In this article the authors reflect upon Judith Shklar’s classic book The Faces of Injustice. They maintain that injustice is wrongly confined to the absence or counterpart of justice. The authors discuss the relationship between and the difference between injustice and justice. According to the authors, injustice has more intensity than justice. Legal rules have only limited power to fight extreme forms of injustice. They argue that there is an asymmetry between justice and injustice, also because the law introduces values as predictability and regularity that, in concrete situations, are badly equipped to eliminate injustice. They claim that injustice is rooted in the idiosyncratic perspectives of those who suffered harm and argue that injustice has a ‘playful’ character, while the law has the character of a game. Finally, they argue that injustice is at the core an intimate experience, whereas justice is primarily about relationships between people. The authors outline the implications of these points for thinking about restoration and the relationship between restoration processes and the law.

In the Netherlands there is a tendency to make use of the methodology of conferencing circles in case of domestic violence and abuse. The 2009 evaluation showed positive results and since then the approach has been improved, giving way to an increase of requests coming from justice (related) authorities. The underlying approach and caveats are discussed, portraying Eigen Kracht-conferences as an adequate means to unravel the complex phenemenon of domestic violence and abuse, calling upon significant others.

Tackling honour related violence is part of the Dutch policy on domestic violence. On the police level a centre of expertise was installed, the LEC EGG. Next to strategies with regard to detection, the LEC EGG has put forward instructions with regard to the application of police mediation in cases of honour related violence. These rules, the ‘7 golden W’s’, are presented and discussed, paying attention to the institutional role of the police.

Restorative Justice is not evident in cases of intimate partner violence, but it can take and does take place under certain conditions. Wolthuis and Lünnemann explain about the European research they coordinated in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK) on context and practicalities of the use of victim-offender mediation in such complex cases. Cases dealing with violence of mainly men against women and where power imbalances often play a role. That means that mediators, referrers and others involved should know about this complexity and the needs of participants. Austria and Finland turned out to have the most experienced working methods. Their models, good practices and challenges are presented as well as the main outcomes of the research. Interviews and focus groups in the countries gave additional insights. It resulted in a guide with minimum standards addressing the different stages of a mediation process with extra attention for safety and empowerment.

The authors focus on the restorative justice policies of the city of Utrecht. The Utrecht Mediation Model is a framework in which so called Peaceful Schools and Peaceful Community organisations work together with inhabitants, youth, police officers, public prosecutors and mediators (both voluntary mediators and professional registered mediators). The authors discuss some of the benefits of this large-scale collaboration in Utrecht-neighbourhoods. The added value of the Model is especially felt in so-called Large and Xtra-Large community conflicts. The mediators work together with police officers in order to realise peaceful solutions, while safeguarding the autonomy and independence that both professions require. The authors also discuss some of the competences of the professionals involved. Finally they address the financial revenues of the Model; public spending is relocated from repressive to restorative strategies.

Some believe that the credibility of restorative justice can be increased if more attention is given to the quality of the mediator, as well as methods to select people with the right profile or by training. At first glance this seems a legitimate aim: mediation services should offer quality. Reflecting on practical experience and research into mediation between offenders and victims in Flanders, the author problematizes these assumptions. The quest for tangible quality to ensure ‘credibility’ refers to a neo-liberal approach aimed at reducing risks and promoting the client’s satisfaction. In this article the author confronts the apolitical approach of client satisfaction with alternative ideas about (restorative) justice. Ideally, the mediator is critical of established (legal) authorities and professional expertise. Mediation is political in nature, even if the mediator relies on neutrality. The mediator must be aware of his – inevitable – political stance and should be ready to be interrogated on this matter.