Donor-Driven Justice and its Discontents: Rwanda
Barbara Oomen
Aim: critically examine the donor-driven emphasis on justice in Rwanda post-genocide, exploring
its global roots, implementation, and the risks it poses in an increasingly autocratic political context
Post-genocide Rwanda's justice system (ie the gacaca) heavily influenced by international donors:
finance, organise and largely conceive justice-related projects
● This has raised questions about the workings and legitimacy of the Rwandan justice process,
the motivations behind donor focus on 'doing justice' and its impact in autocratic political
environment
○ Sense of responsibility by international community for pulling out aid during the
massacre and failing to label it ‘genocide’
● Paradigm of ‘good governance’ shift donor funding towards activities usually handled by
sovereign nations (eg building legal institutions, training legal professionals, and drafting or
enacting laws)
○ Trend reflects influence of globalisation, with human rights & rights-based initiatives
becoming central to its expression (Ignatieff, 1999)
1.1 The Judicialization of International Relations
● The past decade has witnessed a "judicialization of international relations," reflecting a shift
away from traditional notions of national sovereignty. This trend is characterised by:
○ Increased focus on law, particularly human
rights, in international relations
○ Reformulation of development cooperation
in legal terms
○ Greater international efforts in building
courts, drafting laws, punishing human
rights violators and promoting the "rule of
law" abroad
● This trend is evident in:
○ Establishment of international tribunals (eg
ICTY, ICTR, ICC) to implement the Genocide Convention
○ "Transitional justice" and "nation-building" arrangements, involving international
administrations drafting and implementing laws in post-conflict settings
○ "Justice packages" (pre-designed legal systems) deployed in post-conflict states (eg
Afghanistan, Iraq).
○ Increased international input in the legal sectors of sovereign countries, including
support for truth commissions, national human rights institutions, and human rights
NGOs
1
Barbara Oomen
Aim: critically examine the donor-driven emphasis on justice in Rwanda post-genocide, exploring
its global roots, implementation, and the risks it poses in an increasingly autocratic political context
Post-genocide Rwanda's justice system (ie the gacaca) heavily influenced by international donors:
finance, organise and largely conceive justice-related projects
● This has raised questions about the workings and legitimacy of the Rwandan justice process,
the motivations behind donor focus on 'doing justice' and its impact in autocratic political
environment
○ Sense of responsibility by international community for pulling out aid during the
massacre and failing to label it ‘genocide’
● Paradigm of ‘good governance’ shift donor funding towards activities usually handled by
sovereign nations (eg building legal institutions, training legal professionals, and drafting or
enacting laws)
○ Trend reflects influence of globalisation, with human rights & rights-based initiatives
becoming central to its expression (Ignatieff, 1999)
1.1 The Judicialization of International Relations
● The past decade has witnessed a "judicialization of international relations," reflecting a shift
away from traditional notions of national sovereignty. This trend is characterised by:
○ Increased focus on law, particularly human
rights, in international relations
○ Reformulation of development cooperation
in legal terms
○ Greater international efforts in building
courts, drafting laws, punishing human
rights violators and promoting the "rule of
law" abroad
● This trend is evident in:
○ Establishment of international tribunals (eg
ICTY, ICTR, ICC) to implement the Genocide Convention
○ "Transitional justice" and "nation-building" arrangements, involving international
administrations drafting and implementing laws in post-conflict settings
○ "Justice packages" (pre-designed legal systems) deployed in post-conflict states (eg
Afghanistan, Iraq).
○ Increased international input in the legal sectors of sovereign countries, including
support for truth commissions, national human rights institutions, and human rights
NGOs
1
