The World Bank's approach to legal and judicial reform has undergone an interesting evolution in recent years as it has come to realise that there are no quick fixes. It has shifted from a formalistic top-down approach to a more comprehensive approach that focuses on governance and on the interests and aspirations of local communities. Thus, while originally the Bank focused mainly on making higher courts more efficient and on modernizing the commanding heights of state institutions, today Bank projects are more sensitive to issues relating to legal pluralism, access to justice, gender and legal empowerment.

This broader approach to reform is reflected in the Bank's successful Justice for the Poor (hereafter J4P) programme, which aims to ensure that reform projects take into account the perspective of the poor and marginalized within a framework that supports equitable and sustainable development. J4P projects focus on access to justice, natural resource governance and service delivery in countries such as Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, South Africa, the Philippines and Vanuatu. The three authors of the paper under review, Doug Porter, Deborah Isser and Louis-Alexandre Berg (hereafter PI&B) work for the Bank's J4P programme. Thus, their views are based on detailed knowledge about fragile states and extensive academic reflection on the obstacles to reform. Their views are also important because if accepted, they would mark a significant new departure for the World Bank in the area of legal and judicial reform.

The articles in this issue were originally presented at a Workshop held in The Hague on 28-29 April 2011. The Workshop was organised by HiiL, Warwick Law School and the Folke Bernadotte Academy (Sweden). Participants included academics and development practitioners who were invited to reflect upon the similarities and differences between rule of law promotion and security sector reform (SSR).

In the early years of this century most of the legal and judicial reform work of International Development Agencies (hereafter IDAs) focused mainly on state institutions. Today, things have changed. After the disappointing outcomes of many years of legal and judicial reform and in view of the enormous challenges posed by state building in numerous fragile and failed states, IDAs are beginning to accept that governance and justice mechanisms that operate either outside the framework of the state or in the fringes between state and society — non-state justice systems (hereafter NSJS) — are indispensable components of reform processes aimed at improving the overall performance of legal and judicial institutions. The materials discussed in this paper, drawn from Latin America and Africa, suggest that any successful engagement with NSJS requires a deep understanding of both local state structures and political processes. It also requires an in-depth understanding of the state and community within which NSJS operate. Indeed, as this paper shows, successful engagement should be seen as part of a continuing process of state building. Unless IDAs are willing to take a wider and more political approach to their involvement with NSJS, they will not achieve meaningful progress in rule of law and governance projects.

The rule of law has become a global ideal. It is supported by people, governments and organizations around the world. It is widely believed to be the cornerstone of national political and legal systems. It is also increasingly thought of as a fundamental principle of international relations and international law. In the 2005 World Summit Outcome document, the heads of states and government of the world agreed to recognize ‘the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels.’ A year later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on ‘the rule of law at the national and international levels.’ Few, if any, ideals have achieved such widespread acceptance and broad application.

The Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor (CLEP) states that workers in the informal economy can be legally empowered by bringing them within the framework of effective legal regulation, in particular, international labour standards. This paper acknowledges the value of extending rights to workers in the informal economy, but argues that CLEP's recommendations are impractical and unrealistic. It shows that neither international standards nor recent national legislation designed to promote the legalization of informal enterprises offers unqualified positive answers to resolve the plight of workers in the informal economy. Given the poverty of prevailing regulatory structures and the pervasive impact of inadequate structures of governance, workers in the informal economy justifiably distrust legal institutions and, as a consequence, do not, in the first instance, resort to legal institutions in their quest for empowerment. This paper offers examples of strategies that have successfully enhanced the social, political and economic power of workers in the informal economy. It concludes, however, that although the legal system has a role to play in consolidating the gains achieved by these strategies, law and legal institutions do not necessarily offer the best point of departure towards effectively empowering workers in the informal economy.

Neoliberal Economics, Democratic Transition, and Mapuche Demands for Rights in Chile. By Diane Haughney. Gainsville: University Press of Florida, 2006. 310p. $59.95.

This book examines an aspect of Chilean politics and history that most specialists tend to ignore. Relying largely on two case studies—hydroelectric and forestry projects in land occupied by the Mapuche people—Diane Haughney sets out to investigate whether the current democratic regime has kept its promise to recognize their demands and aspirations. Her findings are, unsurprisingly, negative. The leaders of Concertación—the center-left coalition that has ruled the country since 1990—have sacrificed the interests of the Mapuche people because of their commitment to neoliberalism.