In large parts of the world, indigenous courts, councils of elders, and similar traditional authorities play a central role in the resolution of disputes. Despite all cultural differences, they share common features. Their relations with the state justice institutions are in many cases problematic, especially when they are not formally recognised. Nevertheless, they are perceived as legitimate institutions by local populations. Therefore, more recent strategies that aim at building the rule of law and improving access to justice include informal justice institutions as important stakeholders. In most cases, however, their positive potential can only be effectively used if they are reformed and linked to state institutions. This will be especially important in order to ensure that basic human rights standards are met. The inclusion of informal justice institutions will lead to a more comprehensive approach towards building the rule of law. Visible changes should however not be expected in the short term.

Informal justice systems have lately received much attention among rule of law theorists and practitioners. The notion refers to a variety of institutions that serve to resolve disputes and relate to social practices distinct from official state policy. Informal justice systems may be run by traditional or religious authorities, elders or other respected community members. They are “informal” in the sense that they apply non-state methods of conflict resolution. Nonetheless they may be obliged to adhere to state law, and they can even be formally incorporated into the state court system, such as the Ethiopian Kebele Social Courts that are formal state organs that provide court-like decisions applying shimglina, a traditional mechanism of arbitration. But even if the law formally recognises and incorporates them, these institutions stand out of the official state and are perceived as “informal” by the people. Informal justice systems have existed in almost all societies and in all times. The paper Informal Justice Systems: Challenges and Perspectives focuses on the phenomenon in the development context of today.

Informal justice institutions may be regarded as part of the overall governance system. The phenomenon is discussed mainly with regard to cases in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Many observers point to the practical needs of rural populations when explaining the popularity and functionality of informal justice institutions. Rural populations often have better access to informal justice systems than to the state judiciary and they prefer them for a number of significant reasons: typically, the procedure takes place on site, it is more or less free of cost and less prone to corruption, it is exercised by trusted people in the language everybody speaks, and decisions are taken according to rules known to all community members. Informal procedures typically aim at restoring social peace instead of enforcing abstract legislation. They are consent and justice oriented. In this sense, informal justice systems allow for better “access to justice”.

Apart from these common features, informal justice institutions are, in large geographical areas, the only choice due to the absence of the state. This is often the case in regions where colonial powers did not attempt to establish formal court systems, such as North Yemen or Afghanistan. In the situation of armed conflict, informal justice institutions often gain more importance due to the breakdown of the formal court systems. In post-conflict societies they can play a crucial role in the stabilisation and reconciliation process.

To read the full paper, please follow the link here

Informal Justice Systems: Challenges and Perspectives is part of the Innovations in Rule of Law - A Compilation of Concise Essays produced by the WJP and Hiil. 

Dr. Tilmann J. Röder Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

Dr. Tilmann J. Röder has worked at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg since 2006 and is the head of projects in the Middle East and Central Asia. The current regional focus of his work is on Afghanistan and Iraq. Central issues include constitutional law and normative pluralism.

 

title bar

Read More

title bar

Confidence in accountability for U.S. public officials plummeted from 2016 to 2021, according to World Justice Project (WJP) surveys.  Would a high-level official pay a price for pocketing public money? Would a politically connected person be held responsible for a non-violent crime?  The answers increasingly became no among the general public and legal experts.  This year, the United States finally turned a corner on its overall WJP Rule of Law Index score after sharp declines in the preceding five years, but it still has much lost ground to regain.    In recognition of this challenge, the WJP is embarking on a new U.S. campaign to strengthen rule of law and “rebuild trust.” Co-founder and Board Chair William Hubbard announced the effort at a recent rule of law briefing cosponsored by the American Bar Association Cornerstones of Democracy Commission. 

Read More

In recent years equal rights and non-discrimination protections have weakened, putting at-risk groups in danger of further erasure and marginalization. The 2022 WJP Rule of Law Index points to a rise in discrimination during the pandemic, with 70% of countries and jurisdictions having declined in equal treatment and absence of discrimination. Vulnerable groups already exposed to systemic inequality—such as the LGBTQI+ community, children with disabilities, women, and ethnic and racial minorities—were further marginalized during the crisis, and continue to be left out of solutions to “build back better.” At the World Justice Forum 2022, equal rights leaders, activists, and academics came together to discuss the increasing challenges these groups face, as well as promising solutions to address them.

Read More

Every year, the WJP Rule of Law Index takes a detailed look at adherence to rule of law principles around the world. This year’s Index covers 140 countries and jurisdictions and contains data on eight factors that make up the rule of law, including fundamental rights, absence of corruption, and criminal justice.   Insights from the 2022 WJP Rule of Law Index show that adherence to rule of law fell in 61% of countries this year. Globally, this means that 4.4 billion people live in countries where rule of law has declined over the past year.   Rule of law impacts our rights, our safety, our well-being, and our access to justice. The WJP Rule of Law Index provides original data annually on people’s experiences with and perceptions of rule of law in 140 countries and jurisdictions around the world, making the Index a valuable resource for policymakers, business leaders, and advocates. 

Read More