Law likes categories, and international law is no exception. Indeed, the structure of law has long been recognised and contested by feminist critics. Structural bias feminists often discuss the public/ private divide. They contest ‘international law’s priority of the state over civil society, and of civil and political rights over economic and social rights’ (Engle, 2005, p. 54), and these are ‘seen both to represent and constitute structured bias against women’ (ibid.). This is an important context to note, as it is this ‘masculine world of international law’ (Charlesworth, Chinkin and Wright, 1991, p. 621) that gives birth to the at times much lauded, and at other times much critiqued, Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. I will not dwell on the structural bias analysis, briefly mentioned here, that could be applied to these resolutions, as the intention of this article is not to examine the roots of the language that is used, but rather what this language is saying and not saying, if it is fit for purpose and if it allows space for development and greater complexity.

中文翻译：

---

冲突中的妇女，“妇女”冲突：阿尔及尔战役中的妇女代表（1966 年）反对妇女、和平与安全议程

法律喜欢分类，国际法也不例外。事实上，法律的结构长期以来一直受到女权主义批评者的认可和质疑。结构性偏见女权主义者经常讨论公共/私人鸿沟。他们质疑“国际法优先于国家优先于公民社会，优先于公民和政治权利优先于经济和社会权利”（Engle，2005 年，第 54 页），并且这些“被视为代表并构成对妇女的结构性偏见” （同上）。这是一个需要注意的重要背景，因为正是这个“国际法的男性化世界”（Charlesworth、Chinkin 和 Wright，1991 年，第 621 页）孕育了有时备受赞誉、有时受到批评的女性, 和平与安全 (WPS) 议程。我不会详述这里简要提到的结构偏差分析，它可以应用于这些决议，