图标统计的是死于武器的士兵与公民数量，图例至少涉及一个国家和100人的死亡。统计数据的冲突范围包括了州省一级战争的和内战，但不包括死于种族灭绝，恐怖主义，饥饿，和疾病，比如造成了50万到80万人死亡的1994卢旺达大屠杀和1-5百万死亡的1998-2003刚果战争。
When the first world war ended on November 11th 1918, David Lloyd George, Britain’s prime minister, told Parliament: “I hope we may say that thus, this fateful morning, came to an end all wars.” History proved him wrong. But 100 years on, the world is far more peaceful. Fewer than one in 100,000 people have died in combat per year since 2000—one-sixth the rate between 1950 and 2000, and one-fiftieth of that between 1900 and 1950. Why?
1918-11-11日，一战终结之时，英国首相，David Lloyd George，在议会宣布 “ 我希望今日的黎明 能终结所有的战争。 ” 历史证明他错了，但是100多年来，世界确实变得更加和平，2000年后，不到10万人死于战争，仅仅是1950-2000年的六分之一，更是1900-1950的十五分之一，有何缘由呢？
The simplest explanation is the advent of nuclear weapons, which deter major powers from fighting each other. But wars have declined among non-nuclear states, too. Another reason might be the spread of democracy and global norms. Bruce Russett and John Oneal, two academics, have found that countries that are democratic, trade heavily and belong to lots of international bodies fight each other less often than authoritarian, isolationist states do.
最简单的解释是核武器的出现，使得强国不敢轻启战端。但是在无核国家中，战争也在消逝。民主的传播和全球化可能是另一个原因。 Bruce Russett and John Oneal 发现民主的，贸易规模庞大的，从属于较多国际团体的国家相较于 威权和孤立的国家更不易发生战争。
The Economist has analysed all international and civil wars since 1900, along with the belligerents’ wealth and degree of democratisation (assigning colonies to their own category). We counted all conflicts involving national armies in which at least 100 people per year were killed, excluding deaths from terrorism, massacres of civilians outside combat, starvation or disease.
经济学人调查了1900之后的所有国际战争与内战，分析了交战国双方的财富与民主化程度，统计了100人以上死亡的冲突并且排除恐怖主义 战争之外的种族屠杀，饥饿和疾病。
The data show a strong correlation between democracy and peace, with a few exceptions. (The United States has been quite bellicose, and its advanced democracy did not prevent a civil war in 1861 that claimed more American lives than any conflict since.) Moreover, the relationship does not seem to be linear. The countries most prone to wars appear to be neither autocracies nor full democracies, but rather countries in between. A similar finding applies to prosperity. Middle-income countries are more warlike than very poor or rich ones.
数据显示了民主与和平之间的强相互关系，当然也有一些意外（美国相当好战，其相当高的民主水平也没能阻止其1861年的内战，这场战争所造成的死亡人数远非之后的战争所能及）然而，这种关系并不是线性的，往往是那些既不维权也不民主的国家才易于介入战争。中等收入的国家相较于更贫困或者富庶的国家更好战。
What causes such states’ belligerence? Warfare is expensive, and citizens in tyrannies struggle to organise uprisings. Some studies find that civil wars are more common after sudden regime changes, which cause instability. Perhaps a little political competition or wealth make it easier to take up arms. All this might explain why the bloodiest battles since 1900 have shifted from Europe, to Asia, to the Middle East and Africa. If partial democracy is linked to conflict, recent backsliding in countries like Turkey looks even more worrying.
是什么造成这些国家的好战呢？福利太昂贵了，残暴统治下的战争很有可能会为了福利而起义。一些研究发现，在政权更迭之后，借由所造成的社会不稳定，内战往往易于发生，也许小规模的政治斗争或者财富便会引起擦枪走火，这也许可以解释为什么自1900以后最血腥的战争从欧洲转移到亚洲，中东，和非洲。如果部分民主和战争有关，那么最近倒退的国家比如土耳其便让人忧虑起来。
Even a bit of democracy, however, saves lives overall—because empires and dictators are more likely to starve and slaughter their subjects. Counting man-made famines and genocides, colonial and undemocratic powers have caused 250m premature deaths since 1900—five times the death toll from combat in all wars combined.
然而，即使是一丁点的民主，总的来说，也能保全大多数人的姓名。因为皇帝或者独裁者更有可能给人民带来饥饿和屠杀。统计人为造成的饥饿和种族灭绝，殖民和非民主力量，在1900之后，已经造成两亿五千万人的死亡，5倍于战争的结果
网友评论