Understanding the core terms and categories surrounding conflict‑related violence is the first step toward effective intervention, protection, and long‑term peacebuilding. Without clear definitions of survivors, perpetrators, and affected communities, global efforts to address this violence risk becoming fragmented and incomplete. This article explores the definitions and scope of conflict‑related violence, examining the critical categories of survivors, perpetrators, and affected communities, and why precision in these definitions matters for justice and human dignity.
Table of Contents
Defining conflict‑related violence
Conflict‑related violence encompasses a range of deliberate harms—including killing, torture, forced displacement, abduction, and sexual violence—that occur in the context of armed conflict, whether international or non‑international. The United Nations defines conflict‑related sexual violence (CRSV) as “an abuse of human rights and when perpetrated in the context of and associated with an armed conflict, is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime”. The purpose of clearly defining this scope is to standardise reporting and ensure evidence‑based responses through mechanisms like the Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Arrangements (MARA).
The concept of conflict‑related violence, however, extends beyond physical acts. According to the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, conflict‑related violence is “a deliberate form of intentional violence whose aim is to create fear, humiliation, and displacement, harming individuals, families, and communities”.
The UN Office at Geneva noted that in 2024 alone, the UN verified around 4,500 cases of conflict‑related sexual violence, with an overwhelming 93 per cent of survivors being women and girls. Conflict remains the primary driver of terrorism: more than 99 per cent of all terrorist‑related deaths occur in countries involved in a violent conflict or with high levels of political terror. These realities underscore that conflict‑related violence is not an inevitable byproduct of war, but a preventable crime.
Conflict‑related sexual violence (CRSV)
Conflict‑related sexual violence (CRSV) has traditionally been understood as an inevitable side effect of war, with rape framed as a biologically driven act committed by men against women. This perception shifted following landmark rulings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which established sexual violence as a weapon of war. Under international law, CRSV is recognised as a war crime, a crime against humanity, and an act that can constitute genocide.
However, scholars have critically examined the “weapon of war” framework, arguing that it reproduces harmful gendered identities and oversimplifies the complexities of sexual violence in conflict. The framework has been criticised for its exclusion of male victims, female perpetrators, and diverse motivations for sexual violence—such as opportunism, material gain, and combatant bonding. A more nuanced understanding recognises that perpetrators can include both state and non‑state actors, and survivors may be men, women, boys, and girls from all affected communities. The UN Security Council has passed at least five resolutions specifically addressing CRSV, including Resolution 2467 (2019), which prioritises a survivor‑centred approach to service delivery and investigation.
Survivors: moving beyond victimhood
Conflict‑related violence devastates individuals and communities. The term “survivor” is often preferred over “victim” to reflect the agency, resilience, and courage of those who have endured violence. A survivor‑centered approach—endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2467—respects the safety, confidentiality, and informed consent of survivors and recognises that centring survivors in responses to conflict‑related violence helps prevent future conflict.
The impact of conflict‑related sexual violence does not only devastate survivors but also tears apart families and communities. The trauma, shame, and stigma are borne by victims, not perpetrators, echoing across generations. As the UN Secretary‑General has noted, “Too often, perpetrators walk free, cloaked in impunity while survivors often bear the impossible burden of stigma and shame”. Survivors and their children often face exclusion from education, employment, and other essential aspects of life, pushed into poverty—further deepening their vulnerability.
Recent research highlights the need for intersectional, holistic approaches to supporting survivors. A survivor‑centred, rights‑based approach has immense potential to positively contribute to the building of a more equal and just peace. Yet, the limited availability of support services, especially following recent aid cuts, stands in the way of survivors’ healing. In March 2025 alone, UNFPA’s Sudan office had to close 40 women and girls safe spaces, impeding efforts to provide both immediate and long‑term care.
Perpetrators: beyond the binary
The category of “perpetrators” includes both state and non‑state actors, ranging from high‑level commanders to individual combatants, as well as those who facilitate, finance, or encourage violence. The United Nations has noted that perpetrators aim to destroy community bonds, using rape as a tool of domination and control.
Scholars have developed typologies of perpetrators to better understand the specific roles individuals play in collective violence. The classic typology—perpetrators, victims, and bystanders—first proposed by Raul Hilberg in 1992, has become a key element of scholarship on mass violence. Definitions of perpetrators typically include four prerequisites: holding the most power in the area where the conflict is taking place; exploiting a perceived stress; blaming that stress on a specific constructed category of people; and the termination of these roles when the violence ends.
More recent scholarship complicates the clear‑cut perpetrator‑victim binary. The transitional justice literature identifies a “grey zone” of individuals who cannot be easily classified—those who joined armed groups after experiencing injustice, who suffered harms after joining armed groups, or were forced to commit crimes as part of self‑defence groups or as child soldiers. As one study notes, “Individuals can assume and be assigned multiple roles throughout a conflict: perpetrators can be victims, and vice versa”. This blurring of boundaries has profound implications for accountability, reparation, and reintegration.
Affected communities: the collective dimension of harm
Conflict‑related violence does not only impact individual survivors; it tears apart entire communities. When traumatic events such as organised violence strike, they bring not only fear, anxiety, and loss to survivors but also damage to the livelihood and environment of affected populations. The crack in protective factors may trigger mistrust, social tension, and discord, which if left unchecked may ultimately lead to community distress.
Affected communities can be defined as groups of people who share a geographic, social, or cultural space and who collectively experience the impacts of conflict‑related violence. This includes displaced populations, minority groups, and those living in contested territories. The ICRC report “Navigating Violence” explores the lived reality of more than 204 million people who inhabit areas under the full or contested control of armed groups, revealing a world where authority is fluid, services fragile, and safety conditional.
The effects of conflict on communities are manifold: decreased freedom of movement, harassment, intimidation, coercion, and the targeting of ethnic or religious minorities. Community‑level harm also includes the breakdown of social cohesion, intergenerational trauma, economic devastation, and the erosion of trust in institutions. As one peacebuilding study notes, “It does not only devastate survivors but also tears apart families and communities. The trauma, shame and stigma are borne by victims, not perpetrators – echoing across generations”.
Healing affected communities requires community‑based interventions, child‑friendly support for survivors’ education, and legislative policy changes. Community‑based approaches recognise that violence does not occur in a vacuum and that sustainable peace can only be achieved when communities are empowered to rebuild social trust and economic resilience.
Conclusion
Defining conflict‑related violence, survivors, perpetrators, and affected communities is not merely an academic exercise. These definitions shape how international humanitarian law is applied, how resources for survivors are allocated, how perpetrators are held accountable, and how affected communities receive the support they need to recover. As global conflicts continue to proliferate—with 2024 marking the highest number of state‑based armed conflicts in over seven decades—the need for precise, survivor‑centred, and community‑informed frameworks has never been more urgent.
Understanding the complex interplay between survivors, perpetrators, and affected communities—and moving beyond rigid binaries—is essential for building just and sustainable peace. The international legal framework provides the tools; the challenge lies in transforming these tools into real protection and justice for those caught in the brutality of conflict.
Explore more insights on this topic at Centre for Elites:
Understanding Conflict and the Nature of Conflicts — a fundamental primer on conflict definitions and dynamics.
For further reading, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights offers extensive resources on international humanitarian law, while the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) provides ongoing updates on protecting civilians in armed conflict.
Explore videos related to this topic on: Decoly Psych – Mental Health & Mindset
Watch a full Playlist here: Counselling and Rehabilitation of Conflict Victims
