This paper reflects on the recent, rapid rise in the use of “people-centered justice” language in global policy and international cooperation contexts. People-centered justice has provided a valuable common language to achieve policy buy-in and structure discussions on achieving justice for all, and breakfree from path dependencies of earlier rule of law assistance, and donor support long dominated by top-down support to courts and formal institutions of the justice system. However, recent uses of people-centered justice—without additional clarity—gloss over crucial differences in how justice challenges are framed, which could risk undermining some of its initial progress, or repeating past challenges encountered with rule of law support. Experiences of the OECD, USAID and in the United Nations systems provide contrasting examples of charting new paths, or clinging to well-worn path dependencies. We conclude with several reflections to overcome concerns with current uses.

The phrase “people-centred justice” is a powerful rallying idea for improving access to justice. But what does it mean? While it is attractively simple, its openness means reformers can subsume a number of very different aims under its banner. Using various examples from New Zealand, where it has featured in domestic policy since 2012, this article considers three aspects of people-centred justice that mean it is open to various interpretations: conceptions of people (as legal actors, people with needs broader than law, people connected to communities); tensions between the needs of various people; and the role of representatives of people in people-centred justice. It argues that as people-centred justice comes of age, attention needs to be paid to refining its meaning. It must remain thoughtfully anchored to its original goals and its complexities need to be recognised and attended to if it is to realise its promise as a focus for access to justice reform.