No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sense and Simplicity in Legal and Human Rights Co-Operation: A Case Study of Indonesia∙
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 February 2015
Abstract
Development co-operation in the legal and human rights sector is challenging. It is political, nuanced, and involves multiple, often competing, stakeholders. Adding to this, significant time is spent determining suitable fields for co-operation, designing comprehensive programmes, and establishing robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Donors often strive for “ownership” of programmes with tangible results that justify ongoing co-operation. Amid this added complexity, it is easy to forget that good programmes are often simple, well-founded ones that set realistic goals and timeframes. Sense and simplicity can be overlooked. This article draws on lessons learned from personal experiences in two legal and human rights co-operation programmes in Indonesia to discuss six points at the heart of this concept of sense and simplicity. The points are not exhaustive, and are not always easy to implement in the face of political realities. They are a starting point, and stress the need to get back to basics when planning, implementing, and monitoring such programmes.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press and KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Footnotes
∙
This article is based on a paper given at the Indonesia-Netherlands Legal Update, held in The Hague on November 20–21, 2014, and organized by the Van Vollenhoven Institute for Law, Governance and Development, Leiden University, on behalf of the Working Group “Indonesia—Justice and Development.”
*
Nicola Colbran was previously the legal adviser in the Indonesia Program at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (2006–10) and the Director of the Australian government’s Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice (2011–13). Any views expressed in this article are personal and do not reflect the position of any government or organization. E-mail address: Nic_colbran@hotmail.com.
References
Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice (2013) “Annual Plan May 2013,” online <http://www.aipj.or.id/uploads/reports_publication/4_f_20131108–042027_AIPJ_Annual_Plan_2013.pdf.pdf> (last accessed 14 December 2014).+(last+accessed+14+December+2014).>Google Scholar
Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak (2007) “Making Aid Work: How to Fight Global Poverty—Effectively,” online <http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/4741/MakingAidWork.pdf> (last accessed 21 December 2014).+(last+accessed+21+December+2014).>Google Scholar
Cardno.com (2014) “Australia Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ),” online <http://www.cardno.com/en-au/Projects/Pages/Projects-Australia_Indonesia_Partnership_for_Justice.aspx> (last accessed 20 December 2014).+(last+accessed+20+December+2014).>Google Scholar
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2010) “Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice, Design Document, 31 July 2010,” online <http://aid.dfat.gov.au/Publications/Documents/aipj-english.pdf> (last accessed 13 December 2014).+(last+accessed+13+December+2014).>Google Scholar
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2012) “An Effective Aid Program for Australia Making a Real Difference: Delivering Real Results,” online <http://aid.dfat.gov.au/Publications/Documents/AidReview-Response/effective-aid-program-for-australia.pdf> (last accessed 21 December 2014).+(last+accessed+21+December+2014).>Google Scholar
Saldanha, Cedric, & Grossman, Eric (2010) “Effectiveness, Not Size Matters in Aid Debate,” The Australian, 5 April.Google Scholar
Sumner, Cate (2007) “Providing Justice to the Justice Seeker: A Report on the Indonesian Religious Courts. Access and Equity Study—2007. Summary of Research Findings,” online <http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb049c013d1f24b/Providing_Justice_FINAL_31_01.pdf> (last accessed 21 December 2014).+(last+accessed+21+December+2014).>Google Scholar