Women across borders

The world is currently experiencing the highest level of armed conflict since the Second World War. As part of this, humanitarian aid worker deaths are soaring, with 2024 marking the deadliest year on record. From Gaza to Sudan, Myanmar, and Ukraine, attacks on aid workers continue with impunity, including the deliberate targeting of those who provided lifesaving aid to 116 million people last year. This surge in attacks and deaths is occurring within a wider context of decreasing compliance and respect for international humanitarian law.

Civilians, including humanitarian personnel, medical staff and journalists, are paying the price for this impunity. According to the Aid Worker Security Database, states – rather than non-state actors or criminals – bear the greatest responsibility for these deaths. Direct and indiscriminate attacks that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, and the absence of timely, impartial investigations into violations of international law, are exacerbating the crisis.

Humanitarians on the frontline are often the last hope for people in desperate need. These individuals and organisations take extraordinary risks to preserve our shared humanity and save lives. While old threats persist, new challenges – such as indiscriminate warfare, disinformation campaigns, and increased access restrictions alongside funding cuts – are making it harder to meet this responsibility.

Further, the humanitarian notification systems used during armed conflict to inform parties of the locations and movements entitled to protection under International Humanitarian Law are often mistrusted, with many fearing these mechanisms are being misused by conflict parties to target humanitarians. High-profile security incidents not only endanger lives but also result in organisations scaling back their operations, shifting responsibilities and risks to local partners and staff.

Humanitarian advocacy alone has not been able to exert sufficient pressure in the face of such challenges. High-level political and diplomatic action is now required.

As a middle power, Australia is well positioned to drive diplomatic efforts in an increasingly contested world order and challenging multilateral environment.

In September last year, Australia, together with Jordan, Switzerland, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, the United Kingdom, Japan, Brazil and Colombia, launched a Ministerial Group to respond to these challenges and reinforce protections for humanitarian personnel. This initiative builds on UN Security Council Resolution 2730, adopted in May 2024, which called for more concrete measures to protect humanitarian workers. In November , experts briefing the Security Council called on states to use diplomatic and economic pressure to help uphold international law and address the “profound lack of accountability” for violence against aid workers.

As a middle power, Australia is well positioned to drive diplomatic efforts in an increasingly contested world order and challenging multilateral environment. Ensuring the safety of aid workers is not just a moral and legal responsibility but also a strategic necessity. Aid workers are the lifeline of crisis response; when they are attacked, the communities that rely on their presence and assistance also suffer – prolonging crises and increasing the risk of instability.

Australia can show leadership by taking practical steps to respond to these threats. This includes working with others to maintain the necessary political attention and sustained diplomatic pressure for greater accountability and justice. This starts with ensuring timely, impartial investigations into attacks against humanitarian personnel and, together with other donors, prioritising resources at the country level to cover legal, medical and psychological assistance for affected aid workers. Given local aid workers face the highest risks, providing dedicated training and financial resources to strengthen security protocols – including personal protective equipment – will be essential.

The time for action is now. Australia has an opportunity to lead a global movement to protect humanitarian personnel, demonstrating our stance against impunity and support for vulnerable people in need – and those who risk their lives to help them. Greater accountability and respect for international humanitarian law will ultimately support a safer world for us all.

The author would like to acknowledge Abby Stoddard and the Aid Worker Security Database for their data and trends analysis.

In 2015, when then Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced an additional week of paid leave for fathers during a National Day Rally speech, he jested, “Do not go and play golf, please use it to take care of your kid”.

The problem persists. New research reveals that the number of days of paid paternity leave across 21 Asian jurisdictions is just 6.9 per cent of paid maternity leave available to mothers

Maternity leave is common place in many jurisdictions around the world – the United States being a notable exception. By comparison, paid paternity leave lags. Famous dads who take leave still make headlines – Britain’s Prince Harry and Eikei Suzuki, former governor of Japan’s Mie Prefecture. Even countries with generous leave for fathers – Japan being one of the most generous in Asia, offering 14 weeks of paid maternity leave, four weeks of paid paternity leave and one year of paid leave that can be shared by mothers and fathers – still struggle to encourage dads to take leave.

As we move out of a week of celebrating International Women’s Day, we must keep the spotlight on what is holding women back. The massive gap between the number of days of paid leave available for mothers (called maternity leave in most jurisdictions) when compared to fathers (paternity leave) remains a major driver of inequality.

Based on new research which I have published at the University of Technology Sydney, the average number of days of paid leave for mothers across 21 Asian jurisdictions is 106 days. This figure shadows the mere 7.3 days of paid paternity leave available on average across the region for fathers. Paid paternity leave in the 21 countries is just 6.9 per cent of the paid leave available to mothers. A surprising seven countries across the region offer no paid paternity leave whatsoever.

A more equal sharing of responsibility for childcare between parents is pivotal.

Adding to this problematic picture is the refusal of many Asian nations to acknowledge the same-sex marriages or same-sex partnerships within which children are born or adopted. In some instances, a birth mother in a same-sex female couple may be able to access paid maternity leave while one father in a same-sex male partnership may be able to access adoption leave allocated for fathers. Yet a clear point of discrimination exists in the extent to which parents in same-sex unions are able to enjoy access to paid leave in terms that equal different-sex couples.

Australia’s International Gender Equality Strategy, released last month, has clear priorities for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade related to women’s economic equality and locally led pathways to leadership. A more equal sharing of responsibility for childcare between parents is pivotal to achieve both. This new data points to clear areas where Australia should be advocating for legislative reform across the region.

Yet the strategy’s implementation also requires a bit of humility. Australia was a late-comer to both maternity leave and paternity leave. Amendments introduced in mid-2023 attempted to move away from the idea that mothers are primary carers by allowing parents to decide between them how they will use their allocated leave. However, the 22 weeks of transferable pay available as of July 2024 (154 days) may do little to challenge the pregnancy-parenting continuum that often sees mothers continue to care after giving birth. By contrast, as of 1 January 2021, Spain offers 16 weeks of paid leave for each partner in two-parent families and the leave is not transferable between them. If it is not taken, the leave is lost.

Moreover, the 22 weeks of paid leave in Australia, which is legislated to rise to 26 weeks or 182 days, by July 2026, falls short when we look at the generosity of other jurisdictions. Unsurprisingly, Nordic nations lead, including Sweden which offers 240 days of paid leave for each parent, of which 90 days cannot be transferred, while Iceland, which describes the rights of each parent as “independent rights”, offers six months, or 183 days for each parent.

Australia is also less generous than some of our neighbours. While their gaps between paid maternity leave and paternity leave are not models we want to follow, Pakistan and Vietnam are already more generous than Australia’s current leave provisions, the former offering 180 days of paid maternity leave alongside 30 days of paid paternity leave, the latter 183 days of maternity leave alongside five days of paternity leave. Yet even these countries, more generous than Australia, are far from the gold standard of perceiving caring responsibilities in truly equal terms.

Law reform alone will not guarantee that legal entitlements will be used when available. Traditional constructions of fatherhood and masculinity remain deeply engrained in many countries. But clearly, dads and partners want to care.

Governments across Asia also have plenty of reason to reform their models: declining birth rates, growing elderly populations and notable gender gaps in workforce participation. It is only with generous, easily accessible and non-transferable leave allocated specifically to fathers and partners that we will see a more equal sharing of the responsibility for care that will be essential to shift towards a more gender equal region in the years to come.

This commentary is based on research published in Vijeyarasa R (2025), “Misdirected by the ‘daddy quota’: A comparative study of paid parental leave across twenty-one Asian nations,” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2025.5

A special Interpreter series ahead of International Women’s Day, 2025, on 8 March.

Australia launched its International Gender Equality Strategy last month, a decisive step in embedding gender equality within its foreign policy. Crafted with extensive stakeholder consultation, it reinforces Australia’s Southeast Asia Economic Strategy, with its focus on expanding economic opportunities for women in the region.

Just two weeks later, at the unveiling of the Australia-Southeast Asia Regional Development Partnership Plan (DPP), ASEAN Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn underscored the importance of “empowering women and girls” as a catalyst for strengthening ASEAN-Australia ties.

This alignment with gender equality mirrors ASEAN’s 2017 Declaration on the Gender-Responsive Implementation of the ASEAN Community Vision 2025 and the SDGs. ASEAN has rolled out numerous gender-based initiatives, such as the 2021 ASEAN Gender Mainstreaming Strategic Framework, the Regional Plan of Action (RPA) on the Elimination of Violence against Women, and the ASEAN RPA on Women, Peace, and Security. But despite these efforts, gender parity remains elusive. In 2023, ASEAN women held 23% of seats in national parliaments, a record high, yet still trailing Australia’s 38% and the global average of 27%.

A closer look at the ASEAN Secretariat – a critical institution in coordinating, administering, and mediating ASEAN’s work – reveals the gap between rhetoric and reality. It remains dominated by men, especially at the senior executive levels. To date, despite over half a century of its existence, ASEAN has never had a female Secretary-General. At present, only one out of four deputy secretaries-general is female. Currently, males outnumber females by ten-to-two in occupying director positions. While at the assistant director level, the parity ratio is much better, males still hold a slight edge over females at 22 to 20.

These figures reveal that gender equality in the ASEAN Secretariat at the upper echelon positions remains a structural challenge that requires concerted action to overcome.

Australia has consistently supported ASEAN’s gender initiatives. Successive ASEAN-Australia cooperative plans of action have integrated gender equality as a priority, with initiatives aimed at boosting women's rights, economic participation, and empowerment. A key initiative of the ASEAN-Australia Centre is the development of a Young Women Entrepreneur Exchange. Likewise, Australia has partnered in regional projects, like the ASEAN Women’s Business Forum, and fostering greater cooperation on digital and financial inclusion.

At the 57th ASEAN Day celebration last year, Indonesian university students engaged in a roundtable with female ambassadors from ASEAN and Dialogue Partners, where Australia’s Ambassador to ASEAN, Tiffany McDonald, participated, reinforcing Australia’s active role in promoting female leadership in the region.

In ASEAN’s consensus-driven culture, where decision-making often favours dominant voices, the appropriate inclusion and representation of women is essential to ensuring diverse perspectives.

While sustaining and amplifying gender equality momentum, Australia must be careful not to impose Western ideals of gender equality in its efforts. That is to say that whilst Australia and ASEAN share a commitment to gender equality, the realisation of this is context dependent. A helpful analogy is found in the pavlova – an Australian (or New Zealand) meringue-based dessert. The success depends on its environment: humidity can cause it to collapse or “weep” sugar. Similarly, in gender equality partnerships, Australia must consider the socio-historical and cultural contexts of ASEAN member states, acknowledging the diverse dynamics of women’s empowerment across the region.

As Australia’s International Gender Equality Strategy commits to supporting “locally led approaches,” Australia can leverage the existing ASEAN Gender Mainstreaming in Human Resource Toolkit and regional best practices, including those of the Mekong River Commission (MRC), which has developed a handbook to integrate gender into its core functions.

Borrowing from Mercy Masta’s concept featured on The Interpreter of “using culture to change culture” in achieving gender equality through Pacific values of relationality and cooperation, leveraging ASEAN’s shared identity and understanding of gender equality can drive powerful transformation.

As the Indo-Pacific faces rising economic, geopolitical, and non-traditional security challenges in an era of global volatility, female leadership is more crucial than ever. In ASEAN’s consensus-driven culture, where decision-making often favours dominant voices, the appropriate inclusion and representation of women – who comprise half the population of both Australia and ASEAN – is essential to ensuring diverse perspectives and bolstering regional peace and stability. Gender equality is not merely a moral imperative; it is a strategic necessity, and it is in Australia’s best interest that women empowerment remains not just an aspiration but an embedded principle in its engagement with ASEAN.

Looking ahead, the Australia-Southeast Asia Regional Development Partnership Plan ends in 2028, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of ASEAN's first declaration on the advancement of women in the region as well as Indonesia’s turn to field its candidate for ASEAN Secretary-General. With gender equality as one of the due consideration selection factors mentioned in Article 11 of the ASEAN Charter for this important post, could this then be the year ASEAN finally has its first female Secretary-General? Such an outcome would further solidify the progress that Australia, as ASEAN’s first Dialogue Partner since 1974, has made in aiding ASEAN’s drive towards gender parity, ensuring that women’s empowerment continues to shape ASEAN’s future in line with Australia’s long-term goals of achieving regional stability, security, and prosperity. As Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong states, “Gender equality is not a ‘special interest’. Gender equality is a matter of national interest.”

A special Interpreter series ahead of International Women’s Day, 2025, on 8 March.

It is almost a cliché to say there are challenges facing women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Research across the world tells us that many women graduate from traditional STEM fields but not many stay. The gender pay gap is real, no matter in which country you live. In Australia, the most recent figures reveal a 16 per cent gap between women’s and men’s pay in STEM fields.

As the world continues to face ever more pressing issues that require the best and brightest STEM minds, can we really afford to exclude one gender from solving them? The widespread adoption of technology in our everyday lives has made STEM education pivotal for achieving sustainable growth and social well-being.

In 2022, I moderated a talk in Bangalore with two remarkable women in science – one from Australia and one from India. I listened to the late Professor Rohini Godbole, a pioneering particle physicist from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, and Professor Moira O’Bryan, a biologist and Dean of Science at the University of Melbourne, as they shared their journeys.

I asked Godbole how we can address the gender gap in STEM. Her solution was that changes must happen at the policy level to instil equity and inclusion in science “because it is not just good for women, it is good for science”. She also stressed the importance of a welcoming attitude in STEM workplaces.

Similarly, O’Bryan highlighted the need for cultural change so that it becomes completely normal for women to be in STEM, take a break, and come back feeling welcomed. She emphasised that exposing girls to science from a young age is crucial, as it helps them develop confidence and carve out their own paths in the field in their adulthood.

The reality remains that women trail abysmally behind men when it comes to participation and leadership in STEM fields, in work and education. Only 21 women have won a Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry, or medicine since Marie Curie in 1903, compared to 620 men as of 2023.

Supporting the next generation of women leaders in STEM is not just a matter of fairness – it is essential for addressing global challenges that require diverse perspectives and international cooperation.

The Australian government’s own STEM monitor reveals women only represent 15 per cent of all people working in STEM jobs, and girls make up only one-quarter of Year 12 enrolments in information technology, physics and engineering subjects.

India fares a lot better with 43 per cent of graduates in STEM being women, the highest in the world. But similar to Australia, only around 14 per cent of these women end up in the STEM workforce.

This pattern persists in academic research, where women face additional barriers to advancement. Globally, women constitute less than 30 per cent of STEM researchers and publish less and progress less in their careers compared to men.

While gender inequities in STEM are widely recognised, for women in regional, rural, and remote areas, geographical barriers further limit their opportunities. For example, in Australia, limited funding is a major obstacle for universities in regional areas, with government research grants predominantly directed towards the Group of Eight or other large metropolitan universities. That is why the Australia India Institute launched a pilot program for women in STEM research to strengthen collaboration between Australia and India while addressing gender inequities. The program recently awarded ten fellowships to early-career women researchers – five from Indian Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities and five from Australian regional centres.

The initiative supports short-term research exchanges between the two countries, in the hope that the fellows build strong networks that can lead to long-term research partnerships. The research topics covered by these fellows highlight the breadth of STEM’s social impact, and include urban rainwater harvesting, data-driven insights into brain diseases, and climate-resilient crops.

Through my interactions with the Indian fellows, several shared the challenges of coming from under-represented regions, known in India as Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, and how rare it is to find programs that specifically support women from these regions. For many, this will be their first time travelling internationally, with one fellow noting, “programs like this ensure that hidden talent from rural areas can be recognised, and we can be given a platform to contribute globally”.

It is through programs like these, combined with targeted policy development, that we can break down barriers for women in STEM and unlock their untapped potential to help drive innovation. Supporting the next generation of women leaders in STEM is not just a matter of fairness – it is essential for addressing global challenges that require diverse perspectives and international cooperation.

Three years since my meeting with Godbole and O’Bryan, I am returning to Bangalore this week to talk to young college women on women’s leadership and inspire them to achieve their dreams by sharing stories of women leaders like Godbole and O’Bryan who have overcome gender bias and led the way for equality and inclusion in STEM.

It is my hope this International Women’s Day, that policymakers give priority to finding meaningful solutions to addressing the barriers women face in work and education in STEM and across a range of fields. We require a workforce that – no matter their gender or geographic location – can contribute to addressing global challenges and through which we can celebrate extraordinary female individuals whose talents have no bounds.

A special Interpreter series ahead of International Women’s Day, 2025, on 8 March.

In March 2015, Beijing police arrested and detained a group of young women planning to hand out stickers on the subway on International Women’s Day opposing sexual harassment. They were jailed for more than a month, received “criminal suspect” status, and remain under surveillance today. These women became known as the Feminist Five.

Ten years later, and people are still talking about what happened.

I was sitting in a Hong Kong university class recently along with ten other PhD candidates (all from Mainland China except myself). We were discussing feminist approaches to critical research in international affairs. One woman said she didn’t think feminist research methods should be applied to China. It was a Western concept, and China didn’t need any more of those.

As soon as she had finished speaking, another woman rebuked her. She said feminism was not just a Western concept and was absolutely needed in China. She said there are many Chinese phrases for feminism, and Chinese people care as much about equality as people anywhere else.

This was different to any of the feminist debates I have ever overheard in university classes or pubs in Australia. The discussion wasn’t over the universality of rights, or the repressive binary of gender norms. Instead, it was about resource allocation, access to medical services, the capacity for women to work and earn money while having children, and the autonomy to choose not to have children at all. Once the two got away from the West vs China debate, it became a very practical discussion on how to enhance Chinese women’s lives.

Hearing this reinforced my belief that feminism is shaped by specific local circumstances, and people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. However, by the end of the conversation the first woman was still convinced the term “feminism” was nothing more than a Western plot to shame China. So, let’s examine the evidence.

China has dropped 37 ranks in the Global Gender Gap Index – run by the World Economic Forum of which China is an advocate – since Xi Jinping became Communist Party General Secretary in 2012. The Communist Party diminishes the role of women in public office. For the first time in decades, there is not one woman among the 24 Politburo members, China’s executive policymaking body. Party spokespeople often encourage more traditional roles for women – as caretakers and mothers – to address an ageing population. And the Party has made it harder for women to organise or advocate for themselves in China, using online censorship and the 2017 Overseas NGO Law to stifle dissent among civil society.

China has dropped 37 ranks in the Global Gender Gap Index since Xi Jinping became Communist Party General Secretary in 2012.

To avoid “collaboration with Western hostile forces”, the Overseas NGO Law prohibits local Chinese NGOs from receiving funding from individuals or companies based overseas. Given the difficulty in public fundraising, this has practically cut off the money supply to activist organisations in China.

Without the capacity to formally organise, Chinese feminists have turned to social media. The Party has followed. Beijing’s great firewall automatically censors words such as “feminism” online, marginalising the movement by painting it as a taboo subject. To be fair, there is some space for the discussion of women’s issues online in China, but only as long as it is not critical of the Party. For example, I am a member of a couple of WeChat groups that discuss women’s health and sexual pleasure. However, no one would dare criticise Party policy, or plan any sort of public activism to address the issues discussed.

In her 2023 article “Stay angry and leave hope for tomorrow”, Chinese feminist Lü Pin writes “if we understand change only as the overthrow of the regime, the feminist movement will never possess such power … We must move away from the notion of change being indicated solely by reform or revolution, since both are unlikely.”

Although I am sympathetic to throwing the proverbial patriarchal baby out with the bathwater, in more countries than just China, I understand Lü’s perspective. The feminist movement in China – if it can even be called a movement – cannot survive if it is about overthrowing the Communist Party. There are smaller, more practical feminist changes people can make within the system.

Lü says “I value the choice to remain unmarried and childless as a woman’s strategy for nonviolent non-cooperation with the state.” From my conversations with female colleagues in Hong Kong, and friends in Mainland China, I see this reality unfolding, whether women view it as a feminist action or not.

Ten years on from the arrest of the Feminist Five, China may not be where they hoped it would be. But the tug of war between feminists and the state, and all the people advocating for smaller changes in between, continues.

A special Interpreter series ahead of International Women's Day, 2025, on 8 March.

As International Women’s Day approaches, it’s time to confront a shadowy and growing threat: misogynistic extremism. While counter-terrorism efforts often focus on political or religious radicalism, there is another deadly force already shaping global security. Gender-based violence and incel-linked attacks (those emanating from a violent, anti-women online movement of mostly male “involuntarily celibate” individuals) are not just social issues – they’re national security threats.

In Australia, one in four women – or 2.3 million – have experienced violence by an intimate partner since the age of 15. In the United States, incel-related attacks have killed at least 50 people since 2014, according to the Counter Extremism Project. These numbers aren’t just shocking; they reveal the scale of a threat policymakers can no longer ignore.

The warning signs have been flashing for years. In 2020, a machete attack at a massage parlour in Toronto was prosecuted as an act of terrorism – a first for Canada when it came to incel-related violence. The assailant, motivated by hatred of women, killed one person, and injured another. This was no isolated incident. In the United States, the Secret Service has issued repeated warnings about the growing threat posed by incel extremists, whose online communities have glorified mass shooters and fuelled fantasies of violent retribution against women.

Australia is not immune. The Bondi Junction knife attack in Sydney in 2024 highlighted the urgent need to address gender-based violence as a national security concern. The attacker clearly targeted women, with authorities noting the deliberate nature of the attack and its impact on perceptions of public safety. Although the attack wasn’t charged as terrorism, the nature of the violence and its gendered targeting spotlight the blurred lines between criminal acts and extremist ideologies. The incident created widespread fear, underscoring how violence against women has broader social destabilising effects.

The toxic blend of online radicalisation and gender-based violence creates fertile ground for dangerous ideologies to fester. Gender-based hatred – whether it manifests in violent attacks or online harassment – is increasingly recognised as a destabilising force that crosses borders. Yet policymakers often treat it as a social issue rather than the national security challenge it truly is.

Just as nations share intelligence to combat transnational terrorism, they must cooperate to tackle the spread of misogynistic extremism.

The connection between misogyny and extremism isn’t new, but it’s becoming harder to ignore. Researchers have long noted that gender-based violence often serves as a precursor to mass violence. Many mass shooters, including those with no formal ties to extremist groups, have histories of abusing women. The Christchurch shooter in New Zealand, for example, reportedly subscribed to deeply misogynistic beliefs alongside his white supremacist ideology.

These patterns highlight a dangerous nexus between private violence and public acts of terror. Gender-based violence not only harms individuals but can act as a radicalising force, pushing perpetrators towards more extreme forms of violence. This linkage underscores the urgent need for comprehensive policies that address both interpersonal violence and radicalisation.

So why does this matter now? Because failing to address this issue leaves a gaping hole in Australia’s security frameworks. Treating misogynistic violence as a lesser threat undermines efforts to prevent radicalisation in all its forms. The patterns are clear: online forums that incubate hate against women often serve as gateways to broader extremist ideologies. Ignoring these digital breeding grounds is a dangerous oversight.

Policy solutions must bridge the gap between counter-terrorism and violence prevention strategies. Law enforcement agencies need better training to recognise and respond to gender-based extremist threats. This includes understanding how online radicalisation occurs and being equipped to monitor and disrupt these digital networks.

International collaboration is essential. Just as nations share intelligence to combat transnational terrorism, they must cooperate to tackle the spread of misogynistic extremism. This involves sharing best practices for prevention and harmonising legal frameworks to prosecute gender-based extremist crimes.

Investment must be made into prevention at the community level. Education campaigns that promote healthy relationships and challenge harmful gender norms can build resilience against extremist narratives. Schools, community organisations, and social media platforms all have roles to play in this effort.

Canada’s decision to prosecute the Toronto attack as terrorism sets an important precedent, sending a clear message that gender-based violence linked to extremist ideologies will not be treated as mere criminal acts but as threats to national security. This move should encourage other nations to adopt similar legal frameworks.

But more needs to be done. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, so too do the threats we face. The digital age has made it easier than ever for extremist ideologies to spread across borders. Misogynistic extremism is no exception. Addressing it requires a coordinated, international response.

Recognising the victims and survivors of such violence as stakeholders in security discussions is crucial. Listening to their experiences can inform more effective prevention strategies and ensure that counter-extremism efforts are grounded in the realities of those most affected.

On this International Women’s Day, let’s commit to making women’s security a central pillar of global policy. Bridging the gap between counter-terrorism and gender-based violence prevention is not just a matter of justice – it’s a national security imperative.