17:45 - 20:00
Thursday-Panel
Chair/s:
Daniel Gingerich
Discussant/s:
Sebastian Juhl
Meeting Room F

Daniel Gingerich, Jan Vogler
Self-Government Interrupted: Legacies of External Rule in Brazil and Poland

Marc S. Jacob
Citizens, Parties, Institutions: A Three-Stage Model of Democratic Backsliding

Gabriele Gratton, Barton Lee
Liberty, Security, and Accountability: The Rise and Fall of Illiberal Democracies

Viktoriia Semenova
Institutional Manipulation in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: Effects on Candidate Behavior

Kristen Kao
Fragmented Sovereignty After Conflict: A Survey Experiment in Iraq
Fragmented Sovereignty After Conflict: A Survey Experiment in Iraq
Kristen Kao 1, Mara Revkin 2
1 University of Gothenburg
2 Georgetown University

In post-conflict settings where state and non-state legal orders coexist within the same territory in a situation of 'legal pluralism,' what factors determine individual preferences among alternative providers of justice and order? When and why do people choose to resolve disputes through non-state systems of adjudication-whether tribal or religious-rather than resorting to state police or courts? Does the type of dispute and the identity of the other party affect which legal system is chosen? Through a survey experiment conducted in the Iraqi city of Mosul, where the population has been exposed to three different justice systems--state, tribal, and the Islamic State's extreme interpretation of sharia-we explore the relationship between state legitimacy and support for non-state legal authorities. We also expect, among other hypotheses, that Iraqis who stayed in Mosul after the Islamic State (IS) arrived in June 2014 ('stayers') are more likely to prefer non-state legal authorities, whether tribal or Islamic, over state legal authorities in comparison with those who fled to government-controlled areas ('leavers'). Our results have important implications for efforts by governments to establish legitimacy in areas where their sovereignty has been challenged by non-state actors.