About the Flashpoints & Frameworks Series:
FAQ on the Methodologies Behind the Newsletter
Each edition of the Flashpoints & Frameworks Newsletter reflects a conscious methodology. We don’t just track incidents—we decode systems. In this post, I explain why we use the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) HALO Positive Peace & Systems Thinking Framework, CARVER Risk Matrix, and U.S. Global Fragility Act (GFA) Lines of Effort to analyze global security events. It also outlines the personal and professional exposures that shaped my commitment to these tools.
Why not just report what happened?
Because surface events are often the final signals of something deeper. Conflict is not chaos; it is a feedback loop between institutional weakness, political identity, and external shock. If we report the violence without exploring the system that generated it, we fail to explain anything actionable.
Our integrated methodology is built to do more than describe symptoms. It’s designed to clarify causes.
What is the CARVER Risk Matrix, and why do we use it?
CARVER is a tool for threat prioritization. Originally developed for military targeting and later used in infrastructure security, it helps us assess how attractive or exposed a potential target is, whether it’s a location, institution, or population group.
CARVER is an acronym for:
C – Criticality: How essential is the target to operational success?
A – Accessibility: Can the target be reached or exploited easily?
R – Recuperability: How quickly can the damage be undone?
V – Vulnerability: How weak is the target’s defense?
E – Effect: What would the impact be—psychologically, politically, or materially?
R – Recognizability: How obvious is the target?
In my 20-year career as a U.S. Government contractor, we used CARVER in ‘proof of concept’ research projects concerning the safety and security of the National Air Space. Everything from surveillance systems to spectrum allocation and human-factor risks. Its utility was proven across agencies and applications. Later, through exposure to Security Management International (SMI) and CARVER expert Luke Bencie, I saw how adaptable it was for analyzing human security and NGO security risk management as well. While CARVER is my tool of preference I must mention that I used other risk management tools sometimes alongside CARVER to get a robust assessment (ie 5x5 risk matrix, scenario analysis, & root cause analysis). I’ll provide more on these in future postings.
🌍 What is the Positive Peace Framework?
This is where we move from threat to resilience. Developed by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), the Positive Peace Framework identifies the institutional and cultural foundations that make peace sustainable (that defines Positive Peace), not just the absence of war (known as negative peace), but the presence of just systems.
The Positive Peace Systems Thinking framework consists of Eight Pillars, each representing a measurable domain of systemic health. Each pillar affects the others (a system) :
Well-Functioning Government: Institutions that are predictable, accountable, and trusted.
Sound Business Environment: A climate where formal economic activity can thrive.
Equitable Distribution of Resources: Access to wealth and services that avoid extreme disparities.
Acceptance of the Rights of Others: Norms and laws that safeguard minority and human rights.
Good Relations with Neighbors: Diplomatic and social ties that discourage external interference or conflict.
Free Flow of Information: Access to independent media and transparency in public discourse.
High Levels of Human Capital: Investment in education, health, and personal development.
Low Levels of Corruption: Systems where rule of law is respected and public trust isn't eroded.
I was introduced to this framework during my time in the U.S. Institute of Peace Academy’s Conflict Analysis program. Their use of both the IEP and the Fragile States Index opened my eyes to peace as a measurable, diagnosable system. That led me to join the IEP Peace Academy as part of its April 2020 cohort, further grounding me in the discipline of systemic fragility assessment.
🏛 What are the U.S. Global Fragility Act (GFA) Lines of Effort?
The GFA is the most ambitious attempt by U.S. foreign policy in recent memory to move from crisis response to fragility prevention. Passed with bipartisan support in 2019, the GFA reflects a structuralist view of peacebuilding: that enduring stability requires changes in governance, economic access, and civic trust—not just foreign aid or troop deployment.
The Lines of Effort (LoEs) are its operational backbone—four interlinked focus areas used by U.S. government agencies and partners to structure interventions:
Promote Inclusive Governance and Political Legitimacy
Build and support political systems that include all groups, enable peaceful power transitions, and earn public trust.Prevent and Reduce Violence Through Early Action
Invest in warning systems, mediation mechanisms, and capacity-building before conflicts escalate.Strengthen Economic and Civic Resilience
Expand access to jobs, education, and services to reduce recruitment into violent movements and rebuild state-citizen trust.Leverage Diplomatic and Programmatic Tools for Impact
Align U.S. diplomacy, foreign assistance, and partnerships to scale and coordinate meaningful change not duplicate it.
My introduction to the GFA came via the Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP), whose members helped draft and advocate for the Act. What struck me most about the GFA was its pragmatism. It does not call for more spending. It calls for smarter spending. It shifts the question from “How do we help them?” to “How do we remove the barriers preventing self-sufficiency?”
Why integrate all three?
Each of these tools looks at the same space from a different lens:
CARVER maps what is at risk operationally.
Positive Peace reveals what is weak structurally.
GFA LoEs define what must be strengthened programmatically.
Together, they offer a 360-degree framework: diagnostic, analytic, and strategic. It’s how we avoid both fatalism and surface-level optimism. It’s how we help our readers move beyond the headlines to grasp the root conditions, and to spotlight the areas where sustainable solutions must take hold.
What does this mean for Flashpoints & Frameworks readers?
It means every report from this series is built with intention. The methodology behind each incident brief, each CARVER score, and each Peace Pillar reference is not cosmetic; it’s structural.
We don’t claim to have all the answers. But we do believe that informed pattern recognition is the beginning of smarter intervention.
So if you’re reading Flashpoints & Frameworks, you’re already engaging at the level where peace isn't something hoped for. It’s something designed.
M. Nuri Shakoor, SRMP-C, Global Security Analyst & AI Integration Consultant | Certified member of the International NGO Safety & Security Association
ARAC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your help is appreciated and tax-deductible, and helps me continue to provide free content to educate the public.