The legal framework for the Syrian urban reconstruction

Abstract

Purpose As the Syrian civil war winds down, the massive reconstruction of the devastated cities has become a recurring subject of political and scientific discussions. A crucial question pervades all these debates: is the current legal framework adequate for confronting the reconstruction challenges in an effective way? With the purpose of understanding and informing the question, this study aims to analyze the most important legal instrument for the Syrian urban reconstruction, Law 10/2018. Design/methodology/approach A functional analysis of the legal text and of its effective implementation is provided. Following a doctrinal legal approach, internal inconsistencies are highlighted, as well as possible “legal gaps” that might allow and favor instances of disrespect of the rule of law and regulatory capture. Findings The main hypotheses discussed are, first, from a descriptive-analytical perspective, that the neoliberal trend in the Syrian political economy underpins the legal framework for the Syrian reconstruction. Second, from a design perspective, that, while offering a strong mechanism for disciplining the Syrian urban planning, Law 10/2018 does not warrant a scenario of respect of the rule of law and seems too easy prey for regulatory capture. Originality/value While the most recent and prominent legal instrument aimed to frame Syrian post-war reconstruction, Law 10/2018, has been subject to multiple policy analyzes and critiques, these have focused almost exclusively on its presumed warchitecture dimension, lacking contextual depth and, most worryingly, ignoring any kind of doctrinal legal analysis. Setting the Law 10/2018 in its legal context is something that has not been done yet, even if, according to their own ontology, legal provisions have to be understood within the context of the legal system they are inserted in. This paper delves into the subject, analyzing the legal text, its juridical context and the way it has been interpreted by the administrative decision-maker while looking at instances where the axiological goals constitutionally proclaimed and legally enshrined might be prevented by the very regulatory configuration.