Journal of Peace Research
http://jpr.sagepub.com
Armed Conflict, 19892006
Lotta Harbom and Peter Wallensteen
Journal of Peace Research 2007; 44; 623
DOI: 10.1177/0022343307080859
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/44/5/623
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
Additional services and information for Journal of Peace Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jpr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
© 2007 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 44, no. 5, 2007, pp. 623–634
Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore) http://jpr.sagepub.com
DOI 10.1177/0022343307080859
SPECIAL
DATA
FEATURE
Armed Conflict, 1989–2006*
LOT TA HARBOM & PETER WALLENSTEEN
Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), Department of Peace and Conflict
Research, Uppsala University
In 2006, 32 armed conflicts were active, a figure that has remained constant for three years. The decline
in armed conflict observed through most of the post-Cold War period has ceased, at least temporarily.
Many of the conflicts active in 2006 have a long history, which may have made them more entrenched
and thus more difficult to solve. In fact, in contrast to the situation in the early 1990s, no new conflicts
have erupted in the last two years. No interstate conflicts were active in 2006, but five of the intrastate
conflicts were internationalized. While four of the conflicts recorded for 2005 were no longer active in
2006, four conflicts restarted, two with actions taken by new rebel groups and two by previously
recorded actors.
The Year 2006
Since the end of World War II, a total of 232
armed conflicts have been active in 148
locations throughout the world,1 including
122 conflicts in 80 locations after the end of
the Cold War.2 The annual incidence of conflict is recorded in Tables I and II, and Figure
1 shows the trend in various types of armed
conflict by type back to 1946.
In 2006, there were 32 armed conflicts in
23 locations. This figure has remained constant for three years, following the post-Cold
War period low of 29 conflicts in 2003.3
While the number of conflicts is now a little
higher than in 2003, the number of conflict
locations remains stable at its post-1989 low
* Research for this article was funded by the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency, the Folke
Bernadotte Academy and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary
Foundation. Numerous colleagues in Uppsala have contributed to the data collection, notably Johan Brosché,
Kristine Eck, Hanne Fjelde, Helena Grusell, Joakim Kreutz,
Anders Nilsson and Ralph Sundberg. Responsibility for the
article, however, rests solely with the authors. Replication data
for this article can be found at www.prio.no/jpr/datasets.
Correspondence: [email protected].
of 23. Thus, the increase did not occur in
new locations, but in countries that were
already experiencing armed conflict.
Although the number of conflicts remains
relatively low compared to the peak of 52 in
1991 and 1992, the continuous decline seen
in the 1990s now seems to have ceased. This
makes it questionable how successful the
international community has actually been
in solving conflict, as argued for instance in
the Human Security Report 2005 (Mack,
2006; see also Mack, 2007).
1For
an intrastate conflict, the location is a country. For an
interstate conflict, it is two or more countries. Several
countries (notably India) have several separate conflicts going
on at the same time, which is why the number of conflicts
exceeds the number of locations. For precise definitions of key
concepts, see www.pcr.uu.se/database/definitions_all.html.
2 Additional information on conflicts active since 1989 is
found on the website of the Uppsala Conflict Data
Program (UCDP) at www.pcr.uu.se/database.
3 Last year (Harbom, Högbladh & Wallensteen, 2006), we
reported 31 conflicts for 2005. Based on new information,
we have added a conflict in Pakistan (Baluchistan) for that
year. Tables I–II and the databases in Uppsala (www.pcr.
uu.se/research/UCDP/our_data1.htm) and at PRIO
(www.prio.no/cscw/ArmedConflict) have been amended
accordingly.
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
623
36
10
All locations
New conflictsb
11
36
35
15
50
1990
8
38
34
18
52
1991
8
38
35
17
52
1992
6
32
34
12
46
1993
3
34
38
8
46
1994
1
30
33
6
39
1995
3
31
36
6
42
1996
3
30
33
7
40
1997
4
32
26
13
39
1998
1
31
29
12
41
1999
1
28
26
11
37
2000
3
29
25
11
36
2001
1
24
26
6
32
2002
2
23
24
5
29
2003
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
b
a
45
3
2
50
4
2
44
0
2
52
50
3
1
52
48
5
0
46
41
1990 1991 1992 1993
38
1989
1
0
46
45
1
1
39
37
2
2
42
38
2
1
40
37
1994 1995 1996 1997
4
2
39
33
1998
5
2
41
34
1999
4
2
37
31
5
1
36
30
2000 2001
0
23
27
5
32
2006
67
80
74
48
122
1989–
2006a
3
1
32
28
2
2
29
25
4
0
32
28
6
0
32
26
5
0
32
27
26
7
122
89
1989–
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2006
For data back to 1946, see www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/our_data1.htm or www.prio.no/cscw/ArmedConflict.
In an internationalized intrastate armed conflict, the government, the opposition or both sides receive military support from other governments.
Intrastate
Internationalized
intrastateb
Interstate
All conflicts
Type of
conflict
0
23
27
5
32
2005
jour nal of P E A C E R E S E A RC H
Table II. Interstate and Intrastate Armed Conflicts, 1989–2006a
b
2
24
25
7
32
2004
At the highest level recorded.
A conflict is coded as new the first time it appears in the 1946–2006 list of armed conflicts. Thus, even though this table covers the 1989–2006 period,
this variable refers to the longer conflict period. A conflict is registered as new only once, regardless of changes on the opposition side.
a
30
14
44
1989
Minor
War
All conflicts
Level of
conflict
Table I. Armed Conflict and Conflict Locations, 1989–2006
624
volume 44 / number 5 / september 2007
ARMED CONFLICT, 1989–2006
Lotta Harbom & Peter Wallensteen
Figure 1 Number of Armed Conflicts by Type, 1946–2006
60
50
40
30
20
10
Extrasystemic
Interstate
Out of the 32 armed conflicts in 2006, 11
had been active for more than ten consecutive
years. Many of the remaining 21 had been going
on for over ten years, then experiencing a lull for
a year or two, only to restart again. Thus, a
group of highly protracted conflicts makes up
the core of present global conflict. The one with
the longest uninterrupted activity is the 41-yearold conflict fought over government power in
Colombia. International efforts at conflict resolution now encounter protracted conflicts that
are more difficult to resolve, as they have been
entrenched in the social fabric and the parties
have learned how to block peace efforts.
This observation is reinforced by the last
line in Table I, which shows how many of the
conflicts in a particular year are ‘new’, that is,
they have not been active earlier in the period
after World War II. While more than half (67)
of the 122 armed conflicts active between
1989 and 2006 started after 1989, the highest
number of new conflicts erupted just at the
start of the post-Cold War period. In the early
1990s, the annual count of new conflicts
ranged from eight to eleven, compared to one
to three in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No
new conflicts erupted in either 2005 or 2006.
Thus, all currently ongoing conflicts have a
history, many of them a long one. In such
Internationalized
2006
2003
2000
1997
1994
1991
1988
1985
1982
1979
1976
1973
1970
1967
1964
1961
1958
1955
1952
1949
1946
0
Intrastate
entrenched conflicts, the warring parties are
more likely to pursue maximalist goals and
show little interest in negotiation.
Still, some support is found for the argument
pursued in the Human Security Report if we look
at the ratio of minor armed conflicts to wars. The
fewer conflicts that escalate to war, the more likely
that they have been contained by the parties
themselves or by third parties. The annual ratio
for the first post-Cold War years hovers around 2
to 1: in 1989, there are 30 minor conflicts and 14
wars; by 2006 the same ratio is 5 to 1, or 27 minor
conflicts and 5 wars. This ‘prevention ratio’ has
remained the same through the 2000s. The international community appears to be able to prevent
armed conflicts from escalating to wars, but
unable to end the number of conflicts.4
In 2006, as in 2005, only five conflicts
were classified as wars, that is, they had more
than 1,000 battle-deaths. The number of
wars has decreased significantly since the
peak of 18 in 1991. Apart from three years
in the new millennium, a figure this low has
only been recorded for a few years in the
1950s (Gleditsch et al., 2002: 621). The Iraq
4
UCDP has constructed a special database on preventive
measures for the period 1993–2004 with support from the
Folke Bernadotte Academy. It will soon be made available
to the research community.
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
625
626
jour nal of P E A C E R E S E A RC H
conflict resulted in the highest number of
battle-related deaths in 2006, followed by the
conflicts in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Chad
and Sudan (fought almost exclusively in the
Darfur region). The conflict between the Sri
Lankan government and the rebel group
LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)
was the one that escalated the most in 2006.
For the third year running, no conflicts were
fought between states in 2006. However, five
intrastate conflicts were recorded as internationalized. While scholars use the term in different
ways and include interventions that range from
diplomacy to military involvement (see e.g.
Regan, 2000; Gleditsch, 2007), UCDP categorizes an intrastate conflict as internationalized
when a state that is external to the original conflict contributes troops in support of one of the
primary warring parties. Thus, the category is
strictly limited to cases where states send troops
with the intent of aiding one of the parties, and,
accordingly, interventions such as mediation
efforts and peacekeeping missions are excluded.5
The five conflicts that UCDP coded as
internationalized in 2006 were the government of Afghanistan vs. the Taliban; the Iraqi
government vs. the numerous Iraqi insurgent
groups; the USA vs. Al-Qaeda; the Indian
government vs. the Nationalist Socialist
Council of Nagaland – Khaplang faction
(NSCN-K); and the government of Somalia
vs. the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia
(SICS).6 The first three are in some way linked
to the global war on terror (for further classification of reasons for intervening, see Harbom
& Wallensteen, 2005). In the first two a USled coalition contributed troops to the govern5 UCDP differentiates between interventions made in favour
of a primary party and interventions made with the intent
of getting the parties to talk or to monitor a ceasefire (termed
third-party involvement by UCDP). The first type of intervention is further divided between military interventions made
by ‘secondary warring parties’ (resulting in internationalized
intrastate conflict) and other types of involvement, such as the
supply of arms or rear bases provided by ‘secondary supporting
parties’ (see Harbom & Wallensteen, 2005). Data on all three
types of parties can be found at www.pcr.uu.se/database.
6 For information on the states sending troops to these
conflicts, see Appendix 2.
volume 44 / number 5 / september 2007
ment side, and in the third a multinational
coalition aided the USA in its conflict against
Al-Qaeda, fought mainly in Pakistan, but also
in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The intermittent conflict over the territory Nagaland,
which first erupted in 1992, is a less publicized
case. It remained an internal affair until 2005,
when the army of neighbouring Myanmar
entered the fray. After a pledge by Myanmar’s
General Than Shwe that his country would
not let Indian rebels operate from its soil, the
Myanmar army initiated military operations
against NSCN-K in close cooperation with the
Indian government. The Myanmar army continued the offensive against the Indian rebels’
positions on its side of the border through
2006. Finally, the conflict between SICS and
the government of Somalia – supported by
Ethiopia – is discussed below.
During the year, six peace agreements were
signed: an accord between one of the separatist
rebel groups in the Cabinda exclave and the
government of Angola; one between the rebel
group FUCD and the government of Chad; one
between the Nepalese Maoist rebel group CPNM and the government; one between the Minni
Mannawi faction of the Sudan Liberation
Movement (SLM) and the Khartoum regime;
and two between the last remaining Burundian
rebel group, the Rwasa faction of PalipehutuFNL, and the government.
Conflicts Restarted by New Rebel
Groups
In 2006, two conflicts were restarted by new
rebel organizations. In the Central African
Republic, a conflict was last recorded in 2002
when the forces of Francois Bozize made incursions into the country from neighbouring
Chad, aiming to seize power in Bangui. They
eventually succeeded in overthrowing President
Patassé in March 2003. After three years of relative calm, organized unrest broke out again in
2006 when the rebel group UFDR (Union of
Democratic Forces for Unity) took up arms
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Lotta Harbom & Peter Wallensteen
against Bozize. The leaders of the new group
were part of the force that helped the president
seize power in the first place, but by 2006 they
opposed his regime as exclusionist, serving only
the interests of his own ethnic group. The fighting was mainly located in the lawless northern
part of the country, on the borders with conflict-ridden Sudan and Chad.
In Somalia, a conflict over governmental
power has been reported intermittently since
1978.7 The Transitional National Government
(TNG), which had split in 2005, reconciled in
2006 and located its base in Baidoa until
Mogadishu had become safer. By then, the
Mogadishu faction of the TNG had been
forced out of the capital by an expanding
network of local Islamic courts, which eventually changed its name to the Supreme Islamic
Council of Somalia (SICS). As the SICS
expanded is area of control, Ethiopia sent
troops in support of the TNG, in order to
prevent the rise of an Islamic state on its southeastern border. After sporadic clashes during
the autumn, the TNG and its Ethiopian allies
launched a large-scale offensive that in a few
weeks pushed the SICS back towards
Mogadishu and forced it to abandon the capital
on 27 December. The government entered the
capital two days later, and continued to pursue
militant SICS members in southern Somalia.
Conflicts Restarted by Previous
Actors
Two conflicts were restarted by previously
recorded actors. Separatists in the northeastern
7
While fighting has been more or less continuous since
1981, Somalia was without a government during some of the
years in the past decade and automatically fell outside the
scope of this dataset, which is limited to state-based conflict.
Even when a government existed, much of the fighting was
between militias and did not involve government forces. The
UCDP codes such violence as ‘non-state conflict’, that is, a
conflict between two groups, neither of which is the government of a state. Our data on non-state conflicts as well as on
‘one-sided violence’ (state violence against unorganized
people) are published in the Human Security Report (for the
most recent update, see Mack, 2006). For one-sided conflicts, see also Eck & Hultman (2007).
ARMED CONFLICT, 1989–2006
Indian state of Tripura have fought the Indian
government since the late 1970s. Two rebel
groups were active in the 1990s, ATTF and
NLFT, more recently only the latter. After a
lull in 2005, the conflict escalated in October
2006 and once again broke our 25 battlerelated-deaths threshold. The government saw
the conflict primarily as a law and order issue,
so there were no negotiations or other moves
towards peace in 2006.
The territorial conflict resumed between
the Israeli government and the Lebanonbased rebel group Hezbollah8 on 12 July
2006, when Hezbollah guerrillas carried out
an attack across the Lebanese border into
Israel. They captured two Israeli soldiers and
killed several more under cover of intense
rocket fire. Israel responded by heavy military
action. The violence ended on 14 August,
following UN Security Council Resolution
1701 that established a cessation of hostilities
and mandated an increased UNIFIL (United
Nation Interim Force in Lebanon) presence
between the Blue Line and the Litani River
in southern Lebanon. However, Hezbollah
forces in southern Lebanon have not been
disarmed or demobilized.
Conflicts No Longer Active
Four conflicts listed in 2005 were no longer
active. In 2005, a government offensive in
Karenni state in Myanmar led to an upsurge
in fighting between the Karenni separatist
group Karenni National Progressive Party
(KNPP) and the Myanmar government after
eight years of no activity. A few violent incidents were reported in 2006. However, as
KNPP troops resumed their close cooperation with the Karen rebel group KNU during
8
Hezbollah has previously been coded as a part of the conflict over Palestine. A study of the aims of the movement
has prompted UCDP to remove Hezbollah from this conflict, and instead code a new conflict over the territory
Southern Lebanon, active 1990–99 and in 2006. The databases in Uppsala and at PRIO have been amended accordingly. For more information on the recoding, see www.
pcr.uu.se/database.
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
627
628
jour nal of P E A C E R E S E A RC H
the year, and as most of the reports of fighting focused on the KNU, it could not be
verified that the Karenni conflict reached the
required threshold for inclusion.
The Indonesian government and the
Aceh-based rebel group Gerakan Aceh
Merdeka (GAM, Free Aceh Movement)
signed a peace agreement in 2005, in an effort
to end the conflict over the status of the
province fought for nearly three decades. So
far, the accord, which granted the province
self-governance in most sectors of public
affairs, seems to hold. Several parts of the
accord were implemented in 2005, with governmental forces withdrawing from Aceh and
GAM decommissioning its weapons. There
were no battle-related deaths in 2006, and in
December elections resulted in victories for
candidates associated with GAM.
The low-intensity conflict recorded
between the government of Turkey and the
leftist rebel group MKP (Maoist Communist
Party) was active in 2005 but not in 2006. In
the conflict between the Azerbaijan government and the separatist republic of NagornoKarabakh, the border skirmishes and clashes
that caused over 25 battle-related deaths in
2005 decreased, with only a few soldiers
killed in 2006. However, oil-rich Azerbaijan
continues to assert its right to win back
volume 44 / number 5 / september 2007
Nagorno-Karabakh by force and increased its
military spending from $175 million in 2004
to $600 million in 2006.9
Sources
Since 2003, the primary source for the update
of the list of armed conflicts has been automatic scanning of the Factiva news database
(www.factiva.com), which contains nearly
9,000 news sources from 118 countries. This
is complemented by material from a number
of sources. Particularly useful for this year’s
update were: Africa Confidential (London),
Africa Research Bulletin (Oxford), Far Eastern
Economic Review (Hong Kong), Horn of Africa
Bulletin (Uppsala), International Crisis Group
(Brussels, various reports), Jane’s Intelligence
Review (Coulsdon, Surrey), Journal of Palestine
Studies, Palestinian Central Bureau of
Statistics (www.pcbs.org), Israeli Center for
Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
(www.btselem.org), Keesing’s Record of World
Events (Cambridge), The Military Balance
(International Institute of Strategic Studies,
London) and South Asia Terrorism Portal (New
Delhi, www.satp.org).
9
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/135da3002b7d-4534-912d-a5703d486b46.html.
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Territory (Palestine)
(1949)
Territory (Southern
Lebanon) (1990)
Territory (Kurdistan)
(1984)
Israel
Israel
Turkey
PKK (Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan:
Kurdistan Workers’ Party)3
Hezbollah (Party of God)
1984–2006
2006
2000–06
2004–06
2005–06
1999–2006
Year
Minor
Minor
Minor
War
Minor
Minor
Intensity in 2006
2
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
(continued)
For more detail on the definitions, see www.pcr.uu.se/database/definitions_all.html.
Supported by a US-led multinational coalition that in 2006 included troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway,
Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the UK.
3 PKK has changed names three times in as many years: in 2002 to Kadek (Kurdish Freedom and Democracy Congress), in November 2003 to the Conference of the People’s Congress
of Kurdistan (KONGRA-GEL), and in April 2005 back to its earlier name, PKK.
1
TQJBR (Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn: Organization of
Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers), Jaish Ansar Al-Sunna (Army
of Ansar Al-Sunna), Al Jaysh al-Islami fi Iraq (the Islamic Army of Iraq)
Government2 (2004)
Iraq
Fatah (Harakat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini: Palestinian National
Liberation Movement), PIJ (Al-Jihad al-Islami fi Filastin:
Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Hamas (Harakat al-Muqawama
al-Islamiyya: Islamic Resistance Movement), PRC (Popular
Resistance Committees)
PJAK (Partî Jiyanî Azadî Kurdistan: The Free Life Party of
Kurdistan), Jondollah (God’s Soldiers)
Republic of Chechnya (Ichkeria)
Opposition Organization(s) in 2006
Government (2005)
Territory (Chechnya)
(1994)
Incompatibility
MIDDLE EAST
Iran
EUROPE
Russia
Location
This list includes all conflicts that exceeded the minimum threshold of 25 battle-related deaths in 2006 and fulfilled the other criteria for inclusion.1 The column ‘Year’ shows the latest range of years
in which the conflict has been active without interruption. The start year is found in parenthesis in the ‘Incompatibility’ column. This indicates when the armed conflict reached 25 battle-related
deaths for the first time. If a conflict has been inactive for more than ten years or if there has been a complete change in the opposition side, the start year refers to the onset of the latest phase of the
conflict. For more information on the conflict history, see (a) the list of armed conflicts 1946–2006, at www.prio.no/cscw/ArmedConflict and ww.pcr.uu.se/research/UCDP/our_data1.htm, and
(b) the Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s online database at www.pcr.uu.se/database/index.php. The column ‘Intensity in 2006’ displays the aggregated conflict intensity. Thus, if more than one dyad
is active in the conflict, the intensity column records their aggregated intensity. Note, that the category intermediate has been removed. For information about the removal of the intermediate category,
see footnote 8 in the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Codebook.
Appendix 1. Armed Conflicts Active in 2006
Lotta Harbom & Peter Wallensteen
ARMED CONFLICT, 1989–2006
629
Government (1969)
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
(continued)
Supported by a US-led multinational coalition that in 2006 included troops from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and the UK. Following a gradual takeover, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) formally assumed full control over the
international military presence in Afghanistan on 5 October 2006. In 2006, the following countries contributed troops to ISAF: Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (former Yugoslav
Republic of ), the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and the USA.
5 A large number of groups have been active. Sixty groups were reported active in 1990, 140 in 1991, and 180 in 1992. Some of the larger groups have been JKLF (Jammu & Kashmir
Liberation Front), the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and, in recent years, also the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jesh-e-Mohammad.
6 Supported by troops from Myanmar in 2006.
1999–2006
1993–2006
2004–06
1996–2006
2005–06
2005–06
1996–2006
2006
2005–06
2003–06
Minor
Minor
War
Intensity in 2006
jour nal of P E A C E R E S E A RC H
4
ASG (Abu Sayyaf Group)
CPP (Communist Party of the Philippines)
Territory (Mindanao) (1970)
Philippines
Baluch Ittehad (Baluch Unity), BLA (Baluchistan
Liberation Army)
Territory (Baluchistan)
(2004)
Pakistan
CPN/M (Communist Party of Nepal/Maoist)
SSA/s (Shan State Army – South Command)
Territory (Shan) (1996)
Government (1996)
KNU (Karen National Union)
CPI-M (Communist Party of India-Maoist)
Government (1990)
Territory (Karen) (1949)
NLFT (National Liberation Front of Tripura)
Territory (Tripura) (1992)
NSCN-K (National Socialist Council of
Nagaland – Khaplang faction)
Nepal
Myanmar
UNLF (United Liberation Front)
Territory (Manipur) (1982)
Territory
1989–2006
Kashmir insurgents5
Territory (Kashmir) (1989)
(Nagaland)6 (1992)
1994–2006
2003–06
ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam)
Territory (Assam) (1990)
India
Taleban
Government4 (1978)
Year
ASIA
Afghanistan
Opposition Organization(s) in 2006
Incompatibility
Location
Appendix 1 (continued)
630
volume 44 / number 5 / september 2007
SLM/A (Sudan Liberation Movement/Army), NRM (National Redemption
Front), SLM/A–MM (Sudan Liberation Movement/Army – Mini
Minawi Faction)
Government9 (1983)
Sudan
9
8
1983–2006
2006
1999–2006
2004–06
2005–06
2006
1994–2006
War
Minor
Minor
Minor
War
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
War
Intensity in 2006
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
(continued)
E.g. BRN-C (Barisan Nasional Revolusi – Coordinate), PULO (Patani United Liberation Organisation) and GMIP (Gerekan Mujahideen Islam Pattani).
Supported by troops from Ethiopia in 2006.
While all the groups listed here are based in the Darfur region, their overall goal is to change the political system in the entire country. Thus, the incompatibility is over government rather
than territory.
SICS (Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia)
Government8 (2006)
Somalia
7
ONLF (Ogaden National Liberation Front)
OLF (Oromo Liberation Front)
Territory (Ogaden) (1996)
Ethiopia
RDL/FUCD (Rassemblement pour la Démocratie et la Liberté: Rally for
Democracy and Liberty/Front Unique pour le Changement Démocratique:
United Front for Democratic Change), RAFD (Rassemblement des forces
démocratiques: Rally of Democratic Forces), UFDD (Union des Forces pour
la Démocratie et le Développement: the Union Force for Democracy
and Development)
UFDR (Union of Democratic Forces for Unity)
Palipehutu-FNL (Parti pour la libération du peuple Hutu-Force nationale de
libération:Party for the Liberation of the Hutu People-Forces for
National Liberation)
1991–2006
2003–06
Patani insurgents7
GSPC (al-Jama’ah al-Salafiyah lil-Da’wah wa’l-Qital: Groupe Salafiste pour
la prédication et le combat: Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat)
2005–06
Year
LTTE (Thamil Eelam Viduthalai Puligal: Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam)
Opposition Organization(s) in 2006
Territory (Oromiya) (1989)
Government (2006)
Government (1991)
Burundi
Government (2005)
Government (1991)
AFRICA
Algeria
Chad
Territory (Patani) (2003)
Thailand
Central Africa Republic
Territory (Eelam) (1983)
Incompatibility
Sri Lanka
Location
Appendix 1 (continued)
Lotta Harbom & Peter Wallensteen
ARMED CONFLICT, 1989–2006
631
Al-Qaeda (The Base)
Government10 (2001)
USA
2004–06
1966–2006
1994–2006
Year
Minor
Minor
Minor
Intensity in 2006
The conflicts are also divided by type:
• Interstate armed conflict: between two or more states.
• Internationalized internal armed conflict: between the government of a state and one or more internal opposition groups, with intervention from other states
in the form of troops.
• Internal armed conflict: between the government of a state and internal opposition groups.
The conflicts are divided into two levels of severity:
• Minor armed conflicts: at least 25 battle-related deaths in a given year and fewer than 1,000.
• War: at least 1,000 battle-related deaths in a year. A conflict can change the level of severity from one year to the next.
jour nal of P E A C E R E S E A RC H
An armed conflict is defined by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) as a contested incompatibility that concerns government or territory or both, where the
use of armed force between two parties results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year. Of these two parties, at least one has to be the government of a state. The
incompatibility is the stated (in writing or verbally) generally incompatible positions. More detailed definitions can be found on UCDP’s webpage, at www.ucdp.uu.se.
Definitions
2006, the following countries contributed combat troops to the government: Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan,
Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Spain and the UK.
10 In
FARC (Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias colombianas:
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), ELN
(Ejército de liberación: People’s Liberation Army)
Government (1966)
AMERICAS
Colombia
LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army)
Government (1981)
Uganda
Opposition Organization(s) in 2006
Incompatibility
Location
Appendix 1 (continued)
632
volume 44 / number 5 / september 2007
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Lotta Harbom & Peter Wallensteen
ARMED CONFLICT, 1989–2006
Appendix 2. Unclear Cases in 2006
For the cases listed here, the available information suggests the possibility that they may meet the criteria for
an armed conflict, but there is insufficient information concerning at least one of the three components of
the definition: (a) the number of battle-related deaths, (b) the identity or level of organization of a party, or
(c) the type of incompatibility. For unclear cases for the entire 1946–2006 period, see www.pcr.uu.se/uncdp/research/our_data1.htm or www.prio.no/cwp/armedconflict. The unclear aspect can concern an
entire conflict (e.g. Yemen) or a dyad in a conflict that is included in Appendix 1 (e.g. the ADF in the
Ugandan conflict).
Location/Government
Opposition organization
Angola
FLEC (Frente da libertaçã
do enclave de Cabinda: Front for the
Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda)
Number of deaths
Bangladesh
PBCP-Janajuddha faction (Purbo Banglar
Communist Party-Janajuddha faction)
Number of deaths/
incompatibility
Central African Republic
APRD (Armée pour la Restauration
de la République et la Démocratie:
People’s Army for the Restoration of
the Republic and Democracy)
Number of deaths
Democratic Republic
of Congo
Forces of General Nkunda,
MRC (Mouvement Révolutionaire du Congo:
Revolutionary Movement of Congo)
Incompatibility
Iraq
Al-Mahdi Army
Incompatibility
Nigeria
MEND (Movement for the Emancipation
of the Niger Delta)
Unclear aspect
Incompatibility
Philippines
MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front)
Number of deaths
Senegal
MFCD (Mouvement des forces
démocratiques de Casamançe: Movement
of the Democratic Forces of the Casamance)
Number of deaths/
incompatibility
Sudan
Eastern Front, NMRD (National Movement for
Reform and Development), SLM-KAA (Sudan
Liberation Movement-Khamir Abdullah
Abaker faction).
Number of deaths
Uganda
ADF (Alliance for Democratic Forces)
Number of deaths
Yemen
Shabab al-Mu’mineen (the
Believing Youth)
Incompatibility
References
Eck, Kristine & Lisa Hultman, 2007. ‘One-Sided
Violence Against Civilians in War: Insights
from New Fatality Data’, Journal of Peace
Research 44(2): 233-246.
Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, 2007. ‘Transnational
Dimensions of Civil War’, Journal of Peace
Research 44(3): 293–309.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter; Peter Wallensteen, Mikael
Eriksson, Margareta Sollenberg & Håvard
Strand, 2002. ‘Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A
New Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 39(5):
615–637.
Harbom, Lotta & Peter Wallensteen, 2005.
‘Armed Conflict and Its International
Dimensions, 1946–2004’, Journal of Peace
Research 42(5): 623–635.
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
633
634
jour nal of P E A C E R E S E A RC H
Harbom, Lotta; Stina Högbladh & Peter
Wallensteen, 2006. ‘Armed Conflict and Peace
Agreements’, Journal of Peace Research 43(5):
617–631.
Mack, Andrew, ed., 2006. Human Security Brief.
Vancouver: Human Security Centre, University of
British Columbia (www.humansecurity report. org).
Mack, Andrew, 2007. ‘Global Political Violence:
Explaining the Post-Cold War Decline’,
Coping with Crisis Working Paper Series. New
York: International Peace Academy.
Regan, Patrick M., 2000. Civil War and Foreign Powers.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
volume 44 / number 5 / september 2007
PETER WALLENSTEEN, b. 1945, PhD
(Uppsala University, 1973); Dag Hammarskjöld
Professor of Peace and Conflict Research,
Uppsala University (since 1985) and the
Richard G. Starmann Sr. Research Professor of
Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame (since
2006). Recent books: Understanding Conflict
Resolution: War, Peace and the Global System
(second edition, Sage, 2007) and International
Sanctions: Between Words and Wars in the Global
System (ed. with Carina Staibano, Frank Cass,
2005).
LOTTA HARBOM, b. 1975, MA in Peace and
Conflict Research (Uppsala University, 2002);
Research Assistant, Uppsala Conflict Data
Program, Department of Peace and Conflict
Research. She has published articles on conflict
data in Journal of Peace Research and in SIPRI
Yearbook since 2005 and edited the publication
States in Armed Conflict since 2004.
Downloaded from http://jpr.sagepub.com at UNIV OF KENTUCKY on August 15, 2008
© 2007 International Peace Research Institute, Oslo. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.