The Taliban established their own judicial system in Afghanistan as both an instrument of population control and as a means to project themselves as an effective parallel government. Despite the heavy reliance on coercion, the Taliban’s method of dealing with common criminality and resolving disputes was often welcome, though the weak appeal system and the rapidity of the trials was sometimes criticized. A more structured approach to coercion, featuring rules, regulation and supervision over the military, allows less use of violence and promises increased predictability for the population, making active resistance less of a necessity. In the long run, the establishment of credible judiciary institutions reshapes the social environment and creates vested interests in favor of Taliban domination.
This article investigates the implications of two competing modes of governance, those of the US Army and the Taliban, through the lens of the relations between property, citizenship and political authority in Kunar, Afghanistan, between 2001 and 2013. To account for the political struggle in the province, the author outlines two models of governance: a political one based on mediation and conciliation, which the US Army applied; and a legal one promoting direct relations between the rulers and the ruled, upheld by the Taliban. After looking at the political dynamics in Kunar since the nineteenth century and since 2001, I argue that it is paradoxically the Taliban that placed itself in continuity with the state, while the US Army played tribal politics and undermined the legitimacy of the regime it had helped to install in Kabul. Kunar is a case of an armed confrontation in which different militarized groups compete to impose their rule by controlling space and access to landed property.
Le privilège épistémologique du terrain. Une enquête collective dans la Syrie en guerre. L’article souligne le privilège épistémologique de l’observation dans les contextes sociaux marqués par la violence armée et le désordre. Confrontés à ces situations, les chercheurs ont parfois considéré que leur travail commençait une fois celles-ci stabilisées, privilégiant ainsi l’archive (écrite ou orale) et les sources secondaires à l’observation et aux paroles recueillies en contexte. Malgré les difficultés qu’elle pose, l’enquête en contexte offre cependant au chercheur, par une confrontation parfois brutale avec des situations exceptionnelles, la possibilité d’une plus grande inventivité théorique en s’ouvrant à de nouveaux objets et de nouvelles questions de recherche. En retour, les enquêtes obligent à une modalité plus réactive de l’élaboration théorique, avec une interaction permanente entre les hypothèses et la production des données. Plutôt que de développer ces thèmes de façon abstraite, les auteurs reviennent sur l’enquête qu’ils ont menée sur le conflit syrien en analysant notamment les difficultés d’accès, les risques d’enclicage, les problèmes associés au travail à distance et à la sous-traitance de la production de données et les avantages de conduire un terrain à plusieurs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.