The Arab uprisings have put mass demonstrations back on the map in the region, but the reality is that in many states, the right to assemble and express political dissent has long been codified in the constitution, even if the rulers sound to constrain them in practice. Scholarly attention has largely examined the protests themselves, examining arrests and prosecutions with little substantive examination of the ways in which regimes use “law” as a mechanism of governance. That is, scholars might focus on what a law does or does not permit—for example, in Jordan a citizen can criticize the government but not the monarch—without attention to the ways in which “law” as an elevated norm of order is itself used by regimes to make certain kinds of politics possible. In recent years, regimes have adapted and adopted U.S. anti-terrorist legislation, creating new possibilities for repression within the confines of what “law” permits. In this paper, I will use insights from critical legal studies that examine law through the perspective of new materialism, an approach that examines “non-human” practices, processes, and objects as exercising agency in ways that profoundly affect what is possible in the realm of dissent. The scholar becomes implicated in this process, particularly when she reproduces the fiction that law is comprised of sets of rules that merely enable or constrain behavior (of humans, who alone possess agency). I will focus on the case of Jordan, examining not merely the series of laws affecting the “right” to express political dissent publically, but I will also show how many scholarly studies of law, particularly in the field of political science, work to advance the repressive power of these regimes even as they (scholars) intend to advance critiques.

While political scientists continue to celebrate Tunisia’s advances towards a liberal democracy since the 2011 Revolution, ambiguities around vague legal contours and enduring repressive policing practices have occupied more critical observers. Despite institutional reforms towards political liberalization, including two rounds of free elections (2011 and 2014) and the ratification of a new Constitution (2014), the protection of citizen’s liberties and their rights appears asymmetric. The uneven application of due process perhaps reveals lingering authoritarian practices, an uncertain commitment to liberal democracy, or a pre-occupation with the re-securitization of the state, despite pervasive public commitments by nearly all political actors to liberty and democracy. An under-reformed judicial system coupled with the re-entry of former RCD regime members into Tunisia’s new government, suggests one possible answer. Yet, debates around the judiciary in Tunisia have to consider the role of the judiciary in Tunisia’s dictatorial past. As analysts previously treated Ben Ali’s regime as a repressive police state protected by an extensive internal security apparatus, little work has been produced on the systematic cooptation and hollowing of the country’s judiciary during that period. The tentacles of Ben Ali’s legal regime continue to reach into contemporary Tunisian politics and everyday life. As a result, since 2011, citizens are still arrested and tried on arbitrary charges, such as public order disturbance and defamation, disregarding Constitutional protections. To demonstrate the possible effects of Ben Ali’s lingering legal apparatus on Tunisia’s political transition and highlight the uneven application of protective measures, this paper will examine cases of arbitrary arrests, detention and imprisonments since 2011, encompassing the three diverse governments since the fall of Ben Ali. In line with the theme of this panel, this paper does not treat Tunisia’s judiciary as an object of study, but rather takes the dictatorial legacy as a point of departure and juxtaposes debates around judicial independence and the meaning of rule of law to instances when the law has been unevenly applied.

How should scholars of the Middle East consider US law in their research designs, field sites, and interactions with subjects? How do political and financial support for specific types of research structure scholarly opportunities and incentives? Drawing on experiences studying militant organizations in the Middle East between 2007 and 2014, this paper explores the ways in which US law and the “War on Terror” shape scholarship on violence and contentious politics in the Middle East. Referencing recent legal cases at Boston College and the University of Virginia as well as the Abidor v. Napolitano filing, it challenges scholars’ current understandings of vulnerability, confidentiality, and third-party access to academics’ unpublished data. Specifically, this paper outlines five ways in which contemporary US law and politics interact with and frame scholarly research in the Middle East: through potential criminal investigations and associated treaty obligations (e.g. MLATs), via the border search exception, via potential Freedom of Information Act requests, through state data practices acts, via Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations, and through grant making and evaluation linked to national security interests. Moreover, it notes specificities in contemporary law—such as the lack of researcher protections in state level “sunshine laws” and national security interest clauses—that affect public university employees, recipients of government funding, and foreign academics working in the US. The paper then evaluates how these legal institutions mold researchers’ relationships both in the field and “back home.” First, it argues that US laws create tensions with traditional understandings of core ethical principles such as confidentiality. Second, it contends that legal structures should be incorporated into discussions of reflexivity and intersubjectivity. Finally, it develops recommendations for improved researcher training and research design, including the incorporation of relevant legal knowledge into graduate education.

Rarely, in studies of contemporary Algerian politics, does the concept of law or legality figure. Instead, political scientists who do look beyond the façade of “Le Pouvoir,” work on elections or survey data around Algerian disenchantment with the regime. Yet, similar to other cases in the MENA, political science tools have proven too narrow to capture the most compelling insights about contemporary Algerian politics. Worse, the “Arab Spring lens” has diverted scholarly inquiry towards explanations of what Algeria should be, as opposed to what it is. This paper will address the ambiguity of citizen-regime relations in the context of law and ownership. This complex relationship in which Algerian citizens both dismiss and rely on the regime is not solely a result of mistrust in political institutions, but more an effect of uneven and arbitrary application of the law in terms of property ownership and housing in Algeria. By engaging with real and on-going debates about legal protection, rights and privatization, this paper’s lens is at the intersection of critical political economy, illiberal political contexts, and memory. In 2013, for instance, families evicted from an apartment complex in Oran following a Franco-Algerian privatization scheme, took to the streets invoking the memory of the Algerian revolution rather than holding the state accountable. The significance of this ambiguity within contemporary Algerian politics is great, particularly as such a perspective allows us to capture precisely why Algerians both mistrust and engage the regime. The jacqueries and demonstrations surrounding property disputes between citizens, or between citizens and the state, have become a form of rightful resistance: citizens reject the law of the Algerian regime, invoking instead the legitimacy of the Algerian revolution. Indeed, the Minster of Housing declared, in 2014, that Algerian streets were the arenas of more than 7,000 demonstrations, disturbances, or micro-riots linked to housing. This paper challenges the conceptual tools political science has made available to scrutinize some of the most paradoxical questions in the study of MENA politics. It presents a conceptual contour that captures the ambivalence of both the citizen-regime dichotomy as well as the complexity of law as a protective mechanism in semi-authoritarian and post-conflict scenarios. Through a deep ethnographic analysis of the conflict over property, its effect on citizen-regime relations, and its dismissal of official law as a protective means, this study provides a lens to real-life everyday Algerian politics beyond the orientalization of what Algeria should be.