A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
| Keyword | Description |
| Active | A conflict is active if there are at least 25 battle-related deaths per calendar year in one conflict dyad. This rule also applies to settle dyad activity and the activity of the primary parties. A secondary warring party is considered as active if it is actively supporting one of the primary parties with regular troops in the incompatibility . |
| Armed conflict | An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in one calendar year. |
| Armed force,
use of |
Use of arms in order to promote the
parties’ general position in the conflict. Comment The first use of armed force is considered to occur when a party to a conflict actively uses arms against the other to promote its goals. The attack can be symbolic and does not have to result in deaths. For instance an attack can be launched against a government target such a military compound or a police station. From a government perspective, the use of armed force can be the initiation of a campaign to wipe out rebels. With the first use of armed force the parties to a conflict can be either killed or wounded or symbolically targeted. |
| Arms |
Any material means, e.g. manufactured weapons but also
sticks, stones, fire, water, etc. Comment ‘Arms’ includes anything material, i.e. other than of corporal strength and/or psychological power. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons as well as chemical weapons are included as are bombs or other explosives regardless of how they have been constructed. The use of airplanes on 11 September also qualifies as use of armed force. |
| Battle-related
deaths |
Counted as battle-related is conflict behaviour between
warring parties in the conflict dyad, which is directly related to the incompatibility,
, i.e. carried out with the purpose of realizing the goal of the incompatibility
and results in deaths. Comment Typically, battle-related deaths occur in what can be described as “normal” warfare involving the armed forces of the warring parties. This includes traditional battlefield fighting, guerrilla activities (e.g. hit-and-run attacks / ambushes) and all kinds of bombardments of military units, cities and villages etc. The targets are usually the military itself and its installations or state institutions and state representatives, but there is often substantial collateral damage in the form of civilians being killed in crossfire, in indiscriminate bombings etc. All deaths – military as well as civilians – incurred in such situations, are counted as battle-related deaths. The general rule for counting battle-related deaths is moderation. All battle-related deaths are based on each coder’s analysis of the particular conflict. Each battle-related death has to be verified in one way or another. All figures should as far as possible be disaggregated. All figures that are not trustworthy should be disregarded as far as possible in the coding process. Sometimes there are situations when there is lack of information on battle-related deaths. When so, the coder may have to rely on sources that provides already calculated figures either for some particular incidents, or for total number of deaths in the conflict. The UCDP accepts to incorporate death figures for particular incidents and for an entire armed conflict if it is coherent with the definition. If it is not, or if there is no independent verification of the incident, the figure cannot be accepted. If the coder decides to use a given total for a particular incident in a conflict this has to be indicated in an appropriate manner so that other users of the material know about this. When re-coding battle-related deaths for the period 1989-2002 , no systematic recounting of deaths figures were made. However, for some minor armed conflicts and for some unclear cases, battle-related deaths were being checked, as the rest of the armed conflicts were believed to remain the same as once coded in the States in Armed Conflict. |
| Ceasefire
arrangements, cf. peace agreements |
A ceasefire agreement is an agreement that is regulating
the behaviour of the warring parties without addressing
the incompatibility. Comment A ceasefire agreement that addresses the incompatibility is considered to be a peace agreement in the database. |
| Comments on … |
This field is used to inform about important details about the variable, noting information and codings that are ambiguous, borderline or in any way deserves elaboration. The field can also give you more information about the coded situation. |
| Conflict, armed |
An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths. |
| Conflict, Interstate |
A conflict between two or more governments. Comment The central parties, or, the primary warring parties, which first stated the incompatibility, have to be governmental parties. The existence of governmental parties on both sides of a conflict is not enough to conclude that we are dealing with an interstate conflict, as it can also be an intrastate with foreign involvement. |
| Conflict, intrastate |
A conflict between a government and a non-governmental party, with no interference from other countries. |
| Conflict, intrastate with foreign involvement. |
A conflict within a country between a government and a non-governmental party; where the government, the opposition or both sides receive troop support from other governments, that actively participates in the conflict. |
| Date
of termination of armed force |
The date of termination of the use of armed force is coded
each time the conflict cease to reach the criteria for inclusion (that is
when the conflict does not reach the 25 battle-related deaths
threshold. Comment If the conflict is terminated by a peace agreement, a victory, or a ceasefire, the date of the event is coded. If the conflict is terminated by low activity, no activity, or by any other reasons such as failure to establish a government or other unclear ties regarding the incompatibility or level of party organisation, the last of December of the last year of activity is coded as the date of termination. If there is a change of positions in the conflict and the opposition organisation becomes government and the government becomes opposition organisation the date for this event (most often the date the opposition starts to control the capital) is coded. |
| Deaths, 25 battle related |
A minimum of 25 battle-related
deaths per year and per incompatibility and dyad
is required for inclusion of a new conflict in the database. Comment This criterion concerns each primary warring party and needs to be fulfilled for every active year. Secondary warring parties are excepted from this rule, for them only active participation is required. |
| Duration of peace agreement |
The peace agreement will be seen as durable as long as
it is implemented. Comment The Peace agreement has failed the date when one of the parties states that the agreement is annulled, or if violence clearly shows that one or both parties have left the agreement. |
| Dyad |
A dyad is two conflict units that are parties to a conflict.CommentOne of these units has to be an armed challenger while the other unit has to be the challenged one, for example; government vs. opposition group or two alliances fighting each other (the alliance is connected by its position in the incompatibility). |
| Dyad active |
Criterium is that the dyad has at least 25 battle-related deaths during the specific year. |
| Government |
The party controlling the capital of the state. Comment The UCDP is concerned with who is controlling power in practice. We are not concerned with who is the rightful holder of the power. Empirically, this happens to coincide with control of the capital, which will work as an indicator of who controls the country. This is not the same as saying that we are interested in whether the current government is a functional government. The government may control the capital and very little else but we still treat that party as the government. Almost by definition, if an armed conflict is occurring in a country, the government is not likely to be fully functional. The definition of ‘government’ was changed some years back from a definition including the concept of ‘central government’ to ‘… controlling the capital of the state.’ The reason was that the previous wording was not consistent with the rest of the definition and instead of finding the “perfect” formulation; we simply changed the operationalization itself. The definition of government as ‘who controls the capital’ is completely based on empirical facts and has no theoretical backing. What we in fact do when we identify the government is that we try to identify the central government by simply looking at the parties’ own statements about each other, and only then do we check if they also control the capital. |
| Incompability |
The stated (in writing or verbally) generally incompatible
positions. Comment As one country can experience several conflicts, we need a way to differentiate between them. Incompatibility can be either over Government or Territory. There can only be one incompatibility over Government in a given year, but there can be several territorial conflicts. States and parties may have several incompatibilities with several states simultaneously. This is not a problem; we are counting incompatibilities concerning at least one particular state, and it makes no difference whether the opposition organizations are unique to each situation or if one group roams across all states in the world. The primary entity is the state, then the incompatibility, and only after that the opposition organization. Also, it should be noted that one military situation might include several incompatibilities. It is tempting to view government and territory as degrees of the same issue. In some respect they are; a conflict over government is about control of the whole state (who should control it and how), whereas a conflict over territory is about control of part of the state (who should control it and how). Thus an incompatibility over government can be seen as a larger issue than one over territory. However, an incompatibility over territory can concern the whole state as well, as has been noted above. Also, changing the president or a minister may be a much smaller challenge to the state than breaking off a large part of the territory (even autonomy may have that effect). Ranking the two as one being larger than the other is not preferable since the matter is much more complex than that. Still, it helps to think of the two as being basically about the same thing: control over a state, all or part of it. If they could be ranked we would not need the third category of government and territory, since a governmental incompatibility would always override one over territory. Even though it is not likely to occur very often, a combination of the two is theoretically possible. For example, a party may wish to secede a territory from a state and also be interested in who should control the government of the future neighbour and thus strive for the two at the same time. |
| Incompatibility concerning government |
Incompatibility concerning type of political system, the
replacement of the central government or the change of its composition. Comment ‘Type of political system’ mostly concerns, for example, constitutional changes from a one-party system to a multi-party system or monarchy to republic; ‘replacement of the central government’ is the classical overthrow; and, ‘the change of its composition’ is usually about the replacement of cabinet members, the prime minister or the president. It can be anything from general issues such as changing the whole political system from autocracy to democracy, to very specific issues such as the resignation of a particular cabinet member or specific minor constitutional changes. A governmental incompatibility concerns the structure or distribution of authority, which is sometimes called constitutional politics. When we find incompatibilities concerning type of political system, we mostly have one party striving for a change of the political system (wanting to introduce something new) and the other party striving for status quo. Normally that would be the government. |
| Incompatibility concerning territory |
Incompatibility concerning the status of a specified territory,
e.g. the change of the state in control of a certain territory (interstate
conflict), secession or autonomy (intrastate conflict). Comment Generally an incompatibility cannot deal with territory if it concerns the whole state, unless we are dealing with an interstate conflict or irredentism. The whole state cannot become independent or autonomous from any other unit, since it is already independent, i.e. it has no authority above it. |
| Intensity level |
The intensity variable is coded in two categories: Minor: At least 25 but less than 1 000 battle-related deaths in a year. War: at least 1000 battle-related deaths in a year. |
| Location |
’Location’ equals the government
of the state that is being challenged by an opposition organization. Comment It is not the same as the geographical location of the fighting. However, in practice, ‘location’ equals the geographical location in most cases. If ‘location’ is not the same as the geographical location, it usually concerns a neighbouring state. There are examples where the distance between the geographical location of the fighting and the state that is being challenged is unusually large. Organizations may not be able to operate within the country but are conducting their warfare against targets outside the borders. Since our focus is on the incompatibility and which government of a state is being challenged, that is the relevant entity, not where the conflict ”happens” to take place. |
| Low activity, concerning
termination of conflict |
Armed activity, but below the 25 battle-related deaths threshold. |
| Negotiation |
Negotiations are talks that are held between at least
two of the warring parties. The talks have to be connected
to one or more issues related to the armed conflict, such as ceasefires,
exchange of war prisoners, the creations of humanitarian zones, etc. Comment Negotiations about future negotiations are not included in this variable. When an armed opposition is splitting while negotiating, the ”original” group name is being referred to. As long as we believe that a splinter group is part of the original group we note their negotiations in the comment box. The splinter group is seen as a new group if it reaches 25 battle-related deaths and has declared a new incompatibility with the government. There are situations when one section of an opposition is involved in a peace process, but the other side is fighting. If there are reasons to believe that the two sides are members of the same party, but they have poor communication with each other, then they are considered as a single unit and the negotiations are seen as valid. If secondary parties to a conflict are negotiating with one of the primary parties, or with the primary parties consent, this is considered as negotiations. However, if secondary warring parties are negotiating, without the consent of the primary parties, these kinds of situations are not considered as negotiations. The various situations are clearly indicated in the comment box. |
| No activity, concerning
termination of conflict |
No armed activity resulting in battle-related
deaths. |
| Non-state conflict | The use of armed force between two organized groups, neither of which is the government of a state, which results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year. |
| Opposition
organization |
Any non-governmental group of people having announced
a name for their group and using armed force. Comment The UCDP only deals with organized opposition. The focus is on armed conflict involving consciously conducted and planned political campaigns rather than spontaneous violence. Organizations of this kind are, in a sense, state-like entities and usually pose a very different threat to those in power than unorganised opposition. In the case of several levels of organization, such as that of individual organizations that also operate in alliance as part of an umbrella organization, the simple rule is to look for which organization “calls the shots”. If the umbrella organization is only an organization in the nominal sense, and the individual organizations take their own political decisions and conduct military action on their own, the individual organizations are being treated as the warring parties. If the umbrella organization commands the individual organizations, that is the relevant unit. |
| One-sided violence | The use of armed force by the government of a state or by a formally organized group against civilians which results in at least 25 deaths in a year. Extrajudicial killings in custody are excluded. |
| Other, concerning termination
of conflict |
All other theoretically possible ways of termination |
| Peace
agreement |
A peace agreement should address the problem of the incompatibility,
either by settling all or part of it, or by clearly outlining a process
for how the warring parties plan to regulate the incompatibility. Comment All peace agreements, which concern, manage or regulate, the stated incompatibility are brought into the list of peace agreements, including peace process agreements. There are various types of peace agreements: comprehensive agreement signed by all parties regulating or resolving the incompatibility, partial peace agreement signed by all parties regulating or resolving part of the incompatibility, dyadic agreements where a comprehensive agreement signed by the parties, but not in all dyads, regulates or resolves the incompatibility, peace process agreement outlining a process for regulating or resolving the incompatibility. |
| Peace agreement ended |
The peace agreement is no longer
fully implemented. The validity of the agreement is contested by one or
more of the warring parties that signed. Comment A peace agreement cannot, from the UCDP perspective, survive if the primary parties are no longer party to it. If a party officially withdraws from a peace agreement, it is considered to have ended. Sometimes it is hard to establish that a peace agreement has ended. For instance, a party may officially be committed to the peace agreement, but covertly have warring militias in field. In this type of situation, the party should be judged by its sincerity of engagement in the process. As the group in this type of situation does not seem to be sincere in its commitment to the peace or peace agreement (probably, the peace agreement is not properly regulating the incompatibility) the agreement should be seen as if it has ended. |
| Primary party | The parties that have formed the incompatibility. |
| Region |
Africa, Asia, Caribbean, Europé, Middle East, North America, Oceania incl. Australia, South America |
| Secondary supporting parties, non-warring | A secondary supporting party give a primary
party support that somehow affects the development of the conflict.
Comment The support given can be of several types, for instance, financial, military (short of regular troops), logistic etc. Anything relating to normal interaction between states (profits from trade etc.) is not considered as support in the conflict, even if the consequences of that interaction may be to the benefit of the warring party that is on the receiving end. We are only considering support that is actively given to strengthen the party in the particular conflict and not support which unintentionally happens to strengthen the warring party. Note that – as is the case regarding parties in general – we are looking for organizations, however loosely organized, and not individuals. Support may come from neighbouring states or organizations of states, opposition organizations (or diasporas) in other states that have ethnic or ideological affinities with the group in question, or, some other organization within or outside the state in question. |
| Secondary parties, warring | A party that enter a conflict with troops to actively
support one of the sides in the conflict. Comment A secondary warring party is always a state actor who shares the position in the incompatibility with one of the sides in the conflict. A secondary warring party does not need to meet the 25 battle-related deaths criteria to be included in the database. An active troop participation of their forces is enough. |
| Side |
The government and its allies are always fighting on side
A in a conflict. The opposition organisations and their allies are fighting
on side B. Comment One side of the conflict always incorporates the government of the location and its allies. The other side of the conflict is a government (interstate armed conflict) or an opposition group (intrastate armed conflict) plus its allies. |
| Signatories of peace agreement |
All actors that signed the agreement. |
| State |
A state is either an internationally recognized sovereign
government controlling a specified territory, or an internationally unrecognized
government controlling a specified territory whose sovereignty is not disputed
by another internationally recognized sovereign government previously controlling
the same territory. Comment Basically coincides with the list of UN member states, with the addition of a few non-members such as Taiwan. These are states both de jure and de facto. If we are dealing with a non-recognized entity, or a de facto state, it can meet the criteria of a state as defined here, if no other state claims that territory - given that the other state once used to control the entity. |
| Stated goal of incompatibility |
A stated challenge over the governmental power or over
a specified territory. Comment A conflict is in the UCDP defined as starting when there is an open challenge by a state against another state, or an opposition group against a state, to resort to violence to reach its goal. A general rule for coding the onset variable is that a statement of incompatibility precedes violence. In some cases however, there are no clear statements of incompatibility. These situations may occur when for example there is bad reporting then we can not give the user an exact date of the statement but there will be an explanation of the situation in a comment. Generally the stated goal of incompatibility is the first start date to be coded. (In the database there are three other start dates of the conflict, first use of armed force, first battle-related death and first time conflict reaches 25 battle-related deaths). Sometimes however the stated goal of incompatibility can be coded after a first battle related death has occurred in the conflict. But this can only be done if it is found that a key player on the opposition side is referring back to violence occurring earlier, and taking responsibility for the deaths. The situation is common in circumstances when for example the armed opposition group may not be able to reach out to the public before a violent incident has been triggered, or in coup were the violence relies on an element of surprise. |
| Termination
of conflict |
A terminated conflict is categorized according to any
of the following types: 1) peace agreement;
2) victory; 3) ceasefire
agreement; 4) low activity; or
5) no activity (the latter three are
sometimes grouped as other outcome); or 6) other Comment The UCDP has not recorded end-dates for conflicts. Earlier, there was a variable indicating conflict endings, but this variable was removed as it was considered difficult to state when a conflict was considered definitely ended. This problem was temporary solved by adding descriptive conflict summary, which might tell if the armed conflict is still active or not. However, the termination of use of armed force is coded for every temporary ending or low activity situation in the armed conflict. In many situations, for example, the conflict might be seen as ended but in fact only remain on a sub-25 death level. The termination of use of armed force is not coded for warring secondary parties. The reason is that secondary parties do not need to fulfill the same criteria’s as primary parties have to in order to be included. |
| Third party |
A third party is a party that is involved in either helping
the warring parties to regulate the incompatibility
or the level of the violence and work as an intermediary between the two. Comment The consequences of the involvement of a third party may be to the benefit of one of the warring parties, or, in the extreme case, the third party may even become militarily involved against one of them, such as UN operations. If a party, most often the forces of a peacekeeping or a peace enforcement operation – more likely the latter – becomes involved in violence, this does not necessarily mean that it is being treated as a warring party as defined above. It is the behaviour and the incompatibility combined, that decides who is a warring party and who is not. When UCDP decide whether we are dealing with a warring party or not we are looking at why and how they use armed force. In other words, as in all other cases, we establishes whether there is a stated incompatibility concerning government or territory between the parties. Usually one would look at the mandate of the operations to find the answer, i.e. is the operation there to do anything else but peacekeeping, and if it is peace enforcement, does it concern government or territory? A third party can be a state, an organisation or an individual, such as a former President. |
| Troop size |
The size of the warring parties’ troops. Comment The type of information presented in the troop size is not comparable between different countries or organisations. If possible UCDP makes a distinction between total armed forces and the forces actually used in the armed conflict. But often there is no information available to make this distinction. Most often the total armed forces of the government of the location is presented, not just the army. If paramilitaries and Gendarmerie are included this is noted in the comment. For the opposition group, the total armed force in the conflict location is counted. Regarding warring parties from outside of the location, only the forces active in the conflict location are counted. |
| Victory |
One side is either defeated or eliminated, or otherwise
succumbs to the power of the other (e.g. through capitulation). Comment A victory is considered to have occurred when a party to a conflict is considered to be defeated. With defeated the UCDP means that their military capability is destroyed to the point that is seems unlikely that they could begin the fighting again. In this situation no other outcome can occur. A party that has been defeated can participate in a conflict again, if there is a new incompatibility or if there are new actors and goals of that party. A victory can occur both on the dyadic level as well as on the conflict level. The victorious party to the conflict does not have to provide concession to the other side. When UCDP code victory as the termination of the use of armed force the victory regarding the use of arms will be in focus in the comment. When victory is coded as a separate variable the incompatibility will be in focus in the comment. |
| War-related deaths |
See battle-related deaths |
| Warring party |
A warring party is an actor who uses armed force to promote
its position in the incompatibility. Comment Each incompatibility can have an infinite number of warring parties. The warring parties are both divided between primary and secondary warring parties and between governmental and nongovernmental parties. |
| Warring party active | Criterium is at least 25 battle-related deaths during the specific year in the dyad of the warring party. |
| Warring party, type of |
A warring party can be of two types either a governmental party or a non-governmental. A party is governmental if it is a government, if not it is a non-governmental party. The type of party has nothing to do with which side the party supports in the conflict. |