A visible sign of changing relations between the Global South and Global North are reparation claims for colonial injustice. An interesting case is the 1904–1907 Namibian Genocide. Germany has recently concluded a draft agreement with Namibia on reconciliation and compensation. Nevertheless, Germany maintains that it is not under any legal obligation to pay reparations. This article challenges that position, arguing that colonial international law was far too ambiguous to support this conclusion. For this purpose, the article contrasts this ‘conventional view’ of colonial international law with post-colonial and pluralistic approaches. Post-colonial approaches reveal colonial-era law as a deeply ambiguous, contradictory practice that mirrors the identity crisis of the colonizers. Pluralistic approaches juxtapose colonial international law with autochtonous views of inter-polity law, i.e., the normative framework governing colonial encounters. To reconstruct autochtonous views, the article draws on letters by Hendrik Witbooi and Maharero, traditional leaders from Namibia, and examines the contours of their inter-polity law relating to territorial sovereignty and warfare. These contending perspectives undermine the cogency with which the conventional view rejects reparation claims. While ambiguity as such does not give rise to compensation claims, other options come to mind, such as a duty to negotiate, shifts in the burden of proof – or a profound recalibration of international law towards greater solidarity.

Ga proverbial wisdom holds that “hate has no medicine,” but there is a sacred court in Accra where people can calm the animosity that emerges from social conflicts. A unique form of vernacular jurisprudence has emerged at the Nae We Shrine Tribunal, which manages the consequences of civil, criminal, and supernatural crimes without raising the ire of human rights activists. Using records from this shrine court, the authors of this article demonstrate how the Tribunal offers social and spiritual wellbeing in a manner that cannot be provided by the chiefly and state judicial systems.

In many modern nation states, both rich and poor, traditional law to this day plays an important role. Given the almost universal prevalence of traditional law, it is surprising how little we know about it. This is the first study that tries to take stock of traditional law from a cross-country perspective. We are also interested in the compatibility of traditional law with state-enforced law and, in particular, with the basic traits of the rule of law. Based on a sample of up to 134 countries, we find that no ‘typical’ traditional law exists, but that traditional law varies in many dimensions such as its timely enforcement, its impartiality, and its protection of basic human rights. Societies that rely extensively on traditional law score low regarding both the rule of law and per capita income. Historical and geographical factors are important predictors of the contemporaneous reliance on traditional law. State antiquity, for example, reduces the prevalence of traditional law, as does a high share of descendants from European populations.