By Maria Makurat - Human Rights Desk
Introduction
This year the 16 days of activism end gender-based violence last from the 25th of November to the 10th of December 2025. Especially this year, the call to end specifically violence against women in the cyber domain is a strong focus. The cyber domain is proving to cause many challenges and hurdles for issues in the areas of women’s rights, human trafficking, child pornography, international conflicts and many more. Australia for instance has taken the big step of banning social media for youth under the age of 16. The UN and other associated organisations have raised the alarm that the online violence which includes for example deepfakes, sextortion, stalking and bullying against women to name a few are increasing. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has released its landmark report, stating “Nearly 1 in 3 women – estimated 840 million globally – have experienced partner or sexual violence during their lifetime, a figure that has barely changed since 2000.” It is essential to continue collecting the data in order to keep track of trends and where to exactly tackle the issues however as is also pointed out, the danger lies in cutting funds and support for such research when “(…) just as when humanitarian emergencies, technological shifts, and rising socio-economic inequality are further increasing risks for millions of women and girls.”
The data is essential when one also thinks about what methods and schools of thought can be applied from international relations in order to analyse these trends. Many factors play a role when tackling this issue such as international conflicts, socio-economic factors and political aspects. How are schools of thought such as realism, constructivism, feminism and liberalism placed? Is there a connection? This article aims to analyse this and suggest possible future questions that need to be asked.
Schools of thought surrounding gender and international relations
In International relations as well as international affairs once has the main theoretical pillars: realism, liberalism and constructivism. These have been shaping the debates, dialogue and analytical methods of scholars in international relations. Feminist scholars have emerged around 1980-1990s by key figures such as Judith Ann Tickner, Cynthia Enloe, Cynthia Cockburn and V. Spike Peterson. Since then, a lot of debate has happened and there seems to be room for more to come.
As early as 2009, scholars have been addressing the issue of cyber and women’s rights such as Gurumurthy and Menon publishing in Economic and Political Weekly already addressing “Violence against Women via Cyberspace".[1] For this work and analysis they focus on the impact of the economy and IT sector on women’s safety by using a neo-liberalism view shifting the focus strongly towards the institutions and the factors of interdependence. Taking a neo-liberalism view into account when tackling violence against women in the cyber domain would mean that the violence should be reduced since we are all depending on said technology and would be problematic to sabotage it through using it as a medium of violence however, as one can see, the development of violence is still taking place despite the factor of having benefits. Perhaps by applying Keohane’s theory of monitoring, as we see with the banning of social media for youth and making deepfakes as a medium of violence illegal, one could consider analysing violence in the cyber domain from this point of view but that of course leaves room for debate.
Traditional Kenneth Waltz and other scholars are of course the foundation for the international relations and international affairs field and remain fundamental when conducting analysis. However, quite recently in the past years a shift brings about new debates on which theories and schools of thought are appropriate in the using gender in international relations which should then also be applied to addressing the issue if violence against women in the cyber domain. Prügl for instance critically asses the landscape of international relations theories pointing out that: “Waltz suggests that treating gender as a cause of war would be reductionist because it pertains to the individual level of analysis”[2] On the one hand this makes sense when considering a connection between violence against women in the cyber domain and for instance current international conflicts since one wants to focus on the states however, considering the individual is also of importance since the violence is linked to the gender and is proven to continue to be so when looking at the mentioned reports by the UN. Prügl also points out that sociological theories in combination with constructivism provide a bridge to feminist theorizing. This would also speak for an interdisciplinary approach when tackling the issue of violence against women and especially when we consider the cyber domain since one has to combine several theories to tackle the combined matter of states, organisations, individuals, social structures and international conflicts which all play a role with violence in the cyber domain.
Sjoberg for instance points out that one cannot simply identify positivists and non-positivists when tackling gender in international relation scholarship.[3] Furthermore, Sjoberg suggests the notion that gender and international relations is “at it’s best when its and IR research is at its best when it is multimethod, epistemologically pluralist, multisited, and carefully navigates the differences between feminist analyses and large-n statistical studies.”[4] As the changing landscape of war and violence is moving at a rapid pace, scholars of international relations are almost ‘driven’ to adapt also in terms of analysing and interpreting the data. When thinking about future questions, it is beneficial to have multiple methods and keeping the different schools of thought in mind when tackling the fast-changing landscape of violence in the cyber domain however, one should also strive for a comprehensive data collection and analysis in order to make thorough conclusions. The definitions of for example violence, should be clear for all disciplines and scholars in order to be able to draw overlapping conclusions when taking different schools of thought into account.
Conclusion and what are possible future questions
The issue of violence against women physically and other forms of cyber related conflicts should not be treated as separate incidents. It may be too early to say but there seems to be a correlation between cyber related incidents and international world conflict when one sees for instance South Africa facing the “highest levels of gender-based violence” and in Arab states (such as Yemen, Lebanon, Jordan) about 60% of women face online violence.
An interdisciplinary approach by using quantitative as well as qualitative methods (which would speak for a mix of positivist and non-positivist school of thought) allows one to combine several ways in order to tackle issues such as cyber violence and extortion against women (see for instance “Image-Based Sexual Base” research by Nicola Henry et al.)
Therefore, applying international relations theories such as constructivism and feminist theories whilst of course taking the traditional way of thinking of Waltz and Clausewitz into consideration may be of use. The multi-method approach is beneficial and should be used however, with certain caution as well. “Inspired by “gender lenses”, feminist research knows security differently both in terms of where knowledge is to be found (particularly at global politics’ margins, and with/in people), what counts as knowledge (including emotion, experience, and pain), and where knowledge can be found (particularly in nontraditional formats and sources).”[5] Also scholars in the area of international human law are advocating for a feminist approach and speak of “gendering cyberwarfare”.
As international conflicts are changing rapidly, speak hybrid warfare and drone incidents, states are forced to constantly adapt. The same goes for dealing with cyber related conflicts and cyber violence. When looking at women, peace and security, it is well documented that ‘rape’ and ‘violence’ against women is used as a weapon of war Perhaps one should be wary and be careful that the same will not develop in the cyber domain. One already sees an increase of women stepping back being afraid to be a target (especially those working in the public sector). Therefore, one can see great benefit in continuing the debate amongst scholars on how schools of thought can be applied, and which methodologies seem to be fitting.
By continuing to ask questions and finding new ways to analyse the growing issue of violence against women (in the cyber domain) one can then also find possible solutions on how to achieve the end of violence against women. As can be seen from previous debates, scholars on international relations seem to be a bit ‘divided’ on how to implement feminist theories into the present-day international relations field. When looking at the developing issues of cyber-sex trafficking, cyber violence, grooming in the cyber domain, deepfakes, cyber espionage to name a few problems, it seems to be the case that using several methodologies and combining different theoretical ways of thinking are for now ‘the way to go’.
[1] GURUMURTHY, ANITA, and NIVEDITHA MENON. “Violence against Women via Cyberspace.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 40, 2009, pp. 19–21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25663650. Accessed 27 Nov. 2025.
[2] Prügl, Elisabeth, “Gender as a cause of conflict,” International Affairs 99: 5 (2023) 1885–1902; doi: 10.1093/ia/iiad184
[3] Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship
Author(s): Laura Sjoberg, Kelly Kadera and Cameron G. Thies
Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution , April 2018, Vol. 62, No. 4 (April 2018), pp. 848-870
[4] Reevaluating Gender and IR Scholarship
Author(s): Laura Sjoberg, Kelly Kadera and Cameron G. Thies
Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution , April 2018, Vol. 62, No. 4 (April 2018), pp. 848-870
[5] Laura Sjoberg (2024) Feminist Theories and Thinking Security Otherwise, Security Studies, 33:5, 860-884, DOI: 10.1080/09636412.2024.2449334, page 874