In Chapter Three, I ask the question of “justice for whom” by exploring the frictions and contractions generated by the interface point between a largely liberal internationalist transitional justice enterprise and dimensions of “the local” (local ownership, local values, local practices, etc). Relatedly, this chapter looks at the “how” of dominant transitional justice practice. I argue that the dominance of law, legalism, liberalism and western conceptions of justice associated with the field has occasionally fostered a rather clumsy and tense engagement with questions of non-conventional (i.e., non-Western) justice, resulting in a loss of legitimacy and effectiveness. While this is widely recognized, the question of how to avoid such problems going forward is far less clear. Ultimately, I argue that while the local is as problematic as it is promising, making transitional justice into more of a true global project—where global is not simply a byword for northern or western—will require an at times uncomfortable degree of legal pluralism for many western human rights lawyers with a large margin of appreciation, even if that pluralism is still best managed within the values of a loosely liberal system.