March.
extensive Denmark and
plague which Sweden,
attacked the France and
same countries Great Britain
in about the in April, Italy
same order. in May.
1836 Third spread in Origin rather West and South Europe, Faroe Almost
1837 above period. obscure, as previously. Islands, simultaneous
possibly in Mexico,(?) invasion at
Russia. India, Java. Petrograd,
Sweden,
Denmark,
Germany and
England;
Egypt, Syria,
 France,
Ireland,
Holland, and
Switzerland
one month
later. Italy,
Spain and
Portugal yet
another month
later.
1838 Every year in 1838, February;
1847 this period Island of
with the Bourbon and
exception of Iceland.
1840 showed, 1838,
according to November;
Hirsch, some Australia and
local New Zealand.
epidemic. 1839,
Abyssinia.
1841, Germany,
Hungary,
Ireland.
1842, Belgium,
England,
France, Egypt,
Chili.
1843, Germany,
England,
Iceland,
France, Siberia,
the United
States.
1844, Germany,
England,
Switzerland,
Cayenne.
1845, Germany
and
Switzerland.
1846–1847,
France, Russia,
Constantinople,
Brazil,
England,
Denmark,
Belgium,
Switzerland.
1847 Epidemic Origin Spread not All of the
1848 period uncertain. definite, North countries of
throughout America in Western
Europe 1848. Europe, West
without clear Indies, New
cut direction Zealand,
of spread. Newfoundland,
Sandwich
Islands, Egypt,
 Algiers, West
Coast of Africa.
1850 Epidemics 1857, began in 1850–51, 1855, only one
1889 covering August in particularly month
larger or Panama and throughout the between
smaller spread to West whole Western Petrograd and
territory Indies and up coast of South Italy.
every year, and down the America with
but none to Pacific Coast. later spread to
compare in Prevailed in California &
intensity with Europe in Europe.
those of 1831, December. 1852, Australia,
1833, 1836 Tasmania,
and 1847. South America.
1853, Faroe
Islands.
1854, Bavaria.
1855, Europe,
spreading
rapidly West
and South from
Petrograd.
Later in same
year, Brazil.
1857–58,
widespread
epidemic in
both
hemispheres.
1860–70, very
irregular
appearances in
Australia,
Tasmania,
Philadelphia,
the Bermudas,
Holland,
California,
France,
Switzerland,
Africa,
Germany,
Belgium,
Russia,
Denmark,
Sweden and
Turkey.
1874–75,
Extensive
spread in
America,
Germany and
France, with
recurrence one
year later in
eleven areas of
the United
 States.
1879, America.
1885–88, Re-
appeared each
year in
Petrograd.
1889, (Spring)
Greenland and
Hudson Bay
territory. (May)
Bokhara in
Turkestan from
where the great
pandemic of
1889–90 is
usually said to
have taken its
origin.
Table I shows that prior to 1510 the information was so limited as to be not entirely
conclusive. We must rely upon the fragmentary descriptions of writers located usually in
or near the intellectual centers who described the disease as they saw it in their city or
country. We have no way of ascertaining what other countries were invaded, and we
possess no method by which we may enumerate the “silent areas,” countries which in
the absence of a chronicler have not been able to transmit their story.
There have been fourteen very widespread epidemics since 1510, all of which might
appropriately be designated as pandemics. They are those of 1510, 1557, 1580, 1593,
1729, 1732, 1762, 1782, 1788, 1830, 1833, 1836, 1847, 1889 and 1918. Some of these have
spread farther than others according to the records, but in nearly all we have reports of
influenza being present in practically every country provided with a historian. We may
find from the table another group in which there have been more or less extensive
epidemics, apparently related, but without any general direction of spread. Such are the
epidemics of 1709–12, 1757–67, 1802–03, 1838–47 and the period 1850–59. Finally,
there are at least ten periods during which relatively small areas have been affected with
epidemic influenza. Such for instance is the year 1688 when the disease was apparently
localized in Great Britain and Ireland; in the year 1693 when England and the adjacent
continent were involved, with little spread elsewhere; and again in 1742, when there was
a slow spread through Germany into adjacent countries with recurrences in the former
up until 1745.
In England the following epidemics have been recorded, some of them in great detail:
1510 and 1557, described by Thomas Short; 1658 by Willis; 1675, by Sydenham; 1729–
1743 by Huxham; 1732–33 by Arbuthnot; 1758 by Whytt; 1762 by Baker and Rutty; 1767
by Heberden; 1775 by Fothergill, who collected observations from many physicians; in
1782 by Gray, Haygath and Carmichael Smith; 1803 by Pearson and Falconer, and a
great number of others; 1833 by Hingeston and others; 1837 by Streeten, Graves, and
Bryson, etc.; 1847 by Peacock, Laycock and many others; also those of 1855 and 1889–
93.
According to Stallybrass, epidemic crests have been reached in England in 1789–90,
1802–03, 1830–32, 1840–41, 1848–51, 1854, 1869–70, 1879, 1890–91, 1898 and 1918
to 1920. The periodicity in multiples of ten years in this latter group is remarkable.
The disease appears to have visited North America in the years 1627, 1647, 1729, 1732,
1737, 1762, 1782, 1789, 1811, 1832, 1850, 1857, 1860, 1874, 1879, 1889, 1900, 1915–1916
and 1918–20. Abbott speaks particularly of the years 1647, 1655 and 1697–98, 1732,
1762 and 1782 and 1889 as being years of especial epidemic prevalence in this country.
 Clinical and Epidemiologic Identification.
Up to the present time we have discovered no one characteristic by which we may say
that a case or an epidemic is positively influenza. We have had to rely on the general
symptomatology, which indeed is sufficiently characteristic, although so nearly like the
symptoms of certain other diseases as to make us hesitate to make an absolute
diagnosis, and on the epidemic characteristics. The necessity of an absolute criterion in
the clinical diagnosis is particularly felt in the presence of an isolated interepidemic
case, or a small endemic outbreak. It is at this point that the opinions of epidemiologists
diverge, a divergence which results in two schools of thought in the explanation of the
endemic source of epidemic influenza. Are the interepidemic cases and the small
localized epidemics due to the virus which causes the great pandemics; are they
influenza vera, or are they entirely different diseases with similar symptomatology,
caused by some other microorganism and should they be designated by some other
name? Thus Leichtenstern remarks: “When we go over the records of the years 1173 to
1875, and particularly those of the last century, when the information has been more
extensive and more accurate, we find that scarcely a year has passed without news of the
epidemic occurrence of influenza at some point or other of the earth. Some of these local
and territorial epidemics are merely endemic recurrences of the great pandemics which
have left the germ deposited in the various localities. Others of these small epidemics
probably have nothing to do with influenza vera, but are local outbreaks of catarrhal
fever.”
Contrary to the usual belief, influenza is a disease of quite definite and distinct
characteristics, both clinical and epidemiological. The symptoms are clear cut, with
sudden onset, severe prostration out of all proportion to the clinical symptoms and to
the fever, headache and pain in the back, general body pains, and fever of greater or less
degree. There is usually a lack of leucocytosis or a true leucopenia. In uncomplicated
influenza there are as a rule no localizing symptoms. There may be a slight soreness of
the throat, or a slight cough, but these are at best mild. The fever lasts from three to five
days and disappears, while at the same time all of the symptoms clear up with the
exception of the profound prostration, which as a rule continues for some time,
rendering convalescence surprisingly slow. The pain in the back may remain for a week
or so. This is the description of uncomplicated influenza.
The manner of spread of epidemic influenza is constant in a primary epidemic and the
epidemic as a whole has certain features which render it characteristic. The sporadic
case has as a rule the same quite clear cut clinical symptomatology, but it fails to
manifest the one feature most characteristic of epidemic influenza—a high degree of
contagiousness. Further, although the symptoms in themselves are characteristic, there
is no one pathognomonic sign by which one may say, “this is a case of influenza,” and,
finally other disease conditions such as tonsillitis, frequently resemble it so much as to
cause error in diagnosis.
This becomes, then, one of the problems in the study of influenza epidemiology. It is a
matter of first importance to determine once and for all whether true influenza is with us
always, or whether it appears only at the time of the great pandemics. Upon the answer
to this question more than upon any other one thing rests our choice of methods of
eradication. Any procedures of preventive medicine that may be undertaken on the
assumption that the source of pandemic influenza is to be found in one or a few endemic
foci, such as the one supposed to exist in Turkestan, would fail utterly should the true
condition be that of a universal distribution of a relatively avirulent virus which from
time to time from some unknown cause assumes a highly increased virulence.
Before becoming involved in this very complicated question, let us familiarize
ourselves completely with the characteristics of the pandemic and epidemic variety of
the disease.
 General Characteristics of Early Epidemic
Outbreaks.
We have described the symptomatology of uncomplicated influenza. It is rare that this
clinical picture is seen alone during the height of an epidemic. Complications, chiefly of
the respiratory tract, as a rule occur in such a large proportion of individuals that they
very nearly dominate the picture. Although caused by various microorganisms, all of
which appear to be secondary factors the results are so characteristic that in the past,
descriptions of influenza epidemics have usually been descriptions of the complications
of epidemic influenza. Most influenza epidemics are complicated. But we do know from
the experience of recent years as well as from history that relatively uncomplicated
epidemics of influenza have occurred, and that when they do so occur a predominant
characteristic has been the extreme mildness.
It is a fundamental characteristic of pandemic influenza that early cases in widespread
epidemics, as well as in “pre-epidemic increases” are very mild, with a minimum of
respiratory complications and with exceedingly low mortality. It is because we are better
acquainted with the more severe variety that, when these mild precursors appear we are
always in doubt for a time as to their true identity.
In spite of our 20th century erudition, the influenza when it first appeared in mild
form in the American Expeditionary Forces in 1918, for a lack of better knowledge as to
its cause was called “three-day fever.” In Italy in the same year the designation of the
disease progressed from pappataci fever through “Spanish grip” and “summer
influenza,” until finally it was designated influenza, pure and simple. Sampietro in Italy
particularly discussed the possibility of the disease being pappataci fever.
Belogu and Saccone, who wrote in May of 1918, decided that the epidemic was not
influenza in spite of the manifest clinical similarity, chiefly because of the absence of
signs of secondary invasion, such as nervous symptoms, gastro-intestinal symptoms,
and pneumonia, and especially because of the rapid recovery after defervescence. They
also considered the possibility of pappataci fever and dengue, and ruled out both. They
discussed calling the condition “influenza nostras,” but reached no definite conclusion.
Trench fever was also considered by some. United States Public Health Reports for 1918
record that dengue was reported prevalent at Chefoo, China, during the two weeks
ended June 15th, 1918. One week later there was a paragraph stating, “Prevalence of a
disease resembling dengue and affecting about fifty per cent. of the population was
reported at Shanghai, China, June 15, 1918.” It is not impossible that this was influenza.
Zinsser reminds us that Hayfelder, when he saw the influenza as it spread in
Petrograd in November of 1889, remarked its close clinical similarity to the description
of an epidemic of dengue which had prevailed in Constantinople during the preceding
September. Hayfelder, in studying the 1889 epidemic at its onset in Russia and the East,
wrote of “Sibirisches Fieber” which was first looked upon as malaria owing to the
apparently complete absence of the complicating lesions habitually associated in our
minds with influenza.
The same difficulty in early identification was experienced in this country in 1918. At
the end of March of that year the author who was stationed at Camp Sevier, South
Carolina, was one of a Board of Officers appointed to investigate a disease which had
broken out among troops stationed at that camp. At that time the line troops consisted
of three infantry regiments and three machine gun battalions. On the day following a
parade in the city of Greenville a considerable number of men in three out of the six
organizations suddenly took ill. There were a few isolated cases in other organizations,
but in the one infantry regiment and two machine gun battalions the regimental
infirmaries were filled, and some cases were sent to the base hospital. Nearly all were
very mildly ill and exhibited the symptoms of pure uncomplicated influenza as described
above. The onset was sudden, there were the usual pains and aches, the bowels were
regular, there was a feeling of discomfort in the pit of the stomach in many instances,
and there were no sore throats and very little cough. Recovery was as a rule very rapid,
although about a dozen of the entire number developed pneumonia and some of these
died. Physical examination of those only mildly ill and who remained in the regimental
infirmary showed as a rule nothing, but in some instances scattered fine moist rales near
the hilus of the lungs. In some of the organizations the disease was definitely spread
down rows of company tents. Careful bacteriologic examination was made at the time
and the predominating organisms were found to be a gram-negative coccus resembling
micrococcus catarrhalis, and a non-hemolytic streptococcus. This was in uncomplicated
cases.
The Board decided that the disease should be called influenza, but our only basis for
such decision were the clinical symptoms and the contagious character. At that time
none of us dreamed of any possible connection with a severe epidemic to occur later,
and laboratory search for influenza bacilli which was carefully made in view of the
clinical diagnosis showed none of these organisms to be present.
At about the same time a similar epidemic was being experienced at Fort Oglethorpe,
Ga. V. C. Vaughan, in describing this epidemic, remarks: “A disease strongly resembling
influenza became prevalent in the Oglethorpe Camp about March 18, 1918. It soon
assumed pandemic proportions. Within two weeks every organization in Camp Forrest
and the Reserve Officers Training Camp was affected.
“The symptoms were as follows: Headache, pain in the bones and muscles, especially
the muscles of the back, marked prostration, fever, sometimes as high as 104 degrees.
Sometimes there was conjunctivitis, coryza, a rash and possibly nausea, recovery taking
place in a few days.
“In all organizations the epidemic was first located in companies before it became
general.
“The incubation period was short, not over one or two days.
“Some organizations suffered more than others for no apparent reason.
“It is probable that the epidemic disease was recently brought to these camps. If it is
genuine influenza, and the epidemiological features no less than the leading symptoms
seem to point to that disease, there is here offered the most reasonable explanation of
the outbreak which is now possible. No other disease spreads so fast or is so prostrating,
considering its symptoms.”
We will quote at some length from the report of Zinsser of the Chaumont epidemic in
France in 1918, because of the excellence of the description, and particularly because
Zinsser has followed three successive epidemics with successive increases in the
complications and corresponding transformations in the clinical picture. It is worthy of
special note that he has remarked that the influenza, as first seen at Chaumont, showed
nothing in the symptoms that would suggest a predominant respiratory tract infection.
 “It will be useful to discuss briefly the early cases as we saw them during the
Chaumont epidemic, not because the observations made there add much that is new
from a clinical point of view, but because they will remove any possible ambiguity
concerning our conception of influenza in its pure uncomplicated form.
“As far as we can judge the little outbreak at headquarters was typical of the first
advent of epidemic influenza in many places. The population of the town, at the time,
consisted of a large office personnel attached to the military administration, scattered as
to billets and places of work; of military units living in barracks and eating at common
messes; and of the townspeople. The epidemic descended upon individual military units
with the suddenness of a storm, striking a considerable percentage of the men, perhaps
most of the susceptible material, within less than a week, and ending almost as abruptly,
with only a few isolated cases trailing behind. Among the more scattered office workers
and among the townspeople it was disseminated more gradually and trailed along for a
longer period.
“These early cases were clinically so uniform that a diagnosis could be made from the
history alone. The onset was almost uniformly abrupt. Typical cases would become ill
suddenly during the night or at a given hour in the day. A patient who had been perfectly
well on going to bed, would suddenly awake with a severe headache, chilliness, malaise
and fever. Others would arise feeling perfectly well in the morning, and at some time
during the day would become aware of headache and pains in the somatic muscles.
“The typical course of these cases may be exemplified by that of J. T. W., a draftsman
attached to the 29th Engineers. He was perfectly well until May 20th, working regularly,
his bowels and appetite normal, considering himself healthy. On May 21st, at 4:30 A.M.
he awoke with a severe headache. He arose, forced himself to eat breakfast and tried to
go to work. He began to feel feverish and chilly. At the same time his headache became
worse, with pains in the back, and burning in the eye balls. At 2 P.M. he reported sick,
and was taken to the hospital with a temperature of 102.8 degrees. At midnight his
temperature dropped to 101.6 degrees, and came down to normal by noon of the 22d. As
he recovered he developed a slight sore throat, great soreness of the legs and a very
slight cough. He recovered completely within a few days.
“These cases with a few exceptions developed no rashes. One or two of them had
blotchy red eruptions which we felt incompetent to characterize dermatologically. The
leucocyte counts ranged from 5,000 to 9,000. A very few went above this. Sometimes
there was a relative increase of lymphocytes, but this was by no means regular. The few
spinal fluids that were examined were normal. As to enlargement of the spleen, we can
say nothing definitely.
“Soon after this we observed the disease in a Division, the 42d, then holding a part of
the line in front of Baccarat. Here it had already developed a somewhat different nature,
due, we believe, to the fact that the men of this Division were not, as were those at
Chaumont, living in a rest area, but were actively engaged in military operations,
working, sleeping, and eating under conditions that involved greater fatigue, less
protection against weather, and greater crowding in sleeping quarters. The Baccarat
cases were much more frequently catarrhal; sore throats, coughs and more serious
respiratory complications were more common. However, they were usually coupled
unmistakably with an underlying typical influenzal attack, sudden onset, pains and short
lived fever. Moreover, there were a great many of the entirely uncomplicated cases
interspersed with the others.
 “Still later, in September, October and November, respiratory complications were so
frequent and severe, came on so early in the disease, and the pneumonia mortality
became so high, that the fundamental identity of these later cases with the early three-
day fever might easily have been lost sight of by observers who had not followed the
gradual transformation.
“In consideration of these facts, it is apparent that etiological or other investigations
can throw no light upon the problems of influenza unless they are carried out with
clearer understanding of the differentiation between the complications and the basic
disease.
“The serious respiratory infections of the bronchi and lungs we can set down with
reasonable certainty as complications due, certainly in the overwhelming majority of
cases, to secondary bacterial invaders. It is a matter of considerable difficulty, however,
to know exactly where the basic disease stops and the complications begin; and whether
we must regard the mild sore throat and conjunctival injection which so often
accompany the simple cases as a part of this basic clinical picture, or as the simplest
variety of complication. This is much more than an academic question, since, as we shall
see, the bacteriological analyses of such lesions have played an important role in
etiological investigations.”
 Symptoms in Former Epidemics.
The difficulty in making a decision in the presence of an epidemic is very similar to
that of deciding whether the epidemics of former times were in each case influenza.
Some few have been recorded in which the description has corresponded fairly well to
that of primary uncomplicated influenza. Thus, concerning the epidemic of 1557 in
Spain, Thomas Short wrote as follows: “At Mantua Carpentaria, three miles from
Madrid, the epidemic began in August.... There it began with a roughness of the jaws,
small cough, then a strong fever with a pain of the head, back, and legs. Some felt as
though they were corded over the breast and had a weight at the stomach, all of which
continued to the third day at furthest. Then the fever went off, with a sweat or bleeding
at the nose. In some few, it turned to a pleurisy or fatal peripneumony.”
Most of the descriptions, however, have been of a general character and include
descriptions of the complicated periods of the epidemic. One of the more complete of the
early descriptions was that by Lobineau in 1414, who wrote: “C’était une espèce de
rhume, qui causa un tel enrouement que les chastelets furent obligez d’interrompre leurs
séances; on dormoit peu et l’on souffroit de grandes douleurs à la teste, aux reins et par
tout le reste du corps; mais le mal ne fut mortel que pour les vieilles gens de toute
condition.”
With this exception we possess no very good or complete description of influenza
prior to the epidemic of 1510. After that time they have as a rule been detailed enough to
enable identification. Hirsch bases his conclusions concerning the year 1173 chiefly on
the following quotation: “Sub hisdem diebus universus orbus infectus ex aeris nebulosa
corruptione, stomacho catarrhum causante generalem tussim, ad singulorum perniciem,
ad mortem etiam plurimorum immissam vehementer expavite.” Nearly all that we have
to go on in this description is the widespread incidence of the disease and the presence
of respiratory symptoms, particularly cough. In 1323 the description emphasizes only
the high morbidity. Thus, Pietro Buoninsegni writes: “In questo anno e d’Agosto fu un
vento pestilenzia le per lo quale amalò di freddo e di febbre per alcuni dì quasi tutte le
persone in Firenze e questo madesimo fu quais per tutta Italia.” The same author
describes the epidemic of 1327, emphasizing again the high morbidity and in addition
the low death rate: “In detto anno e mese fu quasi per tutto Italia corruzione di febbre
per freddo; ma pochi ne morirono.” Again in 1387, he emphasizes the same two features.
Pasquier, in writing of the epidemic of 1403 in France, says: “En Registres de
Parlement on trouve que le vingt-sixième jour d’avril 1403 y eut une maladie de teste et
de toux, qui courut universellement si grande, que ce jour-là le Greffier ne pût rien
enrégistrer et fut-on contraint d’abandonner le plaidoyé.” Here the high morbidity and
the symptoms, particularly cough and pain, are emphasized. In 1414, Baliolanus
describes again the high morbidity and symptoms, particularly cough and hoarseness:
“Eoque frigore humanis corporibus concepto ... tussis maxima atque raucitas orta unde
nullus pene ordo, aetas et sexus liber evasit.” In 1411, Pasquier writes the following: “En
1411 y eut une autre sorte de maladie dont une infinité de personnes furent touchez, par
laquelle l’on perdoit le boire, le manger et le dormir ... toujours trembloit et avec le estoit
si las et rompu que l’on ne l’osoit toucher en quelques parts. Sans qu’aucune personne
en mourut.”
 Subsequent to 1510 descriptions have been as a rule more definite. There are,
however, exceptions to this statement and these fall in the epidemics concerning which
there is some dispute.
 Manner of Spread.
More characteristic and more important from an epidemiologic standpoint than the
symptomatology in general, as we have discussed it, is the mode of development of the
epidemic as a whole.
Human intercourse.—Before the days of bacteriology the contagiousness of the
disease was little discussed. Its infectiveness was in fact not universally established until
the epidemic of 1889–1890. One of the first writers who attempted to see in the
influenza a contagious disease was Ch. Calenus who wrote in 1579: “Contagiosum dico
morbum, quia etsi quidem ab occulta quadam coeli influentia, principaliter eum profisci
haud dubium est ... eo in loco quo jam grassabatur inter homines citius eos invadabat,
qui cum affectis frequenter conversabantur, quam eos, qui a consuetudine affectorum
studiose abstinebant.” This keen observer saw that those who carelessly exposed
themselves to close contact with cases of influenza were more likely to develop the
disease than those who protected themselves in every way possible. The “contagious”
school first developed in England, where Haygarth, Hamilton, Gray, Hull, Duggard,
Bardsley, and others, in 1775–1803 described the disease as being not in the air, but in a
specific contagion. Others who considered influenza a contagious disease were Simonin,
Lombard, Petit de Corbeil (1837), Blanc (1860), and Bertholle (1876).
Watson (1847) quotes Cullen as saying that this species of catarrh proceeds from
contagion. He, himself, is not convinced of this fact. He says the visitation is too sudden
and too widely spread to be capable of explanation in that way. “There are facts in the
history of influenza which furnish a strong presumption that the exciting cause of the
disorder is material, not a mere quality of the atmosphere; and that it is at least
portable. The instances are very numerous, too numerous to be attributed to mere
chance, in which the complaint has first broken out in those particular houses of a town
at which travelers have recently arrived from infected places.... What I wish to point out
now is the fact that the influenza pervades large tracts of country in a manner much too
sudden and simultaneous to be consistent with the notion that its prevalence depends
exclusively upon any contagious properties that it may possess.”
Parkes, writing in Reynolds’ System of Medicine in 1876, views the subject more as we
see it today: “The rapidity of the spread would seem at once to negative any connection
between human intercourse and the propagation of the disease; yet there is some
affirmative evidence. It does not appear to follow the great lines of commerce; but when
it has entered towns and villages in which the investigation can be carried on, it is
curious how frequently the first cases have been introduced, and how often the
townspeople nearest the invalids have been first affected. In this country especially,
Haygarth in 1775 and 1782, and Falconer in 1802, collected so many instances of this
that they became convinced that its propagation was due entirely to human intercourse.
So also, when it passes through a house, it occasionally attacks one person after another.
But if it is introduced in this way it afterwards develops with marvelous rapidity, for we
cannot discredit the accounts of many thousands of persons being attacked within a day
or two, which is quite different from the comparatively slow spread of the contagious
diseases. This sudden invasion of a community makes it, to many persons, appear highly
improbable that any effluvia passing off from the sick should thus so rapidly
contaminate the atmosphere of a whole town.