Civilian fatality figures are a limited, if important, data point that influences the ability of researchers to study patterns of violence and evaluate policy responses intended to end violence. However, across datasets that track such violence there are significant differences in how and what is counted, this has direct bearing on how atrocity endings are understood and what policies might best be applied. There are often good reasons for data variation that cannot always be resolved. Nonetheless, it is important to understand and itemize the factors that influence these differences. Highlighting the relationship between the evidence base for and the construction of research consensus about civilian fatality figures, this paper draws on case study research to demonstrate how variations in the evidence base that defines an ending can fundamentally alter the narrative about historical mass atrocity events, with significant implications for how protection is conceptualized.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Susan Breau and Rachel Joyce, ‘The Responsibility to Record Civilian Casualties’, Global Responsibility to Protect, 5, 1:28–55 (2013).
Stephen Ellis, The Mask of Anarchy: The Destruction of Liberia and the Religious Dimensions of an African Civil War (London: Hurst & Co., 1999), p. 315.
Laurie Wiseberg, ‘The Statistics Jungle: Measuring War, Plague, Fire, and Famine’, Society 12:5, 53–60 (1975).
Bamisaiye Adepitan, ‘The Nigerian Civil War in the International Press’, Transition 44: 30–35 (1974).
Wiseberg, The Statistics Jungle, p. 54.
Wiseberg, The Statistics Jungle, pp. 55–56.
Douglas Anthony, “‘Ours is a war of survival’: Biafra, Nigeria and arguments about genocide, 1966–70”, Journal of Genocide Research, 16:2–3, 205–225 (2014), p. 216.
Human Security Report Project, 2009/2010 Human Security Report: The Causes of Peace and the Shrinking Costs of War, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Jason Stearns, Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa (New York: Public Affairs, 2011), p. 335; and on the narratives of conflict, Severine Autesserre, ‘Dangerous Tales: Dominant Narratives on the Congo and Their Unintended Consequences’, African Affairs, 111/443:202–222 (2012).
Cribb, How many deaths?, p. 91.
Marek Sliwinski, ‘Afghanistan: the Decimation of a People’, Orbis, 33:1, 39–56 (1989); Noor Ahmand Khalidi, ‘Afghanistan: Demographic Consequences of War, 1978–1987’, Central Asia Survey, 10:3, 101–126 (1991).
Linda M. Heywood, ‘Angola and the Violent Years 1975–2008: Civilian Casualties,’ Portuguese Studies Review, 19:1/2, 311–332 (2011), pp. 315–316.
Fernando Andresen Guimaraes, The Origins of the Angolan Civil War: Foreign Intervention and Domestic Political Conflict (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2001), p. 53.
Pawson, Lara. 2014. In the Name of the People: Angola’s Forgotten Massacre. New York: I.B. Tauris.
Abdu Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 1964–1985 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994).
Kenneth Ingham, Obote: A Political Biography (New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 197.
Alex de Waal, The Real Politics of the Horn of Africa: Money, War and the Business of Power. (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015).
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 489 | 46 | 5 |
Full Text Views | 263 | 2 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 64 | 7 | 2 |
Civilian fatality figures are a limited, if important, data point that influences the ability of researchers to study patterns of violence and evaluate policy responses intended to end violence. However, across datasets that track such violence there are significant differences in how and what is counted, this has direct bearing on how atrocity endings are understood and what policies might best be applied. There are often good reasons for data variation that cannot always be resolved. Nonetheless, it is important to understand and itemize the factors that influence these differences. Highlighting the relationship between the evidence base for and the construction of research consensus about civilian fatality figures, this paper draws on case study research to demonstrate how variations in the evidence base that defines an ending can fundamentally alter the narrative about historical mass atrocity events, with significant implications for how protection is conceptualized.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 489 | 46 | 5 |
Full Text Views | 263 | 2 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 64 | 7 | 2 |