Abstract
My project investigates the transnational advocacy network at the UN Security Council that worked hard to secure Security Council resolution 1820 (2008). UNSCR 1820 is a landmark resolution that condemns sexual violence in war-time as a crime against humanity. It was seen as a milestone for the newly emerging Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda in the international security world. Years prior to 1820’s passage, there was no indication that the Security Council would unanimously decide to condemn conflict-related sexual violence. How did it pass so successfully, then? My research answers how transnational advocacy effectively placed sexual violence on the Security Council’s agenda by analyzing how activists used different strategies to persuade the Council. My methodology involved both primary and secondary sources: conducting research interviews with a network of WPS groups and UN officials and analyzing archival materials from the UN Archives and Records Centre, as well as drawing upon secondary literature existing on this issue. My research findings support how insider advocacy strategies were more effective in persuading the Council to support 1820 as compared to outside advocacy strategies. This challenges the existing body of transnational advocacy literature. 1820’s advocacy process deviated from normative standards in how it used non-traditional forms of activism (such as employing unlikely allies in the movement, capitalizing upon personal relationships at the UN, and using powerful “positive persuasion” tools). My hope in carrying out this research project is that it will highlight the role of inside advocacy that altered UN silence into international visibility, providing the framework to combat wartime sexual violence that for so long had been overlooked.