- DFID has a rule of law policy approach. Programming decisions are made by a context-based, problem solving approach and therefore the policy does not identify overarching actors or themes for engagement. Is one of few donors to have published a briefing (DFID, 2004) entirely focussed on engaging with non-state security and justice actors. Engaging with non-state actors is also emphasised in the most recent policy document (DFID, 2013) and on the website.
- UNDP takes a human-rights based justice sector reform approach focuses on strengthening formal and informal justice system, especially for the poor and marginalised. It has published guidelines with a section focussing on non-state actors (UNDP, 2006), and a report analysing lessons (Wojkowska, 2006).
- USAID’s rule of law programmes work with non-state justice institutions to improve access to justice, and seek to strengthen legitimacy by harmonising non-state customary or religious law with state-based body of law. A summary of an unpublished USAID guidance note focussing on non-state actors is available online (Pavlovich in Mcloughlin, 2009).
Supporting non-state justice and security is widely acknowledged to be a highly complex and controversial area which donors have historically tended to avoid. Lessons include:
- There has been continued recognition by donors that purely focussing on state institutions limits the effectiveness, reach, relevance and sustainability of security and justice programming.
- Many donors identify the OECD principles as guiding their policy. The key OECD recommendation is for international actors to take a multi-layered approach targeting assistance at state and non-state actors simultaneously.
- Difficulties defining ‘state’ and ‘non-state’ actors.
- Donors can misunderstand the legal context in a country with difficulty distinguishing between non-state and state actors. This can lead to damaging programmatic consequences.
- Thinking about justice and security development through the lens of ‘non-state actors’ – or any other ‘institution’ – hinders undertaking a problem-specific analysis, for its default assumption is that an effective programme lies within the realm of an ‘institution,’ ‘agency,’ and/or ‘non-state actor’.
- Non-state justice systems can often be the closest justice system, addressing issues most relevant to poor people, more physically and financially accessible, and more familiar to individuals speaking local languages.
- Equality of access and human rights can be a concern as non-state institutions may discriminate against women or marginalised groups.
- Strengthening dialogue: Support to non-state actors may worsen conflicts between state and non-state actors.
