As Sylvia Ostry(1992) observed in her work on globalisation,“Most of the policies which will be the subject of this new international initiative are in the domestic domain: the new international policy arena.” Globalisation has blurred the distinction between domestic and international policy. Capital, technology, and supply chains flow across borders, creating pressures for states to converge on specific standards and policies. International competitiveness is no longer solely a matter of foreign tariffs or diplomacy, but increasingly depends heavily on domestic regulation of markets, education, research, and labour standards. Ostry called this“system friction”—the conflicts that emerge when domestic systems and institutions interact with the demands of a globalised economy. For feminist analysis, this means that structural barriers such as patriarchal political cultures, unequal labour markets, or restrictions on women’s mobility are not merely national issues but have international dimensions. In South Asia, for example, restrictions on women’s labour migration—often justified by traditionalists as protection—limit economic opportunities at home and undermine the rights of migrant women abroad, even as remittances remain vital to national economies. In Nepal, gender quotas guaranteeing 33 per cent representation for women in parliament have reshaped domestic politics and strengthened the country’s credibility when advocating for inclusion and equality in multilateral forums. By contrast, Pakistan’s nascent feminist movements, such as the Aurat March, have faced severe backlash from conservative groups, reducing the government’s space to take strong positions on the WPS agenda internationally. These examples demonstrate that domestic social reforms and societal struggles influence the extent to which feminist principles can be effectively projected abroad, while international commitments, in turn, empower local activists to demand accountability at home. The focus on domestic developments—including political shifts, legislation, systemic barriers, and social movements—is not a detour from the study of international policy but is central to it. International policy today is deeply entangled with domestic systems of governance and regulations, especially in a globalised Asia-Pacific where states compete for investment, influence, and legitimacy. Analysing domestic and international levels together allows for a better understanding of how feminist principles are interpreted, adopted, or resisted in practice, and where the most promising entry points lie for advancing gender justice across the region. 1.3 Three Rs as the analytical lens A central analytical tool for assessing the integration of feminist principles into international policy is Sweden’s Three Rs framework—Rights, Representation, and Resources. Introduced in Sweden’s 2014 Feminist Foreign Policy, the framework provides a structured way to evaluate whether policies move beyond rhetoric to advance gender equality in measurable and sustainable ways(Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2019). The approach has since been adopted by scholars and practitioners as a practical benchmark for evaluating feminist commitments in foreign affairs. The conceptual roots of Sweden’s Three Rs can be traced to broader feminist theories of justice, most notably Nancy Fraser’s three-dimensional model of redistribution, recognition, and representation. Fraser’s framework integrates economic, cultural, and political dimensions of inequality, arguing that genuine social justice requires addressing injustices of distribution(economic marginalisation), recognition(cultural devaluation and misrepresentation), and representation(political exclusion) simultaneously(Fraser, 1995; 2008). As Fraser(2004) observes,“What previously looked like the personal problems of isolated individuals are actually injustices rooted in structural features of society.” While Fraser’s framework offers a powerful theoretical foundation, the Swedish approach effectively operationalised these ideas within the policy sphere. In particular, Sweden’s emphasis on rights can be seen as a concrete policy translation of Fraser’s notion of recognition. Rather than affirming group identities, the rights dimension centres on recognising individuals’ equal social standing and their capacity to participate as full partners in political and social life—an idea central to Fraser’s concept of“participatory parity.” → Rights refer to the protection and promotion of human rights for all women and marginalised groups, including freedom from gender-based violence, equality before the law, and the recognition of sexual and reproductive health and rights. → Representation emphasises the need for women’s meaningful participation and leadership in political decision-making, diplomacy, peace processes, and multilateral institutions. It moves beyond tokenism to ensure women have substantive influence in shaping outcomes. → Resources underscore the importance of allocating financial, technical, and institutional support to gender equality objectives. This includes applying gender­responsive budgeting, directing aid to women’s organisations, and systematically tracking investments to ensure accountability. CH 1: Introduction and Analytical Framework 15