Law and the political stakes of global crises: Lessons from development practice for a coronavirus world

Abstract

Law has translated the coronavirus crisis into politically salient forms in people's lives, from states of emergency, to border closures, to mask mandates. Yet political theory work on these forms has focused on constraining arbitrary state power. In this paper, I try to broaden this focus. Substantively, I argue that policy and its implementation also matter to how we theorize the role of law in crises, in terms of how we understand the political power of society and its relationship to the state. Methodologically, I argue that thinking about law in this way is more than a complement to or replacement for thinking about constraints on arbitrariness. Rather, different forms of thinking about law and crisis should constantly be used to critique each other in order to pursue the sorts of legal innovations required by geomobile and interconnected crises. Given that the current pandemic and its broader consequences are still unfolding, I turn to development policy and practice to demonstrate the process and consequence of such ongoing critique in action. Studying rule of law reforms-including during the West African Ebola crisis-I show how practitioners continually reimagined law in ways that facilitated ongoing legal innovation that could adapt to the politics of the crisis. | INTRODUCTIONWhy is the relationship between law and crisis important? At the level of political theory, law is a way in which a crisis becomes politically salient in people's lives, by translating the crisis into familiar terms with political purchase, such as authority and right, or even states of emergency and vaccine mandates. In more abstract terms, "crisis" refers to conditions of rupture that