This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Melander, E. Articles by Hall, J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Are ‘New Wars’ More Atrocious? Battle Severity, Civilians Killed and Forced Migration Before and After the End of the Cold War

Uppsala University, Sweden

Magnus Öberg

Uppsala University, Sweden

Jonathan Hall

Uppsala University, Sweden

It is widely believed that the human impact of civil conflict in the present era is especially destructive. Proponents of the ‘new wars’ thesis hold that today’s conflicts are fuelled by exclusive identities, motivated by greed in the absence of strong states, and unchecked by the disinterested great powers, resulting in increased battle severity, civilian death and displacement. The ratio of civilian to military casualties is claimed to have tilted, so that the overwhelming majority of those killed today are civilians. Using systematic data that are comparable across cases and over time we find that, contrary to the ‘new wars’ thesis, the human impact of civil conflict is considerably lower in the post-Cold War period. We argue that this pattern reflects the decline of ideological conflict, the restraining influence of globalization on governments, and the increasing rarity of superpower campaigns of destabilization and counter-insurgency through proxy warfare.

Key Words: battle severity • civilians killed • conflict trends • forced migration • new wars

European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 15, No. 3, 505-536 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1354066109338243


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?