When the Protector Is the Perpetrator: Institutional Betrayal as a Distinct Form of Moral Injury in Civilian Survivors of War

Objective: Moral injury theory was built on what soldiers did, failed to prevent, or witnessed. Civilian survivors of war often describe a different wound: harm or abandonment by the institutions that owed them protection, followed by years in which nobody is held to account. This paper sets out a theoretical model of that form of moral injury, called here protector betrayal. Methods: The paper integrates four bodies of work: moral injury theory and its betrayal dimension, institutional betrayal theory, social contract theory, and research on impunity, justice and mental health after mass violence. Published findings from refugees and from civilians living through war were used to check each step of the argument. Results: The model specifies three conditions (a recognised protective duty, a breach by harm or abandonment, and dependence without agency), one maintaining condition (impunity and non-acknowledgement), and a three-part signature (shame without agency, collapse of the social contract, and mistrust specific to authority). Five testable propositions follow. They concern factorial separability, emotional profile, authority-specific mistrust and avoidance of formal help, persistence under impunity, and separation from fear-based posttraumatic stress in symptom networks. Each is paired with a result that would count against it. Conclusions: Protector betrayal identifies a transgressor and a time course that current measures of moral injury do not capture together. The model gives researchers a construct that can be measured and tested in war-affected populations. It also implies that repair depends partly on acknowledgement and accountability, which lie outside the consulting room.