Feminist Foreign Policy, Sovereignty and Genderedness: Rethinking the Concept of the Sovereign State

Following Sweden, various states have adopted a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) in recent years. Due to FFP’s various shapes, this paper broadly understands FFP as a multidimensional political framework that fundamentally emphasizes the needs, experiences well-being of marginalized groups and individuals. As such, FFP challenges major paradigms within foreign policy as a highly masculine policy field not only by being feminist but also by critically questioning ‘traditional’ concepts reflecting upon global power hierarchies and hegemonies. However, certain concepts have neither been observed nor critically questioned including the concept of sovereignty. This paper argues that, as FFP embodies a state-centered concept, the concept of sovereignty must be deconstructed and rethought to strengthen FFP and to unlock its potential. Further, FFP and its objectives are severely hindered if based on a masculinized and hierarchical construction of sovereignty. Offering a first idea of rethinking the concept of sovereignty, this paper asks: In which way is the theoretical framework of FFP hindered and hence in need of a deconstruction of the (modern) conception of sovereignty and its genderedness? In how far may sovereignty be rethought from a FFP perspective? Initially, it is crucial to differentiate between FFP as a policy approach (state FFP) and FFP as a theoretical approach. While the former is embedded in policy practices and varies depending on the individual state, the latter describes a complex framework comprising various theoretical strands. To further approach this questions, certain perceptions will be critically examined based on FFP’s objectives and grounded in sovereignty’s notions, including the relation of sovereignty to the (nation-)state, to the international system, to militarism and security and to human rights. Thereby, these relations are brought together with FFP and its notions. Overall, a dilemma can be observed as sovereignty forms the basis for the state and hence FFP’s constitutive foundation while being constructed through masculinized and patriarchal norms. Thus, sovereignty stands in opposition to FFP’s key objectives. Being restricted by its state-centeredness, FFP is unable to alter and reconstruct existing structures and power dynamics due to its positionality in a system that restraints and undermines its objectives.