The short version
Conflict Brief publishes original IR analysis grounded in academic theory and properly sourced to credible primary and secondary materials. Every factual claim should be traceable to a source. Every theoretical argument should be clearly labelled as such. I write in plain English without dumbing things down, and I tell you when something is contested, uncertain, or a matter of interpretation rather than established fact.
If you find an error, I want to know about it. If something is misleading, I want to know about that too. The contact page is always open.
Editorial principles
Principle 01
Theory is a lens, not a conclusion
IR theory — realism, liberalism, constructivism, and others — is used here as an analytical tool to explain events, not as a predetermined conclusion to defend. When I apply a theoretical framework, I say so explicitly. When multiple frameworks offer competing explanations, I present them rather than picking one and ignoring the others.
Principle 02
Claims require sources
Every factual claim in an article should be traceable to a credible source — academic journals, government documents, reputable news organisations, or primary sources. Statistics are cited with their origin. Where a claim is contested in the scholarly literature, that is noted. Where I cannot verify something, I do not publish it as fact.
Principle 03
Contested debates are presented as such
IR has genuine scholarly disagreements — whether China is a revisionist power, whether sanctions work, whether NATO expansion caused the Ukraine war. On contested questions, I present the strongest versions of competing arguments rather than asserting one side as settled truth. Where I offer a view, I label it as my own interpretation and explain the reasoning.
Principle 04
Accessible does not mean superficial
Writing clearly is not the same as writing simply. I do not use jargon without explanation, but I also do not strip out complexity to make things easier. The goal is to take the reader to the actual level of the subject matter — not to pretend it is simpler than it is, and not to perform complexity that is not there.
Principle 05
Independence is non-negotiable
Conflict Brief has no institutional affiliation and no editorial oversight from any government, political party, think tank, or sponsor. The analysis here reflects the scholarship, not a predetermined conclusion someone paid to reach.
Principle 06
Corrections are made promptly and transparently
When errors are identified — factual mistakes, outdated figures, misconstrued arguments — they are corrected as quickly as possible. Significant corrections are noted in the article itself so readers who have already read it can see what changed and why. Pointing out errors is genuinely welcomed, not just tolerated.
How articles are written
Each article begins with a specific question or argument — not a topic. “What does realism predict about US-China competition?” produces a better piece than “US-China relations.” The question shapes what the analysis needs to do and what counts as a good answer.
I read the relevant scholarly literature before writing. That means journal articles, book chapters, and primary source documents — not just news coverage. Where academic sources are unavailable or insufficient, I use credible investigative journalism and government documents. I use news sources for current events and dateable facts, not for analysis.
Every article goes through at least one round of fact-checking against the cited sources before publication. Figures, dates, treaty provisions, and scholarly attributions are verified against the original source rather than a secondary summary.
Sources used
Academic journals
International Security, International Organization, Foreign Affairs, World Politics, International Studies Quarterly, European Journal of International Relations, Security Studies.
Primary sources
UN treaty database, official government documents, ICJ and ICC rulings, NATO communiqués, EU Council conclusions, Congressional records, declassified intelligence assessments.
Data sources
SIPRI (military expenditure), World Bank (economic data), Freedom House (democracy indices), ACLED (conflict data), Our World in Data, Uppsala Conflict Data Program.
Think tanks & policy
RAND Corporation, Chatham House, Council on Foreign Relations, IISS, Carnegie Endowment, Brookings Institution, European Council on Foreign Relations. Used for policy analysis, not editorial direction.
News organisations
Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, The Guardian, Financial Times, and regional outlets for local context. Used for current events and dateable facts. Not used as sources for analytical claims.
What we avoid
Anonymous sources, partisan advocacy organisations, social media as primary evidence, and outlets with documented records of factual inaccuracy. Government sources are used for statements, not for contested factual claims about their own conduct.
What Conflict Brief is not
✕
Not a news outlet. Conflict Brief does not break news or report on current events as they happen. It analyses events that have already occurred, placing them in theoretical and historical context.
✕
Not affiliated with any university, government, or political organisation. My academic background informs the content but Conflict Brief has no institutional affiliation and no editorial relationship with the University of Tartu, Kennesaw State University, or any other institution.
✕
Not claiming to be definitive. International relations is a contested discipline. Reasonable scholars disagree on major questions. Where I offer a judgement, I say so. Where the evidence is genuinely uncertain, I say that too.
Errors and corrections
Found a mistake? Please tell me.
Factual errors, outdated statistics, misconstrued scholarly arguments, broken links — all of these are correctable. If you find one, use the contact page with as much detail as possible: what the error is, what the correct information is, and ideally a source. I take corrections seriously and will acknowledge them promptly. Corrections to published articles are noted within the piece itself.
A note on the glossary and study tools
The IR Glossary, flashcard deck, treaty timeline, and other reference tools are written to reflect mainstream scholarly consensus on definitions and concepts. Where a term is contested — where different schools use it differently, or where its meaning has evolved — that is noted in the definition.
The premium study tools (flashcard deck, EU quizzes, International Law Quiz, IR Topic Finder) are designed for learning and revision, not for professional or legal advice. Treaty texts are linked to their official UN or institutional sources rather than summarised from memory. Any discrepancy between a summary and the official text should be treated as an error — the official text prevails.