This is an important book. It is important because it connects the study of internal armed conflict to big questions in comparative politics. It is important because it pays attention to the perspectives of ordinary men and especially women who make complex decisions in the context of legal pluralism. It is also important because it offers a window onto one of the most difficult-to-access settings of state-building on the back of protracted political violence and war. In my commentary, I will highlight these contributions of Egor Lazarev’s State-Building as Lawfare: Custom, Sharia, and State Law in Postwar Chechnya and areas for further discussion that stem from these contributions.

Egor Lazarev has given his readers more of an epic story than a grand theory, and everyone who reads State Building as Lawfare will be the richer for it. The setting for this riveting tale is the war-torn Russian province of Chechnya. We quickly learn from Lazarev’s mise-en-scene that Chechnya’s famously mountainous terrain is as choppy and uneven legally as it is topographically. Three separate legal systems coexist and commingle in this single subnational domain: 1) customary law, or adat; 2) Islamic law, or Sharia; and almost as an afterthought, 3) state law, “courtesy” of Russian central authorities in Moscow.

I would like to thank the editors of Nationalities Papers for providing a forum for the discussion of my book and for facilitating the symposium. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Lisa Blaydes, Anastasia Shesterinina, and Dan Slater for taking the time to read the book and for offering their insightful comments and questions. Their scholarship was an inspiration and a source of wisdom for my research in almost all its aspects, from the art of theory-building to their methodological input on survey research and qualitative fieldwork (Belge and Blaydes 2014; Blaydes 2018; Shesterinina 2019, 2021; Slater 2010). It was a wonderful feeling to read their engagement with my work. I believe that the ways the authors of the symposium presented some of the central ideas of my book were often better than the ways I did it myself. In this response, I’ll address some of the central questions and comments raised by the reviewers.