This article stems from a practice-oriented research on restorative justice and perceptions of conflict in a poor neighbourhood in Brussels: the Anneessens district. The first part of the article focuses on the conceptual shift from a crime-oriented towards a conflict-oriented restorative justice, including the search for a user-friendly working definition of ‘conflict’. The classical restorative justice story receives a facelift in order to address metropolitan challenges. The second part analyses 41 walking interviews of residents, focusing on conflict themes and zones. The third part cautiously checks the working definition in the frame of the analysed data. A provisional conclusion entails that the notion of crime and its related meanings should not be discarded too quickly.

Intercultural communication is often portrayed as communication between people with a different ethnic or national background. People may interpret differences and misunderstandings arising in communication as especially grand and problematic. Sometimes, people see the reason for a difference in opinion or the conflict to be situated within the other (often national or ethnic) culture. They see themselves and others as a member of a different group, with a different culture and thus claim the differences to be related to the culture and not the individual person (culturalising or culturistic approach). This approach entails certain risks when it is seen as a condition to be able to speak to others and when handled as the sole frame of reference to interpret people’s meaning-making. An alternative approach can be found in a systemic and communication-theory approach, linking it to intersectionality, pluralism, diversity competence and the TOPOI model, as this article explains.

This article describes the European research project ALTERNATIVE, which studies the possible implementation of restorative justice approaches in intercultural conflicts. Besides theoretical research into concepts such as justice, security, conflict (transformation) and restorative justice, action-research was implemented in four diverse intercultural settings (Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Northern Ireland). In order to compare those settings, an innovative comparative research method was developed through which the various realities are ‘thickly described’ within evaluation grids. The article describes the different aspects of the research and reflects upon the question whether a more broad understanding of restorative justice, surpassing the judicial sector and aspects, is emerging.

This article considers the fundamental restorative justice principles of voluntary participation, the impartiality of the facilitator and the confidentiality of the restorative process from the point of view of participants to victim-offender mediation in Flanders, Belgium. These principles have remained relatively theoretical; little is known about how they are perceived by the participants to restorative practices. Results of our study show that whereas victims and offenders unequivocally support the principles of voluntariness and impartiality, the principle of confidentiality causes dissatisfaction and frustration when they believe it hinders the judge trying the case in court from establishing the truth about the facts.

In this paper we compare the experiences of victims of serious violent crimes with a restorative intervention completed before or after a judicial decision was taken. Specifically, we ask: What is the impact of the availability of a judicial decision on the victims’ assessment of the restorative intervention? We conducted interviews with victims of violence in Belgium and Canada. The findings show that these victims are satisfied with a restorative intervention, irrespective of the phase in which this intervention takes place, provided that the intervention is complemented with a judicial procedure in which the offender is held responsible for his actions.