The devastating impacts of armed conflict extend well beyond the immediate physical damage and suffering experienced by civilians. The economic disruption caused by armed conflict exerts a significant burden not only on the economies of affected nations but also on adjacent regions and global markets. Such a financial strain often leads to a halt in investment and trade, which can negatively impact a nation’s ability to rebound from conflict and foster resiliency post-conflict.
Inadequate access to economic opportunities is often a root cause of armed conflict. The lack of such opportunities can lead to a perception of disenfranchisement and resentment amongst certain groups, which can motivate them to seek independence from or redress against a state. In addition, the opportunity to control valuable economic resources may be a driving force behind armed conflict. For example, in Sierra Leone, where the armed conflict was largely fueled by diamonds, rebels and government forces alike sold future exploitation rights to foreign companies for substantial sums of money.
Moreover, many states, particularly those on the far right of the political spectrum, provide support for armed conflict by asserting that it is a natural right of a powerful state to claim whatever territory it wishes from weaker countries. These views, along with those of some centrist, capitalist world leaders, have led to the widespread view that armed conflict is an acceptable means of addressing geopolitical issues and advancing economic prosperity.
The legal definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law – articulated in Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions – is wide-ranging and intentionally broad, so that States cannot try to deny its applicability by claiming that they are only engaged in a police action rather than a war (see Commentary on the First Geneva Convention). Additionally, armed conflicts are defined as any dispute between two or more States in which a resort to armed force has taken place.