Justice and rule-of-law measures have often been touted as a solution to prevent the resumption of violence following conflict; yet little work has been undertaken to understand the prevalence of these practices while conflict remains ongoing. These measures include trials, truth commissions, reparations, as well as alternative accountability processes such as amnesties, purges, and exiles. While existing research has focused on the implementation of justice processes once conflict has ended, pilot data by the PIs suggests that these same practices are often implemented during violence. The current state of the literature provides little theoretical understanding as to when and why during-conflict justice processes are implemented and their likely effect on the duration of conflict and durability of peace.
This project investigates the implementation of during-conflict justice to understand which processes, if any, a government implements during internal armed conflicts and in which contexts such processes are pursued. Through the collection of a new cross-national dataset covering the implementation of justice measures during all civil wars since the Second World War, this research greatly improves our understanding of the presence of during-conflict justice and expands the current state of research on both the implementation of justice processes and the dynamics of conflict more broadly. This project provides an evidentiary basis to determine the conditions under which implementation is more likely, to facilitate the development of these conditions in countries that may benefit from justice measures and to prevent the development of circumstances detracting from these goals. Furthermore, the results of this research will be used to understand the potential misuses of justice measures for goals not related to conflict resolution and promotion of the rule-of-law, leading to more effective conflict termination strategies and shortening the duration of civil conflict.
