CSI Methodology

The Conflict Severity Index (CSI) is a monitoring and assessment framework developed by International Affairs Watch (IAW) to measure the severity, evolution, and systemic impact of conflicts, crises, and geopolitical flashpoints worldwide. It does not forecast outcomes or assign deterministic predictions; rather, it captures changes in conflict intensity, scope, and impact over time.

The CSI exists to address a recurring challenge in conflict analysis: the need for a structured, comparable, and transparent assessment tool that combines quantitative indicators with qualitative judgment. Many monitoring efforts rely either on event counts alone or on unstructured expert opinion. The CSI integrates both approaches within a consistent analytical framework.

The framework is designed to support researchers, journalists, policymakers, students, and analysts in understanding how severe a given situation is, how it is evolving, and where its main pressures lie. It does not purport to measure legitimacy, culpability, or moral value of any actor.

Several conceptual distinctions underpin the CSI. An event is a discrete occurrence (e.g., an attack, a displacement, a diplomatic statement). A situation is the broader context in which events take place. A conflict is a sustained confrontation involving organized actors and incompatible interests. Severity refers to the intensity, scope, and human cost of that confrontation. The CSI assesses situations and conflicts, not isolated events, and focuses on severity as a multi-dimensional attribute.

Conflict severity cannot be adequately captured by a single variable. Lethality alone ignores humanitarian strain; geographic scope alone ignores institutional collapse; civilian casualties alone ignore escalation risk. The CSI is built on the premise that severity is multi-dimensional and that both security dynamics and civilian impact must be considered together.

Trend and direction matter as much as absolute levels. A stable high-severity conflict presents different challenges than a rapidly escalating one. A situation that has improved from critical to high still requires attention, while one moving from low to moderate may warrant closer monitoring. The CSI therefore incorporates trend assessment alongside level assessment.

The CSI is built around four core dimensions, each reflecting a distinct aspect of severity:

The CSI is applied to different types of situations, including but not limited to: armed conflicts, internal security crises, political instability, humanitarian emergencies, and geopolitical flashpoints.

Not all situations involve active warfare. Some score high due to escalation risk, systemic instability, or humanitarian stress without sustained combat. Others may involve low-intensity violence but significant institutional or humanitarian deterioration.

The CSI is designed to be comparable across different types of crises. A political crisis with high institutional destabilization and a civil war with high civilian impact can both be assessed on the same scale, allowing for cross-context comparison while respecting the distinct nature of each situation.

The CSI is built using a structured set of indicators grouped by dimension. No single indicator determines the score; multiple indicators are weighed and cross-checked. The following describes what is measured in each dimension and why these indicators matter.

The CSI uses a 1–5 severity scale with qualitative descriptions. Scoring reflects current conditions based on available evidence; it does not predict future developments.

The CSI always includes a trend assessment. Trend indicates whether the situation is improving, stable, or deteriorating over a defined period.

A stable high-severity conflict is qualitatively different from a rapidly escalating one. The former may require sustained humanitarian and political engagement; the latter may require urgent de-escalation and early warning. Similarly, a situation moving from critical to high severity remains serious but signals a positive shift.

Recent developments are weighed more heavily than older events. The trend reflects short- to medium-term dynamics, typically over weeks to a few months, depending on data availability and the pace of change.

Trend does not imply inevitability. A deteriorating trend does not mean that escalation is certain; an improving trend does not mean that relapse is impossible. Trend is an observational assessment, not a forecast.

The CSI relies on multiple types of sources, including: open-source intelligence (OSINT); reports from international organizations (e.g., United Nations agencies, ICRC); reports from NGOs and humanitarian agencies; reputable media reporting; and event datasets (e.g., conflict and violence datasets).

No single source determines the score. Information is cross-checked whenever possible. Source reliability, consistency over time, and independence are considered in the assessment.

IAW does not conduct primary field research. All evidence is drawn from publicly available or institutionally published sources. Where sources conflict, analysts weigh reliability and recency and document the rationale for the assessment.

The CSI is not a fully automated index. Analyst judgment plays a critical role in interpreting data, reconciling conflicting sources, and applying the framework to diverse contexts.

Qualitative assessment is necessary because indicators are not always directly comparable across contexts, reporting quality varies, and some dimensions (e.g., institutional destabilization) resist simple quantification. Analysts contextualize data within the specific political, historical, and geographic setting.

Bias is mitigated through structured criteria, explicit documentation of rationale, and internal review. Analysts apply the same dimensions and severity levels across all situations to the extent possible. Changes in scores are documented with clear justification.

The CSI has important limitations. Information gaps are common in conflict-affected areas; some events are underreported or reported with delay. Reporting bias may affect certain regions or types of violence more than others.

Rapidly evolving situations may outpace the availability of verified data. Scores may lag behind real-time developments. Data availability differs across regions; some contexts benefit from richer monitoring infrastructure than others.

CSI scores may be revised as new information emerges. IAW maintains the right to update assessments when evidence warrants it. Users should treat the CSI as an analytical tool, not an absolute truth. It supports understanding and comparison but does not replace context-specific analysis or professional judgment.

The CSI appears across the IAW platform in several forms: on conflict and situation detail pages; in maps and layered visualizations; in regional overviews; and in trend monitoring displays.

The index is designed to support understanding, enable comparison across situations, and improve situational awareness. It helps users quickly gauge severity and identify situations that merit closer attention.

The CSI is not designed to recommend policy actions or predict conflict outcomes. It provides an assessment of current severity and trend; it does not prescribe responses or forecast specific scenarios.

The CSI methodology is publicly available. IAW is committed to transparency so that users can understand how scores are produced and interpret them appropriately.

Updates to the methodology may occur as analytical standards evolve, new data sources become available, or feedback from users and experts is incorporated. Changes are documented and communicated. Substantive revisions are announced and explained.

IAW welcomes feedback on the methodology. For inquiries or suggestions, users may contact the organization through the designated channels.