September 2025). Without that formal commitment, it becomes challenging for observers to assess whether government practices meet feminist standards. Yet, symbolic commitments do not always translate into ethical consistency, as recent global experiences demonstrate. Countries that publicly champion FFP frameworks have simultaneously endorsed or enabled militarised and exclusionary actions, revealing the limits of performative feminism in foreign policy. From this perspective, Australia’s reluctance to adopt the label may reflect a pragmatic recognition that feminist transformation requires structural change and political courage, not just rhetorical alignment. One expert suggested that a formal FFP label could even undermine Australia’s relations with key neighbours:“For countries most important to us—Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste—pursuing a feminist foreign policy might not strengthen, and could even act as a barrier to, bilateral relations”(KII, September 2025). Thus, the absence of a formal FFP label reflects a deliberate political choice.“We concluded that using contentious words might close doors” (KII, September 2025).“It’s better to focus on narratives that shift attention from labels to outcomes, like ‘opportunity for all’,‘safety for all’, or‘choice for all’”(KII, September 2025). Consequently, Australia’s policymakers have favoured quiet diplomacy on gender equality, prioritising outcomes over overt branding. As one interviewee put it,“Don’t assume that if something isn’t visible, it’s not happening. Quiet diplomacy can be much more effective on sensitive issues”(KII, September 2025). Australia’s approach shows how institutionalising gender accountability within bureaucratic systems can translate feminist ideals into measurable outcomes. Yet it also illustrates how competing policy priorities can limit the effectiveness of feminist foreign and development policies. This duality echoes broader regional dynamics explored in Chapter 4. 3.2 Pakistan Pakistan’s international policy continues to be shaped primarily by security imperatives, national identity narratives, and tense regional rivalries, often leaving limited room for the pursuit of progressive normative agendas. Nevertheless, the country has a long history of women’s leadership in diplomacy and international policymaking since the 1950s, and domestic feminist movements continue to demonstrate the institutional and societal potential to integrate feminist principles into governance and policy. Women have shaped Pakistan’s international and diplomatic landscape since its founding, contributing significantly to diplomacy, peacebuilding, and multilateral engagement. Begum Shaista Suhrawardy Ikramullah, one of the country’s first diplomats, contributed to drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) in 1948, advocating for women’s and children’s rights, including the inclusion of Article 16 on equal marriage rights(OHCHR, 2018). Decades later, Benazir Bhutto—the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim-majority country—stood at the forefront of the BPfA, reinforcing Pakistan’s global leadership on women’s rights. More recently, Sherry Rehman, as Minister for Climate Change, emerged as a leading negotiator on“loss and damage” at COP27, amplifying the Global South’s voice on climate justice in the wake of Pakistan’s devastating floods of 2022(Noor, 2024). As one senior expert reflected:“When Sherry Rehman was leading the climate change agenda at multilateral forums… There was a constant reaffirmation of support for women as stakeholders. Whenever there was an agenda, we requested an‘inclusive resolution’ that recognised women’s participation” (KII, September 2025). This illustrates how female leadership can embed feminist sensitivity within international negotiations, even in traditionally male-dominated and technocratic arenas such as climate diplomacy. Pakistan has introduced several innovative, yet under­recognised, gender-inclusive practices. One example is the law permitting married couples in government service to be posted at the same diplomatic stations together, a policy originally designed to prevent women from having to choose between career and family. As one expert noted,“Women in Pakistan and South Asia, in general, are very family­oriented. If I am asked to choose between family and career, I would choose my family. To facilitate this, the law was created to ensure that husband and wife are posted together so that the family unit does not suffer, and the female workforce does not have to make a difficult choice”,(KII, September 2025). This reflects a locally grounded feminist approach—one that advances equality not through imported frameworks, but by recognising caregiving and family responsibilities as shared rather than gendered burdens. By contrast, most European foreign services adopt a discretionary approach to co-posting, contingent on the absence of hierarchical conflicts. France and Germany provide formal family-support mechanisms— rapprochement de conjoints in France, and Germany’s co-ambassador model, which promotes professional integrity alongside gender equity. From a WPS agenda perspective, Pakistan’s National Security Policy 2022–2026 explicitly recognises“gender security” as a pillar, emphasising the integration of women into law enforcement and peacekeeping. Legal reforms have also progressed, such as the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, amended in 2022 to extend protection to home-based workers and others in the informal sector. Pakistan’s recognition of a legally protected“third gender” through the Transgender Persons(Protection of Rights) Act, 2018—which enshrines the right to self-perceived identity and builds on a 2011 Supreme Court judgement affirming the rights and dignity of gender-diverse communities(Zia, 2025)—represents a landmark step in legal protection for 34 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.