Data on the Fragility-Grievances-Conflict Triangle

This dataset merges data on state fragility, developmental grievances and political violence into an annual country-specific format from 1995 to 2018. It is based on the following existing data sources: 1. Fatalities of political violence: UCDP Georeferenced data. URL: https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/index.html#ged_global 2. State fragility: State Fragility Index of Systemic Peace 2018. URL: https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html 3. Population data: World Bank’s World Development Indicators. URL: https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.POP.TOTL&country=# 4. Human development: UNDP Human Development Reports (various years). URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/download-data 5. Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index. URL: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi 6. US and other great power interventions: Kivimäki, Timo. Coding of US Presidential Discourse on Protection. University of Bath Research Data Archive, 2019. doi:10.15125/BATH-00535. The data is produced for an exploration of the associations between several indicators related to developmental grievances, state fragility and conflict. The definitions and operationalisations of the variables of each of the source variable can be found in the above sources, while the methodology of the development of the applied variables can be seen in the do-file of this data. Arguments for each of the applied variables can be found in the associated paper, “The Fragility-Grievances-Conflict Triangle in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): An Exploration of the Correlative Associations”

Premises of Support and Opposition to NATO Enlargement: A Dataset

In this NVivo 12 textual analysis package files and Stata 17 datasets, the focus is on the arguments presented by 40 leading analysts of European security in their arguments for their view on whether NATO enlargement was a mistake. The selection of the experts was done by the Foreign Affairs journal that published an opinion survey of 62 experts of which 40 published their arguments in addition to their opinions in this survey publication of Foreign Affairs (Foreign Affairs Survey 2022). These arguments by 40 of the 62 surveyed experts is the textual material of this dataset. The textual data was coded to reveal premises of these experts. The coding was based on distinctions that the creator of this dataset created on the basis of literature reviewed in his article “Theoretical Premises of Support of and Opposition to NATO Enlargement.

Data on the Fragility-Grievances-Conflict Triangle

This dataset merges data on state fragility, developmental grievances and political violence into an annual country-specific format from 1995 to 2018. It is based on the following existing data sources: 1. Fatalities of political violence: UCDP Georeferenced data. URL: https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/index.html#ged_global 2. State fragility: State Fragility Index of Systemic Peace 2018. URL: https://www.systemicpeace.org/inscrdata.html 3. Population data: World Bank’s World Development Indicators. URL: https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.POP.TOTL&country=# 4. Human development: UNDP Human Development Reports (various years). URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/download-data 5. Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index. URL: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi 6. US and other great power interventions: Kivimäki, Timo. Coding of US Presidential Discourse on Protection. University of Bath Research Data Archive, 2019. doi:10.15125/BATH-00535. The data is produced for an exploration of the associations between several indicators related to developmental grievances, state fragility and conflict. The definitions and operationalisations of the variables of each of the source variable can be found in the above sources, while the methodology of the development of the applied variables can be seen in the do-file of this data. Arguments for each of the applied variables can be found in the associated paper, “The Fragility-Grievances-Conflict Triangle in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): An Exploration of the Correlative Associations”

Coding of US Presidential discourse on protection

This dataset is based on NVivo coding of all clauses in US Presidential Papers (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States 1989–2012 [Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office]) with the word "protect" in any of its forms. Clauses are coded for their referent objects (who is being protected). For those clauses that deal with the protection of global civilians (referent object is not US or allies, but people in other countries), coding is also done for the agent of protection and for the method of protection (protection by changing someone else's behaviour vs. protection by changing one's own behaviour)

A Dataset on the Discourse, Approach and Outcomes of UN Peacekeeping, 1993–2019

This dataset is based on NVivo coding of each UN Security Council resolution since Resolution 864 (1993) until the end of year 2019 (Resolution 2503) for their reference to protection. Every word "protect" and words stemmed from it, is coded for its (a) referent object, (b) agent, and (c) method of protection. - Categories of referent object used in the coding are (a) protector itself (UN and other humanitarian workers), (b) partisan referent (constituencies of one but not the other conflicting party), (c) cosmopolitan (referent object is what chapter 1 of the source book defines as “global civilian”), (d) the environment, (e) other. - Categories for agent of protection are (a) UN Security Council, (b) UN General Assembly, (c) UN Secretary General or Secretariat, (d) Other UN, (e) Peacekeeping operation, (f) Conflicting party, (g) External Western agent, (h) External non-Western agent, (i) Representative regional agent, (j) National or international law. - Method of protection is classified simply as power-centric or not power-centric. The definition of power-centricity is from Chapter 1 of the source book. In addition to data on the UN discourse, which originates from the UNSC resolution depository (https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/resolutions-0), there are variables on the number of fatalities in countries where UN conducts peacekeeping, before, during and after UN operation during the post-Cold War era. These files also contain data on the development of fatalities in countries where unilateral protective operations have been conducted. All conflict fatality data is annual and taken from Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s annual battle deaths data, data on one-sided violence, and data on non-state conflict. Definitions and data on state fragility and fatalities of conflict is from the source book, and from Kivimäki, Timo 2019a. The Failure to Protect. The Path to and Consequences of Humanitarian Interventionism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. The data enables the study of the relationships between discursive developments, discursive strategies and approaches on the one hand and the development of fatalities of violence where UN operations take place. It enables comparison between UN peacekeeping operations and comparison in time

Premises of Support and Opposition to NATO Enlargement: A Dataset

In this NVivo 12 textual analysis package files and Stata 17 datasets, the focus is on the arguments presented by 40 leading analysts of European security in their arguments for their view on whether NATO enlargement was a mistake. The selection of the experts was done by the Foreign Affairs journal that published an opinion survey of 62 experts of which 40 published their arguments in addition to their opinions in this survey publication of Foreign Affairs (Foreign Affairs Survey 2022). These arguments by 40 of the 62 surveyed experts is the textual material of this dataset. The textual data was coded to reveal premises of these experts. The coding was based on distinctions that the creator of this dataset created on the basis of literature reviewed in his article “Theoretical Premises of Support of and Opposition to NATO Enlargement.

Data on the securitization of ideologies in US presidential speech

This dataset is created for the analysis of the origin of securitization of ideologies in US political discourse. There are two Stata 17 documents, one focusing on word frequencies (WordFrequencies.dta) of all clauses in US Presidential Papers (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States 1989-2014 (Washington D.C.: US Government Printing Office)) and the other focusing on NVivo-based coding of sentences (Coding results.dta) with the word "ideology" in any of its forms from January 2003 until the end of 2005. These are coded with NVivo 12 textual analysis package, with open access to the coding of the text in file “securitization of knowledge.qsr

Data on the Effects of Hegemonic Masculinity in US Presidential Speech Acts on Fatalities of Organised Violence in US Wars

This dataset it created for the measurement of the effect of hegemonic masculine US presidential speech acts on the development of fatalities in US wars. Hegemonic mascunility in this data is counted as the monthly absolute number and share of sentences with the word "protect" in which the method of protection is changing of someone else's behaviour by means of power (rather than conducting protective actions, such as accepting refugees, for example, or by restraining mutual power by means of arms control, disarmament etc.). Coding has been done by using NVivo and by coding each sentence from the document collection Public Papers of the President of the United States from the beginning of year 1989 until the end of 2013

A Dataset on the Discourse, Approach and Outcomes of UN Peacekeeping, 1993–2019

This dataset is based on NVivo coding of each UN Security Council resolution since Resolution 864 (1993) until the end of year 2019 (Resolution 2503) for their reference to protection. Every word "protect" and words stemmed from it, is coded for its (a) referent object, (b) agent, and (c) method of protection. - Categories of referent object used in the coding are (a) protector itself (UN and other humanitarian workers), (b) partisan referent (constituencies of one but not the other conflicting party), (c) cosmopolitan (referent object is what chapter 1 of the source book defines as “global civilian”), (d) the environment, (e) other. - Categories for agent of protection are (a) UN Security Council, (b) UN General Assembly, (c) UN Secretary General or Secretariat, (d) Other UN, (e) Peacekeeping operation, (f) Conflicting party, (g) External Western agent, (h) External non-Western agent, (i) Representative regional agent, (j) National or international law. - Method of protection is classified simply as power-centric or not power-centric. The definition of power-centricity is from Chapter 1 of the source book. In addition to data on the UN discourse, which originates from the UNSC resolution depository (https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/resolutions-0), there are variables on the number of fatalities in countries where UN conducts peacekeeping, before, during and after UN operation during the post-Cold War era. These files also contain data on the development of fatalities in countries where unilateral protective operations have been conducted. All conflict fatality data is annual and taken from Uppsala Conflict Data Program’s annual battle deaths data, data on one-sided violence, and data on non-state conflict. Definitions and data on state fragility and fatalities of conflict is from the source book, and from Kivimäki, Timo 2019a. The Failure to Protect. The Path to and Consequences of Humanitarian Interventionism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. The data enables the study of the relationships between discursive developments, discursive strategies and approaches on the one hand and the development of fatalities of violence where UN operations take place. It enables comparison between UN peacekeeping operations and comparison in time

Dataset on the association between unilateral and UN operations and the number of fatalities of organised violence

This dataset is created for the study of the association between unilateral and UN operations and fatalities of organised violence. It links fatality statistics from Uppsala Conflict Data Program to data on UN peacekeeping operations and unilateral operations by great powers (UNSC P5) in 38 countries. Definitions and data is further explained and justified in the associated publication, "Whose Conflict Prevention Works: Strong States vs. The Legitimate World Organisation" by Timo Kivimäki