At a time when several different crises are affecting the international order, a growing number of states are committing to feminist foreign policy (FFP). This concept focuses on putting human security at the center of policy, rather than state interests, taking into account different vulnerabilities and needs. In order to make this less a rhetorical symbolism and more a substantive outcome, it pushes for greater inclusion of civil society’s expertise in foreign policy decision-making, as well as better representation of diverse perspectives in top positions. But does such an approach impact the government’s handling of crises? So far, it has not led to a unified stance on conflicts, as we currently witness.
After Sweden became the first country to officially label its foreign policy as feminist, many countries, both in the North and the South, have followed suit. By now, around 16 states are officially part of the club, with many others sharing similar goals and interests but not labelling their foreign policies as feminist. (In 2022, Sweden’s newly elected government, on the other hand, scrapped its feminist foreign policy.) Each government’s implementation of feminist foreign policy varies greatly in scope, consistency, and focus.
Appetite for Alliances
This newly formed coalition continues to convene regularly, beginning with Berlin’s first Ministerial Conference on Feminist Foreign Policy in 2022, followed by last year’s edition in The Hague, and this year’s Ministerial Conference in Mexico. Additionally, the “Female Foreign Ministers’ Meeting,” convened by Mongolia, Germany, and France, took place in Ulaanbaatar in June, 2023. During last year’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the FFP+ group, that was formed in 2022, organized a high-level event on feminist foreign policy, and this year’s UNGA, which took place in September, once again included a ministerial side event by the FFP+ group, which this year is chaired by Spain and Mexico.
This dynamic reveals a growing appetite among states to forge new alliances beyond the old ones, that are often economically or geographically shaped. Instead, a normative base is sought to serve as a solid fundament for cooperation. Small countries in highly vulnerable geographical and geopolitical positions are beginning to also see strategic benefits to increase the number of partners within this framework. So do countries like Germany that want to increase their outreach to countries of the Global South. At the same time, the group commits to “take feminist, intersectional, and gender-transformative approaches to our foreign policies.” This illustrates once again how values can align with interest-based motivations to mutual benefit.
However, this foundation is being tested by crises and conflicts and the governments’ varying responses to them. Yet, these multilateral forums could present a vital platform for governments to demonstrate that a feminist approach meaningfully shapes their engagement with them.
Criticism Is Mounting
This comes at a pivotal moment for feminist foreign policy. While civil society continues to advocate strongly for the comprehensive adoption of feminist principles in foreign policy, their impact on “high politics” often remains limited. Many governments struggle to demonstrate how this shift has influenced their decision-making beyond a commendable, yet insufficient, commitment to gender-mainstreaming. It's no surprise, then, that criticism is mounting—this time not from opponents questioning the concept’s legitimacy, but from feminists who see the term being co-opted into toothless policies.
Multilateral groups such as the FFP+ group could serve as a way to teeth the tiger—or at least add to the diplomatic toolbox. Take, for example, the 2023 meeting of female ministers in Mongolia, which resulted in the Ulaanbaatar Declaration. In this joint statement, the participating ministers from France, Germany, Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Mongolia, and South Africa declared: “We note with deep concern the adverse impact of the war against Ukraine on inter alia its humanitarian consequences including for women and children, and for global food security, and urge all UN member states to cooperate in the spirit of solidarity and to support the UN Secretary-General in his efforts to address these impacts.”
Notably, this was signed among states that have very different stances toward this war, including South Africa. It was celebrated as a successful outcome of this meeting and a diplomatic coup. And it shows that feminist foreign policy, often seen as a pie-in-the-sky, can play an important role in the diplomatic spheres. This moment underscores the potential of such alliances to find common ground, condemn state actions when necessary, and—this should be the goal—collaborate on meaningful solutions.
Cooperation at the Forefront
The strength of feminist foreign policy lies in its focus on cooperation. Rather than acting as individual players, it shifts the focus from narrow national interests to the needs of people affected by crises, beyond borders, aiming for collaborative solutions. A feminist approach to crisis response emphasizes creating an ecosystem of coordinated efforts, rather than isolated national actions. This prevents duplication of efforts and ensures that resources are directed where they are most needed. Consistently involving civil society ensures that responses align with the needs of those most affected.
But what does this mean for ongoing crises, such as the coming to power of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the situation in Iran, and Sudan, or Israel’s war in Gaza and Lebanon, following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023?
Take Israel’s war in Gaza as an example. The responses from governments committed to feminist foreign policy or being part of the FFP+ group have been remarkably varied, as the Gender Security Project showcased.
While Spain has been vocal in its support for Palestine since the beginning, is continuously calling for a two-state-solution, and has formally recognized the state Palestine, Germany with its “raison d’etat” has from the beginning announced to “stand by Israel’s side.” It has recently confirmed its commitment to send weapons to the Israeli government—despite the ongoing case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of violating the UN's 1948 Genocide Convention and the following case brought by Nicaragua that alleges that Germany’s military assistance to Israel violates Germany’s obligations under the Genocide Convention. While Germany was announcing that it would intervene in the first case to support Israel, the FFP countries Mexico, Chile, Spain, and Colombia instead sought to join South Africa, which initiated the case. Canada has been criticized for its delayed and inconsistent response to the Gaza crisis, but has recently restricted weapon sales to Israel. Also French President Emmanuel Macron has called for a halt to arms deliveries to Israel. At the same time, during UNGA 2023, Israel itself was part of the FFP+ group.
Joint Action
During the conference in The Hague shortly after the Hamas attack, the situation in Gaza was a predominant issue among civil society actors—and it continues to be. During the conference in Mexico, some statements mentioned the war. At this year’s FFP+ group side event at UNGA, the war in Gaza and Lebanon was only mentioned by a civil society representative. What is missing so far is a concentrated debate and statement at a ministerial level on what the commitment to a feminist foreign policy means for their foreign policy actions in light of this humanitarian catastrophe—even though this concept could offer some guardrails.
This is happening in the context of a conflict where the impact on civilians is overwhelming. After the Hamas attack, in which over 1,200 Israelis were murdered and hundreds taken hostage, over 42,000 people have been killed in Gaza and over 2,000 in Lebanon. Over 10,000 are missing, 1.9 million people—that is 90 percent of Gaza’s population— are internally displaced, 101 Israeli hostages are still in the hands of Hamas. The short- and long-term effects on the most vulnerable groups—those that feminist foreign policy vows to protect—are immense. Gaza has been described as the most dangerous place to be a child. Critical medical care, including for those suffering from injuries, illnesses but also pre- and post-natal needs, is severely lacking. Furthermore, infrastructure such as housing, hospitals, schools, and universities are destroyed.
In light of this, the (in)actions of a few of those FFP countries is hard to grasp. The different responses to different crises also reveal a divide between North and South. Multilateral FFP fora could provide a platform for reflecting, criticizing and addressing such issues. They could offer an opportunity to establish a baseline of shared principles for action and to address states whose governments violate those. While it's important to recognize that feminisms manifests differently across the world due to diverse contexts, certain core principles—such as adherence to international law—must remain universal. FFP states should push their fellow members to not only adhere to these principles but to actively strengthen them through their behavior.
Furthermore, they offer an alliance to push for action. How this can look like was shown at this year’s UNGA: Canada, Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands—all of them part of the FFP+ group—announced that they had joined forces to bring the Taliban to the International Court of Justice, due to their continued gender apartheid, and especially in light of their recently published vice and virtue laws. They are doing so under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) that Afghanistan ratified in 2003—a founding piece of today’s feminist foreign policy.
Less Self Congratulation, More Crisis Response
The declaration from Mexico’s Ministerial Conference on Feminist Foreign Policy, held just a few months ago, states: “We celebrate the implementation of feminist foreign policies and other initiatives in our countries to provide foreign policies with a gender focus, recognizing them as tools to respond to current and future challenges from a human rights perspective and for the strengthening of democracy, with innovative solutions that put equal rights at the center of the international agenda aiming for a better tomorrow for all people.”
Rather than congratulating themselves for simply adopting feminist foreign policies, these meetings should focus on how FFPs can serve as practical tools for responding to crises and addressing threats to human security. These forums must not only drive action but also act as hubs for learning, where countries can exchange insights and collaborate on concrete solutions.
When applied effectively, feminist foreign policy has the potential to be a powerful framework—not just for upholding shared norms but for collective action in tackling global crises. This would be crucial in restoring trust in FFP, particularly among those on the frontlines fighting for human rights, equal representation, and resources for marginalized voices. That trust has been strained in recent months, and FFP states cannot afford to let it erode further.
Leonie Stamm is a research fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), working on topics related to feminist foreign policy.
