How can we get better at knowing where the next war will break out?

UCL Policy Lab and Chatham House’s International Security Programme have partnered to form the Innovation Network in Conflict Prediction, convening a series of roundtables bringing together experts and policymakers. Held under the Chatham House Rule, this collaboration creates a space for cross-sector dialogue on the most pressing challenges in conflict prediction and prevention.

The nature of conflict is rapidly evolving, with technological advancements, shifting geopolitical alliances, and the rise of non-state actors fundamentally altering the playing field. The first meeting of the Innovation Network discussed what conflict trends states can expect to see, states’ ability to monitor and respond to emerging conflicts, how states can update their intervention toolkit, and the impact that the changing conflict landscape will have on the UK’s ability to prevent or mitigate conflict.

We were privileged to host leading voices from government, academia, and civil society who shared insights on the changing nature of conflict. The meeting also created space for practical action planning through targeted breakout sessions designed to leverage the collective expertise of participants by grouping individuals with complementary knowledge and perspectives.

Key discussion points:

• The geographical regions of conflicts remain relatively static, while the nature of these conflicts continuously evolves.
• It is unclear whether conflict is becoming increasingly internationalised or if we simply have enhanced capability to detect these trends.
• The proliferation of non-state actors involved in conflicts, in part enabled by technology, has increased the complexity and violence, creating new challenges for traditional intervention models.
• Disconnect between policy priorities and public sentiment, with tensions between domestic political pressures and conflict prevention and aid policies, particularly around issues of migration, resource allocation and isolationism.
• Structural barriers, including siloed government agencies, inflexible funding mechanisms, and convoluted bureaucratic processes, that prevent timely responses to peace opportunities.
• How artificial intelligence and machine learning are revolutionising conflict analysis, how new technologies are being utilised in conflicts, as well as ethical questions surrounding the use of AI by state and non-state actors.

The discussions provided an opportunity to reflect and collaboratively brainstorm more effective approaches to conflict prediction and prevention. The session strengthened the research-policy interface by facilitating discussions between government and expert representatives, where both sides articulated their specific needs for more effective collaboration. By bringing together diverse perspectives and fostering relationships of trust and constructive dialogue, thus, the first meeting of the Innovation Network laid the groundwork for more effective, ethical, and sustainable conflict prevention strategies in an increasingly complex world. In sum, the Innovation Network proposes the following recommendations to strengthen the UK's conflict prediction and prevention policies:

• Before undertaking any intervention, states must have a strong understanding of the actors involved in a conflict, and how they relate to each other.
• Need for proactive and non-military intervention systems by integrating violence prevention into aid and development policy.
• States should be more focused on implementing projects targeting the drivers of conflict – such as social cohesion and economic intervention – rather than early warning systems.
• Need to clarify objectives and priorities on the part of the UK and European governments: preventing suffering, protecting domestic security, or preserving historical legacies?
• Effective intervention requires systematic stakeholder mapping, realistic policies on engagement with non-state actors, acknowledgement of problematic historical interventions, and identification of actors' actual interests, such as economic incentives driving armed group membership.
• Proactive and non-military intervention systems should be integrated with related priorities like environmental protection and humanitarian aid.
• Bureaucratic barriers that hinder timely information processing and response must be addressed.
• The UK could reframe its priorities toward minimising harm by avoiding inadvertent support for drivers of conflict, while simultaneously engaging non-Western middle powers as partners capable of facilitating regional agreements and local opportunities that traditional interventions might miss.

 This work was supported by UCL Innovation & Enterprise.

Author: Georgia Cole (Research Analyst, International Security Programme), with contributions from Manuel Vogt (Associate Professor, Department of Political Science).