ACLED Conflict Index

Where is conflict happening?

The 50 most violent countries and their rates of change are listed below. Of those countries with extreme violence, two are in Africa (Nigeria and Sudan), and Sudan continues to get worse as mass killings are a key feature of that conflict. Three countries are in the Middle East (Palestine, Yemen, and Syria), underscoring the depth of problems that persist in the region across decades. Myanmar is the sole Asian country with extreme violence, but it remains the most difficult conflict case in the world. Finally, four of the 10 extremely violent places are in Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Haiti); barring Haiti, all are also considered relatively stable democracies and market economies despite being riddled with gangs, contested authorities, corruption, and violence against civilians.  There are no large, traditional wars in these countries, but multiple, deadly, pervasive small conflicts.

These small conflicts and their characteristics continue to be the most persistent feature of instability across developing and more-developed countries. A key feature of these conflicts is the number of armed groups, and their agendas: several thousand militias and gangs operate across these conflicts, and their goals are often local authority and control. They do not seek to govern, speak for maligned or excluded groups, or transform the political system to be more democratic, fair, or representative. They are locked into a contest for power, where violence is the most effective tool available to them.

Click each column to sort results in the table below.

What does the Index tell us?

The world is getting far more violent in recent years: conflict event rates have increased by over 40% from 2020 through 2023; and increased 12% in 2023 from 2022 rates. But 2020 was a relatively less violent year compared to 2018-2019, when wars in both Afghanistan and Syria raged. Compared to those years, the increase in 2023 is still significant at an average of 20%.

Is conflict worsening or improving?

As of January 2024, 15 countries have seen improvements to their Index rankings during the five-year period between 2019 and 2023, and 16 have seen worsening levels of conflict. Sixteen countries have remained in the ‘extreme’ or ‘high’ conflict level categories consistently, with no change between 2019 and 2023. Overall, of the 50 countries ranked at the top of the Index, over half (42) are experiencing sustained or escalating levels of conflict compared to 2019.

In the six months between the mid-year update of the Index (July 2023) and the end of the year, eight countries have seen worsening levels of conflict, with three of those countries – Palestine, Haiti, and Sudan – moving into the ‘extreme’ conflict level category.

Ukraine decreased on the list. Why?

Ukraine’s position on the Index has decreased for two reasons. First, there are remarkable levels of stagnation in the Ukraine conflict, including in fatalities, active locations, and the fighting parties. Ukraine’s conflict is currently in a stage of attrition, with no sign of ending, and very little sign of change. Second, conflict in other countries is rising in multiple ways: in event frequency, conflict groups, and location under active conflict. While Ukraine’s conflict rate has stayed relatively stable and consistent, continued increases in other countries mean that it falls from ‘extreme’ to ‘high.’

Conflict rates and media attention are not correlated. Why?

Many conflicts do not garner sufficient attention, no matter how violent. These include Myanmar and Syria, which have ranked as the most violent countries in the Index for a year. In both cases, the conflicts are multiple, complicated, and enduring. Myanmar’s armed group resistance against the military junta persists, while Syria continues to battle with continuing violence in Idlib (the last anti-government holdout); continued Islamic State attacks in the east; Turkey attacking Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) fighters in the north; Iraqi resistance forces attacking United States bases; Israeli strikes in Damascus; and continuing unrest in smaller corners of the country.

There are several reasons why conflict rates and media attention are not matched: first, media attention is most frequently centered on conflicts that are internationally or ‘geopolitically’ relevant, meaning they have a resonance beyond the borders of the country in conflict, or they involve at least two governments (rather than internal conflicts).

The media covered both Gaza and Ukraine extensively because of the widespread interest in these conflicts and the threat of larger violence emanating from these contests. In Gaza, the conflict between Israel and Hamas is intense, very damaging for the population of Gaza, and has regional ramifications. Many journalists have been killed in bombings, but widespread coverage continues of Israeli activity. In Ukraine, the conflict involving Russia’s invasion of its sovereign neighbor has significant future implications for NATO and the European Union, other countries in Russia’s ‘near abroad,’ and the ability to prevent future invasions by a marauding state.

Second, most complex conflicts are difficult to report on, and increasingly, internal conflicts have multiple armed groups, competing agendas, and variable violent strategies.  Many of the conflicts we see in the most extreme categories violate our typical understandings of conflict as civil wars, insurgencies, or terrorist events. Conflicts in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia are complicated by cartels, pro-government gangs and anti-government groups: these groups are not trying to overtake the government or control territory to govern. They engage with the local police, and when they target government officials, it is often administrators like mayors and councilors. These militias seek to benefit from the existing political structure, and aim to have economic and social control over places and populations. The countries in both the ‘extreme’ and ‘high’ Index categories are very violent because so many of these militia groups exist, exposing large populations to violence in their competition between each other and civilians. While the media often expects revolution and mass repression from internal conflicts, most political violence looks very different.

Third, the threat to the media in some conflicts prevents full coverage, and victims, local organizations, or even governments provide information on the activities within conflicts. Not all conflict information is comparable in coverage, fairness, or accuracy, even when the environment allows for the free flow of information. The interest — and even biases — of audiences shape what kinds of information we receive.

How have conflicts changed?

Conflicts have become complex in some common ways.

There are few large, traditional wars now being fought, but many countries with several overlapping, concurrent conflicts.

The forms of conflict that are the most common around the world look more like the violence patterns in Mexico and Myanmar, and are less like traditional insurgencies where one group wrestles with a government for control or territory. They also host multiple conflicts that differ in both targets and intended outcomes, and these conflicts do not often overlap. This means that governments frequently find themselves fighting multiple conflicts at once, and communities are exposed to varied types of violence.

Violence in countries experiencing ‘extreme’ and ‘high’ conflict levels typically also involves many active armed, organized groups. These groups fight each other as frequently as they clash with government security forces. Militias, rather than rebels, increasingly play a leading role in these conflicts.

Conflict is growing fastest in middle-income, democratizing countries. Middle-income countries are experiencing the greatest rise in conflict. Poverty is not a precursor to conflict, and wealth is not a guarantee of peace. In the graphic below, the top 50 countries in the ACLED Conflict Index are placed across the UN Human Development Index. As this comparison demonstrates, many countries with ‘extreme’ or ‘high’ levels of conflict are places with high and sustained levels of economic and social development.

Democracy does not protect countries from violent politics. In countries transitioning to democracy or regressing from democracy, new forms and contenders of political competition encourage conflict. Democratic shifts across the world have reduced the likelihood of traditional civil wars and increased the likelihood of militia activity and political violence. Countries with “partly free” systems, according to Freedom House classifications, have elections, leader turnover and removal, inclusive representation, and other features of democracy, but often experience high levels of political violence, as shown in the graphic below.

There will be an unprecedented number of elections in 2024, and over half the world’s population will participate in, or live in, a country experiencing an election. This will give rise to violent attacks against civilians and more targeted assaults and killings of local officials by armed groups.

Can the Index suggest what is to come?

In the past, this Index has highlighted a country’s conflict position as ‘worsening,’ and confirmed its increasing instability in subsequent updates. For example, in July, Palestinian territories were noted as in ‘high’ conflict and having the world’s most extensive and diffuse violence; in this updated Index, Palestine is now ‘extremely’ violent.

The Index aggregates several characteristics of violence that are sensitive to change, and this allows us to robustly assess the likely trajectory of conflict. For example, the current Index suggests that Sudan and Haiti will likely worsen in the following six months, and Nigeria may improve. Yemen and Mexico are also likely to worsen.

ACLED produces monthly conflict forecasts at the national and subnational level in our Conflict Alert System  (CAST).  This system is highly accurate as to the trajectory of events in very violent countries. For example, on average over the last 6 months, CAST has predicted the number and type of events within 4% accuracy in half of the ‘extreme’ category countries: Brazil, Mexico, Yemen, Nigeria and Colombia.