Conference Agenda

This paper critically examines the nature and dynamics of European Union (EU) development assistance to the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), formerly known as the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. The region is the only place in the Philippines where Muslims compose the majority of the population. Muslim Mindanao gained greater autonomy in 2019 after decades of violent conflict and the persistence of weak democratic institutions. Since the 1970s, Muslim secessionist movements have been fighting against government troops to gain independence from the predominantly Christian country. The instability engendered by the clashes has contributed to poor human development indicators in the region, which persist to the present day. Vis-à-vis other Philippine regions, BARMM has lower levels of life expectancy, educational attainment, while having higher levels of poverty as well as infant and maternal mortality.

The EU, previously the European Community, has involved itself with various projects in Muslim Mindanao since the 1970s. However, it may be argued that the nature of its engagement has shifted depending on the context of the regional bloc’s foreign policy priorities. For example, when the European organization was focused on reducing poverty in marginalized areas, it implemented small-scale assistance projects in Muslim Mindanao. When European states had agreed to follow the Millennium Development Goals in the early 2000s, EU engagement in the Philippine territory expanded to include health sector support, and the development of a Peace Process to reconcile Muslim secessionists and the Philippine government. At present, EU activities in the BARMM appear to be guided by the imperatives of the Indo-Pacific Strategy and Global Gateway project, with projects being focused on infrastructure development and the circular economy.

Despite the EU’s lengthy engagement in Muslim Mindanao, there is remarkably little academic literature about it, hence this paper hopes to build upon that space. Applying a Discourse-Historical Approach emphasizing the dialectical relationship of discourse and context, this paper argues that the EU's engagement in Muslim Mindanao has emphasized its foreign policy objectives, rather than the region’s immediate needs.

While the rise of gender equality as a global agenda championed by diverse actors seems indisputable, its common interpretation—particularly within the context of Gender-Based Violence (GBV)—remains elusive. Building upon a foundational distinction of GBV conception, this paper particularly explores the varied understanding of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) between the European Union and Southeast Asian countries from an intersectional perspective ranging from legal, political, and socio-cultural aspects. With the EU’s strong commitment to eradicating FGM/C practices worldwide, the purpose of this work is to contribute to a more nuanced and targeted EU foreign policy in this socio-culturally delicate yet significantly violent matter to the Global South. By employing a comparative case study research method and a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methodology, an assessment of relevant regional frameworks of the EU and ASEAN reveals a gap in knowledge and commitment to placing the practice of FGM/C within the concept of GBV and/or Violence Against Women (VAW). When explored deeper into state-level cases (Indonesia, Malaysia, France, and Italy), the paper unpacks the socio-cultural dimension beneath respective legal frameworks on FGM/C practices, shedding light on the intersecting and contrasting approaches that have led to the silence of diplomacy in restoring the human rights of women and girls on this issue. Concluding with a set of diverging variables, the paper offers an opportunity for the EU to contextualise foreign policies and look towards Southeast Asia in its pursuit of advancing gender equality beyond its borders.

In January 2025, in the Indian city of Gwalior, a 20-year-old woman was allegedly shot by her own father after she opposed an arranged marriage and expressed her love for another man. This incident is a recent example of what is commonly referred to as an ‘honour’ killing—a practice where a family member is murdered for supposedly bringing shame upon the family.

Honour killings have been prevalent across various societies, particularly in South Asian and Middle Eastern communities. In most cases, women are the primary victims, targeted by male relatives for a range of perceived transgressions. These may include engaging in a sexual relationship with a man of a different (often lowered) caste, rejecting an arranged marriage, seeking divorce from an abusive husband, being a victim of sexual assault, or facing allegations of adultery. In some instances, even a mere suspicion of dishonourable behaviour can lead to such extreme acts of violence. Despite growing awareness and legal interventions, honour killings remain a deeply rooted issue, necessitating urgent legal reforms and societal change.

Honour killings in India are primarily driven by the rigid caste system and deeply entrenched patriarchal structures. Despite entering the 21st century, inter-caste marriages continue to be regarded as taboo and even an abomination in many communities. This mindset is rooted in ancient Hindu religious texts, which historically discouraged inter-caste unions. Although India adopted one of the world’s most progressive and egalitarian Constitutions over 70 years ago, societal attitudes towards caste and marriage have not undergone significant transformation. Furthermore, there is no specific legislation addressing honour killings. Instead, these crimes are prosecuted under general murder provisions within penal statutes.

This paper examines the socio-cultural and legal dimensions of ‘honour’ killings in India, drawing comparisons with honour-based abuses in the UK. It highlights the urgent need for stringent legislation to protect victims and ensure the effective prosecution of perpetrators. Additionally, the paper explores the role of the international human rights regime in addressing these atrocities and advocates for necessary societal reforms. Emphasizing the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, it argues for a legal and social framework that upholds individual dignity and human rights.