• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Peacebuilding and Access to Justice in Sri Lanka

Peacebuilding and Access to Justice in Sri Lanka

Helpdesk Report
  • Huma Haider
August 2009

Question

Please identify key readings on peacebuilding and access to justice in the Sri Lankan context.

Summary

Since the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 2002, many donors have sought to facilitate the peace process through peace conditionalities, i.e. the provision of aid tied to commitment to conflict resolution and peace. Much of the literature stresses, however, that political and diplomatic actors and processes and efforts to address structural causes of conflict are also essential. Moreover, donors have had to recognise their responsibility to provide aid to the worst conflict-affected areas, regardless of whether conditionalities were fulfilled, weakening the credibility of their conditionality approach.

Much of the literature also seems to find that economic peace dividends were generally lacking. This is attributed largely to a focus on neo-liberal approaches by donors that centred on economic growth, rather than immediate socioeconomic relief, and in particular the reestablishment of livelihoods.

The structure of civil society in Sri Lanka and the manner in which donors funded civil society has also been critiqued. Most funding has been directed to NGOs in Colombo. This has marginalised volunteer and lower class civil society workers in other geographic areas. There is also concern that civil society activities, while essential to support the peace, are not sufficient for conflict transformation and sustainable peace. Much of the literature emphasises the need to broaden civil society and participation in the peace process to include not just different ethnic groups, but also different religious groups and classes, and also women.

Another area essential for conflict transformation and peacebuilding is the need to address the legacy of large-scale human rights violations. This has been given scant attention thus far. Nor has the national judicial system been a viable mechanism for redress.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID India

Related Content

Key Drivers of Modern Slavery
Helpdesk Report
2020
Transitional justice
Topic Guide
2016
Responding to mass atrocities and human rights abuses
E-Learning
2015
Refugee, IDP and host community radicalisation
Helpdesk Report
2014
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more