CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 291Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolencePolitical Conflict and GovernancePolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East

Organized violence, 1989–2019

Open access
Pettersson, Therése, Öberg, Magnus·2020·Journal of Peace Research
DOI 10.1177/0022343320934986
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract This article reports on trends in organized violence, building on new data by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP). The defeat of Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq has pushed the number of fatalities, almost 75,600, to its lowest level since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011. However, this de-escalation in Syria is countered by increased violence in Africa, as IS and other transnational jihadist groups have relocated their efforts there. Furthermore, violence has continued to increase in Afghanistan; UCDP recorded more than 31,200 fatalities in Afghanistan in 2019, which accounts for 40% of all fatalities from organized violence across the globe. The general decline in fatalities from organized violence does not correspond with the trend in the number of active conflicts, which remained on a historically high level. UCDP recorded 54 state-based conflicts in 2019, including seven wars. Twenty-eight state-based conflicts involved IS (Islamic State), al-Qaida or their affiliates. In the past decade, conflicts involving these transnational jihadist groups have driven many of the trends in organized violence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022343320934986

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The empirical trends and evidence in this article cover state-based, non-state, and one-sided conflict, which are by some margin the dominant forms of contemporary conflict.

    “The empirical trends and evidence provided in this article cover state-based (civil) armed conflict, non-state (communal) conflict, and one-sided (terrorist/repression) conflict-by some margin the dominant forms of contemporary conflict(32).”

    From Vicious Circles: Violence, Vulnerability, and Climate Change (2021) · cites this paper as [32]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pettersson, T., & Öberg, M.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Pettersson, Therése
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Peace Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2020-06-16
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
597-613
ISSN
  • 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3578
DOI
10.1177/0022343320934986
OpenAlex
W4251067276
Cited by
291
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 11 · 2017: 1
FWCI
69.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Keywords
organized violence, conflict fatalities, Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Syrian civil war, Afghanistan conflict, Africa, violence trends

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review