Description
This paper critically examines the emergence of non-state justice as a distinct foreign policy issue. The rule of law has long been a major donor priority. Only in the last 20 years, however, has non-state justice become a notable concern in its own right. And even then, engagement has been half-hearted and inconsistent. This paper highlights how rule of law donors and practitioners have grappled with the inherent limitations of a myopic focus on state institutions that ignores how most people experience justice and legal order more broadly. At the same time, state institutions have remained highly cognizant of the flaws of non-state justice, including serious concerns about human rights, gender equality, and due process. Thus, acute risk aversion coexists alongside a broad acknowledgement that non-state justice is very important. This uneasy relationship has generated an enduring tension wherein donors see the abstract value of engaging non-state justice even as they fear criticism for doing so. As a result, both policy and programming tend to be designed and executed in a decidedly suboptimal manner.
