The significance of non-state actors in justice and public safety

International conference discussed legal pluralism in Mozambique

The Danish Institute for International Studies recently held a three day international conference in Maputo, Mozambique together with the Mozambican Social Studies Centre, CESAB. The main focus of the conference was to debate and bring together empirical knowledge of the significant role played by non-state actors in providing justice and public safety to the vast majority of Mozambican citizens. The challenges and possibilities the role of non-state providers poses to legal reform and to formal state institutions was also an important topic of discussion. The conference hosted a little over 100 participants, including international and national scholars, Mozambican policy-makers and practitioners, NGOs, non-state providers, and international development agencies. A total of 26 academic papers were presented at the conference, eight of which included case studies from outside of Mozambique. The conference was supported by Danida and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

The conference raised a number of important points and questions about the dynamics of legal pluralism 'on the ground' and as a policy challenge, such as:

Legal pluralism – the plurality of norms, procedures and institutions that provide social ordering – is a reality that cannot be ignored in legal reform processes and in efforts to improve citizens’ access to justice and public safety. However, it should be realised that state recognition of legal pluralism may not only be inclusive of socio-legal diversity, but can also be used to enhance control and exclude some groups of citizens by local and national elites
It is significant to bring together the justice and public safety, or policing, aspects of legal pluralism, rather than treat these as separate sectors. In practice the provision of justice and policing are highly interlinked
In supporting non-state alternatives it is important to discuss the overriding role of the state. Should the state be minimalist, and allow for a wide jurisdiction to non-state actors? Can the state's formal sovereign authority – its responsibility to define the overriding order and its monopoly on force – be de jure shared with non-state authorities? And is it possible to develop a set of shared principles that are shared across the plurality of legal orders, state and non-state?
The dichotomy between state and non-state legal orders fails to capture the complexity of legal pluralism on the ground. There are multiple inter-linkages and overlaps between different providers of justice and public safety, whether defined formally as state or as non-state. Reform should build on these inter-linkages rather than on ideal-typical distinctions.

For more information on the conference, please do consult the summary report.

Top