REDD+ is currently perceived by local people (indigenous, rural and especially those who live in the forest) as a new threat to their own rights (such as "carbon cowboys" ). This leads them to definitively refuse REDD +, at least for as long as their specific rights are not suitably recognised in this new policy. REDD + is an even greater threat to local rights. By its very nature, it can basically complete the destruction of the state by permanently deleting the law, its relevance, function, character and spirit. Local people and States which are totally interconnected could exploit this new policy to better establish their rights. Under what conditions can they do this? Their determination is real and it is of great urgency. REDD + is applied primarily in tropical forests, habitat of vulnerable local populations, and nationals of countries or regions that are themselves fragile. At first glance, REDD + protects states and their people. Indeed, it includes the recognition of the rights of local people: the right to exploit forest resources, the right to secure their land, the right to equal access to the benefits of forest use by third parties, right to participate in decisions affecting forests that act as shelter, etc. It also imposes the improvement of these rights to ensure their existence and their effective and efficient implication. Finally, in the same vein, and as reflected in the Readiness Preparation Proposals (R- PPs), REDD + is a tool for synthesis, coordination, and consequently purification and restoration of the legitimacy of the law. However, by simply observing these conditions, REDD + will not sufficiently and satisfactorily protect states and local people. First of all, the laws are often poorly thought out and the articles are not properly framed and are therefore not really useful. The land tenure law in Cameroon is a good example. Secondly, these reforms are unfounded and therefore poorly constructed. They should rather be founded on redefined concepts like the consideration of NGOs as legislation and the use of contracts in the legal process. All these comments and suggestions would be meaningless if, ultimately, the very purpose of REDD + policy is not clearly defined. The main objective of REDD + is socio-political and not financial benefit nor environmental protection. Indeed, this objective is directed towards the strengthening of the rule of law and social justice. Cameroon is one of the countries that have decided to adopt this objective. Honestly, it is absolutely difficult for lawyers to institute the REDD + policy based on the above recommendations. However, doing this is not just a duty but a responsibility. The lawyer should not just be limited to existing theories of law but should go beyond that by creating a new general theory of law that is adaptable and useful to vulnerable forest people and counties.