Resumo:
This article tackles two types of contemporary violence: “armed conflicts” and “armed violence.” In the last few decades, ideas relating to armed conflicts were readapted, taking into account that the perception of the characteristics and nature of such conflicts, with regard to persons that are not directly involved, make up one of the factors that guided the institutionalization of International Humanitarian Law and the consolidation of the International Committee of the Red Cross. When it is verified that many of the causes and consequences of the armed conflicts are also found in countries with armed violence - for example Brazil, South Africa, and Jamaica -, one can see the possibility of tracing a parallel between both forms of contemporary violence. Beyond this, the majority of firearm fatalities do not occur in situations traditionally defined as armed conflicts: the annual death toll linked to armed conflicts has reached 30,000, according to estimates from the University of Uppsala, while violent deaths unrelated to armed conflicts would be between 200,000 and 270,000, according to the Small Arms Survey. Such figures challenge the conventional categorizations relating to armed conflicts and International Humanitarian Law, giving rise to the necessity of a deep analysis of contemporary violence and the promotion of the regulation of armed violence, with the aim of controlling the collateral effects and reducing the burden that is imposed on the civil population in an unnecessary way.
