In this sense, Sweden’s Three Rs framework bridges theory and practice: redistribution is reflected in its commitment to equitable allocation of resources for devalued identities; recognition is articulated through the protection of rights, dignity, and equality; and representation remains a direct throughline from Fraser’s original formulation, emphasising inclusion and voice in decision-making. Sweden operationalised this framework across its diplomacy, development cooperation, and peace and security engagements. For example, the Handbook on Feminist Foreign Policy required embassies to report annually on how they advanced the Three Rs, thereby creating an accountability mechanism within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs(Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2019). Although the government formally abandoned the“feminist” label in 2022, this shift reflected a change in political priorities rather than a substantive critique of the policy’s effectiveness. The incoming administration argued that the term“feminist” risked overshadowing the principle that Swedish foreign policy should rest on Swedish values and national interests (Thomas, 2022; Human Rights Watch, 2022). However, the framework continues to shape global policy debates, demonstrating the durability of the Three Rs approach as a normative benchmark even beyond its official lifespan. Applied to other contexts, the Three Rs provides a versatile lens for analysis. In the Asia-Pacific, rights may be assessed through a country’s engagement with international norms and commitments, such as CEDAW or the WPS agenda, and the extent to which these are translated into domestic practice. Representation can be examined by tracking women’s participation not only in ministerial posts but also in peace negotiations, trade delegations, and regional organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the Pacific Islands Forum. This goes beyond numerical inclusion to consider whether women’s participation enables substantive shifts in priorities and outcomes. Resources require scrutiny to determine whether gender equality is embedded in national budgets, aid allocations, and climate finance mechanisms, ensuring that commitments are matched with tangible support. While no framework is exhaustive, the Three Rs offers a coherent, policy-relevant entry point that connects normative principles with practical measures. In practice, the Three Rs serves as a connective mechanism between principle and implementation, allowing policymakers to trace how legal and normative commitments to gender equality are reflected in participation, budgeting, and programme design across sectors. It allows comparative analysis across regions and regimes, while also highlighting the persistent gaps between commitments and outcomes. For this study, this framework provides a foundation for assessing how feminist principles are embedded in Asia-Pacific international policies, complemented by broader feminist insights on intersectionality and reflexivity, which are crucial to understanding the nuances of regional contexts. 1.4 Research methodology This study employs a qualitative research approach to generate rigorous and policy-relevant insights into how feminist principles are interpreted, adopted, or resisted across international policy domains in the Asia-Pacific. The methodology combines systematic desk-based research with qualitative key informant interviews and comparative policy analysis to ensure both breadth and depth in the evidence that underpins the core findings. The desk-based research involved a structured review of academic and policy literature, including peer-reviewed scholarship, regional think-tank publications, civil society reports, and official government documents such as foreign policy frameworks, ministerial speeches, and gender action plans. Sources were catalogued and coded to identify recurring themes and gaps in existing analyses, with attention to intersectional perspectives. Keywords were identified and applied across popular academic and grey literature search databases, including JSTOR, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the publication pages of leading multilateral institutions and non-profits working in relevant thematic areas. This review provided the evidentiary foundation for the study and informed the design of the interview guide. To complement the desk research, we conducted key informant interviews(KII) with two to three experts in each case study country. Respondents were drawn from government ministries, academia, civil society organisations(CSOs), and advocacy networks to capture a diversity of perspectives. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and followed a semi-structured format, with questions adapted to the respondent’s expertise, professional background, and relevance to the study’s analytical focus. A core set of guiding questions ensured comparability across cases, while the flexible design allowed for deeper exploration of respondents’ specific expertise. All interviews were recorded after respondents’ informed consent to support accurate note­taking, and transcribed using Otter. Notes and transcripts were then analysed thematically to identify patterns, divergences, and country-specific nuances. The recordings were permanently deleted upon completion of the study. Verbatim quotes in the report have been lightly edited for clarity while retaining the intended meaning. The findings from the desk review and interviews were synthesised through comparative policy analysis across six domains: economic justice, peace and security, climate and disaster response, development cooperation and humanitarian aid, labour migration, and diplomacy. This triangulation strengthens the validity of the study’s conclusions and ensures that recommendations are grounded in both evidence and the lived realities of practitioners and stakeholders. 16 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.