31
1
This paper is the result of the WomanStats project in Colombia which is currently
located at Sergio Arboleda University.
*
PhD Political Studies. Director of International Relations of the School of Politics and
International Relations at Sergio Arboleda University.
**
Associate Professor at the School of Politics and International Relations of the
Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Bogotá, Colombia. MA in Democracy and social
transformations of the University of Helsinki, Finland.
Código de referato: SP.192.XXXV/15
Gender as a category of Colombian
Foreign Policy Analysis
1
María Catalina Monroy Hernández
*
Felipe Jaramillo Ruiz
**
Abstract
The article provides a gender approximation to foreign policy analysis
using Colombia as a case study. It examines if women decision-makers
think differently from men in regards to foreign policy, so as to evidence
if there is a female-way of foreign policy making. Explicitly, the study
hopes to lend some insight into the empirical consequences of gender in
FPA, so as to present alternative theoretical tools for International
Relations research making. Thus, by inquiring how gender shapes how
diplomats perceive foreign policy, the study expounds its empirical
findings into the feminist theoretical debates.
Keywords: Foreign Policy Analysis – feminism – gender – Colombia
STUDIA POLITICÆ Número 35 ~ otoño 2015
Publicada por la Facultad de Ciencia Política y Relaciones Internacionales,
de la Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Córdoba, República Argentina.
35 - otoño 2015
32
STUDIA POLITICÆ
Resumen
El artículo propone una perspectiva de género para el análisis de la polí-
tica exterior colombiana. En particular, examina si las mujeres que for-
man parte del cuerpo diplomático perciben diferente que los hombres te-
mas de política exterior. Así, busca evidenciar si existe una forma
femenina de hacer política exterior. A partir del estudio de caso, se anali-
zan las perspectivas feministas metodológicas y analíticas para la investi-
gación de la política exterior. En suma, al indagar cómo el género influ-
ye en la toma de decisiones de política exterior, el estudio contrasta los
hallazgos empíricos con los debates teóricos feministas.
Palabras clave: Política exterior – feminismo – género – Colombia
Introduction
A
major feminist inquiry supported by Tickner states: “Apart
from the occasional head of state, there is little evidence to suggest
that women have played much of a role in shaping foreign policy
in any country in the twentieth century” (1992: 1). It is from this reality
that feminists proposals to overcome women’s exclusion from the arenas
foreign policy decision making originate. By placing gender at the heart of
the discussion, feminist research in international relations seeks to
comprehend how women and men’s perceptions and preferences shape the
foreign policy.
The present study aims to explicate how Foreign Policy Analysis (from
now on FPA) may be an easier route for the formulation of gender
theoretical discussions of International Relations (from now on IR). The
paper assesses Colombia’s foreign policy from a gender perspective. It
examines if women decision-makers think differently from men in regards
to foreign policy, so as to evidence if there is a female-way of foreign
policy making. Explicitly, the study hopes to lend some insight into the
empirical consequences of gender in FPA, so as to provide alternative
theoretical tools for IR research making. Thus, by inquiring how gender
shapes how Colombian diplomats perceive foreign policy, the study
expounds its empirical findings into the feminist theoretical debates.
The study was developed according to a three-phase methodology. Firstly, it
provides an overview of some of the seminal works in regards to gender and
International Relations. Secondly, it explores the intersection between
gender, sex, and foreign policy, so as to explicate how gender is tethered to
the national character of a country. In this section, it takes into consideration
actor-specific theory models, which open the door for proposals that situate
33
gender as a key input of FPA (Snyder, Bruck, Hudson & Burton, 2002).
2
Lastly, the application of a gender lens is used to inspect Colombia’s foreign
policy. Here, it discloses the results of the case study, so as to discuss if men
and women’s perceptions shape Colombian foreign policy.
3
1. Preliminary Discussion: International Politics vs. Foreign Policy
Where Are the Women?
The field of study of International Politics has traditionally disregarded
issues of gender. Based on the conception of international politics as a
masculine issue (Tickner, 1992), it has ignored women’s role in foreign
policy making. Hence, in the predominant theories of International Politics,
gender does not constitute a relevant variable for the theoretical
elucubrations of international phenomena.
If one seeks to provide a gender approach to foreign policy, one must first
be aware of the differences between International Politics and Foreign
Policy Analysis.
4
This is because their distinction in meaning provides a
more comprehensive understanding of where feminists’ perspectives in
International Relations stand. Particularly, it facilitates to apprehend how a
feminist proposal to Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) can take into account
the role women play in shaping foreign policy.
Both International Politics and Foreign Policy aim for the same objective,
that is, to understand why, how, and for which purpose do States behave
2
The outputs are regularly analyzed throughout actor-general, systemic level of
analysis, among others. The combination of the two, outputs and inputs, will provide a
more accurate foreign policy analysis.
3
As Harold and Margaret Sprout stated in 1965, “Instead of drawing conclusions
regarding an individual’s probable motivation and purposes (...) on the basis of
assumptions as to the way people are likely on the average to behave in a given social
context, the cognitive behavioralist (...) undertakes to find out as precisely as possible
how specific persons actually did perceive and respond in particular contingencies.”
(cited by HUDSON, 2008: 15). Hence, one has to direct the main issues to a case study
where humans interact in foreign policy making.
4
The literature review on women and foreign policy we present in this paper, was
based on the search for feminist studies on the role and gendered perceptions of women
in foreign policy, nevertheless, most authors do not differentiate foreign policy from
International Politics or foreign affairs. This is the main reason why we chose to
establish these differences in order to proceed with this research.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
34
STUDIA POLITICÆ
the way they do. The main difference, however, is that International
Politics, as conceptualized by Kenneth Waltz’s (1979), focuses on the
systemic level of analysis, while FPA includes systemic, domestic, and
individual levels. As J. Ann Tickner stated: “Waltz asserts that it is not
possible to understand states’ behavior simply by looking at each individual
unit; one must look at the structure as a whole and see how each state’s
capabilities stand in relation to others’” (1992: 35).
From Waltz’s neorealist perspective, the study of International Politics
focuses on the systemic forces, so as to “locate the causes of war and
define the conditions of peace” (Waltz 1979; 2010: 18). Furthermore, it
sees the State as a unitary, rational, and masculine actor, which behaves
according to a self-help, autonomy, and power seeking logic (Tickner,
1992). By positing a materialist prism of the world, Waltz’s notion of
International Politics stresses on the importance of external constraints
rather than on unit-level explanations: “States are unitary actors with a
single motive - the wish to survive (...) The theory explains why States
similarly placed behave similarly despite their internal differences”
(Waltz, 1996: 54). This makes the conceptions of the international
system particularly materialistic, power-centered, and unemotional
(Tickner, 1992), which also gives the study of IR some traditional
masculine traits.
Differently from Waltz systemic reasoning, FPA is a multilevel-
multivariable research scheme (Hudson, 2007). It implies a holistic
approximation to human decision-making, which takes into account
preferences, motivations, structural constrains, social constructions, and
perceptions. In stark contrast to the neorealist vision of International
Politics, by focusing on human agency, FPA constructs an alternative
ontology and epistemology to the study of foreign policy (Scott, 2002). It
views the world as a construction of ideas and practices that shape state
preferences and interests. Basically, it seeks to comprehend how policy
decision-making materializes as a result of human action, both of men as
well as of women (Hudson, 2007). Thus, Foreign Policy Analysis refers to
the subfield of International Relations that seeks to explain foreign policy,
or, alternatively, foreign policy behavior, by paving a theoretical ground
that pays particular attention to human decision-making (Hudson, 2008;
Locher & Prugl, 2001).
Taking this into account, FPA is a type of actor-specific theory. As stated
by Hudson,
Actor-specific theory is a theory that explains the behavior of specific
actors [...] given its nature, actor-specific theory allows for richer
35
explanation and even prediction of the foreign policy behavior of
particular entities than does actor-general theory (2008: 8).
In other words, by taking into account cognitive processes, leader
personality and orientation, small group dynamics, among other levels of
analysis, actor-specific theory reshapes the ontology and epistemology of
IR. It steps away from unitary visions of the State and from the
materialistic conceptions of the system; and it formulates an understanding
of FPA that goes beyond the idealist-materialist and agent-structure debates
(Freeman, 2001).
For FPA scholars, decision-makers are those who are responsible for
foreign policy, acting in the name of the State (Snyder, Bruck, Hudson &
Burton, 2002; Tickner, 2003). Therefore, international theorists must
inquire about those who are acting in the name of the State, as well as
about the interest groups that influence foreign policy decisions. A feminist
proposal to FPA takes into account how gender affects human choices
(Young, 2003). Moreover, just as FPA reflects a multi-method research
proposal to analyze foreign policy behavior, feminism in IR includes
“various disciplines and intellectual traditions” (Tickner, 2014) i.e. how
gender affects foreign policy decision-making.
a. Feminist inquiries on Foreign Policy
Sex refers to both physical and biological differences between human beings,
this being, a man and a woman. In other words, it is a biological criteria for
the classification of persons as males and females. Gender refers to socially
constructed differences between what is considered feminine and masculine.
As recognized by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman, it “is the activity
of meaning situated conduct in light of normative conceptions of attitudes
and activities appropriate for one’s sex category” (Zimmerman & West,
1987: 127). These socially constructed conceptions perpetuate specific social
behaviors that emerge from imagined and perceived notions of a determined
but not necessarily existent reality. Both characteristics are used by feminist
theorists to explicate why countries behave the way they do. More precisely,
feminist methodologies to FPA try to apprehend how sex and biology interact
with socially constructed realities, so as to evaluate the impact of gender in
foreign policy.
b. Feminist inquiry of the relation sex – physical traits and foreign policy
An array of feminist scholars has investigated how maternity may impact
foreign policy-making. The fact that women are able to procreate —that is
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
36
STUDIA POLITICÆ
women’s “reproductive potential” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013)—
provides one initial sexual distinction that originates certain socially
constructed structures. As expressed by Ruddick (1989), birth giving
entails maternal thinking, which constitutes a practice that gives particular
weight to nurturing, feeding, respecting, and taking care of those who are
in need of protection. Moreover, it also focuses on the preservation of life,
so as “to foster a domestic environment conducive to these goals,
tranquility must be preserved by avoiding conflict where possible”
(Tickner, 2014: 14; See also: Eschle, 2005). Hence, maternity becomes a
practice that not only concerns women but also includes all human beings
that are devoted to take care and respond to children’s needs and demands.
Namely, maternity thinking encompasses all individuals that incorporate
caring and nurturing as a fundamental objective in their lives (Ruddick,
1989).
5
In addition to maternal thinking, another powerful explanation to how
gender differences might affect foreign policy making arises from
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988). This proposal considers how early
patterns of attachment may explain why humans develop behaviors of
dependency, such as looking for someone to provide support, protection,
and care (Fraley, 2010). This theory, first developed by John Bowlby, states
that parenting is “pre-programmed” by means of “strong biological roots”
(Bowlby, 1988). Consequently, women usually exhibit certain behaviors of
protection and nurturing that are related to the responsibilities of
motherhood. Thus, one could explore how parenting and motherhood can
actually shape someone’s behavior and transcend into other social
practices.
The second relevant sexual insight to FPA could be categorized as those
that are visually evident. These involve a combination of “anatomical,
endocrinal, and chromosomal features” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013:
2) that differentiate women and men. Despite some physical similarities,
women are biologically different from men. In Hudson’s words, “men and
women do not have to be the same to be equal” (Hudson et al., 2012: 7).
Thus, visually evident differences are essential to comprehend gender
constructions that mark social interactions and to explore how differences
between men and women might have powerful effects on foreign policy
making.
5
This is to say that men may think maternally as well and that not all women do. Ma-
ternity is associated with feminine. This, nevertheless, does not impede that men fulfill
certain functions which concern maternity.
37
Some behavioral theorists have explored how physiological characteristics
impact foreign policymaking processes. For example, if testosterone leads
men to be more aggressive and how left-brain dominance might lend them
to be more rational (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013). As Enloe
elucidates: “men are men, and men are seen almost inherently prone to
violence; so violence is bound to come about if men are allowed to
dominate international politics” (Enloe, 1989: 5). If men are believed to be
more aggressive, the question that arises is how does the belief that women
are weak and/or emotional play a key role in their exclusion from policy-
making decisions. This will be discussed further on.
Sexual characteristics do not necessarily indicate that the roles and
perceptions of a man or a woman are completely biologically determined.
There are many cases of men that, though strong and manly, feel feminine,
or of beautiful and delicate looking women that feel masculine. This goes
beyond discussion of sexuality and comes into the realm of socially
constructed criteria that generate certain roles in which men and women
are expected to fit in. Under this conception, masculine and feminine
become synonymous to men and women. This binary logic, however,
hinders a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior (Scott,
2002). Hence, gender emanates as a key analytical category that helps
explicate social constructions that attribute certain traits to a particular sex;
and, at the same time, it helps clarify how gender stereotypes are socially
created and replicated.
A feminist proposal goes beyond a mere description of gender roles. It
unveils how these have served as a way of continually excluding women
from the public sphere. Particularly, by incorporating a feminist view to
FPA, the following pages hope to analyze how women are often precluded
from becoming part of State’s action in the international arena. It is from
these theoretical underpinnings that debate about the relation between
gender and FPA is elaborated.
c. Feminist inquiry of gender in foreign policy
According to Eckert and McConnell-Ginet (2013), gender is something we
do and perform: gender is action. On the other hand, Valerie Hudson defines
gender as an adjective in reference to what she calls “gender beliefs” or
beliefs held within a society about the relationship between genders and
sexes (Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill, Caprioli & Emmet, 2012). Subsequently, for
Hudson, one cannot write about gender without referring to sex because the
former is dependent from the latter. So, when discussing gender and foreign
policy, one must refer to social and sexed constructed differences.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
38
STUDIA POLITICÆ
Why is gender relevant to foreign policy analysis? A plain answer might be
that gender plays a key role in the beliefs, practices, and accepted
knowledge of foreign policy. In order to explicate this response more
completely, however, a more detailed examination of the meaning of
gender and FPA is required.
Gender usually replicates stereotypes. According to Mary Caprioli, “there are
no inherent differences based on gender, as both males and females are forced
into stereotypical roles” (Caprioli, 2000: 52). Thus, one must seek definitions
and categorizations of gender that allow foreign policy students and
practitioners to interpret and later deconstruct gender roles. These gendered
stereotypes or adjectives (Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill, Caprioli & Emmet, 2012)
offer evidence that women possess certain features such as cooperativeness,
compassion, tenderness, and kindness, while men are seen to reflect traits such
as aggressiveness, strength, authority and power (Koch & Fulton, 2011).
Socially constructed gender stereotypes have also influenced conceptions
of politics and, in particular, of the international order. For example,
according to Koch and Fulton, in the political arena “women are viewed as
more politically liberal, and are perceived as being more competent on
compassion issues such as education, programs for the poor, healthcare and
the environment” (2011: 8). And, as highlighted by feminist IR scholars,
whereas “strength, power, autonomy, independence and rationality are
typically associated with men and masculinity”, and, hence, placed as
attributes of the State, women’s involvement in foreign policy are depicted
as “naïve, weak and even unpatriotic” (Tickner, 1992: 3). All of the above
hypothesize a direct impact on foreign policy.
Because of the strength of the socially constructed stereotypes of
masculinity and femininity, in the absence of a proper deconstructive
process, individuals tend to accept and prolong these social practices. If
gender represents an idea that is constructed throughout historical and
social interactions between human beings (Bermúdez, Londoño & Tickner,
1999), it requires human agency to reshape social interactions that
segregate women from the public sphere. In Eckert’s words: “The making
of a man or a woman is a never-ending process that begins before birth –
from the moment someone begins to wonder if the pending child will be a
boy or a girl” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013: 7). The result is that the
child will have a differential treatment if it is a boy or a girl; and this will
imply that society itself will designate some specific tasks or chores that
have the label of “man” or “woman”.
In recent years, women are moving into “men’s jobs” and vice versa. This
phenomenon is gradually reshaping traditional conceptions of gender
(Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013). Nonetheless, social practices that
39
propose a masculine vision of foreign policy continue to exist. These
collective stereotypes construct a “hierarchical and unequal relation
between men and women” (Tickner, 2005: 7) and contribute to maintaining
women’s exclusion from foreign policy decision-making (Tickner, 1992). If
foreign policy has traditionally been imagined as a masculine sphere, one
might ask, nevertheless, what ramifications might this have?
d. Women and Foreign Policy
The two most influential books on women and foreign policy are Cynthia
Enloe’s 1989 Bananas Beaches and Bases and J. Ann Tickner’s 1992 work
on Gender in International Relations. They both claim that women have
historically been excluded from the foreign policy sphere due to the fact
that this public arena deals with traditional security issues such as war.
Since it is envisioned as an unemotional, power-based, materialistic act
which demands manliness (Tickner, 1992), war is seen as a sphere of
influence that must be controlled by men.
If foreign policy is for men, what role do women play? According to
Eckert, “[m]ales in most cultures have more access to positions of public
power and influence than females” (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 2013: 25).
Taking this into account, Enloe evidences how “[w]omen’s roles in
creating and sustaining international politics have been treated as if they
were ‘natural’ and thus not worthy of investigation” (Enloe, 1989: 4).
Based on these masculine conceptions of the world, women were excluded
from government’s policy-making. Succinctly put, the authors describe
foreign policy was “men’s club” ruled by a political male elite: “only men,
not women or children, have been imagined capable of the sort of public
decisiveness international politics is presumed to require” (Enloe, 1989: 4).
Thus, women were continually segregated from decision-making because
their apparent weakness was “considered a danger when issues of national
security” (Tickner, 1992; p. 3). This fact, nevertheless, must not lead one to
conclude that gender does not matter in FPA.
According to the above, foreign policy has traditionally coped with the
“relevant” masculine-perceived issues belonging to the top, that is, the
difference between “high and low” politics. A high politic foreign policy
agenda includes strategic, military, and political issues, mainly focused on
preserving National Security (Lorcher & Prugl, 2001). Low politic foreign
policy agenda, on the other hand, includes economic, social, and cultural
issues (Bermúdez, Londoño & Tickner, 1999). These have been labeled as
“soft” foreign policy issues, because from a materialist conception they
tend to lack military relevance.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
40
STUDIA POLITICÆ
When discussing the foreign policy sphere, we must first picture a division of
labor that has gradually changed along with the reconceptualization of
security: “When women enter politics, particularly in areas of foreign policy,
they enter an already constructed masculine world where role expectations
are defined in terms of adherence to preferred masculine attributes such as
rationality, autonomy and power” (Tickner, 2005: 17). As has been
evidenced, initially, men were designated to act in the name of the State.
Under this conception, men were seen as “bellicose” while women were
perceived as “passive” in foreign policy (Caprioli, 2000). This realist/
masculine approach of IR and foreign policy is being challenged today, so as
to establish a newly broadened concept of foreign policy. The shifting
paradigm brings gender into the theoretical debates and questions the
monopoly of foreign policy decision-making by men.
e. Women in Foreign Policy: is there a Female Way?
Women in power have demonstrated a change in the traditional policy-making
processes. For instance, in Latin America, Teresa Valdés (2010) has shown how
Bachelet preferred working with a significant number of women, provoking men
to feel strange and “feminized”. According to the author, once in office, Bachelet
increased the number of women working in governmental positions, 10 men and
10 women as Ministers, demonstrating that parity could be possible, as well as
challenging gender stereotypes that limited women’s participation. Her policies
were socially oriented and implemented a gendered approach as a transversal
feature of her administration, including social justice and antidiscrimination
strategies (Valdés, 2010). In sum, Bachelet’s government is a great example of a
female-way when it comes to decision making because women in fact have
benefited from her being in charge of decision-making.
On the other hand, some studies also explicate personality as a trait that
may determine, at least up to some point, the way a particular leader
organize the national agenda. As stated by Alexander George,
Thus, the political behavior of the executive power will also be
configured from a variety of cognitive beliefs (ideology, worldview,
beliefs about appropriate policy strategies and tactics) that you purchased
during the course of their education, personal development and
socialization in political affairs (George, 1991: 18).
Furthermore, De Rivera (1968) refers to personality and decision making
processes in one of his key works. The author states:
The objective situation will influence the decisions of any man, but his
personal view of national interest and personal interests also shape the
41
decision [...] therefore, we must insist that the character of official
decision makers is always an important determinant of decisions and,
therefore, the policies of the nation (De Rivera, 1968: 165).
In summary, the IR literature on the impact of women in foreign policy
suggests that they tend to be more peaceful in the sense that they are less
likely than men to agree on the use of international violence. And, for this
reason, “the inclusion of women as equal members of society, with equal
political, social and economic access, would impact foreign policy”
(Caprioli, 2000: 53-54). Accordingly, “the higher a state’s level of gender
equality, the more peaceful that state is likely to be” (Caprioli, 2000: 54).
Koch and Fulton (2011) have reaffirmed this conclusion. They indicated
that women are less likely than men to support the use of force to solve
international problems.
An important contribution to the literature on women and foreign policy
may be found in Sex and World Peace (2012), where Caprioli, along with
Valerie Hudson, Bonnie-Ballif-Spanvill, and Chad Emmet, develop the
“women and peace theory”. This theory explicates the relation between
gender equality and state’s peacefulness. Thus, it proposes two main
premises: 1) “foreign policy aimed at creating peace should focus on
improving the status of women”; and 2) “those states that foster gender
equality through laws and enforce those laws are less likely to go to war”
(Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill, Caprioli & Emmet, 2012: 3).
6
From these feminist theoretical approximations, empowering women in
the foreign policy sphere would help create more inclusive peaceful
foreign policies: “studies show that the more women in government, the
greater the attention given to social welfare, legal protection, and
transparency in government and business” (Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill,
Caprioli & Emmet., 2012). This conceptualization, however, amplifies
the realm of FPA into social structures that go beyond the military arena.
Hence, “[g]enuine security requires not only the absence of war but also
the elimination of unjust social relations, including unequal gender
relations” (Tickner, 1992: 128).
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
6
It is worth noting that the WomanStats Project (Project s.f.) seeks to explore the
relationship between the situation of women and security of states through a compilation
of information (data and scales) on different type of practices, legal status, democracy,
wealth, among other essential information relevant to the security of women around the
world. In addition to women’s leadership and participation in foreign policy, the
WomanStats Project advocates for women’s empowerment and safety, not only
understood as women’s right to be free from physical violence, but as a political,
economic and social because the security of women does impact the security of States.
35 - otoño 2015
42
STUDIA POLITICÆ
How has the feminist theoretical proposal transcended into foreign policy
decision-making? Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, from the Council on Foreign
Affairs, for example, has incorporated the feminist proposal to FPA. She
believes that empowering women is vital not only for the well being of
their own families and communities but also for international development.
This is a powerful reason why states should invest in women (Lemmon,
2013). Likewise, Liz Elfman has exhibited women’s tendency to display
interest in the “soft power regions of policy”, that is a focus on economic
and cultural influence over war (Elfman, 2011).
Taking into account the theoretical discussion posited in this section and
keeping in mind the lack of feminist empirical analysis in the global south,
we now scrutinize Colombia’s foreign policy from a gender perspective.
Specifically, the case study explores if gender plays a crucial role when
making a foreign policy decision and if the theoretical premises offered
survive empirical testing.
2. Gender and Colombian Foreign Policy
Before analyzing Colombia’s foreign policy, one must highlight some of
the voids that exist in the country’s IR research agenda and the relevance of
the case study. According to Martha Ardila,
There is minor information of the Colombian foreign policy-making
process. It seems that those academics that at some point have
participated in the process would deny themselves to speak of it. The
existence of a presidential and personalized diplomacy, furthermore,
improvisation, lack of coordination, limited and biased knowledge when
taking decisions, are some of the elements that contribute to the refusal to
really analyze Colombian foreign policy (Ardila, 2008: 13).
Also, as Leonardo Carvajal explains, there is a “divorce between theory
and politological practice” in Colombia, that is to say, “there are few
theoretical and analytical research on Colombian foreign policy and in
general, in IR” (Carvajal, 2008). The lack of empirical studies gives
relevance to the current research proposal.
The importance of studying Colombia’s reality also emanates from the
institutional mutations that have taken place in the country in the past
decade. In order to remedy women’s unequal participation in public
administration, in 2000, the government passed the Law 581. This law
promoted women’s participation in decision-making bodies. Accordingly,
there has been a gradual incorporation of women into the public
43
administration, which provides a unique opportunity to analyze how gender
has affected foreign policy making.
3. Survey on Gender and Colombian Foreign Policy
In order to examine the perceptions of both men and women that belong to
the diplomatic career in the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the
case study employs both quantitative and qualitative methods. This resulted
to be a difficult task due to the fact that these women and men are not
allowed to express certain opinions related to specific issues.
Despite the difficulties, 68 men and women working directly in foreign
affairs policy-making responded to the survey. The survey adopted a
snowball sampling. It was directed to public servants that work in
Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The questions were designed
according to the theoretical premises presented in the previews sections. In
other words, the purpose was to examine if women reflect a more pacific
attitude towards foreign policy than men; and if so, demonstrate that women
are in fact more pacific because they are less likely to support the use of
violence compared to men (Caprioli, 2000; Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill, Caprioli
& Emmet, 2012; Enloe, 1989). Hence, the survey took into account research
findings that propose that women possess certain natural traits (gender as an
adjective), such as cooperativeness, compassion, tenderness, whereas men
tend to be more aggressive and authoritative (Eckert & McConnell-Ginet,
2013; Koch & Fulton, 2011). Also, the survey sought to examine if women
privileged “low” agenda politics, including economic, social, and cultural
ones (Bermúdez et. al., 1999), i.e. if women were more inclined towards
“soft” issues while men towards “hard” ones (Elfman, 2011).
Sample characteristics were as follows:
7
Disclaimer: The information and results contained in this survey, and presented in this
research, are those of the people surveyed and do not necessarily reflect the views, opi-
nions and position of the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Place
Sample
Total sample
Method
Survey
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bogotá-Colombia
7
34 women 34 men
68 diplomats (diplomatic career)
Personal anonymous survey application
Multiple choice
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
44
STUDIA POLITICÆ
4. Sample composition
Before examining the results, it is important to ask: are Colombian women
disempowered regarding foreign policy?
Surprisingly, there are more women than men in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, 679 women and 576 men (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores,
2013). This number represents a combination of diplomats (diplomatic
career), contractors (are not considered diplomats), which perform specific
tasks due to an insufficient number of diplomats. Also, they are called
“political nominees” who work in Foreign Service but do not belong to the
diplomatic career. Nevertheless, women exceed men in number.
What role do women play within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Talking
about Foreign Service and women’s leadership, Colombian women are
underrepresented when analyzing the number of Colombian ambassadors
abroad. For instance, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in 2013,
there was a total of 55 Colombian Embassies around the world. In 39 of
them, men were ambassadors, whereas the number of women ambassadors
was 16. In 2015, the number of Colombian Embassies raised to 58. The
number of female ambassadors, nonetheless, diminished to 13, while the
total number of male ambassadors rose to 45. Furthermore, in 2013, of the 37
Ad-Honorem Colombian Consuls 29 were men, while 8 were women.
Although the number of Ad-Honorem Consul positions remained constant
for 2015, the number of women was brought down to 4 (Ministerio de
Relaciones Exteriores, 2015). Thus, notwithstanding the fact that a woman,
María Ángela Holguín, heads Colombia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, during
her functions, the number of women has not increased. Contrarily, women
are holding less ambassador and Ad-Honorem Consuls positions than before.
The underrepresentation of women in the diplomatic sphere is a sign of
masculinism, in the sense that it reproduces “male privilege and power in the
gender order” (Hooper, 2001: 4). Male dominance, in turn, engenders a
masculine identity, which naturalizes the maleness of foreign policy service.
Basically, the unbalanced representation of males and females intensifies
masculinity’s hegemony. It creates a “homosexual reproduction”. This term,
which was originally coined by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977), describes how
certain filtering personnel approaches foment male numerical prevalence in
different spheres. Within Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this means
that the probability of a woman attaining decision-making positions is
reduced due to the fact that these are considered ‘male areas of influence’.
Appropriating Elisabeth Prügl findings in Europe, “labor force statistics paint
a picture of masculine domination based on pronounced gendered division
of labor” (Prügl, 2010: 458). In sum, women’s underrepresentation in
45
decision-making roles is not only a consequence of masculinity’s
hegemony, but it also serves as a way of maintaining the maleness of
public foreign service.
5. Results
We now turn to whether the respondents held different attitudes with
regards to foreign policy. As will be evidenced, one can observe that
women and men demonstrate a similar attitude towards the role of women
in Colombian foreign policy. Nevertheless, if one analyzes the different
dimensions of women and men participation in detail, one can find slight
differences between men and women’s perception toward the role women
should occupy in foreign policy making.
The first question asked to the respondents was to identify the most
efficient strategy when faced with an external national security threat.
Figure 1: “Q1: The most efficient strategy when encountering an
external threat should be”:
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
Both men and women preferred the first option, deciding to ask the U.N. to
guarantee the safety of the State. On the other hand, only 1 % of both men
and women favored a hard power strategy. In general, both men and women
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
46
STUDIA POLITICÆ
demonstrated a pacific attitude, giving particular importance to negotiation
strategies and trusting international law and institutions for the preservation
of international peace. When reading through the data, the similarity in the
respondents also jumps to sight. Both female and male respondents seem to
share certain preferences in regards to strategic options.
Taking into account Colombia’s political reality, the second question asked
is quite relevant. Here, respondents were asked if they approved a foreign
policy strategy that negotiates with terrorist groups.
Table 1: “Q2: Are you in favor or against negotiating with groups considered terrorists?”
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
More women favor negotiating with terrorists than men. Nevertheless, the
results represent only a slight difference in perceptions. In general, half the
diplomats surveyed are in favor and half against negotiating with terrorists.
The third question focused specifically on the use of force in Colombian
foreign policy.
Table 2: “Q3: Are you in favor or against the use of force when facing an
external threat?”
Are you in favor of against the use of
force when facing an external threat?
a. In favor
b. Against
Total general
Female
24 %
26 %
50 %
Male
25 %
25 %
50 %
Total general
49 %
51 %
100 %
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
Half of the diplomats surveyed agree and half disagree with the use of
force if facing an external threat. Once again, there are no considerable
differences between men and women’s perception on the use of force.
Are you in favor of negotiating with
groups considered terrorists?
a. In favor
b. Against
Total general
Female
29 %
21 %
50 %
Male
22 %
28 %
50 %
Total general
51 %
49 %
100 %
47
A fourth question asked the respondents if they supported an increased
spending on advanced military weaponry.
Table 3: “Q4: Do you agree or disagree with supporting the development of
new military technology?”
Do you agree or disagree with
supporting the development of new
military technology?
a. Agree
b. Disagree
Total general
Female
38 %
12 %
50 %
Male
34 %
16 %
50 %
Total general
72 %
28 %
100 %
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
As seen in Table 3,72 % of the diplomats surveyed support the
development of new military technology. That is, they are aware of the
importance of a deterrence strategy.
How do our respondents feel about greater inclusivity for women in
foreign policy decision-making? The fifth question asked respondents for
their views on including more women in the military.
Table 4: “Q5: Do you agree or disagree with including more women in the military?
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
Do you agree or disagree with
including more women in
the military?
a. Agree
b. Disagree
Total general
Female
15 %
35 %
50 %
Male
28 %
22 %
50 %
Total general
43 %
57 %
100 %
The results show that women tend to disapprove a higher inclusion of
women in the military.
Though the UNSCR 1325 committed the nations of the world, including
Colombia, to involve more women in peace negotiations, President Santos
had not included women in the peace process. Only after various social
demands, two women were included in the peace process. This led us to
research how our respondents feel about greater inclusion.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
48
STUDIA POLITICÆ
Table 5: Q6: Do you agree or disagree with including more women in the peace
negotiating process?
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey. Rounded numbers were used in Table 5.
A nearly unanimous 99 % of the diplomats surveyed agree with including
more women in the peace process.
As noted previously, feminist theory suggests that women and men might
have different priorities not only for their own lives, but also for their
nation. Accordingly, we asked our respondents to list and rank the five
most important foreign policy issues facing Colombia today.
Table 6: “Q7: Organize the following foreign policy issues in the order of importance
according to your own opinion. 5 stands for “low priority” and 1 for “high priority”
Do you agree or disagree with
including more women in
the peace negotiating process?
a. Agree
b. Disagree
Total general
Female
50 %
0 %
50 %
Male
49 %
1 %
50 %
Total general
99 %
1 %
100 %
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
Women consider social policy the most important issue in foreign policy-
making. Men however, showed a similar perception. Whereas economics
was the one with most priority, the order was not altered for the other
issues asked. The similarity between female and male respondents must be
underscored. In regards to culture, environment, and security, both genders
placed these issues at the same priority level.
PRIORITY
1
2
3
4
5
FP ISSUE
Economics
Social policy
Security
Environment
Culture
PRIORITY
1
2
3
4
5
FP ISSUE
Social Policy
Economics
Security
Environment
Culture
FEMALE MALE
49
Moreover, the survey offered the opportunity to ask men and women in the
foreign policy establishment whether they felt women or men were more
influential in the policy process.
Table 7: “Q8: Who do you consider to have been more influential on
Colombian foreign policy-making process 2010-2014, women or men?”
Question 8
b. Women
c. No difference
a. Men
Total general
Female
22 %
26 %
1 %
50 %
Male
29 %
18 %
3 %
50 %
Total general
51 %
44 %
4 %
100 %
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
Interestingly, there is a slight plurality among men holding the attitude that
women are more influential. One possible explanation might be that both
women and men have this perception due to the fact that first, since women
overexceed men in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they will probably
notice a higher female representation therefore participation; and, second,
they take into account the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a
woman, María Angela Holguín. Despite that the head of the Ministry is a
woman, President Santos is still in charge of the formulation and
implementation of foreign policy, although as shown above, his policies
belong to a more equal and integrated agenda.
Our last question asked whether our respondents felt that women’s efforts
in the foreign policy realm were given appropriate value.
Table 8: “Q9: Do you consider women’s work in International Affairs is:”
Question 9
a. Underestimated
c. Correctly estimated
b. Overestimated
Total general
Female
31 %
10 %
9 %
50 %
Male
28 %
10 %
12 %
50 %
Total general
59 %
21 %
21 %
100 %
Source: Author’s own elaboration based on the “Gender and Colombian foreign policy”
survey.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
50
STUDIA POLITICÆ
Despite a perception of a high representation and participation of women
in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is evident that the diplomats surveyed
feel that there is still an “influence gap” between men and women in
Colombia. Once again, however, the similarity of the answers given by
male and female respondents appears. There is only a slight difference
between women and men’s perception in regards to women’s participation
in international affairs. It would be very interesting, as a further
investigation, to apply this same method in other Colombian cabinets such
as Ministries, including the Ministry of Defense, also public and private
sectors.
6. Result analysis
The results show that women in Colombian foreign policy do not seem to
think differently from men, nor perceive foreign policy issues from a
different perspective that may demonstrate women’s maternal trait,
cooperativeness, social traits or peacefulness. Nevertheless, although at
first sight the findings seem to invalidate some of the main theoretical
approximations discussed in the first section, a closer analysis is required.
Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True state, “Feminism is not
about studying women and gender exclusively. Just as states, conflict,
institutions, security, and globalization cannot be studied without analyzing
gender, gender cannot be studied without analyzing these subjects and
concepts” (2006: 4). In this way, the explication of the result must not be
reduced to evidencing the similarities and difference between male and
female respondents. It must also explore the gender identities that
characterize international relations.
Feminist scholars have recurrently unveiled the hegemonic masculine
attributes of the international sphere. As recognized by Charlotte Hooper,
“international relations is a world of traditionally masculine pursuits – in
which women have been, and by and large continue to be, invisible”
(Hooper, 2001: 12). Consequently, one must keep in mind the gender order
of the foreign policy service. By comprehending the gender environment,
the examination of the data can be more precise.
One possible explanation from a foreign policy analysis perspective has to
do with the organizational model and bureaucratic politics. As Hudson
explained,
“Researches began to study the influence of organization process and
bureaucratic politics on foreign policy decision-making. Organizations
51
and bureaucracies put their own survival at the top of their list of
priorities; often they will seek to increase their relative strength. It was
found that the ulterior objectives of foreign policy decision «players»
influenced their decision-making” (Hudson, 2008).
The organization will influence individual behavior by defining a sequence
of activities from a top-down structure that will impact beliefs and
perceptions, indirectly imposing identity and organizational culture
(Snyder, Bruck, Hudson & Burton, 2002; Lorcher & Prugl, 2001). On the
other hand, from a bureaucratic politics perspective, only the policymakers
that are perceived as more powerful will be the ones that decide and
influence foreign policy behavior. Women have a chance to influence
foreign policy decision-making if the number of women in foreign policy
continues to increase. In the words of Tickner, “In the world of statecraft,
no fundamental change in the hierarchy of the sexes is likely to take place
until women occupy half, or nearly half, the positions at the levels of
foreign and military policy-making” (Tickner, 1992: 141).
A second explanation could be detailed from Terrel Northrup’s statement
on women in the military and foreign policy. The author formulates the
following question: “As women increasingly populate the inner sanctum of
military and foreign policy decision-making, will their presence change the
use of military force and the conduct of international affairs, or will they
behave as one of the boys?” (Northrup, 1994: 276). Terrel explains how
women will on occasions emulate men’s behavior to fit in a previously
male-constructed world. Furthermore, Cynthia Enloe, when referring to the
exceptional cases of Margaret Thatcher and Jeanne Kirkpatrick in foreign
policy, affirms: “it is presumably because she has learned to think like a
man” (Enloe, 1989: 197). Hence, the incorporation of masculine traits by
women blurs existing differences between men and women when talking
about foreign policy (Koch & Fulton, 2011). Only as more women rise in
the ranks of real political influence in Colombia might we see a divergence
of views along gender lines.
The results of the case study also evidence the strong bureaucratic
structures in Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. For example, the
similar gender results in regards to a deterrent strategy could be a reflection
of Colombia’s current policy towards Nicaragua. In 2012, the International
Court of Justice ruled over a maritime dispute between Nicaragua and
Colombia. Since then, the latter has developed new military technology
and is presumably receiving Russian assistance (El Espectador, 2013). This
has triggered a strong deterrence strategy from Colombia, increasing the
amount of spending in military technology.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
52
STUDIA POLITICÆ
Moreover, the fact that most respondents stated that they would negotiate
with terrorist organization and placed economic and social issues as a
priority of the foreign policy agenda, can also be interpreted as a
consequence of the current government’s policy. When President Juan
Manuel Santos started in office, he immediately changed the previous
foreign policy priority given towards security issues during former
President Uribe’s mandate, shifting to economic issues instead. To
exemplify this argument, President Santos in 2011 negotiated a relevant
number of Free Trade Agreements. One of his greatest achievements was
the ratification of the FTA with the U.S. which former Presidents could not
accomplish. Furthermore, President Santos initiated the dialogue with the
FARC, drawing away from Uribe’s position that rejected the possibility of
negotiating with terrorist groups.
Conclusion
In this paper, some of the most relevant works on gender and IR were
discussed, in order to explore the linkage between women and foreign
policy. The paper reviewed the existing research on how women and
men think and behave differently or alike when it comes to foreign
policy. Firstly, different feminist proposals that argue that women’s
involvement may actually contribute to more peaceful and inclusive
foreign policies were explicated. Secondly, the research examined their
validity by proposing a case study. A survey was elaborated with the
objective of analyzing if a group of women and men that work in
Colombia’s Foreign Service respond differently to certain foreign
policy questions. The aim was to contrast the theoretical proposals with
actual empirical findings.
Overall, the research challenges the naturalizing visions of gender.
Paraphrasing Hooper (2001), masculine and feminine attributes are not
immutable. They depend on the circumstances and are subject to struggle
and change. Femininity and masculinity are not monolithic structures. They
are categories that mutate. Taking this into account, this research delved
into the gender order of foreign policy service. Confronted by the similarity
in the answers of female and male respondents, the research went beyond a
comprehension of gender as a study of women. It reflected upon the
masculine biases that have historically characterized international relations.
By doing this, it insisted that masculinsm has rendered certain spheres with
masculine attributes.
53
According to Cadance West and Don H. Zimmerman, “Doing gender
means creating differences between girls and boys and women and men,
differences that are not natural, essential, or biological” (1987: 137). When
scrutinizing foreign policy decision-making, “doing gender”, frequently,
means replicating the hegemonic masculine rationale. It implies performing
according to certain expected behaviors and reacting to contingencies in a
determinate way. Whether male or female, masculinism’s hold in
international relations acts upon the individual. It writes the script that
public servants must follow.
The question that remains is how to break away from masculinity’s
hegemony in foreign policy-making. The words of Scott Nicholas
Romaniuk and Joshua Kenneth Wasylciw provide valuable insight:
Men will need to voice ideas and values that were designated as being
feminine in the decision-making rooms, where the discourse has been
structured to be masculine. Men will need to voice women’s security
concerns. Women will need to be in these rooms as well. It is both sexes,
in offering ideas and making statements that are viewed as traditionally
feminine, and also those that are seen as masculine, that will denaturalize
these social constructions and allow for the elimination of the gender
inequalities that at present predominantly threaten the security of women
(Romaniuk & Wasylciw, 2010: 36).
In order to rewrite the masculine scripts that characterize Foreign Policy,
both men and women need to be taken into account. Excluding males from
the equation only replicates dichotomous understandings. For the
transformation of the gender order, it is not sufficient to simply add more
women to the equation. It actually requires both male and female resistance
to the hegemonic masculine identity. Succinctly put, a strategy for the
denaturalization of the gendered order of foreign policy-making cannot be
built on a counter naturalization strategy. Contrarily, it needs to question
essentialist perspectives of the gender order.
Keeping the theoretical discussions in mind, this case study explored the
gender identities of Colombia’s Foreign Service. It analyzed the responses
of male and female career diplomats, with the purpose of examining if
gender plays a role in the way they go about making foreign policy
decisions. As J. Ann Tickner has stated,
Feminist IR must also produce research that is useful and accessible to
those who work in policy communities and who must convince policy-
makers that gender and women matter in all aspects of global policy-
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
54
STUDIA POLITICÆ
making. Mindful of its roots in social activism, feminism must stay
committed to effecting social change that can benefit those marginalized
by global politics, both women and men (2014: 185).
By proposing a gender approach to FPA, the study materializes as a way of
fomenting feminist theoretical debates in regards to the study of IR. It
evidences that future studies must balance women and men’s perspectives on
foreign policy with other levels of analysis, such as the country’s domestic
features, history, social composition, culture traits, and foreign policy elite.
This goes hand in hand with Valerie Hudson’s explanation of foreign policy,
as a multilevel and multicausal approach; and it combines J. Ann Tickner’s
feminist method that proposes a more holistic approximation to State’s
behavior.
Bringing gender into the spectrum of analysis provides a new dimension
for examining Colombia’s foreign policy, as one in which women and men
interact and decide. Furthermore, it calls for future works that explore how
institutional forces constrain women and men’s foreign policy decision
making.
References
ACKERLY, B. A.; STERN, M. Y TRUE, J. (2006) “Feminist methodologies for International
Relations”. Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern, and Jacqui True (eds.), Feminist Methodo-
logies of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ARDILA, M. (2008) “El Congreso y la política exterior colombiana. A propósito de la co-
misión segunda.” Marta Ardila (ed.), La toma de decisiones de la política exterior
colombiana, Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, pp. 13-40.
ARISÓ, O. & MÉRIDA, R. (2010). Los géneros de la violencia. Una reflexión queer sobre
la violencia de género. Madrid: Egales editorial.
BERMÚDEZ, S.; LONDOÑO, M. & TICKNER, A. B. (1999) “Los aportes de la perspectiva de
género al conocimiento de las ciencias sociales, la teoría de las relaciones interna-
cionales y la concepción de los espacios.” Colombia Internacional, pp. 27-38.
BOWLBY, J. (1988) A secure base: clinical applications of attachment theory. New York:
Routledge.
CAPRIOLI, M. (2000) “Gendered Conflict.” Journal of peace research, pp. 51-68.
Carvajal, L. (2008) “Academia, teoría y política exterior colombiana: una aproximación
desde la economía política.” Martha ARDILA y Leonardo CARVAJAL (eds.), La toma
de decisiones de la política exterior colombiana, Bogotá: Universidad Externado de
Colombia.
55
ECKERT, P.; MCCONNELL-GINET, S. (2013) Language and Gender. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
EL ESPECTADOR (2013) “Nicaragua se está armando para proteger frontera con Colom-
bia”. Disponible en: http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/nicaragua-se-
esta-armando-proteger-frontera-colombia-articulo-438656 [fecha de acceso: 27 de
mayo de 2015]
ELFMAN, L. (2011). Foreigners to Foreign Policy: It’s not a women’s world. Disponible
en: https://www.themuse.com/advice/foreigners-to-foreign-policy-its-not-a-womans-
world [fecha de acceso: 27 de mayo de 2015]
ENLOE, C. (1989) Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Making feminist sense of International
Politics. Los Angeles: The University of California Press.
ESCHLE, C. (2005) “Skeleton Women: Feminism and the Antiglobalization movement”.
Signs, Vol. 30 (3), pp. 1741-1769.
FREEMAN, C. (2001) “Is Local: Global as Feminine: Masculine? Rethinking the Gender
of Globalization”. Signs, Vol. 26 (4), pp. 1007-1037.
HOOPER, C. (2001) Manly states, Masculinities, international relations, and gender poli-
tics. New York: Columbia University Press.
MINISTERIO DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES (2013) Recursos Humanos. Bogotá.
———. (2015). Disponible en: http://servicioexterior.cancilleria.gov.co/tramites/Ciuda-
dano/Directorio/Misiones/enColombia.aspx [fecha de acceso: 26 de octubre de
2015]
NORTHRUP, T. A. (1994). “One of the boys? Women, military force and foreign poli-
cy decision-making.” Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 38, N° 2, pp.
274-279.
FRALEY, C. (2010) “A brief overview of adult attachment theory and research.” Disponi-
ble en: https://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm [fecha de
acceso: 27 de mayo de 2015]
GEORGE, A. (1991) La decisión presidencial en política exterior. El uso efectivo de la in-
formación y el asesoramiento. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.
HUDSON, V. (2007) Foreign Policy Anlaysis. Classic and Contemporary Theory. United
States of America: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.
———. (2014). Entrevista del 14 de enero de 2014, realizada por Catalina Monroy. On
gender and foreign policy.
———. (2008). “The history and evolution of foreign policy analysis.” Steve Smith,
Amelia Hadfield y Tim Dunne (eds.), Foreign Policy. Theories, Actors, Cases, New
York: Oxford, pp. 11-30.
HUDSON, V. M.; BALLIF-SPANVILL, B.; CAPRIOLI, M. & EMMET, C. (2012) Sex and World
Peace. New York: Columbia University Press.
HUDSON, V. & VORE, C. (1995) “Foreign Policy Analysis yesterday, today and tomo-
rrow.” Mershon International Studies Review, pp. 209-238.
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
35 - otoño 2015
56
STUDIA POLITICÆ
KANTER, R. M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
KOCH, M. T. & FULTON, S. A. (2011) “In the Defense of women: Gender office holding
and national security policies established in democracies.” The Journal of Politics,
pp. 1-16.
LEMMON, G. T. (2013) “Why should U.S. foreign policy include a focus on women in in-
ternational development?” Disponible en: http://www.cfr.org/women/why-should-us-
foreign-policy-include-focus-women-international-development/p31128 [fecha de
acceso: 27 de agosto de 2014]
LOUCHER, B. & PRUGL, E. (2001) “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing
the Middle Ground”. International Studies Quarterly, 2001, vol. 42, pp. 111-129.
GOBIERNO NACIONAL DE LA REPÚBLICA DE COLOMBIA (2019). “Plan Nacional de Desarro-
llo Prosperidad para todos 2010-2014.” Disponible en: https://www.dnp.gov.co/
LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4-J9V-FE2pI%3D&tabid=1238 [fecha de acceso: 17 de
septiembre de 2014]
PRÜGL, E. (2010) “Feminism and the Postmodern State: Gender Mainstreaming in Euro-
pean Rural Development”. Signs, Vol. 35 (2), pp. 447-475.
RIVERA, J. (1968) The psychological dimension of foreign policy. New York: Charles E.
Merrill Publishing Company and New York University.
ROMANIUK, S. N. & WASYLCIW, J. K. (2010) “‘Gender’ Includes Men Too! Recognizing
Masculinity in Security Studies and International Relations”. Perspectives, Vol.
18(1), pp. 23-39.
RUDDICK, S. (1989) Maternal Thinking. Toward a politics of peace. The United States:
Beacon Press.
SCOTT, J. W. (2002. “Feminist Reverberations”. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies,
Vol. 13 (3), pp. 1-25.
SNYDER, R. C.; BRUCK, H. W.; HUDSON, V. & SAPIN, B. (2002) Foreign Policy Decision
Making (revisited). New York: Palgrave McMillian.
THE ECONOMIST (2012). “An islet for a sea. Colombia smarts from the loss of territorial
waters.” The Economist, Disponible en: http://www.economist.com/news/americas/
21567986-colombia-smarts-loss-territorial-waters-islet-sea [fecha de acceso: 27 de
agosto de 2014]
TICKNER, J A. (2014) A feminist voyage through International Relations. New York:
Oxford University Press.
———. (1992) Gender in International Relations. Feminist perspectives on achieving
global security. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. (2005) “What is your research program? Some feminist answer to International Re-
lations methodological questions.” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49 (1), pp. 1-25.
VALDÉS, T. (2010) “El Chile de Michelle Bachelet ¿Género en el poder?” Latin Ameri-
can Research Review, Vol. 45, pp. 248-273.
WALTZ, K. (1996) “International Politics is not Foreign Policy.” Security Studies, Vol. 6
(1), pp. 54-57.
———. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Unites States of America: Waveland Press.
57
WEST, C; & ZIMMERMAN, D. H. (1987) Doing gender. Gender and Society, Vol. 1 (2),
pp. 125-151.
YOUNG, I. M. (2003) “The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflection of the Current
Security State”. Signs, Vol. 29 (1), pp. 1-25.
Fecha de recepción: 27/05/2015
Fecha de aceptación: 20/11/2015
MARÍA CATALINA MONROY HERNÁNDEZ - FELIPE JARAMILLO RUIZ
