Photo Credits: OSCE/Markku Pajunen
In December 2015, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security (YPS). This moment was far more than a technical policy development; it was the first time the Council recognised that young people are not merely bystanders in conflict but central actors in building peace and sustaining security. The resolution, and the two that followed, positioned youth as legitimate political and social participants, not simply as a demographic to be managed. The YPS agenda insists that exclusion is itself a risk to peace, and that inclusion is not charity but necessity.
At its heart, the YPS agenda is structured around five thematic pillars: participation, protection, prevention, partnerships, and disengagement and reintegration. These categories represent both an affirmation of young people’s agency and an acknowledgement of the structures that must support them. Participation is not only about having a seat at the table but about being able to shape outcomes. Protection affirms that young people caught in conflict deserve rights and security, but also that safeguarding civic space is essential. Prevention reframes youth not as potential threats but as actors who can address the root causes of violence. Partnerships insist that governments, civil society, and multilateral institutions cannot succeed without youth leadership. And disengagement and reintegration recognises the need to accompany those leaving armed groups or violent movements back into communities with dignity and support. Taken together, these pillars set out a vision of young people not as a marginal constituency but as indispensable to security and peace.
The agenda has grown considerably in the past decade, and its application looks different depending on the context. In parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Arab world, YPS has been used to demand accountability from governments and donors, and to highlight how young peacebuilders are already filling gaps in mediation, reconciliation, and humanitarian response. In many cases, they do so with minimal resources yet with extraordinary reach. The lesson is that YPS is not aspirational; it is already being enacted by young people on the ground. The question is whether governments and international actors will recognise, support, and scale this work.
The Opportunities of Youth, Peace and Security
Globally, the stakes could not be higher. Half the world’s population is under 30, and in conflict-affected countries this proportion is even greater. Decisions about peace agreements, international interventions, and state reform will affect generations who had little hand in creating the crises. The YPS agenda insists that these same generations must also shape the solutions. But the conversation is not only about the so-called “Global South.” In Europe and North America, young people have mobilised climate justice campaigns, anti-racism movements, and democratic reform efforts. These too are matters of peace and security, albeit framed in domestic terms. For the United Kingdom, recognising YPS as a domestic as well as a foreign policy agenda would mean seeing young people not only as stakeholders in conflicts abroad but also as critical actors in navigating social cohesion and democratic renewal at home.
The UK’s foreign policy already contains entry points for YPS. Britain has long contributed to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, advocating for it at the Security Council and weaving it into defence and development policy. That leadership creates a natural bridge to YPS. If WPS demands that women are not excluded from peace processes, YPS demands the same for young people. Policy coherence requires that both agendas are advanced together rather than in parallel silos. For instance, when the UK promotes inclusive peacebuilding in places like Sudan or Yemen, ensuring young people are present and influential in those processes is a matter of credibility as much as principle.
The UK’s diplomatic presence also offers opportunities. As more states experiment with YPS National Action Plans—policy frameworks that articulate commitments to the agenda—the UK could lend both political and technical support. It could encourage allies to take YPS seriously and, crucially, consider how the agenda might apply at home. A UK YPS National Action Plan would signal that youth inclusion matters in domestic as well as international policy. Similarly, the development and aid sector presents another entry point. Youth-led peacebuilding initiatives are often inexpensive and highly innovative, yet they remain chronically underfunded. At a time when aid budgets are shrinking, investing in youth leadership is not only the right thing to do but also a cost-effective preventive strategy.
From a security perspective, the UK’s Integrated Review highlighted resilience, alliances, and innovation as priorities. These are precisely the areas where YPS contributes. Building resilience against disinformation, polarisation, and extremism cannot be done without the engagement of those most targeted by such dynamics—young people. Alliances across generations, communities, and sectors are essential to navigating fractured politics. And innovation is what youth movements often do best, particularly in the digital space. In this sense, YPS is not an add-on but integral to the UK’s own stated objectives.
Domestically, a YPS lens could also reframe how Britain addresses issues of youth participation, social cohesion, and security. Knife crime, for instance, is often approached through a narrow criminal justice lens. A YPS perspective would recognise it as a question of belonging, opportunity, and voice. The emphasis would shift from punitive measures to creating avenues for young people to shape policies that directly affect their lives. Similarly, debates around migration, race relations, and climate activism intersect with questions of security and stability. Listening to young people on these issues is not optional; it is central to building trust and legitimacy.
Facing the Hurdles of Youth, Peace and Security
Still, adopting YPS in name only would be inadequate. One of the strongest critiques of both WPS and YPS has been tokenism. Too often, youth are invited to panels or consultations without meaningful power, reduced to symbolic presence rather than genuine partners. For the UK to advance YPS credibly, it must model what meaningful participation looks like. This means creating spaces where youth input shapes decisions, ensuring feedback loops so contributions are not lost, and co-creating policies rather than treating youth as consultees. It also means paying attention to diversity. Young people are not a homogenous bloc; their experiences are shaped by race, gender identity, class, geography, and ability. In the UK, this means actively engaging youth from marginalised communities whose perspectives are most often absent from security debates.
The risks of inaction are real. When young people are excluded, frustration and alienation can deepen. Extremist groups are adept at exploiting these dynamics, offering belonging and voice where institutions fail. Ignoring YPS is not a neutral stance; it can foster insecurity that reverberates well beyond borders. By contrast, investing in youth participation strengthens democratic resilience, supports social cohesion, and ultimately reduces the likelihood of costly interventions abroad.
For a post-Brexit UK grappling with its place in the world, the YPS agenda offers a forward-looking framework. It is both principled and pragmatic. By championing YPS alongside WPS at the Security Council, by supporting youth-led organisations in conflict-affected contexts, by integrating youth inclusion into conflict and stability strategies, and by considering a domestic YPS National Action Plan, Britain could reaffirm its leadership in inclusive peacebuilding. These steps would not only reflect the UK’s values but also serve its strategic interests, as evidence shows that peace processes inclusive of youth and women are more likely to be durable.
Ultimately, YPS is about rethinking who belongs at the table when decisions on peace and security are made. It is about acknowledging that young people are not the peacebuilders of tomorrow but of today. For the UK, embracing YPS is both an international obligation and a domestic opportunity. The agenda challenges traditional notions of expertise and authority, but it also offers a hopeful path: that by working with young people, not just for them, governments can build more sustainable peace and resilient societies.
In a world marked by turbulence abroad and fractures at home, YPS is not a luxury policy experiment. It is a necessary agenda for shaping the UK’s future, both in its global engagement and in the life of its own democracy.
About the author:
Katrina Leclerc is a peacebuilding specialist, published researcher, and PhD candidate in Conflict Studies at Saint Paul University, where she also teaches as a part-time professor. She is also a sessional lecturer in Human Rights at the University of Winnipeg and adjunct faculty at Senghor University in Egypt. Her research focuses on the intersections of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) and Youth, Peace and Security (YPS) agendas, with a particular emphasis on meaningful participation. She is the co-editor of Youth Leading Change: Emerging Sites of Knowledge in Peace and Conflict (Palgrave Macmillan, 2025), the first volume of its kind to centre youth peacebuilders as knowledge producers.
Katrina has advised the UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO), including leading an internal review on gender equality and young women’s empowerment, and previously served a decade with the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders (GNWP), where she oversaw programmes in over 30 countries. She currently chairs the Women, Peace and Security Network – Canada (WPSN-C) and advises the Canadian Coalition for Youth, Peace & Security (CCYPS) that she co-founded.