Rule of Law in Post-Conflict State-Building

The rule of law has been hailed as a panacea for developing and transition countries. Despite the fact that it has now been almost a decade since Carothers (1998, p. 95) wrote ‘[…] one cannot go through a foreign policy debate without someone proposing the rule of law as the solution to the world's troubles’ there are no signs of a rule of law fatigue.

On the contrary, as some commentators recently stated, rule of law ‘is like apple pie and ice cream’, it is a concept that no one can dislike (Stromseth et al. 2006, p. 58). Typically within development cooperation, donors push for rule of law based on two rationales – rule of law is an essential prerequisite for market economy and it enhances protection of human rights (Messick, 1999; Carothers, 2001).

In relation to post-conflict settings, a third rationale can be added, namely rule of law in the achievement and maintenance of peace and security. This is a rather late contribution to the field of rule of law promotion. Stripped to all essentials the argument goes something like this: human rights violations and high levels of insecurity cause conflict and crisis, and if the rule of law is an essential condition for making human rights a justifiable claim, not merely rights on paper, then it is the key strategy for post-conflict recovery.