“Without the participation of such a large portion of society, peace is harder to achieve..”
Andy Rabens, former Special Advisor on Global Youth Issues for the U.S. Dept of State
Youth in Global Discourse – A New Phenomenon?
The inclusion of younger generations in pushing a nation’s security interests is not a new aspect of 21st-century politics. The modern idea of youth inclusion can be traced as far back as the 1930s, when certain initiatives were created and used to promote the agendas of various political groups, both within the mainstream and on the political extremes. Famous historical examples include the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) in Nazi Germany and the Komsomols (Young Pioneers) in the Soviet Union (Rempel 2015; Riordan 1988). Fast forward to today and political parties across many Western democracies continue to encourage youth participation through dedicated branches or student groups. Examples include the College Republicans in the United States and the Jungsozialisten (Young Socialists) of Germany’s Socialist Party. Even the extreme ends of the political spectrum are not without youth involvement. A prominent example, especially in U.S. political circles, is Antifa, representing the far left, while on the other end stands the Nordic Resistance Movement (Nordiska motståndsrörelsen) representing the Swedish far right (Roston 2021; Bryant 2025). Notably, the NRM received the “special seal” of a terrorist organization by the Trump Administration in the early days of his second term and it appears Antifa will be Trump’s newest addition to the U.S. government list of terrorist organizations in the near future.
However, that’s beyond the point here. With the rise of nonstate actors, especially in the post- 9/11 era, terrorist groups in regions such as the Middle East and elsewhere have long coerced or manipulated youth into violence. Hamas, for instance, has forced young boys wearing bomb vests to run into Israeli checkpoints. ISIS’ “Cubs of the Caliphate” program included incidents such as a 12-year-old suicide bomber killing civilians at a Turkish wedding or children at similar ages being livestreamed executing hostages. Similarly, Boko Haram has used children, including girls as young as seven, as suicide bombers in at least 81 attacks (Associated Press 2004; Mohammed 2023; Onapajo 2025). These are all examples of youth being taken advantage of, often manipulated into believing in extreme ideologies. While groups like the Tamil Tigers and FARC operated mostly in the 1980s and 90s, they could very easily be added to the list (Somasundaram 2002; Martuscelli & Duarte Villa 2018). Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the darker side of youth engagement in security. Entire volumes could be written focusing on the negative aspects of this involvement. Yet, like any issue, there is another side to the story.
That brings us to the positive potential of Youth, Peace and Security (YPS). This is where UN Resolution 2250 comes into play. The resolution focuses on empowering young people to take an active role in promoting global peace and security. What follows is the story of how one small Nordic nation helped pioneer this landmark initiative and why it could only have been this country. We will explore the local culture, politics, and the unique circumstances that made it possible. So, start up the espresso machine, pour yourself a nice shot, and settle in for a good read and join us here at the British Institute of Global Affairs in celebrating the 10th anniversary of UN Resolution 2250.
The Significance of UN Resolution 2250
Okay, where were we… oh yes, Resolution 2250! You may be asking what the significance of this resolution is and why it matters so much. Resolution 2250 was the first thematic resolution specifically focused on young people, peace, and security (United Nations 2015). The question of youth had already been on the radar of the United Nations and its members since the 1960s.
According to the Jordanian representative to the UN, Dina Kawar, HRH Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah II, has pushed for youth-centered public discussions on combating violent extremism (UN 2015). Moreover, numerous youth-oriented panels and forums were held worldwide in the months leading up to Resolution 2250’s adoption in December 2015. Examples include the First Africa Region Commonwealth Youth Ministers in Cameroon in February and the first Global Youth Summit against violent extremism held in New York in September (United Nations 2020). These occurrences were ground-breaking because before the 2010s, young people were seen primarily as recipients rather than initiators, meaning that geopolitical events affected youth rather than acknowledging youth’s ability to influence such events. Resolution 2250 marked a turning point by recognizing the positive role our generation can play in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. So how exactly does this resolution enable proactive youth engagement in global security? Through its five pillars of participation, prevention, partnerships, protection, and disengagement and reintegration, it sets out several key purposes, including:
- Encouraging member states to increase the participation of young people in decision-making at all levels to prevent and resolve conflicts.
- Promoting youth involvement in peace negotiations and agreements and ensuring the protection of civilians, especially young people and their human rights, in armed conflict.
- Inviting member states to create and strengthen partnerships that promote peace, development, and equality while involving youth in peacebuilding efforts and planning.
- Emphasizing the role of local actors in resolving regional conflicts and combating violent extremism.
- Calling on member states to take into account the needs of young people in disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration.
With these goals in mind, it was time to turn words into action. But, that begs the question, where does the UN or partner political organizations start? Which UN member or partner would take the first step? I already dropped a hint in the previous section, and if you’ve read the title of this paper, you already know the answer. It’s Finland (Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2021). Does it have to do with the country’s history, its local culture, the domestic political scene, or something else entirely? Well, the short answer is that it was a mix of everything.
So why Finland?
The Historical Explanation
Finnish security policy has been profoundly shaped by its historical, geographical, and social relationship with its unpredictable eastern neighbour, Russia, which controlled Finland from 1809 to 1918 after defeating Sweden in the Finnish War and signing the Treaty of Fredrikshamn (Feldbæk 2008). Since 1918, Finland has enjoyed relative independence, but its geography has left it in a precarious situation. In the 1930s and early 1940s, the rise of Nazi Germany and Soviet aggression nearly engulfed the country. Even after being drawn into conflict with the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939 to 1940 and fighting alongside the Germans in the Continuation War of 1941 to 1944, Helsinki never formally joined the Axis Powers (Fox 2023). The Finnish experience in World War Two instilled a deep awareness of its vulnerabilities, which the country was eager to address in the post-war era.
Finnish security policy has been profoundly shaped by its historical, geographical, and social relationship with its unpredictable eastern neighbour, Russia, which controlled Finland from 1809 to 1918 after defeating Sweden in the Finnish War and signing the Treaty of Fredrikshamn (Feldbæk 2008). Since 1918, Finland has enjoyed relative independence, but its geography has left it in a precarious situation. In the 1930s and early 1940s, the rise of Nazi Germany and Soviet aggression nearly engulfed the country. Even after being drawn into conflict with the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939 to 1940 and fighting alongside the Germans in the Continuation War of 1941 to 1944, Helsinki never formally joined the Axis Powers (Fox 2023). The Finnish experience in World War Two instilled a deep awareness of its vulnerabilities, which the country was eager to address in the post-war era.
With the onset of the Cold War, Finland found itself navigating a new international landscape dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. Determined not to provoke the Soviets, Finland signed the YYA Treaty in 1948, which guaranteed Finnish independence while obligating Helsinki to consult Moscow on major foreign and security matters. This careful balancing act, often called Finlandization (Suomettuminen), allowed the country to avoid direct confrontation with the USSR while preserving national sovereignty (Forsberg & Pesu 2016). While the Soviets leased the Porkkala naval base until 1956, Finland retained full control of its military, modernized its forces with Western technology, and reorganized its defense strategy to prepare for potential aggression from the east. A central element of post-war security policy was the philosophy of Total Defense (Kokonaismaanpuolustus), which aimed to integrate military, civil, economic, and societal resources to ensure national resilience against future threats (Wither 2020; Riipinen 2008).
The introduction of mandatory military service for men after the war ensured that a large portion of the population gained basic military training and experience. Conscription not only strengthened the armed forces but also reinforced societal preparedness, linking civilian and military capabilities and embedding a culture of national responsibility (Ahlbäck 2016). Today, conscription remains a cornerstone of Finnish defense strategy and a visible expression of the country’s commitment to Total Defence, demonstrating how historical experience, geography, and social organization continue to shape Finland’s approach to security.
The Cultural & Domestic Policy Answer
Even within its own language, Finland has a word that captures resilience, grit, and perseverance. Sisu embodies the capacity to push through challenges and maintain determination in the face of adversity. This concept continues to shape the Finnish mindset toward national defence and societal resilience. For Finnish men and some women, military service is more than a legal obligation. It is a rite of passage, a shared experience, and an expression of civic belonging that links individuals to the broader community and the nation’s security (Glancy 2024). Alongside the conscription within its military ranks and in close cooperation with the foreign ministry, Finland promotes the 2250 friend group in the Finnish Parliament. This network provides platforms for youth to contribute to peacebuilding initiatives, policy discussions, and international diplomacy. Moreover, it helps ensure that the voices of young people are heard at all levels and that youth perspectives inform Finland’s broader security strategy (Nuret, Rauha, & Turvallisuss).
Finland’s leadership in YPS is rooted not only in formal structures but also in a wider culture of civic engagement and societal responsibility. Through conscription, structured youth outreach programmes such as the twenty-eight million euro set of grants aimed at preventing youth exclusion, and broad public support for national defence, Finland cultivates a shared security mindset (The Helsinki Times 2025). This approach ensures that young people are active participants in safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and stability. By embedding youth involvement into both defence and diplomacy, Finland demonstrates how cultural values, institutional structures, and policy initiatives can work together to create a resilient and inclusive model of national and international security.
YPS Link to Total Defense and What Lessons Could be Drawn for the UK
Finnish leadership in YPS is not a new chapter, but rather a continuation of one. It’s a natural continuation of something that Finns have been doing for decades through their philosophy of total defense. Meaning that Finnish emphasis of YPS existed long before Resolution 2250 was drafted. The Finnish system works because youth inclusion isn’t treated as an afterthought, but rather it’s built into the country’s pillars for security policy. The Finnish ministries of Defence, Education, and Foreign Affairs all coordinate youth programmes that bridge civic participation with national preparedness. Both Finnish men and women gain hands-on training, leadership skills, and a sense of responsibility as conscripts. That experience creates a society that understands security not as something the government does for the people, but as something the people do with the government. The same logic extends into Finnish diplomacy. The Youth, Peace, and Security Network, along with the 2250 friend group in Parliament, makes sure Finnish youth have a voice in peacebuilding both at home and abroad. This consistency is what makes Finland a leader. Its approach isn’t about flashy initiatives or political branding; it’s about a deeply rooted social contract built on the idea of sisu. For Finland, youth participation is not just about empowerment. It’s about resilience, unity, and readiness in a world that doesn’t give second chances.
There’s a lesson to be taught here for the United Kingdom. Britain has its own tradition of civic service—from cadet programmes and community volunteering to the National Citizen Service, however, these efforts are loosely connected, creating a severe lack of support and funding (Harle 2024; Taylor 2024). While the national citizen service is not a defense-oriented program, it would be a significant opportunity for youth to receive similar hard and soft skills that their Finnish peers learn. A Finnish-style model of Total Defence could bring them together, connecting youth engagement with resilience planning, cyber awareness, and foreign policy outreach. It wouldn’t mean militarizing society; it would mean modernizing civic responsibility, especially in today’s era of uncertainty in Europe. Both Finland and the UK face increasingly complex security challenges, from disinformation campaigns to hybrid warfare and social fragmentation. Finland’s example shows that one of the strongest defenses a democracy can build is an engaged, informed, and resilient public. In that sense, YPS and Total Defence are complementary to each other. By using them together, they form a blueprint for how democracies can stay united in times of uncertainty and for future generations.
Conclusion
Finland’s story shows that youth participation in peace and security is not just an abstraction rushed out by the UN. It is something that can be woven into the fabric of a nation, as seen in Finland. Through its ideas of total defense, civic responsibility, and sisu; Finland has made youth participation in peace and security a model to be followed. Helsinki’s model proves that security is strongest when everyone has a stake in it. As the United Kingdom and other democracies look to strengthen their own resilience, there is much to learn from the Finnish example. National defence does not begin with weapons or borders. It begins with my generation and beyond. Finland led the charge on Youth, Peace, and Security because it understood long before most nations that resilience depends on future generations. Finland’s history of survival against a powerful neighbour, its social cohesion, and its belief in shared responsibility created the perfect foundation for YPS to take root and thrive. When the world began to talk about youth inclusion, Finland was already doing it. That is what makes it not just a participant in the YPS agenda, but its natural leader.
About the Author
Jake recently graduated with an MA in International Relations from Leiden University, where he studied how history can be used to explain the landscape of European security, notably within the Nordic region. In addition to BIGA, he’s a regular contributor to Geopol Report, Euro Prospects, and Global Weekly. Along with his writing skills, he has expertise in several languages and technical areas — all of which he hopes will help him land his first job in Washington, D.C. or Europe. Be sure to follow his work here.