The distinction between civilians and combatants is central to international humanitarian law. Yet are there distinctions among civilians that scholars of international law and international relations should consider? On the basis of US military documents and practices, we argue that in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a hierarchy of 'civilianness' (Sutton) emerged. This hierarchy was structured along three observable axes of differentiation: personal security, compensation for harm, and credibility. Civilians with foreign passports - in practice frequently humanitarian workers or journalists - enjoyed the highest level of security, credibility, and compensation (in case of harm). Ordinary local civilians without ties to Western institutions were the most marginalized in all dimensions: their testimonies were frequently dismissed by the US military, and their families received inadequate (if any) compensation for harm they suffered. The case studies revealed the existence of an 'in-between' group that shows the operations of institutional power: civilians who are local residents but transnational ties to Western institutions through employment or family are sometimes able to mobilize these ties for better recognition and compensation for harms they suffered from Western militaries. The article contributes to understanding how global hierarchies are refracted on the ground in asymmetrical armed conflicts.

This piece offers a space for critical debate and reflection on the methodological and epistemological foundations that underpin feminist research on conflict, violence and peace. Taking stock of the variety of approaches and theoretical standpoints, we examine the (feminist) politics of knowledge production in academia and its limitations. We discuss how ontological and epistemological assumptions shape what counts as (feminist) academic knowledge and what is considered to be possible in (policy) practice. The article makes three contributions. First, we argue that the production of knowledge within disciplinary boundaries, and in particular, International Relations, is closely related to the discipline's history of positivism and exclusion. Second, to counter that, we propose a close engagement with Black and decolonial feminist methods of feeling-knowing, storytelling and collaboration. Third, we highlight that embracing uncertainty means accepting incommensurability and heterogeneity, as well as a shift away from the urge to accumulate knowledge towards paying attention to the process of co-constructing it.

How can Indigenous law-making affect state authority? I examine this in the context of Canada's extractive sector, where I question how and when Indigenous laws prevail over state laws to challenge colonial authority and reassert Indigenous self-determination. Although the state claims supreme authority, Indigenous governments are enacting their own laws, laws that are sometimes in tension with those of the state. I demonstrate that while the state usually responds to contentious Indigenous law-making with conflict, under certain conditions Indigenous communities can incite the state to reverse its position to one of acquiescence or cooperation. By drawing on insights from three Indigenous communities in Canada, I offer four conditions under which Indigenous peoples and governments may be able to compel the state to relent and accrue authority, including by preparing to engage in a long-term project, by fomenting community cohesion, by exploiting evolving international norms related to Indigenous rights, and by offering viable governance alternatives to colonial legislation. By highlighting new sites of authority and resistance, this work underscores the transformative possibilities of Indigenous politics. Une autorité en évolution : pouvoir législatif autochtone et gouvernance publique.