Towards a practitioner-centric definition of civil war

Abstract

This paper argues that current academic definitions of civil war are largely inadequate for international relations practitioners. While these casualty-based standards have the methodological consistency needed for quantitative research, they do not capture the dynamics most important to policymakers, including the degree of threat to national interests, the level of disruption to the international system, and the political implications of labelling a conflict a civil war. This paper explains how academics and practitioners use civil war definitions in different ways, creating the need for an additional but non-exclusive practitioner-centric definition of civil war. Its purpose is not to replace the existing academic standard, but rather to provide an additional tool for policymakers tailored to their specific needs – identifying when a civil war has emerged in order to implement a policy response.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Yale Professor Stathis Kalyvas for his valuable feedback on this article. All statements of fact, opinion or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the CIA or other US Government agency. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or Agency endorsement of the author’s views. This material has been reviewed by CIA to prevent the disclosure of classified information.

Notes

1. This paper makes a number of generalizations about international relations practitioners’ views about civil war. While the author recognizes these perspectives can vary, this paper reflects his best approximation of commonly held views.

2. While this paper focuses on COW-derived methodologies, these problems are common to all casualty-based definitions of civil war – such as the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDC), which has a 25 battle death threshold.