Epistemik Sorumluluk ve Avrupa Birliği’nin Arabuluculuk Pratiklerinde Kadınların Barış Müzakerelerine Anlamlı Katılımı: Kosova-Sırbistan Diyaloğu Örneği

Abstract

Bu makale, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği normunun şekillendirdiği ‘anlamlı katılım’ anlayışı ile ‘epistemik sorumluluk’ perspektifini birleştirerek, Kosova ve Sırbistan arasındaki barış müzakereleri örneği üzerinden, Avrupa Birliği’nin (AB) arabuluculuk pratiklerinde kadınların resmi müzakere süreçlerine katılımını incelemektedir. AB’ye tam üyelik sürecinde olan Kosova ve Sırbistan arasında devam eden barış müzakerelerinin 2011 yılından bu yana baş arabulucusu AB’dir ve tarafların hükümetleri üzerinde ciddi bir kaldıraç etkisi vardır. Kritik soru ise, bu etki ve sorumlulukla AB’nin kadınların müzakerelere eşit ve anlamlı katılımını hangi yollarla ve ne ölçüde sağlayabildiğidir. Süreç izleme yöntemiyle, AB ve sivil toplum tarafından yayınlanan birincil metinler üzerinden yapılan inceleme göstermektedir ki, kadınları temsilen sivil toplum örgütleri üst düzey resmi müzakerelere dahil edilmemişlerdir. Müzakere heyetlerinde kadınların niceliksel varlığı ise sembolik düzeyde kalmıştır. Çalışmanın bir başka bulgusu, kadınların çabalarına rağmen AB’nin hazırladığı anlaşma metinlerinde kadınların taleplerine yeterince yer vermemiş olmasıdır. Bu önemli örnek üzerinden çalışmanın vardığı sonuç, AB’nin ciddi potansiyeline ve söylemlerine rağmen, toplumsal cinsiyete duyarlı bir arabuluculuk pratiğini hayata geçiremediğidir. Söylem ve pratik arasındaki bu fark, AB’nin epistemik sorumlulukları ve normatif aktörlük iddiası ekseninde gelişen tartışmalara yeni bir boyut kazandıracak niteliktedir.

Keywords

• Avrupa Birliği
• barış arabuluculuğu
• Kosova-Sırbistan müzakereleri
• Kadın Barış ve Güvenlik gündemi
• kadınların anlamlı katılımı

Epistemic Responsibility and the Meaningful Participation of Women in the European Union’s Peace Mediation Practices: The Case of the Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue

Abstract

This article analyzes women’s participation in the European Union’s (EU) mediation efforts, using the case of peace negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia. The article combines the approaches of ‘meaningful participation,’ rooted in gender equality, alongside epistemic responsibility. Since 2011, the EU has mediated the peace talks, wielding significant influence over both parties, whıch have been candidates for EU membership. Given this influence, the study questions how and to what extent the EU has ensured women's equal and meaningful involvement. Through process tracing and examination of EU and women’s organizations’ texts, findings reveal that civil society groups representing women were excluded from high-level negotiations. Despite women’s advocacy, the EU did not integrate women’s demands into official agreements. This case shows that, while the EU has significant potential and rhetoric on gender equality, it has not effectively applied a gender-sensitive approach. This gap between its discourse and actions brings a critical perspective on the EU’s epistemic responsibilities and its self-image as a normative actor in international mediation.

Keywords

• European Union
• peace mediation
• Kosovo-Serbia negotiations
• Women
• Peace and Security agenda

References

1. Abou-Habib, Lina, Valeria Esquivel, Anne Marie Goetz, Joanne Sandler ve Caroline Sweetman. “Introduction: Gender, development, and Beijing +25,” Gender & Development 28, no. 2, (2020): 223-237.
2. Arat, Zehra F. Kabasakal. “Feminisms, women's rights, and the UN: Would achieving gender equality empower women?” American Political Science Review 109 no.4, (2015): 674-689.
3. Bardhan, Kalpana, and Stephan Klasen. “UNDP’s gender-related indices: A critical review,” World Development 27, no.6 (1999): 985-1010.
4. Beetham, Gwendolyn, and Justina Demetriades. “Feminist research methodologies and development: Overview and practical application,” Gender & Development 15, no.2 (2007): 199-216.
5. Beck, Erin. “What a feminist curiosity contributes to the study of development,” Studies in Comparative International Development 52, (2017): 139-154.
6. Berenstain, Nora. “White feminist gaslighting,” Hypatia 35, no.4 (2020): 733-758.
7. Beteta, Hanny Cueva. “What is missing in measures of women's empowerment?” Journal of Human Development 7, no. 2 (2006): 221-241.
8. Bongaarts, John. “Population policy options in the developing world,” Science 263.5148 (1994): 771-776.

9. Carastathis, Anna. “The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory,” Philosophy compass 9, no. 5 (2014): 304-314.
10. Chant, Sylvia. “Re‐thinking the ‘feminization of poverty’ in relation to aggregate gender indices,” Journal of Human Development 7, no. 2 (2006): 201-220.
11. Collins, Patricia Hill. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2. Basım Routledge, 2000).
12. Cornwall, Andrea, and Althea-Maria Rivas. “From ‘gender equality and ‘women’s empowerment’ to global justice: reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development.” Third World Quarterly 36, no.2 (2015): 396-415.
13. Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine,” in Feminist theory and antiracist politics (University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167).
14. di Bella, Enrico. “The Main Indicators of Gender (in) Equality.” Measuring Gender Equality (2023): 61.
15. Dotson, Kristie. “Conceptualizing epistemic oppression.” Social Epistemology 28, no.2 (2014): 115-138.
16. Ellsberg, Mary, Henrica AFM Jansen, Lori Heise, Charlotte H. Watts ve Claudia Garcia-Moreno. “Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: An observational study. The Lancet 371, no. 9619, (2008): 1165–1172.
17. EIGE. Gender Equality Index Report (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2022), https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2022 (Son erişim tarihi: 7.11.2024).
18. EIGE. Gender Equality Index Report (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023), https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2023 (Son erişim tarihi: 7.11.2024).
19. Folbre, Nancy. “Measuring care: Gender, empowerment, and the care economy,” Journal of Human Development 7, no. 2, (2006): 183-199.
20. Frega, Roberto. “José Medina, The Epistemology of Resistance.” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 5, no. 1 (2013): 352.
21. Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing (Oxford University Press, 2007)
22. Fraser, Nancy. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition (New York: Routledge, 1997).
23. Harding, Sandra “Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity”? L. Alcoff ve E. Potter (der.) içinde Feminist epistemologies (49–82) (Routledge, 1993).
24. Hausmann, Ricardo. “The global gender gap report 2008.” World Economic Forum, 2008. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2006/ (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
25. Jaquette, Jane. S. Women/gender and development: “The growing gap between theory and practice”. Studies in Comparative International Development, 52, (2007): 242–260.
26. Kardam, Nüket. “Social theory and women in development policy”. Women & Politics 7, no.4, (1987): 67–82.
27. Klasen, Stephan. UNDP's gender-related measures: Some conceptual problems and possible solutions. Journal of Human Development 7, no.2, (2006): 243–274.
28. Lombardo, Emanuale., & Verloo, Mieke. Institutionalizing intersectionality in the European Union? International Feminist Journal of Politics 11, (2009): 478–495.
29. Medina, Jose. Misrecognition and epistemic injustice. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4, no.4 (2018b).
30. Merry, Sally. “Engle. Measuring the world: Indicators, human rights, and global governance.” Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, no.103, (2009): 239–243.
31. Mohanty, Chandra Talpade “Under Western Eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no.2, (2003): 499–535.
32. OECD. SIGI 2019 global report: Transforming challenges into opportunities. Social Institutions and Gender Index (OECD Publishing, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1787/bc56d212-en (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
33. Permanyer, Inaki. “A critical assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index”. Feminist Economics 19, no.2 (2013a): 1–32.
34. Permanyer, Inaki. “Why call it “equality” when it should be “achievement”? A proposal to un-correct the “corrected gender gaps” in the EU Gender Equality Index”. Journal of European Social Policy 25, no.4 (2015): 414–430.
35. Permanyer, Iñaki. “Are UNDP indices appropriate to capture gender inequalities in Europe?” Social Indicators Research 110, no.3 (2013b): 927-950.
36. Schmid, Caitlin. B., & Elliot, Mark. "Why call it equality?" revisited: An extended critique of the EIGE Gender Equality Index. Social Indicators Research 168, no.1, (2023): 389–408.
37. Schmid, Caitlin B, Rose Cook ve Laura Jones. “Measuring Gender Inequality in Great Britain: Proposal for a Subnational Gender Inequality Index,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 30, no 2, (2023): 580–606.
38. Schüler, Dana. “The uses and misuses of the gender-related development index and gender empowerment measure: A review of the literature”. Journal of Human Development 7, no.2 (2006): 161–181.
39. Sen, Amartya. Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. (Stanford University, 1979).
40. https://ophi.org.uk/sites/default/files/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
41. Spivak, Gayatri. C. “Can the subaltern speak?” In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture, (University of Illinois Press 1988), 271–313
42. UNDP Human Development report 2010: The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development, ( New York: UNDP, 2010)
43. UNDP The Missing Piece: Valuing women’s unrecognized contribution to the economy, 2024, https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/missing-piece-valuing-womens-unrecognized-contribution economy#:~:text=Valued%20at%20an%20hourly%20minimum,GDP%2C%20amounting%20to%2011%20trillion. (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
44. UNDP (t.y.). Gender Inequality Index. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
45. UNDP (t.y.). Gender Social Norms Index. https://hdr.undp.org/gender-social-norms-index (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
46. Unterhalter, Elaine. “Fragmented frameworks? Researching women, gender, education, and development”. In Beyond Access Developing Gender Equality in Education, (2005): 13–35.
47. Uyan Semerci, P. “Dev ve cüce aynı yolda: Yoksulluk ve pozitif özgürlükler”. In P. Uyan Semerci (Ed.), İnsan hakları ihlali olarak yoksulluk, (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010), 1-21.
48. Verloo, Mieke. “Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union”. European Journal of Women's Studies 13, no.3 (2006): 211–228.
49. Verloo, Mieke., & van der Vleuten, A. The discursive logic of ranking and benchmarking: Understanding gender equality measures in the European Union. (1. Basım Routledge, 2009)
50. Walby, Sylvia. “The concept of intersectionality: A new approach to social structure?” Sociology 42, no.5 (2007): 1069–1086.
51. Walby, Sylvia. Globalization and inequalities: Complexity and contested modernities, (SAGE Publications, 2009). World Economic Forum. Global gender gap report 2022. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2022 (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
52. Yuval-Davis, N. “Intersectionality and feminist politics”. European Journal of Women’s Studies13, no.3 (2006): 193–209.