APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 61 Rediscovering Indigenous Peacebuilding Techniques 61 countries ravaged by conflict, citizens view many, if not all, state institutions with suspicion, and if local traditions and structures are not given adequate attention at the initial stages of the peacebuilding process, new approaches may lack legitimacy and remain ineffective. This is a major concern for justice and security institutions, because they are the basis for creating a safe and transparent system to address issues surrounding perpetrators implicated during and after a conflict and thus are important elements in helping societies heal and rebuild. These institutions are also the ones that typically suffer most during war. Many developing countries boast complex community-based justice and conflict resolution systems that have been active for generations, managing conflict between families, tribes, and villages. Some of these systems, such as the Rwandese gacaca courts, have been transformed into peacebuilding mechanisms. In recent years, conflict resolution professionals and various international agencies have acknowledged some of these indigenous methods of conflict resolution as viable instruments of peacebuilding.2 In the past, projects supported by donor states aimed primarily at creating formal justice and security structures as a means of state building and introducing western democratic values. Increasingly there are examples, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the local gacaca courts, where indigenous and modern institutions have both been active in promoting healing and reconciliation in war-torn states. Although the concurrent existence of two systems has led to a number of challenges, identifying the extent to which various donor-supported justice and security mechanisms can be integrated with traditional cultural values and structures of recipient countries is a key consideration for sustainable peace. Various attempts at integration have been made, but perfecting these methods remains elusive. Each country has its own history and culture along with traditional attitudes and approaches to justice. International efforts to establish a democratic society, with the institutions particular to it, may exacerbate an already tense situation between ethnic groups as well as alienate the local population. Acknowledging the need for local ownership by embracing traditional peacebuilding mechanisms with which the communities are familiar may add legitimacy to international undertakings. Furthermore, such concepts as democracy can be adjusted, expanded, and integrated with traditional processes and definitions, making them culturally appropriate for various and different settings. Promoting and adapting indigenous peacebuilding mechanisms are often challenging when considering international norms and human rights practices. For example, many existing structures are based on patriarchic models, which exclude female participation. Such traditional models although adopted in the past have been transformed to meet criteria established by the standards of contemporary international human rights, which advocate the engagement of women. Naturally, the adaptation or re-creation of these models raises questions, including the following: Has the international community created caricatures of what were once culturally valid forms of seeking justice? Do new versions of traditional courts have the trust 2. Indigenous, traditional, and customary are used interchangeably throughout this paper, despite the subtle differences between the terms. The term indigenous is the one I believe embodies the native character of the peacebuilding methods, while allowing for the changes and historical influences to which each historical ritual is susceptible.