Restorative justice in global south: community approaches in Bangladesh and Latin America

Abstract

This article analysed community-based restorative practices in the Global South, particularly in Bangladesh and various Latin American nations, by focusing on deeply rooted, non-retributive justice processes that function within formal and informal frameworks of justice, respectively. A qualitative and doctrinal research methodology was used to study relevant legislation, case laws, policy frameworks, and academic comments. The study also included case analysis and field-based narratives to emphasise the significance of compound law regimes, customs, and community actors. The findings revealed that indigenous customs, societal norms, and the development of post-colonial legal systems have all had a substantial impact on restorative practices in Bangladesh and Latin America. While Colombia and other Latin American nations have shown effective models of post-conflict victim-offender mediation and truth and reconciliation procedures through community justice regimes, Bangladesh’s shalish mechanisms have shown promise in bringing formal legal changes together. Based on study, it was determined that community-based restorative practices can outline significant alternatives via punishing criminal regimes of law and order if they are grounded in grassroots cultural settings and enhanced by legal pluralism regimes. Comparative findings demonstrated the need for context-sensitive paradigms and the importance of interregional information sharing in fostering improved law and order delivery in Global South regimes.Objective: the objective of this study was to conduct a dogmatic reflection on community restorative justice methods in the Global South, with an emphasis on Bangladesh and selected Latin American jurisdiction. The study aimed to analyse non-retributive justice practices that are deeply rooted in both formal and informal legal systems. The study sought to investigate non-retributive justice procedures that are firmly ingrained in both formal and informal legal systems. Method: the research employs dogmatic reflection through a qualitative doctrinal method, and a systematic documentary review of legislation, case law, and policy frameworks. This comparative research of Bangladeshi and Latin American, particularly Colombian rules incorporates fieldwork narratives to conceptually support the originality of community-led legal pluralism and restorative actors. Results: the comparative study shows how postcolonial legal development and indigenous customs result in distinct healing methods. The paper provides a dogmatic perspective on Colombian truth and reconciliation approaches, as well as the Shalish system in Bangladesh, logically strengthening how these mechanisms combine traditional justice with formal legal developments. The findings show that community restorative practices provide different, non-retributive alternatives to criminal punishment when supported by legal pluralism regimes. Conclusions: this comparative study conceptually emphasizes the originality of Global South restorative justice through a systematic examination of legal diversity in Bangladesh and Colombia. The study concludes that these context-sensitive paradigms provide an essential foundation for South-South legal collaboration and the incorporation of community-led practices into formal systems