Introduction

The international community currently champions the concept of the rule of law as the key to securing ongoing peace and stability in post-conflict states. Within this framework, state institutions, particularly state legal institutions, have an ostensibly central role in providing the local population with a non-violent and accessible path to resolving disputes. Application of the rule of law becomes complicated, however, where there is legal pluralism: a number of legal systems operating in the same geographical space. In many post-conflict states the local population often prefers to use local law and local institutions rather than state law and state institutions because they may consider the latter to be obscure, inaccessible or irrelevant.

At a broad level the rule of law aims to prevent abuse of power, but the means of achieving this depends on the particular context. The rule of law might be pursued and institutionalised in a variety of ways depending on the situation; there is no particular set of institutions that must be established for its existence. Regardless of the specific context, however, state law and state institutions remain at the forefront of the rule-of-law enterprise because the concept is focused on the delimitation of state power.

Establishing state law and state institutions as providing the best and natural path to justice is a tall order in many parts of the Asia-Pacific region due to strong legal pluralism.