Based on fieldwork conducted between November 2012 and July 2013, this paper investigates mechanisms and practices of governing populations in contexts of protracted violent conflict and limited state authority. Focusing on the nascent justice sector in rebel-held areas in northern Syria, the paper presents empirical evidence of bottom-up, community-based initiatives mobilising local community actors independent of both the Syrian regime as well as rebel militias. The paper traces the emergence and eventual failure of the United Judicial Council (UJC), a judicial entity founded in 2012 to “establish justice”, provide “law and order”, and limit vigilante violence and looting as rebel brigades overran regime forces in Aleppo, Iblib and their environs. Empirical date presented in this paper shows that, the UJC, comprising of self-appointed preachers, legal practitioners and local community activists, adopted the codified, Sharia-inspired United Arab Criminal Code and established regularised/standardised court systems and legal procedures in an attempt to govern everyday life in the absence of state authority in rebel-held territories. The paper argues that, in the context of protracted civil conflict, insurgents’ ability to establish effective and durable administrative structures in the Syrian insurgency depends on their ability to mobilise local community actors and, thus, capitalise on social capital, autonomous organisation and networks developed in the pre-insurgency context. The case study presented in this paper also shows that nascent rebel administrations failed to provide a viable alternative to the embattled Syrian state due to (1) their inability to subjugate rebel militias to their authority, (2) encroachments by more organised rebel groups including the Islamic State, (3) regime advances in rebel-held territories, and (3) interventions by international ‘experts’ and organisations (‘track-two actors’).