Route 1 31 Oct 2000, adopted unanimously → first time women’s safety in war treated as international peace and security, not welfare → line: relevance = the standard it set, not the protection delivered

Route 2 security once written around states and soldiers → 1325 shifted the referent to women in conflict → same line: it is a norm, not an enforcement instrument

Enloe’s “where are the women?” finally put to the Council → four pillars: participation, protection, prevention, relief and recovery → women as peacemakers, not only victims → architecture built: 1820 (2008) sexual violence as tactic of war; 100+ national action plans; India’s all-female FPU, Liberia 2007 → ground record thin: Coomaraswamy’s Global Study — single digits in peace talks → SG’s 2025 report: 7% negotiators, nine of ten tracks with none; 676 million women in conflict areas → Afghanistan, Sudan, Gaza → no enforcement → Pillay: geopolitics beats suffering

Otto: feminist ideas absorbed as the Council’s symbolic capital → selective engagement, no accountability, protective stereotypes returning through the language of protection

Route 1 critique holds, but 1325 not redundant → 46% of Council decisions (2025), lowest since 2009 → that retreat is itself measured against 1325 → relevance is normative, and rises as compliance falls

Route 2 25 years on, 1325’s power lies in naming, not enforcing → it made women’s exclusion visible, and so chargeable → the resolution outlives its own weak record