About the author: Vanessa Pohlmann is completing her Master of Arts degree programme in International Relations and Development Policy at the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany. She has researched the topic as part of her internship at the Women’s Resource Center (March to May of 2026).
This article compares understandings of security as expressed in Armenia’s third National Action Plan (NAP) on Women, Peace and Security (WPS), in interviews with civil society organisation representatives, and a focus group discussion with women from Syunik and Nagorno-Karabakh. It examines how security is framed across these three sources and identifies similarities and differences in the priorities they emphasise. The analysis shows that, although all three sources broadly share a human security perspective, they differ in their priorities, particularly regarding participation and protection.
Conception of Security in the National Action Plan
Armenia’s third NAP on WPS adopts a broad understanding of the concept of human security, which focuses on people’s everyday safety and well-being, including economic, health, and food security. Unlike the previous two NAPs, which prioritised state security, the current NAP focuses on issues such as cyber security, environmental challenges, hate speech, genocide prevention, gender-based violence (GBV), and gender inequality, while traditional security concerns related to national defence and military capacity receive comparatively little attention. Across its four pillars – prevention, participation, protection, and relief and recovery – as well as the additional strategic direction of cooperation, the NAP links security to sustainable and inclusive peace. In this understanding, peace, development, and gender equality are mutually reinforcing conditions for achieving security.
The Interviews: Women’s Security Priorities
The interviews revealed a broad understanding of security encompassing both everyday well-being and wider political developments. At the personal and societal level, interviewees highlighted concerns relating to basic needs, including access to food and water, rights, healthcare and infrastructure, as well as issues such as sexual harassment, cyber security, hate speech, and environmental challenges. In the context of the peace process, participants expressed concerns about the underrepresentation of women, the absence of transitional justice mechanisms, limited opportunities for healing, and a lack of transparency, all of which were seen as contributing to fear and uncertainty. These concerns were closely linked to discussions about border openings, including fears of GBV, kidnappings, trafficking and sexual exploitation. While the absence of war was generally valued, many interviewees questioned the durability of peace and expressed concerns about a potential return to conflict. Finally, some participants also identified international developments, particularly democratic backsliding and the situation in Iran, as relevant security concerns.
Syunik Focus Group: Main Security Concerns
The focus group included local Syunik women and women displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh. Their understanding of security centred on certainty, sustainability, and the ability to plan for the future. Participants expressed distrust in the peace process, noting that previous ceasefire agreements had failed to prevent renewed violence. As a result, many emphasised the importance of a durable peace agreement that would allow residents of border communities to live without fear of future attacks. For women displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh, this distrust was reinforced by repeated experiences of displacement. Having previously been assured peace had been established and that normal life could resume, only to be displaced again, many were reluctant to make long-term plans. This uncertainty was described as causing anxiety, psychological pressure and an inability to find peace of mind. In addition, discussants expressed economic concerns, particularly regarding high living costs and job security, which further contributed to feelings of insecurity. Finally, participants highlighted limited knowledge about the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) project and fears associated with potential border openings, including concerns about interactions with Azerbaijanis.
Comparison: Different Perspectives on Security
Across all three sources – the NAP, the interviews, and the focus group discussion – security is largely understood through a human security framework that extends beyond military threats to encompass social, economic, political, and personal dimensions. Nevertheless, differences emerge in the prioritisation of issues within this shared approach. In addition to concerns relating to cyber security, environmental issues, hate speech, and GBV, interview participants emphasised basic needs, including food security, health, economic security, and access to infrastructure. Focus group participants, by contrast, primarily highlighted the importance of the absence of war, long-term stability, and economic security. These differences point to varying priorities within a shared human security framework.
A further dimension of analysis concerns participation. In this regard, the interviewees emphasised their desire to be involved in high-level decision-making processes and peace negotiations. The NAP similarly highlights the importance of women’s participation in security decision-making, stating that it ‘seeks to enhance women’s leadership in peace and security by ensuring their equal participation in decision-making processes’. However, this emphasis is only partially reflected in the implementation framework. Measures promoting women’s participation in the armed forces considerably outnumber those aimed at increasing women’s representation in high-level political and decision-making positions. Consequently, while interview participants primarily associated security with meaningful participation in high-level political and peacebuilding decision-making, the implementation framework places greater emphasis on participation in the armed forces.
With regard to the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the NAP contains only limited references. Nevertheless, it refers to the ‘Crossroads of Peace’ project and highlights the importance of promoting regional connectivity and unblocking of regional infrastructure. In this context, the NAP links connectivity to an increased need for border personnel, ‘where the role of women and girls will also be of essential importance’. However, neither interviewees nor focus group participants expressed a desire to participate in border security. Instead, discussions of border openings were primarily framed in terms of protection, with participants repeatedly expressing fears of violence against women, trafficking, and other security risks associated with increased cross-border movement. Thus, while the NAP approaches regional connectivity primarily through the lens of participation, participants associated it with the need for protection.
Taken together, these findings highlight that, while the NAP and participants broadly share a human security perspective, they often differ in the dimensions of security they consider most important. Continued consultation with women affected by conflict and displacement could help ensure that WPS implementation remains responsive to their priorities and lived experiences.
