“Gender Wars” in Europe: Diplomatic Practice under Polarized Conditions

Abstract

Contemporary international relations, both globally and within Europe, are increasingly characterized by contestation. In this context, gender and sexuality are known to be mobilized by states to enhance their status, signal their alignment with alliances, and draw boundaries between “us” and “them”. Progressive states perceive the actions of conservative states as hostile and vice versa – framing them as challenges to human rights or as infringements on national sovereignty.

In this dissertation, I complement this perspective by providing an in-depth analysis of diplomacy’s role in this context of “gender wars”. I argue that diplomats play a crucial role in mitigating many aspects of this phenomenon and in maintaining overall stability in inter-state relations. They achieve this through a range of routinized practices, including broad information-gathering, the construction of shared identities, consensus-building through ambiguity, and adherence to established rules. This conclusion is drawn from a multifaceted study of two diplomatic sites: bilateral diplomacy through embassies in Warsaw and multilateral diplomacy within the Council of the European Union in Brussels. The analysis is based on interviews with 40+ diplomats as well as official policy and legal documents, news articles, and social media posts. The findings are presented in a series of four papers, each with a distinct focus: Paper 1 examines the implementation of gender equality and LGBT+ strategies through bilateral diplomacy, Paper 2 explores how bilateral diplomats employ international law in their discourse, Paper 3 (co-authored with Mariia Tepliakova) traces the adoption process of the Istanbul Convention on violence against women within the Council, and Paper 4 analyzes negotiations over the use of the term “gender” in Council documents.

This dissertation serves as a broader reflection on the management of difference in an era of polarization, populism, and deep contestation. While diplomatic practices are central to managing differences, they must be complemented by the efforts of other actors – particularly in areas that fall outside of habitual diplomatic practice – such as fostering genuine deliberation and addressing structural inequalities in inter-state relations. Furthermore, diplomacy’s ability to mediate differences may itself be undermined by its politicization.