Legal Pluralism and Fragmented Sovereignty: Experimental Evidence from Iraq

• In Event: Institution Building in Historical and Contemporary Contexts

Abstract

Where state and non-state legal orders coexist within the same territory, what factors determine individual preferences among alternative providers of justice? Through a series of vignette experiments conducted among Sunni Arabs in the Iraqi city of Mosul, where the population has long been exposed to numerous justice systems, this research fills a gap in the extant research by causally identifying factors across dispute cases that drive selection of one system over another. Disputes within the family are generally directed towards customary orders, though participants prefer that more costly cases go to the state system. Sectarian outgroup dynamics are not as impactful as might be expected.

Observational analyses and post-survey focus groups demonstrate that Iraqis face a difficult choice between a highly corrupt, but highly powerful state system and less enforceable, seemingly less corrupt non-state orders. Customary orders offer citizens a more restorative route for dispute resolution, aimed at the maintenance of social relationships among community members. These findings contribute to ongoing debates over how much prevailing models of peace and state-building should be reformed from championing state-centered approaches to encouraging complementarity between customary forms of dispute resolution and state ones. This research has important implications for efforts by governments and development practitioners seeking to maintain peace and order in areas where state legitimacy and sovereignty is limited.

Author

• Kristen Kao, University of Gothenburg