Suchergebnisse

This article follows the classic approach to small arms research by focusing on determining the number of small arms available among three distinct user groups: the civilian population, the state security forces and non-state armed groups. Past incidents are analysed to assess the threat posed by the availability of small arms among the groups identified as presenting a security risk. The article concludes that small arms proliferation outside of state structures is limited in Central Asia. Internal security agents enforce the strict laws on civilian possession and maintain close control over the population. Uncontrolled proliferation of firearms is unlikely to become a major security risk provided government control mechanisms continue to function in this manner. Armed opposition forces, including Islamic extremists and terrorists, do not pose a significant insurgency risk to the s ate on the basis of their existing stockpiles, and are unlikely to acquire significant quantities of firearms unless aided by members of state forces. Nonetheless, they continue to be a disruptive force. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
Background
Attacks on health care represent an area of growing international concern. Publicly available data are important in documenting attacks, and are often the only easily accessible data source. Data collection processes about attacks on health and their implications have received little attention, despite the fact that datasets and their collection processes may result in differing numbers. Comparing two separate datasets compiled using publicly-available data revealed minimal overlap. This article aims to explain the reasons for the lack of overlap, to better understand the gaps and their implications.


Methods
We compared the data collection processes for datasets comprised of publicly-reported attacks on health care from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Insecurity Insight's Security in Numbers Database (SiND). We compared each individual event to compile a comparable dataset and identify unique and matched events in order to determine the overlap between them. We report descriptive statistics for this comparison.

Results
We identified a common dataset of 287 events from 2017, of which only 33 appeared in both datasets, resulting in a mere 12.9% (n = 254) overlap. Events affecting personnel and facilities appeared most often in both, and 22 of 31 countries lacked any overlap between datasets.

Conclusions
We conclude that the minimal overlap suggests significant underreporting of attacks on health care, and furthermore, that dataset definitions and parameters affect data collection. Source variation appears to best explain the discrepancies and closer comparison of the collection processes reveal weaknesses of both automated and manual data collection that rely on hidden curation processes. To generate more accurate datasets compiled from public sources requires systematic work to translate definitions into effective online search mechanisms to better capture the full range of events, and to increase the diversity of languages and local sources to better capture events across geographies.

Abstract
Background
Attacks on health care in armed conflict, including those on health workers, facilities, patients and transports, represent serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Information about these incidents and their characteristics are available in myriad forms: as published research or commentary, investigative reports, and within online data collection initiatives. We review the research on attacks on health to understand what data they rely on, what subjects they cover and what gaps exist in order to develop a research agenda going forward.

Methods and findings
This study utilizes a systematic review of peer-reviewed to identify and understand relevant data about attacks on health in situations of conflict. We identified 1479 papers published before January 1, 2020 using systematic and hand-searching and chose 45 articles for review that matched our inclusion criteria. We extracted data on geographical and conflict foci, methodology, objectives and major themes. Among the included articles, 26 focused on assessment of evidence of attacks, 15 on analyzing their impacts, three on the legal and human rights principles and one on the methods of documentation. We analyzed article data to answer questions about where and when attacks occur and are investigated, what types of attacks occur, who is perpetrating them, and how and why they are studied. We synthesized cross-cutting themes on the impacts of these attacks, mitigation efforts, and gaps in existing data.

Conclusion
Recognizing limitations in the review, we find there have been comparatively few studies over the past four decades but the literature is growing. To deepen the discussions of the scope of attacks and to enable cross-context comparisons, documentation of attacks on health must be enhanced to make the data more consistent, more thorough, more accessible, include diverse perspectives, and clarify taxonomy. As the research on attacks on health expands, practical questions on how the data is utilized for advocacy, protection and accountability must be prioritized.