Global Accountability & Protection Index (GAPIDEX)
Framework Overview and Introduction
Why Accountability and Protection Matter
Not all responses to conflict, mass suffering, or humanitarian crisis are equal. Some states lead by supporting investigation, mediation, and protection. Some remain silent. Others obstruct. The Global Accountability & Protection Index (GAPIDEX) assesses what states actually do—not only what they declare. It examines how governments behave when accountability, prevention, and responsibility are tested.
GAPIDEX seeks to understand: When lives are at risk, and truth is inconvenient, which states support protection and accountability—and which withdraw, delay, or deny?
Some observers refer to this as a form of Moral Accountability Index — and that is a valuable perspective. Our approach, however, is not about moral judgment, but about measurable patterns of accountability, protection, and responsible conduct in state behavior.
For broader reflection on how different cultures, institutions, and individuals understand
the word “moral”, see our companion page:
What does the word “Moral” mean to you?
What Makes GAPIDEX Unique?
This index integrates eight behavior-based dimensions that are rarely measured together:
- Use of UNSC veto and support for veto restraint in atrocity situations
- Support for humanitarian carveouts and mediation access
- Peacebuilding and mediation funding behavior
- Response to mass atrocities and protection of civilians
- Transparency and cooperation with international mechanisms (ICC, UN inquiries)
- Participation in accountability and reform initiatives such as the ACT Group
- Historical responsibility, truth processes, and institutional integrity
- Combined assessment to produce an Accountability & Protection Score
Existing indices assess democracy, fragility, or corruption. GAPIDEX asks a different question: When accountability is costly, who supports it, who hesitates, and who obstructs it?
What GAPIDEX Tries to Capture
Some states contribute to peacebuilding but refuse to acknowledge historical wrongdoing. Others champion transparency yet remain silent during genocide debates. Some speak of principles but block critical resolutions when interests are at stake. Meanwhile, certain smaller or post-conflict states quietly demonstrate strong responsibility across institutions, history, and diplomacy.
Accountability is not a declaration. It is a pattern that emerges over time, across crises, and across history.
GAPIDEX highlights these patterns. It reveals where commitment aligns with behavior— and where gaps emerge between words and actions.
Why Things Are Not Always As They Appear
Economic size does not guarantee responsible behavior. Permanent membership at the UN Security Council does not ensure restraint in veto use. Some nations with strong historical memories of injustice may still remain hesitant during contemporary crises.
GAPIDEX assesses both capacity and conduct, helping reveal which states support protection, transparency, and accountability— even when it is politically inconvenient.
What This Index Enables
- Comparison of state behavior beyond simple power or economic indicators
- Tracking shifts in commitment to accountability and protection over time
- Recognition of leadership that may be overlooked in conventional rankings
- Support for research, policy debates, diplomatic engagement, and public dialogue
Were Any Results Unexpected?
Some of the highest-performing states are not the most powerful. Some influential nations score lower than commonly assumed. Some post-conflict countries show strong evidence of responsible and consistent conduct.
Did any results surprise you?
Explore detailed profiles, explanations, and institutional behavior patterns.
