This study uses Kenneth Burke's concept of terministic filters to examine what the word security means to two different publics within the academic discipline of international relations. It studies the rhetoric feminist international relations theorists and contrasts their view security with that of realist and neo-realist interpretations of international affairs. This study claims to open up the possibility for studying the rhetoric of emergent movements through the use of dramatistic or terministic screens.

The firstly explicitly adopted Feminist Foreign Policy was developed in Sweden in 2014. Since then, seven countries have so far adopted a so-called Feminist Foreign Policy. Nevertheless, no common definition of Feminist Foreign Policy has been agreed upon, nor by the States neither by the scholars. Different States have therefore adopted Feminist Foreign policies with different understanding. Recently adopted Feminist Foreign policies in Europe, France (2018), Spain (2021) and Germany (2023) have been hardly analysed against feminist perspectives and Feminist International Relations theory. To contribute to fill in in this gap the research aims at responding to the following research question: What understanding of feminism and feminist International Relations theories underpin the different Feminist Foreign Policies? The findings demonstrate that FFPs are not a unified phenomenon, they are not grounded on a common understanding of feminism and feminist theories. These three Feminist Foreign policies differ in their gender transformative ambitions, understanding of gender equality, embracement of intersectionality or appetite for inclusion and listening to marginalized groups. Diverse perspectives of feminism and elements pertaining to Feminist International Relations theory have strongly influenced the Feminist Foreign policies of France, Spain and Germany in dissimilar ways.

Based on feminist international relations and strategic rape theory, this research aims to examine the response based on legal frameworks to cases of sexual violence and to assess their effectiveness in addressing institutionalized sexual violence in conflict. The cases that have been analysed are the comfort women in Japan, the Bosnian war rape camps and sexual slavery in ISIS. A comparative historical analysis reveals that legal frameworks are often not effectively used to protect victims during conflicts and when used are only used for prosecution post-conflict. The findings suggest that international frameworks need to be looked at again, to better protect victims and to stop institutionalized violence before it happens.