Justice and security – when the state isn’t the main provider

Most people in the world do not take it for granted that the state can or will provide justice and security. Donors who seek to improve access to these services should abandon their concern with 'what ought to be' and focus on 'what works'. This means supporting the providers that exist, and accepting that while wholesale change is not possible, gradual improvement is.

On 1-2 November 2010, DIIS organized the conference 'Access to justice and security- non-state actors and the local dynamics of ordering' on this topic. A primary aim of the conference was to discuss current development assistance to justice and security-related programming that supports actors that are not part of a state entity. In particular, the conference addressed how international engagement with non-state actors affect local-national political dynamics as well as poor and marginalised peoples' ability to gain access to improved safety and justice.

This DIIS Policy Brief sums up a number of the key areas of discussions for international programming from the conference. It makes the following recommendations:

• Move beyond a state-centric agenda so that programming is based on 'what works' at the local level rather than on 'who ought to' provide services.
• 'What works' sometimes works because of lack of international engagement. International actors may therefore use their leverage with governments to create a space for local providers, rather than engage directly with them.
• Ensure context-sensitive and evidence-based approaches to programming, oriented as much as possible towards the needs and demands of end-users.
• Factor into programmes the idea that provision of justice and security are often deeply political matters, involving competition over power and resources. Consider the political implications when donors support certain providers over others, and communicate clearly the strengths and weaknesses that this support role entails.
• Be aware of the tension between local ownership and international actors’ normative agenda (including human rights) and be clear about where to position activities on that spectrum.
• Promote human rights as a process. The first step in doing so is to open up a space where those without a voice may be heard and perceived perpetrators may be offered reasoned arguments, rather than immediately criminalizing all longstanding and widely supported abuses.

The conference was supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark with additional funding from the International Development Law Organization. Participants included leading policy-makers, practitioners and academics from around the world.

For further information, please contact Helene Maria Kyed and Peter Albrecht.