Human security and casualty counting in Ulster: Towards a peaceful and just solution

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.13169/jglobfaul.8.2.0219
• Pages: 219-247
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Date: 01 October 2021
• Author: Sally Browne

Journal of Global Faultlines, 2021

Vol. 8, No. 2, 219-247.

219

Human security and casualty counting in Ulster: Towards a

peaceful and just solution

Sally Browne1

Abstract

The Troubles have spread heartbreak and misery across Northern Ireland, mainland

Britain, and Europe for 50 years, claiming the lives of thousands and victimizing tens of

thousands. With each death, physical, and psychological injury there are stories of a father,

son, brother, sister, daughter, and mother. Human security encapsulates the lives of these

people and examines their experiences front and center, and for the first time this sentiment

will be adopted in an academic paper to analyze casualty counting in Northern Ireland.

This study demonstrates that the Northern Irish Troubles are not just suitable for casualty

recording but are also in desperate need of it, as current casualty recording facilities are

inadequate in tackling victimization and providing closure to grief-stricken families. This

paper analyzes the theoretical aspects of casualty counting and inspects human rights laws

in Northern Ireland, seeking to remedy current issues of victim hierarchies in database

inclusions, incomplete timelines, and limited accessibility to records, in order to provide

Troubles victims with the recognition and answers they yearn for. The overarching theme of

this study is that effective casualty recording is a steppingstone to bridging the community

divide in Northern Ireland, bringing accountability and ultimately ending the war.

Introduction

“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory”

(Nguyen, 2013: 144). This is particularly accurate for Northern Ireland, as it is a country that

has seen conflict, violence, and death in abundance since ever since its formation in 1920/1921;

the most recent chapter manifested itself in the so-called “Troubles” (Aretxaga, 1998; Bew,

2007; Coakley and O’Dowd, 2007; Cronin, 2001; Fanning, 1985; Hennessey, 1997; McGaughey

and Skinazi, 2012; McKearney, 2011; Melaugh, 2018; Norton, 2014; Ranelagh, 1983; Smith, 1995;

Tonge, 2013). Browne (2019) spoke about how Troubles victims have been left unacknowl-

edged by officials and perpetrators, and that for the bloodshed to end, suffering and pain

must be recognized and addressed. Such victim experiences are central to a human security

approach, which assesses security from citizens’ ability to survive, work, and carry out their

everyday lives with dignity, which is the responsibility of a state to enable through “political,

social, environmental, economic, military and cultural systems” at all times (CHS, 2003: 4;

Gjørv, 2018; Gasper and Gomez, 2013). Such responsibilities continue after death and materi-

alize in the form of casualty recording facilities, which work on the principle that no individu-

als should die unrecorded, therefore personal information about the dead, how they died,

groups responsible, and their role in a conflict are documented (Dardagan et al., 2010;

Hamourtziadou, 2017; Minor, 2012a). While monitoring trends of a conflict and upholding

victim rights, casualty counting also supports peace and reconciliation talks by demonstrat-

ing the collective damage caused by warring factions (Hamourtziadou, 2017). Through adopt-

ing a human security approach, this paper aims to build on Browne (2019) and outline how

casualty recording is the solution that Troubles victims need to resolve their issues of recogni-

tion, whilst informing future recorders on the legislation, methods, and inclusions that are

Human security and casualty counting in Ulster: Towards a peaceful and just solution

Sally Browne

220

necessary for a new Northern Irish database to be successful. This is achieved through the

following objectives:

 Evaluate the suitability of casualty recording to the Troubles, five decades after its

commencement.

 Explore and define the meaning of “casualties.”

 Explore and apply theoretical frameworks of casualty to the Troubles.

 Explore human rights legislation relevant to casualty recording and Northern Ireland.

 Document potential hurdles involved with casualty counting in Northern Ireland

and offer resolutions to such issues.

This research approaches the theoretical background of casualty recording and how it

relates to Northern Ireland. It examines legislation related to Northern Ireland and the

current landscape of death databases in the region, and finally considerations and changes

are explored with a view to equipping future recorders with everything they need. Northern

Ireland is in desperate need of an inclusive database that navigates the complex political,

religious, and identity factors that led to the Troubles (Browne, 2019). This paper will illus-

trate that casualty counting is the step towards the justice and peace that Northern Ireland

is looking for. Casualty recording is a practice that recognizes the impact left from the

dead and attaches responsibility for deaths and victimization to the participating factions

of the Troubles.

The concept of “security” dates as far back as the first century bce with the work of

Cicero, who described security as a sense of calm that is not interrupted by fear, aggression,

or anxiety (Gjørv, 2018). Two millennia later, the idea of human security was developed and

became a popular academic concept. It highlights the pain of victims and gives them a voice

amongst powerful government accounts of conflict. The importance of victim recognition

has previously been discussed in Browne (2019), aligning with the principles of human secu-

rity. Browne (2019) explains that the widespread violence seen prior to 1998 could be reig-

nited if victims do not receive the recognition or protection they require. Casualty recording

acknowledges the dead, documents damage, and reveals continuing patterns of harm, offer-

ing an ideal solution to Northern Ireland’s current victim crisis which in part is preventing

the cross-community cohesion needed for the Troubles to end and the population to heal.

Casualty recording

Whilst governments are expected to conduct death counting by law, casualty counting is not

exclusively performed by states. Conflict parties, humanitarian organizations, and wider

society strive to calculate the true of cost of conflict; for example, there are more than 40 non-

profit groups (NGOs) across the globe working with the Oxford Research Group to record

deaths caused by conflict in countries such as Syria, Columbia, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia

(Civilians in Conflict, n.d.; Everycasualty, n.d.). There are pitfalls to states collecting data, as

they may increase, decrease, or distort figures to further their political rhetoric (Andreas and

Greenhill, 2010; Jewell et al., 2018). However, Fischhoff et al. (2007) notes that governments

are afforded the luxury of near unlimited staff and resources, something NGOs often battle

for. Nevertheless, NGOs possess the advantage of community cooperation and access to no-go

areas that are too dangerous for government officials (Fischhoff et al., 2007). The background

and accessibility must be assessed ahead of any casualty recording, to ensure the approach is

appropriate for each unique conflict. For example, the British government leading such a task

would be met with hostility from the families of those killed during Bloody Sunday and like-

wise an Irish government-led project may not be welcomed by the loyalist community in

Northern Ireland due to sectarian divide in the region.

Casualty counting is often executed to acknowledge the loss of a human life, follow-

ing the cultural principle that every individual should be acknowledged and their needs met