Regrounding the pyramid of justice: legal pluralism in response to international crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo

This article argues that responses to international crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo must be reconceived through a regrounding of the pyramid of justice. Although top-down, retributive, and state-centered approaches have produced important gains in accountability, they remain insufficient to address the social, relational, symbolic, and structural dimensions of mass atrocity. In the DRC, formal justice mechanisms coexist with customary, community-based, religious, and civic forms of normativity which continue to shape how justice is sought, understood, and experienced. Against this background, this study develops legal pluralism as a bottom-up framework for rethinking justice in post-conflict societies. It proposes a shift from descriptive legal pluralism, which merely identifies the coexistence of multiple normative orders, to normative and operational legal pluralism, which asks how those orders should be governed and institutionally articulated under the conditions of rights protection and accountability. The article further argues that, properly structured, legal pluralism can serve as an organizing logic of transitional justice by deepening restorative practices, enhancing participation and local legitimacy, and enriching peacebuilding and transformative reparations. Anchored in the Congolese context, the article contends that legal pluralism makes justice more socially grounded, accessible, and legitimate while preserving the non-negotiable demands of accountability for grave international crimes.