Global Peace Index

Global Peace Index 2025 (latest available map). Countries appearing with a deeper shade of green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as more violent.[1]

The Global Peace Index (GPI) is a report produced by the Australia-based NGO Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) which measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness.[2] The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (collectively accounting for 99.7 per cent of the world's population) according to their levels of peacefulness. In the past decade, the GPI has presented trends of increased global violence and less peacefulness.[3]

The GPI (Global Peace Index) is developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The index was first launched in 2007,[1] with subsequent reports being released annually. In 2015 it ranked 165 countries, up from 121 in 2007. The study was conceived by Australian technology entrepreneur Steve Killelea, and is endorsed by individuals such as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Dalai Lama, and 2008 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari. The updated index is released each year at events in London, Washington, D.C., and at the United Nations Secretariat in New York City.

The 2026 GPI indicates Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Slovenia, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, and Singapore to be the most peaceful countries, and Russia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, Israel, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Mali, Somalia, Pakistan, Myanmar, and the Central African Republic to be the least peaceful.[4] Among the top 7 most populous nations accounting for over half of the world's population and approximately half of the total GDP of the world, Indonesia ranks 69th overall on the Global Peace Index, China 118th, Brazil 124th, India 127th, the United States 134th, Nigeria 142nd and Pakistan 152nd.[4] Findings of the 2026 GPI indicate that the world became less peaceful for the 15th time in the last 18 years, with the average level of country peacefulness deteriorating by 0.7 per cent over the prior year.[5]

Ten indicators broadly assess what might be described as safety and security in society. Their assertion is that low crime rates, minimal incidences of terrorist acts and violent demonstrations, harmonious relations with neighbouring countries, a stable political scene, and a small proportion of the population being internally displaced or refugees can be suggestive of peacefulness.[6]

Methodology

Indicators of peacefulness

In 2017, 23 indicators were used to establish peacefulness scores for each country. The indicators were originally selected with the assistance of an expert panel in 2007 and are reviewed by the expert panel on an annual basis. The scores for each indicator are normalised on a scale of 1–5, whereby qualitative indicators are banded into five groupings, and quantitative ones are scored from 1–5, to the third decimal point. A table of the indicators is below.[7] In the table, UCDP stands for the Uppsala Conflict Data Program maintained by the University of Uppsala in Sweden, EIU for The Economist Intelligence Unit, UNSCT for the United Nations Survey of Criminal Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, ICPS is the International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London, IISS for the International Institute for Strategic Studies publication The Military Balance, and SIPRI for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Arms Transfers Database.

Indicator Source Coding
Number and duration of internal conflicts[a] UCDP, IEP Total number
Number of deaths from external organized conflict UCDP Armed Conflict Dataset Total number
Number of deaths from internal organized conflict International Institute for Strategic Studies, Armed Conflict Database Total number
Number, duration, and role in external conflicts UCDP Battle-related Deaths Dataset, IEP Total number
Intensity of organized internal conflict EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Relations with neighbouring countries EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Level of perceived criminality in society EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of population UNHCR and IDMC Refugee population by country or territory of origin, plus the number of a country's internally displaced people (IDP's) as a percentage of the country's total population
Political instability EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Impact of terrorism Global Terrorism Index (IEP) Quantitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Political terror Amnesty International and US State Department Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Number of homicides per 100,000 people UNODC Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (CTS); EIU estimates Total number
Level of violent crime EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Likelihood of violent demonstrations EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
Number of jailed persons per 100,000 people World Prison Brief, Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London Total number
Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people UNODC CTS; EIU estimates Total number; Civil police force distinct from national guards or local militia[b]
Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP The Military Balance and IISS Cash outlays of central or federal government to meet costs of national armed forces, as a percentage of GDP, scores from 1 to 5 based on percentages[c]
Number of armed-services personnel per 100,000 The Military Balance and IISS All full-time active armed-services personnel
Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people SIPRI Arms Transfers Database Imports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people[d]
Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people SIPRI Arms Transfers Database Exports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions United Nations Committee on Contributions and IEP Percentage of countries' "outstanding payments versus their annual assessment to the budget of the current peacekeeping missions" over an average of three years, scored from 1–5 scale based on percentage of promised contributions met
Nuclear and heavy weapons capability The Military Balance, IISS, SIPRI, UN Register of Conventional Arms and IEP 1–5 scale based on accumulated points; 1 point per armoured vehicle and artillery pieces, 5 points per tank, 20 points per combat aircraft, 100 points per warship, 1000 points for aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine[e]
Ease of access to small arms and light weapons EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5

Indicators not already ranked on a 1 to 5 scale were converted by using the following formula: x = [x - min(x)] / [max(x) - min(x)], where max(x) and min(x) are the highest and lowest values for that indicator of the countries ranked in the index. The 0 to 1 scores that resulted were then converted to the 1 to 5 scale. Individual indicators were then weighted according to the expert panel's judgment of their importance. The scores were then tabulated into two weighted sub-indices: internal peace, weighted at 60% of a country's final score, and external peace, weighted at 40% of a country's final score. "Negative Peace", defined as the absence of violence or of the fear of violence, is used as the definition of peace to create the Global Peace Index. An additional aim of the GPI database is to facilitate deeper study of the concept of positive peace, or those attitudes, institutions, and structures that drive peacefulness in society. The GPI also examines relationships between peace and reliable international measures, including democracy and transparency, education and material well-being. As such, it seeks to understand the relative importance of a range of potential determinants, or "drivers", which may influence the nurturing of peaceful societies, both internally and externally.[8]

Statistical analysis is applied to GPI data to uncover specific conditions conducive of peace. Researchers have determined that Positive Peace, which includes the attitudes, institutions, and structures that pre-empt conflict and facilitate functional societies, is the main driver of peace. The eight pillars of positive peace are well-functioning government, sound business environment, acceptance of the rights of others, good relations with neighbours, free flow of information, high levels of human capital, low levels of corruption, and equitable distribution of resources. Well-functioning government, low levels of corruption, acceptance of the rights of others, and good relations with neighbours are more important in countries suffering from high levels of violence. Free flow of information and sound business environment become more important when a country is approaching the global average level of peacefulness, also described as the Mid-Peace level. Low levels of corruption is the only Pillar that is strongly significant across all three levels of peacefulness. This suggests it is an important transformational factor at all stages of a nation's development.

Potential issues

According to The Economist, the weighting of military expenditure "may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defence".[9] The Global Peace Index has been criticized for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children.[10]

Conceptual criticism

Johan Galtung, in a 2016 editorial titled "Charlatanism: 'The Positive Peace Index'", argued that the IEP's framework omits structural violence and accordingly classifies "societies-regions-worlds so repressive that violence is not needed" as peaceful.[11] In his earlier papers, he defined positive peace and negative peace, as well as the concept structural violence. He and other researchers considered economic blockades and sanctions an insidious form of structure violence.[12][13]

Extending this line of criticism, peace researchers Peter T. Coleman and Kyong Mazzaro identified in 2013 a fundamental measurement asymmetry in the GPI: both the original GPI and the later Positive Peace Index (PPI) overwhelmingly measure the absence of negative conditions rather than the presence of positive ones.[14] A coding of the PPI indicators found that 73 per cent measured negative conditions (e.g., crime victimisation, homicide rates, perceived discrimination) while only 27 per cent assessed positive ones; combined with the GPI, the negative-to-positive ratio approached 7:1. Coleman and Mazzaro argued that decades of research in peace psychology, including John Gottman's findings that the predictors of divorce and the predictors of marital happiness are qualitatively distinct, and the authors' own studies of Israeli and Palestinian motivations, demonstrate that the drivers of sustainable peace are fundamentally different from the inverse of the drivers of violence. They proposed that sustainable peace be measured through a framework that tracks both the decreasing probability of destructive conflict and the increasing probability of cooperation, justice, and well-being, drawing on evidence that social systems thrive when the ratio of positive to negative dynamics exceeds approximately 3:1 to 5:1.[14]

A second concern raised by the same authors is the GPI's dominant economic lens. They observed that roughly half of the PPI's indicators are linked to the IEP's concept of a "Peace Industry" (metrics such as economic growth, consumer spending, and sound business environment) and noted that while commercial liberalism shows some correlation with reduced interstate conflict, economic openness does not significantly reduce internal conflict. Research indicates that horizontal inequalities (the intersection of political, social, and economic disparities) are a better predictor of civil rebellion than income level alone.[14]

Methodological criticism

The methodology used to construct and rank the Global Peace Index does not deal with positive peace. In addition, it may face criticism due to the following:

  • Reproducibility issue: five of the 23 indicators are not measured but are qualitative judgments assigned by anonymous analysts; many of the remaining 18 quantitative indicators depend on internally imputed values. Because the scoring practices of these analysts and imputation procedures are not fully disclosed, independent researchers cannot reproduce or verify these scores, effectively making the index a "closed-source human model". Relatedly, the GPI operates at the national level of analysis, which—while feasible for a global index—neglects significant sub-national variation in peacefulness across regions, communities, and cities, and relies on data from countries that may lack the basic infrastructure to collect accurate statistics on the measured indicators.[14]
  • False statistical precision and ranking artefacts: The GPI reports scores to three decimal places without any quantification of uncertainty or confidence intervals, importing more precision than the underlying data (such as estimated conflict deaths or subjective estimate of political stability) can support. [15]
  • Subjective or somewhat arbitrary selection or weighting of the factors[16]: In computing the index, relevant factors (for the instigators) are not meaningfully counted, such as imposition of economic blockade or sanctions that negatively impact human development or regional stability, troops stationed or deployed abroad for war preparations, assassinations conducted in neighboring countries, participation in foreign regime changes, proxy wars, and covert actions. Nair noted in 2016 that small, stable and democratic countries are most peaceful according to GPI, and most of them are western or central European democracies. [17] Swanson noted in 2022 that five of the 10 most “peaceful” nations on Earth were NATO members. [16]

Data consistency

The 2026 GPI report includes some 2026 data, but most indicators draw on data from 2025 or earlier. Although the report mentions the Iran War (which began on 28 February 2026) dozens of times across multiple chapters[18] and includes a dedicated subchapter on its economic impact,[19] the Index itself does not fully capture this conflict. The report notes that "the full impact of the Iran war is not captured by the Index this year"[5] and that Israel's improvement "does not take into account the Iran war that started in late February 2026".[20] Country-level relations indicators are updated only to the end of March 2026, leaving most 2026 events outside the scoring window.

It is also often not clear which data are obtained from direct surveys and which from imputation. Appendix A states that IEP uses "multivariate imputation by chained equations to create country-level estimates" when official data are missing,[21] but the assumptions underlying these imputations—particularly the missing-data mechanism (MCAR, MAR, or MNAR)—are not explicitly discussed in the main body of the report.

Assumptions

Despite devoting a full chapter to the "Economic Impact of Violence",[22] none of the 23 GPI indicators directly measures human injuries, suffering, or the direct economic cost of war (such as infrastructure destruction or conflict-related healthcare expenditure). The Index instead operationalises peace as the absence of violence through structural and institutional indicators (military expenditure, weapons transfers, political stability, etc.). As a result, a country can be actively engaged in sustained military conflict yet still register an overall score improvement if other indicator domains move favourably.

The 2026 GPI illustrates this limitation: Israel's overall score improved by 2.6 per cent,[20] driven mostly by improvements in the Militarisation domain and selected conflict indicators,[20] even as the country remained engaged in the protracted Gaza campaign (entering its third year), the June 2025 Twelve-Day War with Iran, and renewed conflict with Hezbollah in early 2026.[23] The human costs—including tens of thousands of civilian casualties[24][10] and large-scale infrastructure damage—fall largely outside the 23-indicator framework. This structural omission may partly explain why a country at war can nonetheless achieve an improved peacefulness score.

The 2026 GPI also reported a contrasting case: China's ranking dropped by 11 positions while the country maintained peaceful relations with neighbouring countries and was not engaged in any active armed conflict during the scoring period[4]; it reportedly played a key role in facilitating the Iran war ceasefire back in early April along with Pakistan.[25][26] The narrative that Israel's peacefulness improved by one position while engaged in multiple wars, at the same time that China's peacefulness declined substantially while at relative peace with its neighbours, has not been corroborated by any other published empirical and independent research in the field of peace and conflict studies. The curious conclusion derived from Table C.2 data in Appendix that Chinese society is less safe or secure than the American society in 2026 would also be difficult to replicate independently and empirically.[27]

Further research would be needed to see to what degree Global Peace Index may be susceptible to the common problems associated with composite index, such as arbitrary weightings, false precision, inconsistent standards, hidden methodologies, misleading comparisons.[15] Global Peace Index 2026 itself did not mention if uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis have been performed as advised by OECD Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators[28][29] to test robustness of the index across the 163 countries.

Global Peace Index ranking

Legend

  •   Very high state of peace
  •   High state of peace
  •   Medium state of peace
  •   Low state of peace
  •   Very low state of peace
2026 Global Peace Index Ranking[30]
Rank Country Score Change
1 Iceland 1.161 Steady
2 New Zealand 1.343 Increase 1
3  Switzerland 1.363 Decrease 1
4 Slovenia 1.369 Increase 2
5 Ireland 1.371 Decrease 1
6 Austria 1.421 Decrease 1
7 Portugal 1.427 Increase 1
8 Singapore 1.435 Decrease 1
9 Finland 1.478 Increase 1
10 Japan 1.489 Increase 3
11 Denmark 1.504 Decrease 2
12 Malaysia 1.513 Decrease 1
13 Czech Republic 1.517 Decrease 1
14 Canada 1.525 Increase 1
15 Hungary 1.538 Decrease 1
16 Bhutan 1.546 Increase 2
17 Netherlands 1.566 Steady
18 Mauritius 1.586 Increase 11
19 Latvia 1.589 Steady
20 Australia 1.602 Increase 4
21 Belgium 1.608 Decrease 5
22 Poland 1.615 Increase 23
23 Croatia 1.619 Increase 2
24 Lithuania 1.62 Increase 3
25 Estonia 1.623 Decrease 5
26 Bulgaria 1.628 Decrease 4
27 Spain 1.654 Increase 4
28 Germany 1.657 Decrease 5
29 Slovakia 1.661 Decrease 3
30 Montenegro 1.672 Decrease 2
31 Qatar 1.676 Decrease 10
32 Timor-Leste 1.681 Decrease 2
33 Norway 1.688 Steady
34 Mongolia 1.692 Increase 4
35 Italy 1.712 Steady
36 Albania 1.725 Increase 7
37 Uzbekistan 1.726 Increase 10
38 Equatorial Guinea 1.729 Increase 20
39 United Kingdom 1.73 Decrease 7
40 Sweden 1.732 Decrease 1
41 Vietnam 1.738 Decrease 1
42 Taiwan 1.751 Decrease 5
43 Uruguay 1.754 Decrease 1
44 Kazakhstan 1.771 Increase 5
45 Romania 1.788 Decrease 1
46 North Macedonia 1.792 Increase 3
47 Tajikistan 1.799 Decrease 6
48 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.81 Increase 9
49 Kuwait 1.813 Decrease 13
50 Botswana 1.823 Decrease 4
51 Armenia 1.825 Increase 21
52 Chile 1.826 Increase 8
53 Greece 1.828 Increase 2
54 Kosovo 1.83 Steady
55 Moldova 1.836 Increase 1
56 Gambia 1.837 Increase 5
57 South Korea 1.839 Decrease 6
58 Laos 1.846 Steady
59 Madagascar 1.849 Increase 4
60 Oman 1.85 Decrease 26
61 Kyrgyzstan 1.853 Increase 8
62 Costa Rica 1.86 Decrease 14
63 Namibia 1.872 Decrease 1
64 Paraguay 1.882 Increase 5
65 Morocco 1.887 Increase 3
66 Turkmenistan 1.903 Decrease 2
67 Sri Lanka 1.91 Increase 14
68 Jordan 1.913 Increase 9
69 Indonesia 1.918 Decrease 3
2=70 Jamaica 1.919 Decrease 1
2=70 Serbia 1.919 Increase 5
72 Argentina 1.922 Decrease 20
73 United Arab Emirates 1.927 Steady
74 Sierra Leone 1.937 Increase 9
75 Senegal 1.939 Increase 12
76 Ghana 1.943 Decrease 2
77 Tunisia 1.947 Increase 19
78 Angola 1.955 Increase 11
79 Trinidad and Tobago 1.959 Decrease 12
80 Cyprus 1.967 Decrease 9
81 Panama 1.976 Decrease 6
82 Zambia 1.992 Decrease 2
83 Malawi 1.994 Decrease 18
84 Papua New Guinea 2.002 Increase 17
85 Guinea-Bissau 2.012 Increase 7
86 Lesotho 2.016 Increase 27
87 Liberia 2.024 Increase 17
88 Guatemala 2.025 Decrease 6
89 Dominican Republic 2.038 Decrease 10
90 Zimbabwe 2.051 Increase 10
91 Algeria 2.053 Decrease 5
92 Bolivia 2.054 Decrease 2
93 Côte d'Ivoire 2.061 Decrease 9
94 Georgia 2.066 Increase 1
95 Saudi Arabia 2.067 Decrease 2
96 Cambodia 2.075 Decrease 8
97 Honduras 2.075 Increase 13
98 Tanzania 2.08 Decrease 20
99 France 2.083 Increase 3
100 Gabon 2.086 Increase 17
101 Thailand 2.089 Decrease 7
102 Philippines 2.092 Decrease 3
103 Guyana 2.093 Decrease 12
104 Eswatini 2.095 Increase 6
105 Djibouti 2.098 Increase 6
106 Nicaragua 2.107 Decrease 9
107 Peru 2.12 Decrease 1
108 Bahrain 2.131 Steady
109 Cuba 2.139 Decrease 11
110 Azerbaijan 2.142 Decrease 8
111   Nepal 2.143 Decrease 26
112 Mauritania 2.184 Increase 2
113 Egypt 2.186 Increase 2
114 Rwanda 2.2 Decrease 2
115 Belarus 2.216 Increase 1
116 Guinea 2.22 Increase 2
117 Bangladesh 2.226 Increase 3
118 China 2.231 Decrease 11
119 Togo 2.251 Increase 7
120 Republic of the Congo 2.256 Decrease 15
121 El Salvador 2.264 Increase 1
122 Benin 2.293 Decrease 1
123 South Africa 2.308 Decrease 4
124 Brazil 2.333 Increase 1
125 Libya 2.361 Increase 3
126 Mozambique 2.383 Increase 1
127 India 2.409 Decrease 3
128 Eritrea 2.412 Increase 3
129 Burundi 2.417 Increase 6
130 Uganda 2.42 Decrease 7
131 Lebanon 2.435 Increase 3
132 Kenya 2.447 Increase 1
133 Venezuela 2.516 Decrease 4
134 United States of America 2.535 Decrease 4
135 Ecuador 2.539 Decrease 3
136 Türkiye 2.605 Increase 8
137 Cameroon 2.634 Increase 5
138 Ethiopia 2.648 Increase 1
139 Mexico 2.65 Increase 4
140 Iraq 2.662 Steady
141 Colombia 2.735 Decrease 4
2=142 Haiti 2.755 Decrease 1
2=142 Nigeria 2.755 Increase 6
144 Iran 2.759 Decrease 6
145 Chad 2.769 Decrease 9
146 Niger 2.832 Decrease 1
147 North Korea 2.845 Steady
148 Palestine 2.877 Increase 2
149 Burkina Faso 2.882 Increase 3
150 Central African Republic 2.906 Increase 1
151 Myanmar 2.911 Increase 2
152 Pakistan 2.919 Decrease 6
153 Somalia 2.973 Decrease 4
154 Mali 2.996 Steady
155 Syria 3.067 Steady
156 Yemen 3.081 Increase 2
157 Afghanistan 3.106 Steady
158 South Sudan 3.116 Decrease 2
159 Israel 3.124 Increase 1
160 Ukraine 3.184 Increase 2
161 Democratic Republic of the Congo 3.189 Steady
162 Sudan 3.195 Decrease 3
163 Russia 3.367 Steady

Note: The GPI's methodology is updated regularly and is improved to reflect the most up-to-date datasets. Each year's GPI report includes a detailed description of the methodology used. Also, the data is revised periodically and so values from previous years may change accordingly.
These tables contain the scores and ranking published in the official annual reports. The latest revised data can be found at Vision of Humanity's Interactive world map of the Global Peace Index Archived 2022-07-16 at the Wayback Machine.

Responses

The Global Peace Index (GPI)[31] is shown compared to gross domestic product (GDP).

The Index has received endorsements as a political project from a number of major international figures, including the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan; former President of Finland and 2008 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari; the 14th Dalai Lama; Archbishop Desmond Tutu; Muhammad Yunus; and former United States President Jimmy Carter.[32]

Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia University said: "The GPI continues its pioneering work in drawing the world's attention to the massive resources we are squandering in violence and conflict."[33] Some at Australian National University say that the GPI report presents "the latest and most comprehensive global data on trends in peace, violence and war" and "provides the world's best analysis of the statistical factors associated with long-term peace, as well as economic analysis on the macroeconomic impacts of everyday violence and war on the global economy."[34]

The impact of Global Peace Index has been lower on the academic study of war and peace than on international organizations.[35]

Previous reports

  • "Reports Institute for Economics and Peace". Institute for Economics & Peace. Feb 6, 2024.
  • Institute for Economics and Peace (2023). Global Peace Index 2023 (PDF). Institute for Economics & Peace. ISBN 978-0-6451494-9-4.
  • "Global Peace Index 2021 Summary & Findings". Vision of Humanity. Oct 13, 2021.
  • Chalabi, Mona (Jun 11, 2013). "Global peace index 2013: the full list". the Guardian.
  • Rogers, Simon (May 25, 2011). "Global peace index 2011: the full list". the Guardian.
  • "Global Peace Index 2009" (PDF).

See also

Notes

  1. ^ In this case, a conflict is defined as, "a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year."
  2. ^ Excludes militia and national guard forces.
  3. ^ This includes, "cash outlays of central or federal government to meet the costs of national armed forces—including strategic, land, naval, air, command, administration and support forces as well as paramilitary forces, customs forces and border guards if these are trained and equipped as a military force."
  4. ^ This includes transfers, purchases, or gifts of aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery, radar systems, missiles, ships, engines
  5. ^ Rates the destructive capability of a country's stock of heavy weapons via a categorized system. As of 2013, countries with nuclear capabilities receive a score of five, the highest possible score.

References

  1. ^ a b "Global Peace Index".
  2. ^ Institute for Economics & Peace. "Global Peace Index 2017" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-04-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  3. ^ Wang, Monica. "The World's Most And Least Peaceful Countries In 2016". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2019-06-18. Retrieved 2017-11-26.
  4. ^ a b c "2026 Global Peace Index" (PDF). Institute for Economics & Peace. Institute for Economics & Peace. June 2026. Retrieved 2026-06-10.
  5. ^ a b IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, p. 14.
  6. ^ "INDEX", The Christology of Erasmus, Catholic University of America Press, pp. 293–302, 2024-01-26, doi:10.2307/jj.10677887.15, ISBN 978-0-8132-3803-6, retrieved 2024-06-17{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
  7. ^ Information about indicators and methodology "2013 Global Peace Index"(PDF). Institute for Economics and Peace. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-10. Retrieved 2013-06-24.
  8. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace. "Global Peace Index Report, Methodology, pg. 113–136" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-04-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  9. ^ "Give peace a rating". The Economist. 2007-05-31. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  10. ^ a b "Dark underbelly of the world's most 'peaceful' countries". Christian Science Monitor. 2007-07-26. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  11. ^ Johan Galtung (2016-07-11). "Charlatanism: "The Positive Peace Index"". Retrieved 2026-06-11.
  12. ^ Galtung, Johan (1969). "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research". Journal of Peace Research. 6 (3): 167–191.
  13. ^ Alexandra Hofer; Mohammad Kanfash (2024-06-17). "Sanctions as Violence". E-International Relations. Retrieved 2026-06-13.
  14. ^ a b c d Coleman, Peter T.; Mazzaro, Kyong (2013-11-27). "The Beginning of Peace?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2026-06-14.
  15. ^ a b Barclay, Matthew; Dixon-Woods, Mary; Lyratzopoulos, Georgios (2019). "The problem with composite indicators". BMJ Quality & Safety. 28 (4): 338–344. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-007798. PMID 30100565.
  16. ^ a b David Swanson (2022-07-19). "What the Global Peace Index Does and Does Not Measure". Retrieved 2026-06-10.
  17. ^ Nisha Velappan Nair (2016). "Constructing Indices of Peace: A Critical Reappraisal with particular Reference to Global Peace Index". Gandhi Marg Quarterly. 38 (1): 71–100.
  18. ^ IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, pp. 59–62.
  19. ^ IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, p. 59.
  20. ^ a b c IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, p. 21.
  21. ^ IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, Appendix A, pp. 107–109.
  22. ^ IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, Chapter 3, pp. 48–71.
  23. ^ IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, pp. 14–16.
  24. ^ Spagat, Michael; Pederson, Jon; Shikaki, Khalil; Robbins, Michael; Bendavid, Eran; Håvard, Hegre; Guha-Sapir, Debarati (18 February 2026). "Violent and non-violent death tolls for the Gaza conflict: new primary evidence from a population-representative field survey". The Lancet. 14 (4): e552–e559. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(25)00522-4. PMID 41722607. Retrieved 18 February 2026.
  25. ^ "Iran War Live Updates: U.S. and Iran Agree to Cease-Fire, Avoiding Trump's Threats of Imminent Devastation". The New York Times. 2026-04-07. Retrieved 2026-04-07.
  26. ^ "Why Pakistan and China brokered a fragile Iran ceasefire". USA Today. 2026-04-08. Retrieved 2026-04-08.
  27. ^ IEP, Global Peace Index 2026, p. 113.
  28. ^ OECD-JRC (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide, OECD Statistics working paper JT00188147, STD/DOC(2005)3.
  29. ^ JRC web pages on composite indicators
  30. ^ "2026 Global Peace Index" (PDF). Institute for Economics & Peace. Institute for Economics & Peace. June 2026. Retrieved 2026-06-10.
  31. ^ Vizzuality. "Resource Watch". resourcewatch.org. Retrieved 2025-03-04.
  32. ^ Endorsers for GPI — Vision of Humanity. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
  33. ^ "Global Peace Index: World Less Peaceful in 2010 Report, Violence Impacting Global Economy $7 Trillion Annually". Phil's Stock World. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  34. ^ "Giving peace a chance? 2017 Global Peace Index". ANU. 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  35. ^ Firchow, Pamina; Ginty, Roger Mac (2017). "Measuring Peace: Comparability, Commensurability, and Complementarity Using Bottom-Up Indicators". International Studies Review. 19: 6–27. doi:10.1093/isr/vix001.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.