SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
 issue83Of Silences and Openings: The Recognition of the Victimization of LGBTI Social Sectors in Recent Models of Transitional Justice in Colombia author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Revista de Estudios Sociales

Print version ISSN 0123-885X

rev.estud.soc.  no.83 Bogotá Jan./Mar. 2023  Epub Dec 05, 2022

https://doi.org/10.7440/res83.2023.01 

Dossier

Under Construction: Toward a Theory and Praxis of Queer Peacebuilding*

En construcción: hacia una teoría y praxis de la construcción de paz queer/cuir

Em construção: rumo a uma teoria e práxis da construção da paz queer/cuir

Samuel Ritholtz** 

José Fernando Serrano Amaya*** 

Jamie J. Hagen**** 

Melanie Judge***** 

**Doctoral candidate in the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford (UK). Max Weber Fellow in the Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute (Italy). His broader research interests include LGBTIQ+ experiences of conflict, crisis, and displacement; marginality and spectacle during war; and political theories of brutality, cruelty and violence. Recent publications include: “Is queer-and-trans youth homelessness a form of displacement? A queer epistemological review of refugee studies’ theoretical borders,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, published online, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2099747; “The Ontology of Cruelty in Civil War: The Analytical Utility of Characterizing Violence in Conflict Studies,” Global Studies Quarterly 2: 1-12, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksac014. samuel.ritholtz@qeh.ox.ac.uk

***Ph.D. in Education and Social Work from the University of Sydney (Australia) and Master in Conflict Resolution from the University of Bradford (UK). Assistant professor in the Department of Languages and Cultures, Universidad de los Andes (Colombia). He has extensive experience working for NGO, international cooperation agencies and state institutions in Colombia. His research interests include gender and sexual violence, peace building, social policies and knowledge management. He is currently researching on pedagogies and politics of reconciliation in Australia, Colombia and South Africa and on the practices of peacebuilding in Colombia. His most recent book is Homophobic Violence in Armed Conflict and Political Transition, Palgrave McMillan, 2018. jf.serranom@uniandes.edu.co

****Ph.D. in Global Governance and Human Security from the University of Massachusetts Boston (United States). Assistant professor at Queen’s University Belfast (UK) where she is founding co-Director of the Centre for Gender in Politics. She is an expert on international attention to LGBTQ populations in security studies, specifically focusing on queering the Women, Peace and Security agenda. Jamie is currently the principal investigator of the British Academy Innovation Fellowship project “Queering Women, Peace and Security (WPS): Improving Engagement with Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LBTQ) women in WPS Programming”. Recent publications include: “Nevertheless, they persisted: feminist activism and the politics of crisis in Northern Ireland” (coauthor), Journal of Gender Studies 31 (5): 654-667, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2022.2039103; “Racial Hierarchies of Knowledge Production in the Women, Peace and Security Agenda” (coauthor), Critical Studies on Security 9 (1): 27-30, https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1904192. j.hagen@qub.ac.uk

*****Ph.D. in Women’s and Gender Studies from the University of the Western Cape (South Africa). Adjunct Associate Professor in Public Law and Research Associate of the Centre for Law and Society at the University of Cape Town (South Africa). Senior policy advisor on LGBTI inclusion in Africa for the United Nations Development Programme, and a trustee of the GALA queer archive. She has been extensively involved in law reform, advocacy and research on sexual and gender rights, and LGBTI equality. Melanie is author of Blackwashing Homophobia: Violence and the Politics of Sexuality, Gender and Race (Oxford; New York: Routledge, 2018); lead editor of To Have and To Hold: The Making of Same-Sex Marriage in South Africa (Cape Town: Fanele, 2008); and co-editor of Unsettling Apologies: Critical Writings on Apology from South Africa (Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2022). melanie@justcommunication.co.za


Abstract:

This article explores what queer as a concept brings to peacebuilding, presenting a guiding framework and introduction for a special issue on queer peacebuilding. It offers an initial approach to the topic, which means to center queer and trans perspectives of peace and bring queer epistemologies to bear on how peace is constituted so as to rearticulate the concept both in theory and praxis. In doing so, it addresses an unexamined gap in peacebuilding efforts to achieve gender justice and inclusive security in conflict-affected societies, namely the unique experiences of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer) individuals and their collective efforts to achieve social justice in these contexts. The authors approach the topic of queer peacebuilding through three questions: What is queer peacebuilding?, Why is queer peacebuilding important? and What can queer peacebuilding contribute? While the impacts of queer peacebuilding in sites of contentious politics around the globe are visible, it remains an emergent and somewhat elusive concept, still under construction within peace and security scholarship and practice. By presenting a conceptualization of the notion of queer peacebuiling, the authors seek to further academic efforts to construct and analyze queer peace.

Keywords: conflict resolution; LGBT; peace; peacebuilding; queering; queer theory

Resumen:

Este artículo explora lo que aporta el concepto queer/cuir a la construcción de paz, exponiendo un marco de referencia y una introducción para un número temático sobre la construcción de paz queer/cuir. Se presenta una aproximación inicial a este tema, lo que significa centrar las perspectivas queer/cuir y trans de la paz, así como aportar epistemologías queer/cuir a la forma en que se constituye la paz para rearticular el concepto tanto en la teoría, como en la práctica. Con ello, se aborda un vacío en los esfuerzos de construcción de la paz que buscan alcanzar justicia de género y seguridad inclusiva en sociedades afectadas por conflictos, es decir, se examinan las experiencias únicas de las personas LGBTQ (lesbianas, gays, bisexuales, trans y queer) y sus esfuerzos colectivos en pos de lograr la justicia social en esos contextos. Los autores abordan el tema de la construcción de la paz queer/cuir a través de tres preguntas: ¿qué es la construcción de la paz queer/cuir?, ¿por qué es importante la construcción de la paz queer/cuir? y ¿en qué puede contribuir la construcción de la paz queer/cuir?. Aunque los impactos de la consolidación de la paz queer/cuir en los lugares de conflicto político de todo el mundo son visibles, este sigue siendo un concepto emergente y un tanto esquivo, que todavía se está construyendo dentro de los estudios y las prácticas de paz y seguridad. Al presentar una conceptualización de la noción de construcción de la paz queer/cuir, los autores pretenden impulsar los esfuerzos académicos para construirla y analizarla.

Palabras clave:  construcción de paz; LGBT; paz; queering; resolución de conflicto; teoría queer

Resumo:

Neste artigo, é explorado o que o conceito queer/cuir contribui para a construção da paz, apresentando um referencial e uma introdução para um número temático sobre a construção da paz queer/cuir. É apresentada uma abordagem inicial do tema, o que significa centralizar as perspectivas queer/cuir e trans da paz, bem como trazer epistemologias queer/cuir para a forma em que a paz é constituída a fim de rearticular o conceito tanto na teoria quanto na prática. Com isso, é abordada uma lacuna nos esforços de construção da paz que buscam atingir justiça de gênero e segurança inclusiva em sociedades afetadas por conflitos; nesse sentido, são examinadas as experiências únicas das pessoas LGBTQ (lésbicas, gays, bissexuais, trans e queer) e seus esforços coletivos em prol de atingir a justiça social nesses contextos. Os autores abordam o tema da construção da paz queer/cuir por meio de três perguntas: o que é a construção da paz queer/cuir? Por que a construção da paz queer/cuir é importante? E para que a construção da paz queer/cuir pode contribuir? Embora os impactos da consolidação da paz queer/cuir nos lugares de conflito político de todo o mundo sejam visíveis, esse conceito continua sendo emergente e um tanto esquivo, que ainda está sendo construído dentro dos estudos e práticas de paz e segurança. Ao apresentar uma conceituação da noção de construção da paz queer/cuir, os autores pretendem fomentar os esforços acadêmicos para construí-la e analisá-la.

Palavras-chave: construção da paz; LGBT; paz; queering; resolução de conflito; teoria queer

Introduction

In a context where LGBTQ1 (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) persons face various forms of violence and exclusion the world over, it is not always the first instance that queer is considered alongside peace. Accordingly, much has been written about how queers come to know and counter violence and less so about how queers come to know and construct peace (See, Amar 2013; CNMH 2015, 2019; Díaz Villamil 2020; Duggan 2012; Green and Quinalha 2014; Guerra 2019; Hagen 2016, 2017; IARAN 2018; Judge 2018; Mason 2002; Ritholtz 2022a; Serrano-Amaya 2017; Stanley 2021; Swarr 2012; Weber 2016). Yet, it is precisely the implication of violence in the targeting of queer people -a violence rooted in the perception that those who are queer are less-than and worthy targets- that requires a turning of the lens towards the generative potential of peacebuilding by and for LGBTQ persons.

This special issue explores what queer as a concept brings to peacebuilding. In this sense, it presents an initial approach to queer peacebuilding, which means to center queer and trans perspectives of peace as well as bring queer epistemologies to bear on how peace is constituted, so as to rearticulate the concept both in theory and praxis. In doing so, it addresses an unexamined gap in peacebuilding efforts to achieve gender justice and inclusive security in conflict-affected societies, namely the unique experiences of LGBTQ individuals and their collective efforts to achieve social justice in these contexts. The intellectual foundation of queer peacebuilding comes from queer and feminist epistemic critiques that recognize the situated nature of knowledge based on intersecting identities, and contest social constructions that erase the experiences of LGBTQ people (Browne and Nash 2016; Hammers and Brown III 2004; Haraway 1988; Zelada 2018). Applying a queer epistemology to the study of peacebuilding reflects Browne and Nashe’s (2016, 7) observation of how queer research “is anti-normative and seeks to subvert, challenge and critique a host of taken for granted ‘stabilities’ in our social lives.” To challenge accepted conventions of LGBTQ inclusion in peacebuilding efforts, a critical approach to queer peacebuilding requires us to follow Mohanty’s (1991, 1995) guidance to go beyond an individualized identity politics. This means to go beyond merely accepting public proclamations of LGBTQ inclusion, to explore the ontological implications of these proclamations through queer epistemologies.

Although there is now over two decades of scholarship that includes attention to gender in peacebuilding efforts, little of this literature focuses specifically on sexuality or queer and trans perspectives (Agathangelou 2010; Ashe 2018a, 2018b; Cockburn 2010; Daigle and Myrttinen 2017; Hagen 2020; Karamé and Tryggestad 2000; López, Canchari, and Sánchez 2017; Merkel 2021; Moser and Clark 2001; Myzze and Bryne 2015; Pankhurst 1999). A queer perspective recognizes the importance of unearthing and expressing stories that in turn produce regimes of truth about LGBTQ experiences of -and responses to- conflict.

Peacebuilding is a core analytical concept for analyzing and transforming protracted conflicts. This concept was articulated before the international community in the 1992 United Nations document “An Agenda for Peace” (United Nations Secretary-General 1992). The need to connect peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding is recognized as the key strategy to create durable conditions that prevent the return of violent conflict. Peacebuilding displaced those conflict resolution strategies that were limited to a focus on negotiations among powerful parties or on militarized security, and instead encouraged a commitment to establishing long-term and sustainable conditions for peace through structural reforms. With peacebuilding, and subsequent global peace efforts, came a focus on the key role of civil society in leading pre- and post- conflict transformations (Belloni 2001); the search for reconciliation as a horizon for peace (Lambourne 2003); and the need for gender equity to address the roots of conflict (Strickland and Duvvury 2003).

However, peacebuilding is not a neutral or technical concept. It was developed in a context where the promotion of liberal democratic governance, together with the creation and strengthening of state institutions and market-oriented economics, prevailed, affecting responses to violent conflict. The embedding of peacebuilding within a predominant model of liberal peace has been a matter of intense discussions that exposes both its values and problems (Chandler 2010; Mac Ginty 2008; Paris 1997; Richmond and Franks 2009). Paris (2010) argues that there has been a pendular movement from presenting liberal peacebuilding as the innovation that led the change in conflict management strategies in the 1990s, to the denouncing of its failures, problems, and limitations by the early 2000s. The contradictory results of peacebuilding missions in the 1990s and the War on Terror were key to moving the pendulum away from liberal peacebuilding and raised concerns and suspicions about the neoliberal and colonial agendas underlying the concept of peacebuilding itself.

Amid debates in academic and practitioners’ circles in the Global North about the problems, possibilities, and the need to save the liberal peacebuilding paradigm, those in the Global South were doing the same analytical and empirical work. South-based practitioners, particularly those in Latin America, were exploring post-conflict approaches centering civil resistance and grassroots response rather than state institutions and market development as their point of reference (Baranyi 1998; García-Durán 2006; Hernández Delgado 2004; Ortiz 2005; Pearce 1999; 2005; Sandoval Forero 2012). These approaches from the South are in dialogue with local theorizations of peacebuilding and its affiliated practices, as seen in Colombian scholarship on the topic as well in other Global South contexts explored in this Special Issue. This literature challenges the neat division of war and peace, as well as the linear step-by-step models that locate peacebuilding and reconciliation at the highest and most advanced level of peace. Instead, the literature reveals the overlapping and iterative nature between these neat divisions (Papacchini, Henao Restrepo and Estrada 2001; Restrepo and Aponte 2009). Drawing on long traditions of social movements’ search for justice and structural change, analyses of collective action for peace (García-Durán 2006) show how diverse civil society actors lead peace efforts rooted in local initiatives and popular education. Whilst peacebuilding entered into the repertoire of international organizations and cooperation agencies in the mid-1990s (Rettberg 2012), it obtained local meaning in the hybrid practice of churches, local authorities, and non-governmental organizations.

From a decolonial perspective, understanding peacebuilding in its hybrid and localized forms challenges the largescale peace promoted through liberal peacebuilding (Parada Rodríguez 2020). The call made in recent Colombian literature to talk about peacebuilding in plural ways is not only a way to criticize the hegemony of the liberal peace paradigm, but also provides a protagonist role for emancipatory possibilities of peace to those in subordinated power positions. It is a call that enters into dialogue with earlier perspectives that promoted a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to peace that had liberal peace as their point of reference (Mac Ginty 2010). However, it also raises the long-term history of hybridity as an analytical and political concept in Latin America, emphasizing the hybrid nature of state institutions and cultural and political practices already acting at local levels, and not just imposing liberal peace interventions. Thinking about peacebuilding in hybrid ways helps to understand the tensions caused in contexts where a liberal peace is weakly implemented, and an emancipatory peace has little potential. Simangan (2018) explores this dynamic in Cambodia, where there are overlapping systems of security and markets. Similar dynamics have been described by Rolandsen (2019) in South Sudan, where peace and conflict overlap, as well as by Battaglino (2012) in Venezuela and Brazil. However, hybridity is also a problematic concept to theorize and implement in peace interventions, since the disparate set of practices, legal frames and politics under the peacebuilding umbrella often produce problematic power relations (Millar 2014).

There is value to linking queer peacebuilding efforts in Colombia and elsewhere with ongoing feminist, trans, and other transformative peacebuilding efforts. Within patriarchal paradigms, queer can default to a cis-and-masculine norm, prioritizing the perspectives of those who are most accessible and most visible. As such, it is also important to disaggregate between members of the LGBTQ community, or groups within the LGBTQ community (Reid and Ritholtz 2020). Intersectional feminist peacebuilding helps us understand why it matters that it was Black queer organizers who founded Black Lives Matter in the United States with an abolitionist vision for justice, and why fighting for peace must also be anti-racist. Not only do these Black queer women bridge movements in their organizing for social justice, they also highlight the experiences of Black women and Black trans women who may otherwise not draw media or political attention (Taylor 2016, 164) Transgender organizations are also finding transformative ways to confront violence and insecurities in Latin America as found in research and activism in Colombia (Prada Prada et al. 2012; Rocha, Ruiz and Salamanca 2022) and Ecuador (Garriga-Lopez 2016).

In taking up the discussion of queer peacebuilding, the editors share concern about the problematics of liberal peacebuilding that make queer peacebuilding just another issue in the list of topics to be included in accounts of peace. Liberal peacebuilding persists in multicultural contexts that use superficial efforts of diversity and inclusion to undermine alternative and radical agendas for social, cultural, economic, and political change. From this perspective, queer peacebuilding can be perceived as a threat to the liberal peace paradigm, which seeks compromises that favor those who benefit from existing political and socioeconomic power structures. Recognizing how queer peacebuilding can be framed as a threat to liberal peace underscores the importance of bringing the hidden stories of queer social struggles -and their gendered, sexualized, and racialized dimensions- to the fore within analyses of political transitions and of international relations more broadly. These concerns emanate at the intersections of prior scholarship on, amongst others, the entanglements of homophobia and racism in post-colonial contexts (Judge 2018); homophobic violence in armed conflicts (Serrano-Amaya 2017); the queering of gender and security agendas (Hagen 2016, 2017); and queer conceptualizations of violence and displacement (Ritholtz 2022a, 2022b). Such considerations bring to the topic a longer-term commitment to exploring the assumptions that have constrained more critical engagements with questions of sexualities, gender, political transitions, and struggles for social justice in countries dealing with protracted conflicts.

An existing progressive narrative of the inclusion of LGBTQ people in peace processes (particularly in Colombia), however, has been taken for granted by much of the international community and is frequently presented as a positive model for policy action without meaningful engagement with its challenges. These challenges include questions of how such inclusion was achieved, what collaborations were necessary to advance activist agendas, what trade-offs were made in the process, and what the material impacts have been on the lives of LGBTQ people (in Colombia’s post-conflict society, and elsewhere). Adopting an international perspective on such questions serves to challenge grand narratives of LGBTQ inclusion and progress within peace deals and transitional justice. Such a perspective seeks to render visible the hidden realities of the post-peace condition and its violent continua, as articulated in the struggles of LGBTQ people in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru, South Africa, and elsewhere.

As a novel concept, queer peacebuilding can be situated within broader literatures on peace, security, LGBTQ politics and activism, and post-conflict transitional justice. The articles in this special issue serve as key contributions towards the development of the concept’s theory and praxis. With an eye toward the analytical and political potential of queer peacebuilding, this introductory article provides a space in which to engage with an emergent conversation that surveys the ongoing struggles and historical legacies of LGBTQ people working for peace. As a whole, the special issue provides an academic forum through which scholars, activists, and policymakers can address the gap between past violence and atrocities, and aspirations for more inclusive and less violent futures.

The topic of queer peacebuilding is approached through three guiding questions: What is queer peacebuilding?, Why is queer peacebuilding important? and What can queer peacebuilding contribute? With these questions, the editors attempt to parse out a term that is still in a state of becoming: while its impact in sites of contentious politics around the globe is visible, there is not, as yet, a language2 to call it what it is. This is because queer peacebuilding is an emergent and somewhat elusive concept, with its meanings and uses still under construction within peace and security scholarship and practice.

What is queer peacebuilding?

Queer peacebuilding, in its central focus on queer lives and struggles in conflict-affected societies, seeks to pose new questions about how to provide security and access to justice for all while building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions along with more equitable and non-violent social relations. A queer perspective allows for key concepts such as peacebuilding or even peace itself to be challenged, as these have been taken for granted in the normative modalities of peace settlements. In this sense, the concept critically engages with the simultaneous inclusion and exclusion of LGBTQ groups in peace processes -and their aftermath- not only to understand how discrimination operates but also how anti-LGBTQ and anti-gender attacks gain traction in times of political transition and post-conflict reconstruction (Serrano-Amaya 2019). This approach reflects Haraway’s concept (1988) of subjugated knowledge, which recognizes that how one understands the world results from their own experience. In centering LGBTQ lives and perspectives, queer peacebuilding reflects a queer epistemology that questions underlying cisheterosexist assumptions in the study and construction of peace. A queer approach to the study of peacebuilding builds on Hammers and Brown’s III (2004, 95) suggestion to use queer theory to look “towards the historical (time) and contextual (space) to deconstruct our (hetero)normative social order that we are all implicated (wittingly and unwittingly) in reaffirming.”

Academic interest in queer peacebuilding (Ashe 2018a, 2018b; Hagen 2016; Maier 2020; Nagle 2020) has a limited but increasing space in discussions on transitional justice, conflict resolution and international relations. This scholarship is grounded in activism by grassroots organizations to document the experiences of LGBTQ people during conflicts, with a focus on memorializing victims’ experiences and lobbying for their rights to be recognized. It is a scholarship that bridges not only academic fields but also political claims for social change, locally and globally. There is also more recent academic literature calling explicitly for queer perspectives on LGBTQ inclusion in transitional justice as well as on dynamics of violence during conflicts, and on sociopolitical violence more broadly (Bueno-Hansen 2018; Duggan 2012; Loken and Hagen 2022; Judge 2018; Ritholtz 2022a; Serrano-Amaya 2017, 2021).

Against this backdrop, and as a starting conceptualization, queer peacebuilding can be approached through four dimensions that make visible the experiences of LGBTQ individuals in sociopolitical conflicts, thus complicating existing peace and conflict theories and practices. These are various dimensions through which peace itself may be queered, challenging the normative sexual and gender frameworks that structure dominant ideologies of peace. These four dimensions are based on theory building and academic research, as well as on political analyses of why and how to affect social change from a queer vantage point. In doing so, they provide epistemological and ontological entry points into the concept of queer peacebuilding -linked to struggle (as lived experience), to situated knowledge (as theorization), and to practices of peace (as praxis). These dimensions serve as points of departure for further scholarly engagement.

The first dimension of queer peacebuilding concerns documenting the histories of queer activists and activism in order to properly historicize their paths to peace. An extensive literature on the impact of sociopolitical violence and armed conflicts on queer individuals in diverse settings (Bérubé 1990; CNMH 2015; Duggan 2012; Montalvo Cifuentes 2005; Swarr 2012), and on individual and organizational participation in peacebuilding (Jugovic, Pikic and Bokan 2007; Mršević 2013; Serrano-Amaya 2004), reflects the activist work to render visible both victimization in violence and participation in peace.

The second dimension for exploring the concept of queer peacebuilding is one that connects queer histories with feminist histories as well as broader debates on queering the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda, an important space to bring a gender perspective into peace and security with the now ten UN Security Council WPS resolutions.3 A discussion on queer peacebuilding necessarily considers when and if women’s rights and LGBTQ organizations work together, and how the WPS architecture includes (or excludes) attention to violence targeting LGBTQ individuals. Of relevance here are the intersections of feminist and queer advocacy movements through the framework of the WPS agenda as outlined in Hagen’s work on queering that agenda (2016) in Colombia (2017). This intersection sheds light on the multiple actors involved in peacebuilding, the differences among them, and the alliances they are able to create in order to pursue gender and queer perspectives in and through peace.

The third dimension for conceptualizing queer peacebuilding builds on queer epistemic critiques to interrogate how peace features in the lived experiences of LGBTQ people. The concern here has to do with the tensions found in applying international conceptions of security to local contexts and the differential impacts that gender, sexuality, indigeneity, race, and disability have on those conceptions. As such, by recognizing the concept of peace to be situated, more work can be done to understand its meaning for LGBTQ people. At this level, queer peacebuilding is an exploration of what peace means in highly violent contexts. Feminist scholars of war argue that there is an unhelpful separation of what is viewed by some as a more serious form of gender-based violence in times of war from the prevalence of similar forms of gender-based violence which are ongoing during so-called times of peace (Boesten 2014; Byrne, Mizzi and Hansen 2017; Zulver 2022). For LGBTQ people, persisting violence in post-war settings similarly challenges the ontology of peace and calls into question whether peace can be achieved in highly violent post-war contexts. By questioning what peace means, queer peacebuilding seeks to redefine conceptions of (in)security and challenge the established terms used by scholars and policymakers (Ben Daniel and Berwick 2020; Ritholtz 2022a; Wilkinson 2017).

The fourth dimension for queer peacebuilding considers the transformative potential of queer inclusion in peacebuilding efforts, both for LGBTQ populations and their cis and heterosexual counterparts. This relates to the substantive implications for how post-conflict societies are imagined and structured, particularly in respect of gender and sexuality-related injuries/harms; as well as how governing power arrangements are (or are not) transformed in the transition to and during peacetime (Bueno-Hansen 2018; Fobear 2014; Fobear and Baines 2020). These dynamics speak to the more radical potential of a queering project, as well as to post-conflict transformational imperatives and approaches more broadly.

These four dimensions situate the multiple meanings and potentialities of queer peacebuilding, trace its various articulations, and surface associated sources of contention as well as opportunities for its further de/reconstruction. This in turn reveals the complex and transformative potential of queer peacebuilding for reshaping cisheteronormative conceptions of peace in favor of more equitable, queer, and inclusive ones.

Why queer peacebuilding?

Queer peacebuilding requires us first to engage with how militarism serves to manipulate and manage heteronormativity as a dimension of conflict. Feminist military studies on militarized masculinities (Breines, Connell and Eide 2000: Connell 1995; George 2008; Henry 2017; Rossdale 2019) and feminist analyses of the militarization of armed groups in general offers important insights into how gender norms are managed during conflict. The militarism of societies in states of war is predicated on violent masculinities and gendered notions of conflict. In this context, sexuality and gender are deployed through, amongst others, “sexualized militarism” that defines enemy men and enemy women (Nagel 1998), the weaponization of the rape of women (Cock 1991), of gender-based violence more broadly (Cohen 2016; Loken and Hagen 2022; Schulz and Touquet 2020), and other forms of violence that also target LGBTQ people (Ritholtz 2022a; Serrano-Amaya 2018). Although post-conflict peacebuilding includes commitments to reforming the security sector, such institutional processes fail to dismantle the cultures of violent masculinity that sustained the conflict, and which endure in the post-conflict period. These cultures rely on a patriarchal binary of masculinity and femininity and its attendant violence, both in war and peace. This is exacerbated when post-conflict nationalisms reinforce patriarchal standards of masculinity whereby women and queer people remain structurally oppressed. Such dynamics have consequences for how security in peacetime is understood and structured. Feminist scholars have thus argued for a concerted challenging of masculinity as a peacebuilding strategy within WPS policies and practices (Wright 2020).

Recent scholarship shows that LGBTQ individuals are persecuted during both war and peacetime due to social prejudice and wartime logics (Díaz Villamil 2020). Much has been written about Nazi persecution of LGBTQ populations in Europe (Farges et al. 2018), while other scholarship explores further patterns of prejudice-based victimization by the Francoist and Stalinist regimes in Europe, as well as the Shining Path in Peru, the FARC and paramilitaries in Colombia, ISIS in Iraq, Indonesia, and much of the authoritarian regimes in the Southern Cone of Latin America (Blackburn 1999; Lessa 2022; Montalvo Cifuentes 2005; Payne 2007; Sanz Romero 2021; Sempol 2019). Moreover, activists and academics alike have recorded how LGBTQ populations are targets of violence in times of peace through, for example, moral panics (Epprecht 2008), scapegoating by means of political homophobia (Boellstorff 2004; Currier 2010; Weiss and Bosia 2013; McKay and Angotti 2016), and systematic hate-mongering (Gitari and Walters 2020).

Significantly, societies in political transition throughout the world have begun to consider the lived experiences of LGBTQ people, as both victims of war and as active participants in peacebuilding. Yet despite recent advances in inclusion, many formal peace processes intended to reckon with past atrocities committed by oppressive regimes, frequently overlook the ways in which sex, sexuality, and gender are governed through violence by those very regimes. A signifying feature of this is the disproportionate violence perpetrated against women and LGBTQ persons during but also pre-dating conflict. In this context, peace -as more than the mere absence of war- has productive power in how it constitutes societies, and this raises the question, what does queer peace, and a peace for queer people, look like?

Conceptualizing queer peace challenges existing thought that leaves the sexual and gender margins outside of both transitional and post-transition political arrangements. This is particularly the case when such arrangements map onto established power relations that continue to place LGBTQ people in positions of precarity. One example is the continued siloing and marginalization of those working within the WPS agenda by not taking seriously the experiences of women, and gender more broadly, within peace and security (Basu, Kirby and Shepherd 2020). This paradox of peace is characterized by transitions of power that fail to dismantle the historical hierarchies and inequalities which produce discrimination and violence, resulting in their continuities into the present. These continuities are exacerbated when a full account of past atrocities is thwarted or marginalized, as was the case in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission that gave limited regard to the gendered violence (Goldblatt and Meintjies 1998) and LGBTQ-related violence that took place during apartheid (Kusafuka 2009). Furthermore, these historical silences cannot be confronted if acknowledging patriarchy in the day-to-day workings of creating a post-conflict peace is not viewed as central to the peacebuilding project (Puechguirbal 2010). There is also a tension in centering anti-queer violence within conceptualizations of queer peacebuilding in that as much as it is necessary to denounce the suffering of those facing the consequences of cis-and-heteronormative orders, it is important not to reinscribe and reduce LGBTQ persons solely to their violent victimization and subordination. A counterstrategy to this is the inclusion of a chapter on the violence against -as well as resistance strategies of- LGBTQ individuals and collectives in the recent report of the Colombian Truth Commission (Comisión de la Verdad 2022). As such, queering peacebuilding can provide the opportunity to humanize LGBTQ individuals as people who have full, complex lives rather than simply being vulnerable people who are violently targeted.

The liberatory potential of queer peacebuilding is evident in the struggles and aspirations of queer people who remain minoritized, including by regimes based on race, class, migration status, and ability, within prevailing social orders. Queer knowledges of what peace brings, or fails to bring, cast light on its potential as a political project: one in which social norms and power relations can be radically transformed, and where queer bodies can act, rather than being acted upon, in order to create meaningful post-conflict safety, security, and freedom. Linked to the ways in which widespread violence, marginalization, and exclusion have demanded that injury be a site of queer resistance (Judge 2018), queer peacebuilding urges the politicization of peace. One example of this is how queer communities have challenged the institutional procedures that deny their lives as worthy of grieving and recognition (Butler 2006). From this vantage point, a queer politics of peace is animated by the losses from which its necessity arises and by the promise of a future constituted by less grief.

What can queer peacebuilding contribute?

A focus on queering peacebuilding brings together scholarship not often in conversation with one another, opening up opportunities for a rich interdisciplinary discussion. Within international relations and conflict studies, much focus on LGBTQ experiences continues to be on the need to document that queer people exist in conflict, and the harms they experience. The historical exclusion of queer stories from mainstream scholarship about peace and conflict means in many instances, that LGBTQ stories are treated as emerging, despite the decades of organizing within domestic, regional, and international LGBTQ spaces. Taking queer peacebuilding seriously as part of transnational feminist activism requires us to work to repair this harm and historical erasure.

In the case of Colombia, the protagonistic role of LGBTQ organizations in the implementation of peace in territories affected by conflict has expanded the meaning of local peace, created new forms of alliances between social movements, and demanded institutional adjustments not previously imaginable (Serrano-Amaya 2019, 2021). The need for reparations to LGBTQ collectives following the harms caused by conflict has challenged core ideas at the center of peace efforts. To begin with, LGTBQ groups have questioned the idea of what is, or who is entitled to be, a collective subject of rights (to reparations) by the government’s agency for victims, La Unidad para las Víctimas (Caribe Afirmativo 2016). Furthermore, these groups have rearticulated the concept of kinship beyond blood to include chosen family as those responsible and able to demand that the government agency searching for missing persons, La Unidad de Búsqueda de Personas Desaparecidas, implement a search for the forcibly disappeared during the conflict. The inclusion of the violence faced by LGBTQ people and their role in peacebuilding has further expanded ideas of gender and sexual violence in the work of the government truth commission, La Comisión de la Verdad, which has gone to great lengths to incorporate queer truths and related concepts (2022).

As demonstrated in Colombia, queer peacebuilding provides opportunities to include the experiences of queer individuals and collectives during conflicts, in political transitions, and in peace efforts, thereby rearticulating core concepts associated with these practices. Such rearticulations are especially relevant, considering the long history of denial and invisibility faced by these communities in official accounts of conflicts as well as in compensation, reparation, and post-conflict reconstruction. This becomes more urgent if one considers the practical knowledge that queer individuals and collectives have developed to deal with conflict and violence in efforts to create, for themselves and others, a life worth living. Thus, developing a concept of queer peacebuilding is key to expanding the field beyond the assumed cis-and-heteronormative experience of what is desired in a future peace.

As a concept, queer peacebuilding challenges normative discourses and approaches to addressing socio-political conflicts. Through queering, initiatives to build peace such as negotiations, peace agreements or transitional justice, are transformed to incorporate queer and trans perspective. Much has already been said in queer analyses of political violence, international relations, and gender politics, to show how theory and practice is embedded in the very structures of oppression they intend to transform. Thus, this normative challenge, as a practice of queer epistemic critique, is necessary to deliver justice as a basic demand in the effort for peace. Queer peacebuilding can go a step further than inclusion or the challenge to normative discourses. Connecting the queer, the peace, and the building signifies a strategy, a possibility, and a demand for transformative change and social justice. These three dimensions of queer peacebuilding offer a way to navigate the space between the politics of conflict and of peace. Navigating this in-between space implies resisting the dichotomist divisions between conflict and peace or between negative and positive peace that have been discussed in feminist and queer readings of the gendered dimensions of conflict (Atshan 2020; Berry 2018; Caprioli and Boyer 2001; Cohn 2013; El-Bushra 2007; McLeod and O’Reilly 2019; Savci 2021; Väyrynen 2019). The common tropes of peacebuilding must be considered critically for their liberal tendencies to stabilize, strengthen, and rebuild structures that have been harmful to queer and trans lives, such as state institutions or (in)justice systems. Moreover, such navigation acknowledges the many political, social, and cultural practices that make queer lives possible in insecure contexts. It also recognizes that queer individuals and collectives make peace a space for productive power that goes beyond the simplistic division of negative and positive peace. In this sense, queer peacebuilding is also an entry point for critically reviewing existing political practices and politics of knowledge, at the same time as producing new ones.

As a strategy, queer peacebuilding indicates the kind of actions needed for a radical transformation of the origins and consequences of violent conflicts necessary to achieve social justice. Such actions include the production of knowledges situated, reflective of, and relevant to those facing the impacts and effects of structural oppression and inequality which also makes queer peacebuilding a research agenda. Consequently, queer peacebuilding is more than connecting theory and practice or acknowledging the importance of communities participating in collaborative activism in the search for change: it constitutes activist knowledge that destabilizes an established concept, making intellectual space for new ontological and epistemological perspectives.

As a possibility, queer peacebuilding concerns imagining and giving space to unexpected, less recognized, or legitimized ways of dealing with conflict and the creation of social relationships. Queering as a practice is often represented as a resistance, a reaction, and a challenge. Such elements are indeed inherent to queer peacebuilding, however, approaching queer peacebuilding solely as a form of critique may reduce its potential as a driver of emancipatory change. If peacebuilding is conceptualized as a way to actively disassemble and remake normative sexual and gender relations within prevailing paradigms of peace, it has the potential to create new forms of kinship, solidarity, connection, and interaction.

As a demand, queer peacebuilding shares with other approaches to peacebuilding the call to involve all people in making peace both sustainable and permanent (Mac Ginty 2011; Richmond 2010; Woodhouse 1999). But queer perspectives also serve as a reminder that such mobilizing for a common purpose sometimes implies that the needs of some are presented as the needs of all. Reviewing the basis and content of these calls for common purpose in peace talks is part of the initiative undertaken through queer peacebuilding. Yet the peace involved in queer peacebuilding requires going beyond a return to existing norms; it also seeks to remove stigma, prejudice, or trans/homophobic practices from society. Instead of the idea of peace as a static pact that results from negotiation, queer politics and practices have shown the possibilities of living in and with conflict, diversity, and heterogeneity, thus recognizing peace as a dynamic concept.

Queer peacebuilding offers entry points for rethinking what peace means through the lens of queer theory’s refusing of binary norms such as peace/conflict, male/female, and combatant/survivor (Browne and Nash 2016). To do this, queering efforts need to revisit what types of conflict count as relevant to peacebuilding work, and which violence needs to be addressed within transitional justice arrangements. The source of queer and trans people’s experiences of conflict are not just those violent perpetrators recognized within the peace process, but also, often, themselves, their families, and their communities. For example, given a lack of material resources, tension may occur across different LGBTQ organizations who have to compete for funds. These tensions may arise exponentially when official accounts of violence stress some forms of violence whilst overlooking others, or when regimes of representation in media and public opinion create hierarchies of suffering and victimization. Within these dynamics, one form of peacebuilding that is arguably of significance to small, under-resourced queer and feminist organizations, is external support to establish networks and capacity for communities of practice, as legitimate actors within the peace process.

Bringing forth a queer peacebuilding project is also about highlighting the role of queer peacebuilders. Who are queer peacebuilders today, and who were they historically? Queer peacebuilders may be those who are LGBTQ, and also those who think queerly about what is required to bring peace, who is to provide justice, and what a society should aim for in transition and beyond a return to so-called normalcy prior to the conflict. Queer and trans visions of abolitionism and transformative justice offer some insights into what this type of peacebuilding can look like beyond the strictures of state-based solutions.

Constructing a multivocal4 queer peace

The special issue charts how subjects normatively associated with social disorder and instability, feature as legitimate participants in national and global struggles for peace. Particular attention is paid to challenging traditional notions and practices of peacebuilding that are linked to dominant gender and sexual norms through the political agency of LGBTQ people in shaping the form and substance of post-conflict social and political conditions. In centering queer narratives, the special issue also seeks to invite a more expansive conceptualization of peacebuilding that accounts for entanglements with enduring legacies of sexuality, gender, and racial inequality. Bringing the margins to the center has been a long-term strategy of queer analysis of the social, political and cultural spheres, and queer peacebuilding continues this task (Fuss 1991). This centering recognizes how the materialization of peace itself is continual and contested and has the transformative impetus to undo legacies of state repression against LGBTQ people.

This issue also documents and analyzes the practices and impacts of queer inclusion efforts, as well as how these translate in meaningful ways for future peacebuilding. Its contribution seeks to inform the practice of local and international actors working to draw attention to LGBTQ individuals and communities in peace, security, and social justice agendas, informed by the Colombian and other contexts. Furthermore, the issue sets out to complicate existing understandings of inclusion and visibility on the one hand, and exclusion and denial on the other, when it comes to gender and sexual diversity in political transitions in order to reveal previously unexplored dynamics of queering peace and security.

The Colombian case is a point of departure for this collection of contributions about queer peacebuilding efforts elsewhere in the world. The 2016 Colombian Peace Agreement has been heralded globally as novel, because of its inclusion of LGBTQ actors in the peacemaking discussions, signaling the first time that a gender-inclusive peace deal has mainstreamed LGBTQ participation. The Colombian case is a relevant one for examining queer peacebuilding not only because the peace deal includes attention to harms against LGBTQ people, but also as a context for considering what transformative justice looks like from the perspective of queer communities and the role of the post-conflict state in this transformation. LGBTQ participation was evident in the gender subcommittee, a group working to ensure gender equality and that women’s voices were heard as a dimension of the peace process. Moreover, the differential approach applied within Colombia’s Peace Agreement draws attention to social inequality based on sexuality, gender, and/or race as well as highlighting the marginalized experiences of rural women, those living with a disability, and indigenous women. This differential approach makes the Colombian case a unique opportunity for actualizing intersectional feminist and queer commitments in the implementation of the peace agreement serving to empirically ground the concept of queer peace.

However, as the articles in this collection attest, this queer inclusion is also a topic of intense public and political debate and still presents several challenges including in some instances, intense anti-LGBTQ backlash that can occur after progress or successful efforts of queer inclusion. Precisely this happened in Colombia during the 2016 plebiscite on the peace agreement between government and FARC guerrilla (Serrano-Amaya 2019). Drawing further on how queer peacebuilding is understood within and across the contexts of Brazil, Chile, Peru, and South Africa, similar and distinct challenges are also raised. Such a dialogue across diverse international experiences and environments contributes to understanding the implementation of gender and sexual inclusion objectives. It also explores key concepts of relevance, and their use, in queer peacebuilding initiatives globally. In what follows, authors explore the lived experiences of LGBTQ people as a matter for collective mobilizations. They discuss security issues in international, national, and local milieus, while bringing attention to the problems of an uncritical call for inclusion in peacebuilding advocacy and public policies. Six articles from scholars around the world present their own interrogation of queer peacebuilding in the contexts of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, and South Africa.

Diana Paola Garcés-Amaya proposes a queer approach to analyze the emerging notions of LGBTQ people as “victim” in the institutional developments of two very different Colombian transitional justice processes: the demobilization of the paramilitaries through the Justice and Peace Law (2005) and the recent Peace Accord (2016) with the FARC guerrilla group. Engaging official policy documents in dialogue with existing queer literature on the subject, Garcés-Amaya analyzes the conditions for the possibility of naming heterosexual violence and cisprivilege as constitutive of structural and armed violence. Her article illustrates how those notions have been expanding meaning in the transitional justice system in Colombia, making it more complex and more difficult to translate from paper to practice.

Writing on Brazil, Laan Mendes de Barros and Luiz Fernando Wlian analyze the film Negrum3 to situate alterior perspectives in considerations of queer peace, particularly in societies affected by colonialism, neoliberalism, and state-abetted homo/transphobia. In recognizing how artistic and aesthetic expression can challenge and reimagine inclusive and redemptive approaches to peace, they make a forceful claim for the inclusion of cultural analysis in the study and conceptualization of queer peacebuilding. The contribution expands on the idea of peace as a powerful emancipatory aesthetic experience, and as a site of cultural production.

Through an exploration of migration and sexual diversity politics in post-dictatorship Chile, Caterine Galaz, Fernanda Stang, and Antonia Lara show how political transitions, with their calls for unity and consensus, risk blurring differences and antagonisms. As they argue, core ideas such as “diversity,” which may sound useful for inclusion and expansion of democratic projects, can also restrict how difference is allowed to exist. The article develops an argument connecting policies on migration and LGBTQ rights, showing their sometimes separate development and other times, intersection in regimes of governmentality. The authors’ contribution criticizes the grand narrative of post-conflict agreement and transition, raising issues relevant to other contexts.

Miyerlandy Cabanzo Valencia and Rebecca Gindele explore the participation of LGBTQ activists in the Colombian 2016 Peace Accord’s Territorial Councils of Peace, Reconciliation, and Coexistence. The Colombian case is emblematic in the creation of institutional mechanisms for participatory peacebuilding and the article gives this an in-depth treatment. The authors explore how the Peace Accord allowed LGBTQ populations to engage in an attempted construction of a post-liberal peace but find challenges to full inclusion that would improve the human rights of many. They argue that the implementation of legal innovations is still the biggest challenge, and that this shortcoming risks causing more deception than hope in the promise of a more diverse and expanded idea of peace.

Gabriela Pinheiro considers a queering of the peace and security discourse as mobilized through the Women, Peace, and Security agenda and in the form of South Africa’s National Action Plan. Through a queer feminist analysis, Pinheiro considers how policy discourse can be used to harness gendered language and generate possibilities for radical (re)imaginings of peace. The analysis reveals how policy instruments are a hybrid interaction between the international and the local, with implications for how security, peace, and gender justice -and their subjects- are constituted.

In exploring the advocacy of the late Peruvian queer activist, Gio Infante, in response to homo-transphobic violence during the Peruvian Civil War, Giancarlo Cornejo argues for the importance of travesti and queer political coalitions in Latin America in establishing a queer peace. In close reading Infante’s essay “Other Memories”, Cornejo acknowledges the political importance of historicizing and mourning travesti lives during the war, while also recognizing the continued violence and insecurity of the present. The author offers a close reading of the late and limited inclusion of trans/homophobic violence in the Peruvian Truth Commission’s Report, including some of the later problems in the appropriation and contestation of the document, which relates to works of comparison between the Peruvian case and others.

This special issue emerged as an attempt to document the richness and creativity displayed by LGBTQ activism and committed scholarship in confronting the impacts and consequences of protracted conflicts. The purpose of our intervention is to displace the focus on LGBTQ people as mere victims of human rights violations and instead, uplift their active participation and protagonist role in peacebuilding: as queer peacebuilders. Following the lead of the activism of these queer peacebuilders, the special issue argues against “the politics of not-knowing” (Nordstrom 1999), which ignored forms of harm produced by gendered and sexualised violence. It also struggles with the politics of knowledge that locates the Global South as source of data and the Global North as theory producers (Connell 2007) searching instead for the knowledge produced in and by those located in Southern positions of power/knowledge. Finally, the collection presented, as in this article, navigates inside several regimes of language and theoretical backgrounds, from English, Spanish, Portuguese, and in between; and from South Africa, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and the USA. These navigations, rather that anecdotical, impacted the selection of contributions as a project to exemplify and give shape to a queer/cuir perspective on peace from multiple voices, locations, pasts, and possible futures.

We hope that these contributions will deepen scholarly conceptions of peacebuilding from a queer perspective, as well as expose the radical potential of queer-inclusive peace processes. We intend for these contributions to be only the beginning of academic efforts to construct and conceptualize a queer peace.

References

Agathangelou, Anna M. 2010. “Bodies of Desire, Terror and the War in Eurasia: Impolite Disruptions of (Neo) Liberal Internationalism, Neoconservatism and the ‘New’ Imperium.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 38(3): 693-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829810364194Links ]

Amar, Paul. 2013. The Security Archipelago. Durham: Duke University Press. [ Links ]

Ashe, Fidelma. 2018a. “Deconstructing Dominant Narratives of Peace: LGBTQ Perspectives on Conflict Transformation in Northern Ireland.” Paper presented in the Political Studies Association Annual Conference, March 26-28, Cardiff, UK. [ Links ]

Ashe, Fidelma. 2018b. “Reimaging Inclusive Security in Peace Processes: LGB&T Perspectives.” PSRP Report. Edinburgh: Global Justice Academy, University of Edinburgh. https://peacerep.org/publication/reimaging-inclusive-security-in-peace-processes-lgbt-perspectives/Links ]

Atshan, Sa’ed. 2020. Queer Palestine and the Empire of Critique. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [ Links ]

Baranyi, Stephen. 1998. The People’s Peace: Civil Society Organisations and Peace Processes in the South. London: CIIR. [ Links ]

Basu, Soumit, Paul Kirby and Laura Shepherd. 2020. New Directions in Women, Peace and Security. Bristol: Bristol University Press. [ Links ]

Battaglino, Jorge Mario. 2012. “The Coexistence of Peace and Conflict in South America: Toward a New Conceptualization of Types of Peace.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 55 (2): 131-151. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-73292012000200008Links ]

Belloni, Roberto. 2001. “Civil Society and Peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Journal of Peace Research 38 (2): 163-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343301038002003Links ]

Ben Daniel, Tallie and Hillary Berwick. 2020. “Queer In/Security: An Introduction.” Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 26 (1): 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1215/10642684-7929157Links ]

Berry, Marie. 2018. War, Women and Power: From Violence to Mobilization in Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Links ]

Bérubé, Allan. 1990. Coming out under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two. New York: Free Press. [ Links ]

Bidaseca, Karina and Lucía Nuñez Lodwick. 2020. “Ilse Fusková. Cuerpo, Estética y Memoria Cuir.” La Manzana de la Discordia 15 (2): 1-29. https://doi.org/10.25100/lamanzanadeladiscordia.v15i2.10080Links ]

Blackburn, Susan. 1999. “Gender Violence and the Indonesian Political Transition.” Asian Studies Review 23 (4): 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357829908713249Links ]

Blanco, Fernando. 2016. “Queer Latinoamérica: ¿cuenta regresiva?” In Resentir lo queer en América Latina: diálogos desde/ con el Sur, edited by Diego Falconí Trávez, Santiago Castellanos, and María Amelia Viteri, 27-43. Barcelona: Egales. [ Links ]

Boellstorff, Tom. 2004. “The Emergence of Political Homophobia in Indonesia: Masculinity and National Belonging.” Ethnos 69 (4): 465-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014184042000302308Links ]

Boesten, Jelke. 2014. Sexual Violence during War and Peace: Gender, Power, and Post-Conflict Justice in Peru. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. [ Links ]

Breines, Ingeborg, Robert Connell and Ingrid Eide, eds. 2000. Male Roles, Masculinities and Violence: A Culture of Peace Perspective. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [ Links ]

Browne, Kath and Catherine Nash. 2016. Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge. [ Links ]

Bueno-Hansen, Pascha. 2018. “The Emerging LGBTI Rights Challenge to Transitional Justice in Latin America.” International Journal of Transitional Justice 12 (1): 126-145. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijx031Links ]

Butler, Judith. 2006. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso. [ Links ]

Byrne, Sean, Robert Mizzi and Nancy Hansen. 2017. “Living in a Liminal Peace: Where Is the Social Justice for LGBTQ and Disability Communities Residing in Post Peace Accord Northern Ireland?” Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 27 (1): 24-51. https://doi.org/10.5840/peacejustice20172712Links ]

Caprioli, Mary and Mark Boyer. 2001. “Gender, Violence, and International Crisis.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (4): 503-518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002701045004005Links ]

Caribe Afirmativo. 2016. “Informe de gestión 2015”. https://caribeafirmativo.lgbt/informe-gestion-del-2015/Links ]

Chandler, David. 2010. “The Uncritical Critique of ‘liberal Peace.’” Review of International Studies 36 (1): 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000823Links ]

CNMH (Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica). 2015. Aniquilar la diferencia. Lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transgeneristas en el marco del conflicto armado colombiano. Bogotá: Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica. [ Links ]

CNMH (Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica). 2019. Ser marica en medio del conflicto armado. memorias de sectores LGBT en el Magdalena medio. Bogotá: Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica. [ Links ]

Cock, Jacklyn. 1991. Colonels and Cadres: War and Gender in South Africa. Oxford University Press. [ Links ]

Cockburn, Cynthia. 2010. “Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 12 (2): 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616741003665169Links ]

Cohen, Carol, ed. 2013. Women and Wars: Contested Histories, Uncertain Futures. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Links ]

Cohen, Dara Kay. 2016. Rape During Civil War. Cornell University Press. [ Links ]

Comisión de la Verdad. 2022. Mi cuerpo es la verdad. Experiencias de mujeres y personas LGBTIQ+ en el conflicto armado y la No Repetición. Informe Final. Comisión para el Esclarecimieto de la Verdad, la Convivencia y la No Repetición. https://www.comisiondelaverdad.co/mi-cuerpo-es-la-verdadLinks ]

Connell, Raewyn W. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press. [ Links ]

Connell, Raewyn W. 2007. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in the Social Sciences. New York; London: Routledge. [ Links ]

Currier, Ashley. 2010. “Political Homophobia in Postcolonial Namibia.” Gender & Society 24 (1): 110-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243209354275Links ]

Daigle, Megan and Henri Myrttinen. 2017. “When Merely Existing Is a Risk: Sexual and Gender Minorities in Conflict, Displacement and Peacebuilding.” London: International Alert. [ Links ]

Díaz Villamil, María Daniela. 2020. Orders of Violence: Systematic Crimes against LGBT People in the Colombian Armed Conflict. Bogota: Colombia Diversa. https://colombiadiversa.org/colombiadiversa2016/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/english-version-Orders-Of-Prejudice.pdfLinks ]

Duggan, Marian. 2012. Queering Conflict: Examining Lesbian and Gay Experiences of Homophobia in Northern Ireland. New York; London: Routledge. [ Links ]

Echevarría, Bolívar. 1997. “Queer, manierista, bizarre, barroco.” Debate Feminista 8 (16): 3-10. https://doi.org/10.22201/cieg.2594066xe.1997.16.400Links ]

El-Bushra, Judy. 2007. “Feminism, Gender, and Women’s Peace Activism.” Development and Change 38 (1): 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00406.xLinks ]

Epprecht, Marc. 2008. Unspoken Facts: A History of Homosexualities in Africa. Harare: GALZ. [ Links ]

Falconí Trávez, Diego, Santiago Castellanos and María Amelia Viteri , eds. 2014. Resentir lo queer en América Latina: diálogos desde/con el Sur. Barcelona: Egales Editorial. [ Links ]

Farges, Patrick, Doris Bergen, Anna Hàjkovà, Elissa Mailänder and Atina Grossman. 2018. “Holocaust and the History of Gender and Sexuality.” German History 36 (1): 78-100. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerhis/ghx123Links ]

Flores, Val. 2017. “Extrañar nuestra imaginación educativa: apuntes para una pedagogía cuir/antinormativa.” Presentation at the Departamento de Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Granada, November 24. [ Links ]

Fobear, Katherine. 2014. “Queering Truth Commissions.” Journal of Human Rights Practice 6 (1): 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/hut004Links ]

Fobear, Katherine and Erin Baines. 2020. “Pushing the Conversation Forward: The Intersections of Sexuality and Gender Identity in Transitional Justice.” The International Journal of Human Rights 24 (4): 307-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1673980Links ]

Fuss, Diana. 1991. Inside/out. Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories. New York: Routledge. [ Links ]

García-Durán, Mauricio. 2006. Movimiento por la paz en Colombia 1978-2003. Bogotá: Cinep. [ Links ]

Garriga-López, Claudia Sofía. 2016. “Transfeminist Crossroads: Reimagining the Ecuadorian State.” Transgender Studies Quarterly 3 (1-2): 104-119. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-3334271Links ]

George, Nicole. 2008. “Contending Masculinities and the Limits of Tolerance: Sexual Minorities in Fiji.” The Contemporary Pacific 20 (1): 163-189. https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.2008.0012Links ]

Gitari, Eric Mawira and Mark Walters. 2020. Hate Crimes Against the LGBT Community in the Commonwealth: A Situational Analysis. Equality & Justice Alliance; Human Dignity Trust. https://www.humandignitytrust.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/2020-Hate-Crimes-against-the-LGBT-Community-in-the-Commonwealth_A-Situational-Analysis.pdfLinks ]

Goldblatt, Beth and Sheila Meintjes. 1998. “Dealing with the Aftermath: Sexual Violence and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Agenda 13 (36): 7-18. [ Links ]

Green, James N. and Renan Quinalha. 2014. “Ditadura e Homossexualidades: Repressão.” Resistência e a busca da verdade. São Carlos: UFSCar. [ Links ]

Guerra, Lillian. 2010. “Gender Policing, Homosexuality and the New Patriarchy of the Cuban Revolution, 1965-70.” Social History 35 (3): 268-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2010.487378Links ]

Hagen, Jamie J. 2016. “Queering Women, Peace and Security.” International Affairs 92 (2): 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12551Links ]

Hagen, Jamie J. 2017. “Queering Women, Peace and Security in Colombia.” Critical Studies on Security 5 (1): 125-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1294835Links ]

Hagen, Jamie J. 2020. “LGBTQ Perspectives in Peacebuilding.” The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies, edited by Oliver Richmond and Gëzim Visoka, 1-5. London: Palgrave Macmillan Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_92-2Links ]

Hammers, Corie and Alan D.Brown III. 2004. “Towards a Feminist-Queer Alliance: A Paradigmatic Shift in the Research Process.” Social Epistemology 18 (1): 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269172042000249408Links ]

Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066Links ]

Henry, Marsha. 2017. “Problematizing Military Masculinity, Intersectionality and Male Vulnerability in Feminist Critical Military Studies.” Critical Military Studies 3 (2): 182-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/23337486.2017.1325140Links ]

Hernández Delgado, Esperanza. 2004. Resistencia civil artesana de paz. Experiencias indígenas, afrodescendientes y campesinas. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad Javeriana. [ Links ]

IARAN (Inter-Agency Regional Analysts Network). 2018. “A Global Outlook on LGBTI Social Exclusion through 2030.” https://www.iaran.org/lgbtiLinks ]

Judge, Melanie. 2018. Blackwashing Homophobia: Violence and the Politics of Sexuality, Gender and Race. New York: Routledge. [ Links ]

Jugovic, Ivana, Aleksandra Pikic and Natasa Bokan. 2007. “Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals in Croatia: How the Stigma Shapes Lives.” In Beyond the Pink Curtain: Everyday Life of LGBT People in Eastern Europe, edited by Roman Kuhar, Judit Takacs, 345-362. Ljubljana: Peace Institute. [ Links ]

Karamé, Kari and Torunn Tryggestad. 2000. Gender Perspectives on Peace and Conflict Studies. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. [ Links ]

Kusafuka, Ayumi. 2009. “Truth Commissions and Gender: A South African Case Study.” African Journal on Conflict Resolution 9 (2): 45-67. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajcr.v9i2.52172Links ]

Lambourne, Wendy. 2003. “Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: Meeting Human Needs for Justice and Reconciliation.” Peace, Conflict and Development 4: 1-24. [ Links ]

Lessa, Francesca. 2022. The Condor Trials: Transnational Repression and Human Rights in South America. New Heaven; London: Yale University Press. [ Links ]

Loken, Meredith and Jamie J. Hagen. 2022. “Queering Gender-Based Violence Scholarship: An Integrated Research Agenda.” International Studies Review24 (4): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac050Links ]

Londoño, Sandra Liliana, Manuel Ramiro Muñoz, Carlos Arturo Duarte, Tania Rodríguez and Rodrigo Ante.2020. “Paces creativas y polifónicas.” In Paz decolonial, paces insubordinadas: conceptos, temporalidades y epistemologías, edited by Julio Roberto Jaime-Salas, Diana Gómez Correal, Karlos Pérez de Armiño, Sandra Liliana Londoño Calero, Fabio Saúl Castro Herrera and Jefferson Jaramillo Marín, 143-179. Cali: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. [ Links ]

López Cárdenas, Carlos Mauricio, Rocío Yudith Canchari and Emilio Sánchez, eds. 2017. De género y guerra. Nuevos enfoques en los conflictos armados actuales. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario. [ Links ]

Mac Ginty, Roger. 2008. “Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace.” Cooperation and Conflict 43 (2): 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836708089080Links ]

Mac Ginty, Roger. 2010. “Hybrid Peace: The Interaction Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Peace.” Security Dialogue 41 (4): 391-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610374312Links ]

Mac Ginty, Roger. 2011. International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance: Hybrid Forms of Peace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Links ]

Maier, Nicole. 2020. “Queering Colombia’s Peace Process: A Case Study of LGBTI Inclusion.” The International Journal of Human Rights 24 (4): 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1619551Links ]

Mason, Gail. 2002. The Spectacle of Violence. New York: Routledge. [ Links ]

McKay, Tara and Nicole Angotti. 2016. “Ready Rhetorics: Political Homophobia and Activist Discourses in Malawi, Nigeria, and Uganda.” Qualitative Sociology 39 (4): 397-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-016-9342-7Links ]

McLeod, Laura and Maria O’Reilly. 2019. “Critical Peace and Conflict Studies: Feminist Interventions.” Peacebuilding 7 (2): 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2019.1588457Links ]

Merkel, Katherina. 2021. “Thematic Review of Gender-Responsive Peacebuilding.” Report edited by Kelly O’Neil. The German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO); Stabilisation Platform (SPF); Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); UN Women and the UN Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.u.n.org.peacebuilding/files/documents/gender_thematic_review_2021_23_nov.pdfLinks ]

Millar, Gearoid. 2014. “Disaggregating Hybridity: Why Hybrid Institutions Do Not Produce Predictable Experiences of Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 51 (4): 501-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313519465Links ]

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1991. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses.” In Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Ann Russo and Lourdes Torres, 51-80. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. [ Links ]

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1995. “Feminist Encounters: Locating the Politics of Experience.” In Social Postmodernism: Beyond Identity Politics, edited by Linda Nicholson and Steven Seidman, 68-86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Links ]

Montalvo Cifuentes, José. 2005. “Crímenes de homofobia en el contexto de la violencia política en el Perú (1980-2000).” In Jóvenes en movimiento. Juventud y diversidad sexual en el foro social mundial, edited by José Montalvo Cifuentes, 57-67. Lima: Instituto Runa; Raíz Diversidad Sexual. [ Links ]

Moser, Caroline O. N. and Fiona C. Clark. 2001. “Gender, Conflict and Building Sustainable Peace: Recent Lessons from Latin America.” Gender and Development 9 (3): 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070127755Links ]

Mršević, Zorica. 2013. “Homophobia in Serbia and LGBT Rights.” Southeastern Europe 37 (1): 60-87. https://doi.org/10.1163/18763332-03701004Links ]

Myzze, Robert C. and Sean Bryne. 2015. “Queer Theory and Peace and Conflict Studies: Some Critical Reflections.” In Gender and Peacebuilding: All Hands Required, edited by Maureen P. Flaherty, Thomas G. Matyók, Sean Byrne and Hamdesa Tuso, 359-374. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield. [ Links ]

Nagel, Joane. 1998. “Masculinity and Nationalism: Gender and Sexuality in the Making of Nations.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 21 (2): 242-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198798330007Links ]

Nagle, John. 2020. “Frictional Encounters in Postwar Human Rights: An Analysis of LGBTQI Movement Activism in Lebanon.” The International Journal of Human Rights 24 (4): 357-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1619550Links ]

Nordstrom, Carolyn. 1999. “Wars and Invisible Girls, Shadow Industries, and the Politics of Not-Knowing.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 1 (1): 14-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/146167499360022Links ]

Ortiz, Luisa. 2005. “Más allá de la selva lacandona. Atenco y el legado de la resistencia civil zapatista.” In Acción política no violenta. Una opción para Colombia, edited by Freddy Conte y Luisa Ortiz, 345-370. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario. [ Links ]

Pankhurst, Donna. 1999. “Women, Gender and Peacebuilding.” CR Working Papers: n.° 5. Centre for Conflict Resolution, University of Bradford http://hdl.handle.net/10454/939Links ]

Papacchini, Ángelo, Dario Henao Restrepo and Víctor Mario Estrada, eds. 2001. Violencia, guerra y paz. Una mirada desde las ciencias humanas. Cali: Universidad del Valle. [ Links ]

Parada Rodríguez, Edwin, ed. 2020. “Estudios críticos de paz: perspectivas decoloniales.” Papeles de paz n.º 12. Bogotá: Cinep. https://www.cinep.org.co/publicaciones/es/producto/papeles_de_paz_12/Links ]

Paris, Roland. 1997. “Peacebuilding and the Limits of Liberal Internationalism.” International Security 22 (2): 54-89. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.22.2.54Links ]

Paris, Roland. 2010. “Saving Liberal Peacebuilding.” Review of International Studies 36 (2): 337-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000057Links ]

Payne, William. 2007. “Violencia motivada por homofobia por grupos armados al margen de la ley: Una investigación del fenómeno en el contexto del conflicto armado en Colombia.” Tesis de Maestría en Relaciones Internacionales, Universidad del Salvador, Argentina. [ Links ]

Pearce, Jenny. 1999. “Peace-Building in the Periphery: Lessons from Central America.” Third World Quarterly 20: 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599913910Links ]

Pearce, Jenny. 2005. “Breves apuntes hacia un concepto de paz latinoamericana.” In Acción política no violenta, una opción para Colombia, edited by Freddy Cante, 329-344. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario. [ Links ]

Pierce, Joseph, Maria Amelia Viteri, Lourdes Martínez Echázabal, Diego Falconi and Salvador Vidal-Ortiz. 2021. “Introducción a Queer/cuir de las Américas: traducción, decolonialidad y lo inconmensurable.” El lugar sin límites. Revista de Estudios y Políticas de Género 3 (5): 1-20. http://revistas.untref.edu.ar/index.php/ellugar/article/view/1030Links ]

Prada Prada, Nancy, Susan Herrera Galvis, Lina Lozano Ruiz and Ana María Ortiz Gómez. 2012. A mí me sacaron volada de allá. Relatos de vida de mujeres trans desplazadas forzosamente hacia Bogotá. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. [ Links ]

Puechguirbal, Nadine. 2010. “Discourses on Gender, Patriarchy and Resolution 1325: A Textual Analysis of UN Documents.” International Peacekeeping 17 (2): 172-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533311003625068Links ]

Reid, Graeme and Samuel Ritholtz. 2020. “A Queer Approach to Understanding LGBT Vulnerability during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Politics & Gender 16 (4): 1101-1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X20000707Links ]

Restrepo, Jorge A. and David Aponte. 2009. Guerra y violencias en Colombia: herramientas e interpretaciones. Bogotá: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. [ Links ]

Rettberg, Angelika. 2012. “Construcción de paz en Colombia: contexto y balance.” In Construcción de paz en Colombia, edited by Angelika Rettberg, 3-50. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes. [ Links ]

Richmond, Oliver. 2010. “A Genealogy of Peace and Conflict Theory.” In Palgrave Advances in Peacebuilding: Critical Developments and Approaches, edited by Oliver Richmond, 14-38. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Links ]

Richmond, Oliver and Jason Franks. 2009. Liberal Peace Transitions: Between Statebuilding and Peacebuilding. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [ Links ]

Ritholtz, Samuel. 2022a. “Civil War & the Politics of Difference: Paramilitary Violence Against LGBT People in Colombia.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oxford. [ Links ]

Ritholtz, Samuel. 2022b. “Is Queer-and-Trans Youth Homelessness a Form of Displacement? A Queer Epistemological Review of Refugee Studies’ Theoretical Borders.” Ethnic and Racial Studies (publish online). https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2099747Links ]

Rocha, Carlos, Yoko Ruiz, and Juli Salamanca. 2022. “El Estado no me cuida, me cuidan mis amigas: prácticas de cuidado que han creado las personas trans ante la ausencia estatal.” Informe. Bogotá: Liga de Salud Trans. [ Links ]

Rolandsen, Øystein H. 2019. “Trade, Peace-Building and Hybrid Governance in the Sudan-South Sudan Borderlands.” Conflict, Security & Development 19 (1): 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2019.1561628Links ]

Rossdale, Chris. 2019. Resisting Militarism: Direction Action and the Politics of Subversion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [ Links ]

Sandoval Forero, Eduardo Andrés. 2012. “Estudios para la paz, la interculturalidad y la democracia.” Ra-Ximhai 8 (2): 17-36. [ Links ]

Sanz Romero, Estefanía. 2021. Silenciadas. Represión de la homosexualidad en el franquismo. Editorial LES. [ Links ]

Savci, Evren. 2021. Queer in Translation: Sexual Politics Under Neoliberal Islam. Durham: Duke University Press. [ Links ]

Schulz, Philipp and Heleen Touquet. 2020. “Queering Explanatory Frameworks for Wartime Sexual Violence against Men.” International Affairs 96 (5): 1169-1187. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa062Links ]

Sempol, Diego. 2019. “Memorias trans y violencia estatal. la ley integral para personas trans y los debates sobre el pasado reciente en Uruguay.” Páginas. Revista Digital de la Escuela de Historia 11 (27): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.35305/rp.v11i27.367Links ]

Serrano-Amaya, José Fernando. 2004. Queering Conflict: The Invisibility of Gender and Sexual Diversity in Peace Building. Bradford: University of Bradford. [ Links ]

Serrano-Amaya, José Fernando . 2017. Homophobic Violence in Armed Conflict and Political Transition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60321-6Links ]

Serrano-Amaya, José Fernando . 2019. “‘Ideología de género, populismo autoritario y políticas sexuales.” Nómadas 50: 155-173. https://doi.org/10.30578/NOMADAS.N50A10Links ]

Serrano-Amaya, José Fernando . 2021. “Verdades Sociales, memorias activistas: la inclusión de la orientación sexual y la identidad de género en la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación en Suráfrica.” In Comisiones de la verdad y género en países del Sur global: miradas decoloniales, retrospectivas y prospectivas de la justicia transicional. Aprendizajes para el caso colombiano, edited by Diana Gómez, Angélica Bernal, Juliana González, Diana Montealegre and María Manjarrés, 447-471. Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes; Capaz. [ Links ]

Simangan, Dahlia. 2018. “When Hybridity Breeds Contempt: Negative Hybrid Peace in Cambodia.” Third World Quarterly 39 (8): 1525-1542. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1438184Links ]

Stanley, Eric A. 2021. Atmospheres of Violence. Structuring Antagonism and the Trans/Queer Ungovernable. Durham: Duke University Press. [ Links ]

Strickland, R. and N. Duvvury. 2003. “Gender Equity and Peacebuilding. From Rhetoric to Reality: Finding the Way.” Discussion Paper. Washington D. C.: International Center for Research on Women. https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Gender-Equity-and-Peacebuilding-From-Rhetoric-to-Reality.pdfLinks ]

Swarr, Amanda. 2012. Sex in Transition: Remaking Gender and Race in South Africa. Albany: State University of New York Press. [ Links ]

Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. 2016. From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. Chicago: Haymarket Books. [ Links ]

United Nations Secretary-General. 1992. “An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping: Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement Adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992.” https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/144858?ln=esLinks ]

United Nations Security Council. 2000. “Resolution 1325 (2000)”. October 31. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/720/18/PDF/N0072018.pdfLinks ]

Väyrynen, Tarja. 2019. “Mundane Peace and the Politics of Vulnerability: A Nonsolid Feminist Research Agenda.” Peacebuilding 7 (2): 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2019.1590081Links ]

Vidal-Ortiz, Salvador, María Amelia Viteri and José Fernando Serrano-Amaya. 2014. “Resignificaciones, prácticas y políticas queer en América Latina: otra agenda de cambio social.” Nómadas 41: 185-201. [ Links ]

Viteri, María Amelia. 2017. “Intensiones: Tensions in Queer Agency and Activism in Latino América.” Feminist Studies 43 (2): 405-417. https://doi.org/10.15767/feministstudies.43.2.0405Links ]

Weber, Cynthia. 2016. Queering International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Links ]

Weiss, Meredith L. and Michael J. Bosia , eds. 2013. Global Homophobia: States, Movements and Politics of Oppression. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. https://doi.org/10.5406/illinois/9780252037726.001.0001Links ]

Wilkinson, Cai. 2017. “Introduction: Queer/Ing in/Security.” Critical Studies on Security 5 (1): 106-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1294830Links ]

Woodhouse, Tom. 1999. “Peacebuilding From Below.” In World Encyclopedia of Peace, edited by Javier Pérez de Cuéllar and Yŏng-sik Cho, 293-296. New York: Oceana Publications. [ Links ]

Wright, Hannah. 2020. “‘Masculinities Perspectives’: Advancing a Radical Women, Peace and Security Agenda?” International Feminist Journal of Politics 22 (5): 652-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2019.1667849Links ]

Zelada, Carlos J. 2018. “‘Cuerpxs indisciplinadxs: hacia una mirada cuir (queer) (cuy-r) de la regulación jurídica de las sexualidades disidentes.’” In Repensando las reglas de juego: caminos para evitar el colapso institucional y social, edited by Ronnie Farfán, Santiago Mariani, Cecilia O’Neill de la Fuente, 153-190. Lima: Fondo Editorial Universidad del Pacífico. [ Links ]

Zelada, Carlos J. and Diego Quesada Nicoli. 2019. “Lxs otrxs invisibles: hacia una narrativa jurídica para la prohibición de las cirugías de ‘normalización genital.’” IUS ET VERITAS 59: 124-144. https://doi.org/10.18800/iusetveritas.201902.009Links ]

Zulver, Julia Margaret. 2022. High-risk Feminism in Colombia: Women’s Mobilization in Violent Contexts. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. [ Links ]

*This article was written specifically for this special issue. The participation of José Fernando Serrano-Amaya is part of his FAPA (Fondo de Apoyo a Profesores Asistentes) research project “Pedagogías y políticas de la reconciliación”.

1 In this formative attempt at conceptualizing the notion of queer peacebuilding, the authors use LGBTQ as a way to describe people with non-hegemonic sexual orientations and gender identities. As much as the acronym is widely used by academics, activists, and policy makers, it is also one of constant contention as it risks homogenizing disparate identities, politics, and positions within gender and sexual orders. It is used here with acknowledgement of its conflictive nature. The “I” for intersex is not included as issues of endosexism and prejudice and discrimination based on sex characteristics are not explicitly covered, either in this article’s analysis or in other contributions to the special issue. We hope that intersex experiences of conflict and related activism, and the role that queer peacebuilding can play in challenging endosexist social structures of conflict, will be explored in future research that is stimulated by this special issue. For those interested in learning more about endosexism, see Zelada and Quesada Nicoli (2019).

2On the topic of language, it is worth noting that this introduction was originally written in English. As such, many of the terms used (and translated) might appear strange, or out of place, in Spanish or Portuguese. Since the beginning of the putting together of this special issue, there have been constant discussions on translation, language, and dialogue between concepts, words, and contexts. Discussions around queer in Spanish have moved in diverse directions that cannot be unified in linear ways. Early discussions for example, focused on the possibilities and limitations of its translation and the finding of equivalents such as raro, joto or marica (Echevarría 1997). Other discussions have acknowledged the presence of queer as theories, politics, and practices in Latin America and explore its deployments in social analysis, arts, pedagogy and activism (Blanco 2016; Flores 2017; Bidaseca and Nuñez Lodwick 2020; Vidal-Ortiz, Viteri and Serrano-Amaya 2014). Another set of discussions considers the contradictory ways to relate with queer (Falconí, Castellanos and Viteri 2014) and even its resistance to any kind of framing, genealogy, or canonization (Pierce et al. 2021). These tensions around translation are discursive, conceptual, and political, reflecting culturally specific social constructs (Viteri 2017). Thus, in the Spanish version of this article, we decided to translate queer as queer/cuir, in order to keep its sense of oddity, rarity, and foreignness but also its presence and life in Spanish-speaking contexts.

3The first of the WPS resolutions, UN Security Council Resolution 1325, was passed in 2000. The resolution marks the first time the Security Council agreed to the need for a gender perspective in all peace and security efforts. Two decades later, the agenda has been further institutionalized globally, with the four pillars of the agenda understood as bringing a gender perspective to: 1) participation and representation in peacebuilding, 2) prevention of conflict, 3) protection against conflict, and 4) relief and recovery in post-conflict (United Nations Security Council 2000).

4This idea of multivocal queer peace resonates with what Londoño et al. (2020) call paces creativas y polifónicas —creative and poliphonic plural peace, a peace that comes from intercultural dialogues, narrative, and situated practice/knowledge. In our case, we understand multivocal queer/cuir peace as having multiple meanings, often contradictory and sometimes vociferous. A queer perspective adds to multivocal peace an attempt to cause noise, to incommodate and unsettle, to produce a meaning that may contribute to the harmonious sound of a poliphony.

How to cite: Ritholtz, Samuel, José Fernando Serrano-Amaya, Jamie J. Hagen and Melanie Judge. 2023. “Under Construction: Toward a Theory and Praxis of Queer Peacebuilding.” Revista de Estudios Sociales 83: 3-22. https://doi.org/10.7440/res83.2023.01

Received: July 05, 2022; Accepted: August 08, 2022

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License