"The existence of normative legal systems operating independently or semi-independently from the state is an empirical reality in almost every decolonised country in the world. However, despite the prevalence of non-state justice systems, and the growing official and academic recognition of their existence, to date few comparative studies have been made of them (with the notable exception of Morse and Woodman 1988). Further, although in much of the literature concerning non-state justice systems (especially that written by law reform commissions and donor agencies) there are references to the need to ?recognise,? ?empower? and ?harmonise? relations between state and non-state systems, as yet there has been limited enquiry into what exactly is meant by these terms. One explanation for this is the connection of this enquiry with sensitive issues concerning state sovereignty. While it is easy to agree in theory with broad statements about the need for recognition of non-state systems, once the actual detail is broached, significant levels of disagreement emerge. This may be due to what Blagg calls the ?meticulously embroidered fiction that it is possible to both ?empower? communities and not to give up any of one?s own” (Blagg 2005: 340). The aim of this paper is therefore to produce a comparative analysis of the range of possible relationships between state and non-state justice systems. It does this through the creation of a typology that sets out seven different models of relationship, the specific details that differentiate one model from another, the potential advantages and disadvantages of the different models, and the situations in which these models are working or not working and why. The typology is based on a comparative analysis..."