UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset records the number of battle deaths per conflict, defined as: "a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year". EIU analysts, then, have clustered the figures available for 2005 and 2006 in bands:

1=0-24, 2=25-999, 3=1000-4999, 4=5000-9999, 5=> 10000

The separate elements of the definition are as follows:
(1) Use of armed force: use of arms in order to promote the parties' general position in the conflict, resulting in deaths.
(1.1) Arms: any material means, e.g. manufactured weapons but also sticks, stones, fire, water, etc.
(2) 25 deaths: a minimum of 25 battle-related deaths per year and per incompatibility.
(3) Party: a government of a state or any opposition organization or alliance of opposition organizations.
(3.1) Government: the party controlling the capital of the state.
(3.2) Opposition organization: any non-governmental group of people having announced a name for their group and using armed force.
(4) State: a state is
(4.1) an internationally recognized sovereign government controlling a specified territory, or
(4.2) an internationally unrecognized government controlling a specified territory whose sovereignty is not disputed by another internationally recognized sovereign government previously controlling the same territory.
(5) Incompatibility concerning government and/or territory the incompatibility, as stated by the parties, must concern government and/or territory.
(5.1) Incompatibility: the stated generally incompatible positions.
(5.2) Incompatibility concerning government: incompatibility concerning type of political system, the replacement of the central government or the change of its composition.
Incompatibility concerning territory: incompatibility concerning the status of a territory, e.g. the change of the state in control of a certain territory (interstate conflict), secession or autonomy (intrastate conflict).

A qualitative assessment of the level of distrust in other citizens, ranked from 1-5 (very low to very high) by the Economist Intelligence Unit's Country Analysis team. The lowest score (1) records that the majority of other people can be trusted and that there is an overall positive climate of trust in the country. The highest score (5) indicates that people are extremely cautious in dealing with others.

2.25 = Political instability
Qualitative assessment of level of political instability. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

4 = Respect for human rights
A qualitative measure of the level of political terror through an analysis of Amnesty International's Yearbook.

3.5 = Potential for terriorist acts
Qualitative assessment of the potential for terrorist acts. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts Close

This indicator addresses the degree to which political institutions are sufficiently stable to support the needs of its citizens, businesses and overseas investors. It is a composite indicator based on the scores, 1 to 5 for each of the following issues: What is the risk of significant social unrest during the next two years? How clear, established, and accepted are constitutional mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one government to another? How likely is it that an opposition party or group will come to power and cause a significant deterioration in business operating conditions? Is excessive power concentrated or likely to be concentrated, in the executive so that executive authority lacks accountability and possesses excessive discretion? Is there a risk that international disputes/tensions will negatively affect the economy and/or polity?

Mark Gibney and Matthew Dalton, from the University of North Carolina, have coded countries on a 1 to 5 scale according to their level of terror the previous year, based on the description provided in the Amnesty International Yearbook (in this case the 2007 Yearbook, referring to 2006 data). There is an additional index coded on a 1 to 5 scale based on a close analysis of Country Reports from the US State Department. Amnesty International scores have been used where available, with US State Department scores used to fill missing data.

- Level 1 is scored if the country operates under a secure rule of law. People are not imprisoned for their views and torture is rare or exceptional. Politically-motivated murders are extremely rare;
- Level 2 points that there is a limited amount of imprisonment for non-violent political activity. However, few persons are affected and torture and beatings are exceptional. Politically-motivated murder is rare;
- Level 3. Imprisonment for political activity is more extensive. Politically-motivated executions or other political murders and brutality are common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, for political views is also commonplace;
- Level 4. The practices of level 3 affect a larger portion of the population and murders, disappearances and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its pervasiveness, on this level political terror affects those who interest themselves in politics;
- Level 5. The terrors characteristic of level 4 countries encompass the whole population at level 5. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals.

This indicator has been compiled using UNODC figures (10th, 9th and 8th Survey of Criminal Trends) rather than Interpol data. The figures refer to the total number of penal code offences or their equivalent, but excluding minor road traffic and other petty offences, brought to the attention of the police or other law enforcement agencies and recorded by one of those agencies. The latest Interpol figures used are for 1998/99 and the consensus among experts on the analysis of criminal justice is that the UNODC figures are more reliable – they are compiled from a standard questionnaire sent to national officials via the UN statistical office. However, the UN acknowledges that international comparisons of crime statistics are beset by methodological difficulties:

* Different definitions for specific crime types: The category in which any incident of victimization is recorded relies on the legal definition of crime in any country. Should that definition be different, which is often the case, comparisons will not be made of exactly the same crime type. This is particularly the case in crimes that require some discretion from a police officer or relevant authority when they are identified. For example, the definitional difference between serious or common assault in different legal jurisdictions may be different, and this will be reflected in the total number of incidents recorded.

* Different levels of reporting and traditions of policing: This relates closely to levels of development in a society, most clearly reflected in accessibility to the police. Factors such as the number of police stations or telephones impact upon reporting levels. The level of insurance coverage in a community is also a key indicator of the likelihood of citizens approaching the police as their claim for compensation may require such notification. In addition, in societies where the police are or have been mistrusted by the population, most specifically during periods of authoritarian rule, reporting levels are likely to be lower than in cases where the police are regarded as important members of the community.

* Different social, economic and political contexts: Comparing crime data from societies that are fundamentally different may ignore key issues present in the society that impact upon levels of reporting. For example, different social norms in some countries may make it difficult for women to report cases of rape or sexual abuse, while in others, women are encouraged to come forward. The level of insurance coverage in a community is also a key indicator of the likelihood of citizens approaching the police as their claim for compensation may require such notification. In addition, in societies where the police are or have been mistrusted by the population, most specifically during periods of authoritarian rule, reporting levels are likely to be lower than in cases where the police are regarded as important members of the community.

The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is perhaps a more sensitive and accurate measure of crime – and arguably offers a picture of how the public views the criminal justice system – but is currently limited to a few, mainly industrialised, countries so these data are not included.

Where data are not present, The Economist Intelligence Unit's analysts have estimated figures based on their deep knowledge of each country. All the figures for homicides per 100,000 people have been banded as:

1=0-1.9, 2=2-5.9, 3=6-9.9, 4=10-19.9, 5= >20

The data have been banded:

1=0-69, 2=70-139, 3=140-209, 4=210-279, 5=> 280

The original figures have been taken from UNODC, 10th, 9th and 8th UN Survey of Criminal Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UNCJS) and refer to the civil police force as distinct from national guards or local militia. Where there are gaps, EIU analysts have filled the gaps and clustered data in bands:

1 = 0-199, 2 = 200-399, 3 = 400-599, 4 = 600-799, 5 = > 800

The BICC Weapon Holdings Database contains figures for four weapon categories: armoured vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, major fighting ships. The numbers of weapons in these categories have been indexed, with 1996 as the fixed base year. Holdings are those of government forces and do not include holdings of armed opposition groups. Weapon systems in storage are also not included. Indices for groups are directly calculated from the aggregated numbers of holdings of heavy weapons, as follows:

1=0-199, 2=200-999, 3=1000-2999, 4=3000-6999, 5=> 7000

A qualitative assessment of the accessibility of small arms and light weapons (SALW) is ranked 1-5 (very low–very high) by EIU analysts. Very limited access is scored if the country has developed policy instruments and best practices, such as firearm licences, strengthening of export controls, codes of conduct, firearms or ammunition marking. Very easy access, on the contrary, is characterized by the lack of regulation of civilian possession, ownership, storage, carriage and use of firearms.

5 = Military capability/sophistication
Qualitative assessment of the grade of sophistication and the extent of military research and development (R&D) Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

Democracy and Transparency