Vojenské Rozhledy

Czech Military Review

Vojenské rozhledy / Czech Military Review Nr. MC/2017: 83-91

Typology and Analysis of Armed ConflictsNonreviewed - Other

Richard Stojar

The text deals with the conflict analysis and the use of typology within its framework. The author sums up the most relevant methodological approaches and tries to highlight their limits in the analysis of the current conflicts, which have by far more different characteristic features than in the past. In modern military conflicts, the states often use private military companies and create illegal armed formations. Quite often, the conflict parties have a varied character and one can observe chaotic alliances of state and non-state actors with different interests and different views on the projection of power and the use of armed force. The text highlights the necessity of adaptation of the current methodological approaches or at least their components and the development and changes which take place in contemporary conflicts.

Keywords: Conflict Analysis; Typology; UCDP; HIIK

Published: October 15, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Stojar, R. (2017). Typology and Analysis of Armed Conflicts. Czech Military Review98(MC), 83-91
Download citation

References

  1. SHEVCHUK, Z. Towards a Typology of Armed Conflict. In: KŘÍŽ, Z., URBANOVSKÁ, J. (eds.) Examining Armed Conflict: Theoretical Reflections on Selected Aspects, Brno: Masaryk University 2014, p. 88.
  2. JEONG, H-W., Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis. New Delhi: SAGE Publications 2011, p. 130.
  3. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program, online edition, Uppsala, 2017, http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions
  4. DE SPIGELAIRE, S., SWEIJS, T., ZHAO, T. Contours of Conflict in the 21st Century, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, Rapport No 06 /03/11, p. 67.
  5. DYČKA, L. Typologie aktérů v konfliktech: Angolský případ. Politologická revue, Issue 1/18/2012, pp. 73-93.
  6. DYČKA, L. Aktéři surovinového konfliktu v Angole. Brno: FSS MU 2010, p. 17.
  7. NYE, S. J., WELCH, A. D. Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: Intro to Theory and History Harlow: Pearson, 2014. ISBN 978-1-29202-318-2., p. 48.
  8. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Conflict Barometer 2016, No. 25, online edition, Heidelberg, 2017, http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2016.pdf
  9. SINGER, J. D., SMALL, M. The Wages of War, 1816-1965: A Statistical Handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1972, p. 8.
  10. SARKEES, M.R. The COW Typology of War: Defining and Categorizing Wars. The Correlates of War Project 2017, http://www.correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/COW-war/the-cow-typology-of-war-defining-and-categorizing-wars
  11. LEVINGER, M. Conflict Analysis. Understanding Causes, Unlocking Solutions. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace 2013, p. 213.
  12. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program, online edition, Uppsala, 2017, http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions
  13. Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Conflict Barometer 2016, online edition, Heidelberg, 2017, https://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2016.pdf
  14. STOJAROVÁ, V. Současné bezpečnostní hrozby západního Balkánu. Kritická analýza konceptu bezpečnosti Kodaňské školy. Brno: CDK 2007, p. 70.
  15. STOJAR, R. The Robotisation of Armed Conflict, 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference SGEM, Book 1, Volume 2, p.275.