Replication data for: Rationalizing Backsliding: Internment in Northern Ireland

How do liberal democracies rationalize decisions to violate rights during emergencies, and what does this reveal about democratic backsliding? Democracies around the world are exhibiting evidence of backsliding from the democratic institutions that constrain elected officials’ power and protect civil liberties. Although officials often present rights violations as necessary during a national security emergency, these violations could be privately motivated by alternative objectives. Unfortunately, private motivations are not easily observable for analysis. We leverage a declassified archive collection of government correspondence files to examine how British officials decided to initiate internment without trial amid the unraveling security crisis in Northern Ireland (1971). The archives reveal that key officials' private motivations diverged from Britain's public explanations and from the conditions established by human rights norms for emergency-based rights violations. Instead, political motivations shaped a purportedly apolitical process and then were deliberately removed from the public record. Meanwhile, expert officials questioned internment's legality and whether internment would meaningfully address the security threats. This evidence challenges the defensibly of Britain's actions and suggests that internment in Northern Ireland constituted an episode of backsliding from Britain's human rights commitments. Such rights violations do not exist in isolation but often enable future democratic erosion.