Annex 5.
Applying the six dimensions tool to non-state justice and security actors

Are there shifts (e.g., peace agreements, decentralization or local innovation) that create space for engagement?
Are actors seeking reform, legitimacy or support?
Is the State open to plural justice or hybrid arrangements?
Could these be institutionalized?
Are communities and non-State actors demonstrating collective will for demilitarization or reintegration?
Are there signs of inclusion (e.g., women leaders or norm change) that suggest readiness for rights-based engagement?

→ If any or all of these conditions exist, the moment may be ripe to explore constructive engagement.

Are actors willing to engage on rights-based terms, improve inclusion or collaborate with the State?
Do people, especially women, youth or marginalized groups, trust these actors or want reform?
Are there existing trusted and legitimate structures (e.g., community councils) that could be strengthened?
Can people speak openly about these actors and their performance?
Are change agents positioned to influence others, build networks or model practices that can shift wider dynamics?

→ Receptiveness is a key precondition for engagement. Look for readiness not only among the actors themselves, but also among the communities they serve and key institutional counterparts who would be part of any engagement process.

Could engagement be seen as undermining the state or legitimizing controversial actors?
Might backlash come from powerful elites, religious institutions or traditional authorities?
Could political sensitivities among donors or government actors block support, or could formal institutions resist sharing authority?
Are there legal or bureaucratic barriers (e.g., internal processes) to collaboration?

→ Resistance may require careful political analysis, quiet diplomacy or indirect engagement (e.g. convening dialogues, joint problem-solving or training through neutral platforms).

Is there a risk of legitimizing rights-violating practices (e.g., gender discrimination, vigilante justice)?
Are safety, reputational or political risks for partners, communities or UNDP manageable?
Are safeguards and accountability mechanisms in place?

→ High-risk contexts may require alternative strategies, such as supporting oversight mechanisms, state regulation or community-based monitoring. UNDP’s Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (HRDDP) must be applied to all planned engagement with State and non-State security actors.

Do people, especially women, youth or marginalized groups, use and trust these actors?
Do these actors have community legitimacy?
Do they meet people’s justice and security needs, or do they reinforce exclusion or coercive norms?
Would engagement with these actors help fill urgent justice and security service gaps?

→ Engagement is only warranted if actors are seen as relevant, accessible and capable of improvement. Otherwise, UNDP risks reinforcing exclusion and entrenched power.

Is engagement technically or politically feasible?
Can UNDP engage directly or indirectly through partners (e.g., civil society, universities, oversight bodies)?
Does engagement align with UNDP’s mandate and comparative advantage?
Can UNDP engage in a way that is principled (rights-based), politically smart and within its mandate?
Could it catalyse positive change (i.e., shifting norms, strengthening accountability or supporting system transformation)?
Does UNDP have the trust, neutrality or partnerships to play a constructive role?

→ UNDP must ask not just whether to engage, but how to engage in a way that is principled and rights-based, effective and catalytic.