From Gacaca to Matu Oput. Pragmatism and Principles in Employing Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Abstract

Next to tribunals, truth commissions and a host of mechanisms for reparations, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms have been reinvigorated or even reinvented for the purpose of dispensing post-conflict justice in former colonies with a tradition of legal pluralism like East Timor, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Burundi. These mechanisms have become increasingly important, arguably as an alternative to the increasingly globalized field of transitional justice. Their appeal, it seems, lies in two fields: that of pragmatism and that of principles. This chapter offers an empirical assessment of these claims. Are traditional dispute resolution mechanisms indeed faster, less expensive and more accessible than formal trials? What is known about the authenticity and the legitimacy of these courts and to what extent do they contribute to reconciliation and – as a separate question – to the justice sought after in post-conflict settings?

Keywords: Transitional justice, traditional justice, Rwanda