• 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»Policy approaches and lessons from working with non-state actors in security and justice

Policy approaches and lessons from working with non-state actors in security and justice

Helpdesk Report
  • Siân Herbert
January 2015

Question

What are the different donor policy approaches to working with non-state actors in security and justice? (Refer to the differences and similarities with DFID’s approach). What lessons emerge from other donors’ work?

Summary

  • 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.
file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Serious and Organized Crime in Jordan
Helpdesk Report
2019
Humanitarian Access, Protection, and Diplomacy in Besieged Areas
Helpdesk Report
2019
Rule of Law Challenges in the Western Balkans
Helpdesk Report
2019
Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018
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