World Justice Project
Nonprofit organization
The World Justice Project (WJP) is an international civil society organization with the stated mission of "working to advance the rule of law around the world". It produces the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, a quantitative assessment tool that shows the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. WJP's major activity is the World Justice Forum, a global gathering at which prominent leaders from all parts of the world and a variety of disciplines come together to articulate how the rule of law affects their disciplines and regions and to develop collaborative actions to strengthen the rule of law.
WJP was founded by William H. Neukom and William C. Hubbard in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association and with the support of 21 partners. The World Justice Project became an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in 2009.
WJP Rule of Law Index
The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index is a quantitative assessment tool designed to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. The Index provides data on eight dimensions of the rule of law: limited government powers; absence of corruption; order and security; fundamental rights; open government; regulatory enforcement; civil justice; and criminal justice. These factors are further disaggregated into forty-four indicators. Together, they provide a comprehensive picture of rule of law compliance. The index is typically published annually.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “World Justice Project” is nonprofit organization. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through World, Justice and Project, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “nonprofit organization” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 6, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q8035892. The first chronological checks are 2006 and 2009.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “World Justice Project”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow World Justice Project primary sources, World Justice Project archive and World research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “World Justice Project”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “World Justice Project” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.