The Justice Gap

This diagram depicts the “justice gap,” a paradox that arises following the establishment of peace accords in many internal wars.

Situations move from latent status into open conflict and direct violence when people feel there is a significant issue of justice and human or group rights that must change and in which there exist few if any other avenues for achieving due recourse. As the conflict escalates there comes a time where the choice of means for pursuing or defending against particular changes reaches a saturation point. People then begin the process of re-evaluating their goals and methodologies, and they move toward negotiation and redefining their relationship.

These negotiations may result in peace accords whereby the direct violence line drops significantly. People expect the accords to address the fundamental issues that gave rise to the fighting, the structural violence, and that solutions will be produced on the same timeline as the diminishing curve of direct violence. This rarely, if ever has been the case. It results in what I call the “justice gap.” The war is over, formal negotiations concluded, and changes have come usually in terms of increased space for political participation. However, the expectations for social, economic, religious, and cultural change are rarely achieved, creating a gap between the expectations for peace and what it delivered.