International scholars have often defined spaces characterized by political instability and lacking a clear‐cut legal framework to manage crisis as ungovernable, determined by chaos, dominated by informality, and exceptional. Nevertheless, the modalities of governance utilized and developed in these contexts have been left under‐explored. In this landscape, Nora Stel’s book Hybrid Political Order and the Politics of Uncertainty: Refugee Governance in Lebanon undertakes a challenging endeavour. While concepts such as “state fragility” and “state failure” have long prevented a needed unpacking of unorthodox manifestations of power, Stel’s book compellingly shows us how institutional ambiguity is a conscious strategy and how it can imply deliberate abandonment, deprivation of refugee rights, and violence. This book, composed of an introduction, six chapters and a final conclusion, offers a theoretical and empirical incisive account of how ambiguity is reproduced at a macropolitical and a microsocial level. The author conceives of ambiguity as threefold, drawing on the concepts of informality, liminality and exceptionalism to explain refugee governance in Palestinian gatherings and in Syrian refugee settlements.

In the introduction, Stel clearly locates her work in its related scientific landscape, providing a detailed overview of studies on institutional ambiguity, ignorance‐based governance, and the politics of uncertainty. The book is primarily based on her fieldwork in two Palestinian refugee settlements in South Lebanon – conducted between 2012 and 2014 – and in Central Beqaa during 2018 through a locally based researcher.

Chapter One reviews the key factors which limited sovereignty in Lebanon’s history. However, in line with recent scholarly work, Stel emphasizes that such a limited sovereignty does not imply a weak and absent state (p. 35‐6), but instead opportunistic political elites and parties who thrive on mediation and brokerage to govern everyday life. Indeed, according to the author, Lebanon’s elites benefit from a politics of systemic liminality, from informality, which does not emerge as an alternative to the state, but it rather derives from it, and from exceptionalism, which entitles power holders to adopt exceptional measures over spaces located out of normality. In this first section, Stel, however, seems to use “exceptionalism” interchangeably with “exceptionality”, leaving readers with the question whether the two terms can work as synonyms.

Chapter Two summarizes the (no)policy history of Lebanon’s response to displacement from Syria, highlighting the vague nature of the Lebanon Crisis Response Plan in establishing refugee status and in defining state obligations. Stel illustrates in great detail how the politics of hyping and reducing official refugee numbers mirrors institutional ambiguity. The Minister of State for Displaced Affairs, for example, was created to assuage critiques regarding Lebanon’s lack of policy on Syrian displacement rather than to address such critiques, in an effort to formalize inaction (p. 79).

Chapter Three discusses the role of brokers in this muddled politics of uncertainty, who connect refugee populations and their representatives with the vernacular forms of the state. Stel here explains the intermediary role of Syrian superintendents (shawishes) in refugee settlements, the confusing registration process of refugees, and how this overarching politics of uncertainty produces repressive but vaguely defined measures against Syrian nationals, such as curfews, raids and evictions.

Chapter Four discusses the history of Palestinian refugee governance and, similar to the Syrian case, the ways in which institutional ambiguity benefits political elites. In the case of the Palestinians, the author speaks of “extreme exceptionalism” (p. 126) to illustrate the political practices that are put in place in order to marginalize this old date refugee group, and to keep it in an existential and material state of permanent temporariness. Nonetheless, institutional ambiguity is not a measure that goes uncontested: local struggles happen continuously but yet with no success.

Chapter Five builds on the example of two Palestinians gatherings in South Lebanon. It deals with the uncertain politics of housing in the gatherings, focusing on the role of Popular Committees and other power structures. Here, Stel shows how dwellers need to depend on Lebanese authorities to access basic services and infrastructure, such as water and electricity. For instance, when Palestinian entities need to deal with Lebanese municipalities, they use local politicians, non‐governmental organizations or the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) as brokers. From a Lebanese governmental perspective, depriving Palestinians of service provision is meant to make their presence temporary for the sake of the “right to return” (UN Resolution No. 194). The chapter also shows how the Popular Committees often clash with the Family Committees, and how these internal cleavages feed into the power of Lebanese parties. By offering the example of evictions in a Palestinian gathering, Stel powerfully chronicles how, with no citizenship and no land ownership rights, camp dwellers are forced to rely on informal and heavily politicized tactics of survival.

In Chapter Six, Stel builds a knowledge economy of refugee governance and refugee‐inhabited spaces. In this section, Stel draws on her work on professed ignorance as a modality of governance, showing how ignorance is strategic in order for power holders to reassert their sovereignty, and how ignorance is also imposed on refugees. However, Stel contends refugees can also strategically appropriate the public attitude of not‐knowing in a bid to develop coping mechanisms, but repression still prevails: she shows the politics that underpins refugee expulsions and that “inflicts” liminality, a status of uncertainty that, at times, even encourages refugees to return to Syria (p. 202).

In the concluding Chapter, Stel recalls the practical potential of academia and of her own research in improving refugee lives and in challenging such violent and neglectful politics of uncertainty. She also discards the idea that institutional ambiguity is an exclusive feature of states classified as “fragile”. Indeed, she shows that the European migration regime equally relies on violent strategies based on inaction and uncertainty, despite the general bias that western states are refugee‐friendly that only act on the basis of law.

It would have been interesting to have more details on the ways in which ambiguity is deemed as only “partially strategic”, and more nuance on the role of contingency and intentionality, as the introduction seemed to preannounce (p. 4). In addition, scholars and practitioners who are particularly interested to learn the role of humanitarian agencies might desire to have more information about the role of NGOs and UN agencies as contextual brokers, since the author only hints at their contribution to this “Kafkaesque” (p. 114) politics of uncertainty.

Overall, this book has the merit to synthesize the Palestinian and the Syrian refugee regimes and their lived experiences. The author’s accurate politics of citation is remarkable: Stel interestingly puts her personal work in fruitful conversation with the work of a community of scholars who have endeavoured to study the state, displacement and multiple modes of governing. Based on an interdisciplinary ground which merges the importance of spatial politics, lived experience, and governance, Stel’s book not only offers an insightful analysis of “refugee crisis” management, which can serve as material of reflection in other geographic areas. It also brings refugee experience in conversation with governance, while interrogating the psychology of such governance (cfr. Kelsey Norman’s “strategic indifference” and “reluctant reception” in Egypt, Morocco and Turkey).^1.1. Norman, K. (2020) Reluctant Reception: Refugees, Migration, and Governance in the Middle East and North Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
This book is highly recommended to those who are committed to understanding how, after years of international research on the hybrid character of Lebanon’s political order, the epistemological politics of power can finally be pinned down.

国际学者经常以政治动荡为特征，缺乏明确的法律框架来管理危机，这种危机是无法控制的，是由混乱决定的，由非正式因素主导的，而且是例外的。然而，在这些情况下利用和发展的治理模式尚未得到充分探索。在这种情况下，诺拉·斯特尔（Nora Stel）的书《混合政治秩序与不确定性政治：黎巴嫩的难民治理》进行具有挑战性的努力。虽然“国家脆弱性”和“国家失败”之类的概念早已阻止了必要的非正统权力表现形式的分解，但Stel的书却向我们展示了制度歧义是一种有意识的策略，以及它如何暗示蓄意放弃，剥夺难民权利，和暴力。本书由引言，六章和最后结论组成，从理论上和经验上都对宏观经济和微观社会的歧义如何产生了深刻的解释。作者将歧义性理解为三个方面，利用非正式性，自由性和例外主义的概念来解释巴勒斯坦聚会和叙利亚难民定居点中的难民治理。

在简介中，Stel清楚地将她的工作定位在相关的科学领域，提供了有关机构歧义，基于无知的治理和不确定性政治的研究的详细概述。这本书主要基于她在2012年至2014年之间在黎巴嫩南部的两个巴勒斯坦难民定居点以及通过当地研究人员在2018年期间在贝卡中部进行的实地考察。

第一章回顾了限制黎巴嫩历史上主权的关键因素。但是，根据最近的学术研究，斯泰尔强调指出，主权的这种有限并不意味着国家的软弱和缺席（第35-6页），而是机会主义的政治精英和政党，他们通过调解和经纪来繁衍生息来统治日常生活。的确，据提交人称，黎巴嫩的精英阶层受益于系统性的自由政治，非正规性不是国家的替代品，而是非正规性的产物，而是非正规性的产物，它赋予权力持有人采取特殊措施的权利。在不正常的空间上。然而，在第一部分中，Stel似乎将“例外主义”与“例外性”互换使用，使读者有一个疑问，即这两个术语是否可以用作同义词。

第二章概述了黎巴嫩对从叙利亚流离失所的反应的（无）政策历史，突出了《黎巴嫩危机应对计划》在确立难民地位和确定国家义务方面的含糊性。Stel详细说明了炒作和减少官方难民人数的政治反应了制度上的歧义。例如，流离失所国务大臣的成立是为了缓解对黎巴嫩缺乏叙利亚流离失所政策的批评，而不是解决此类批评，以努力使不作为正式化（第79页）。

第三章讨论了经纪人在这种混乱的不确定性政治中的作用，这些经纪人将难民人口及其代表与国家的白话形式联系起来。Stel在这里解释了叙利亚警司（影子）在难民定居点中的中介作用，令人困惑的难民登记过程，以及这种不确定性的总体政治如何产生针对叙利亚国民的压制但含糊不清的措施，例如宵禁，突袭和驱逐。

第四章讨论了巴勒斯坦难民治理的历史，与叙利亚的情况类似，讨论了机构歧义使政治精英受益的方式。就巴勒斯坦人而言，作者谈到“极端例外主义”（第126页），以说明为了边缘化这个过时的难民群体并使其处于生存状态和物质状态而采取的政治做法。永久的临时性。尽管如此，制度上的含糊不清并不是一个无可争议的措施：地方斗争不断发生，但没有成功。

第五章以黎巴嫩南部两次巴勒斯坦人集会为例。它处理聚会中住房的不确定性政治，着重于人民委员会和其他权力机构的作用。Stel在这里展示了居民如何依靠黎巴嫩当局获得水和电等基本服务和基础设施。例如，当巴勒斯坦实体需要与黎巴嫩市政当局打交道时，它们会使用当地政客，非政府组织或联合国救济和工程处（近东救济工程处）作为经纪人。从黎巴嫩政府的角度来看，剥夺巴勒斯坦人提供服务的目的是为了“回返权”（UN第194号决议）而暂时将其存在。本章还说明了大众委员会如何经常与家庭委员会发生冲突，以及这些内部分裂如何影响黎巴嫩政党的力量。通过在巴勒斯坦人的集会中提供驱逐的例子，Stel强有力地记载了在没有公民身份和土地所有权的情况下，营地居民如何被迫依赖非正式的，政治化的生存策略。

在第六章中，Stel建立了有关难民治理和难民居住空间的知识经济。在本节中，Stel借鉴了她自称无知作为治理方式的工作，展示了无知如何具有战略意义，以使掌权者能够重新确立其主权，以及无知是如何施加于难民的。但是，Stel认为，难民也可以从战略上改变公众不知道的态度，以寻求建立应对机制，但镇压仍然盛行：她展示了支持难民驱逐和“施加”自由化的政治，这是一种不确定性，有时甚至鼓励难民返回叙利亚（第202页）。

在最后的章节中，Stel回顾了学术界和她自己的研究在改善难民生活以及挑战这种不确定性的暴力和忽视政治方面的实际潜力。她还抛弃了体制歧义是被归类为“脆弱”国家的专有特征的想法。的确，她表明，尽管普遍认为西方国家对难民友好，仅根据法律行事，但欧洲移民制度同样依赖基于无为和不确定性的暴力策略。

有趣的是，有更多的细节可以将歧义视为仅是“部分战略性”的方式，而对于偶然性和故意性的作用则需要更多的细微差别，因为引言似乎是预先宣布的（第4页）。此外，对研究人道主义机构的作用特别感兴趣的学者和从业人员可能希望获得更多有关非政府组织和联合国机构作为背景中介人的作用的信息，因为作者仅暗示了他们对这种“卡夫卡式”的贡献（p 114）政治的不确定性

总体而言，这本书具有综合巴勒斯坦和叙利亚难民政权及其生活经验的优点。作者的准确的引文政治是引人注目的：Stel有趣地将她的个人作品与一群致力于研究状态，流离失所和多种治理模式的学者团体的工作进行了富有成果的对话。基于融合了空间政治，生活经验和治理的重要性的跨学科基础，Stel的书不仅提供了关于“难民危机”管理的有见地的分析，可以作为其他地理区域的反思材料。这也给难民带来了与施政对话的经验，同时也质疑了施政的心理（克尔西·诺曼（Kelsey Norman）在埃及的“战略冷漠”和“不愿接受”，^1。1. Norman，K.（2020）勉强的接待：中东和北非的难民，移民与治理。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
强烈建议那些致力于了解黎巴嫩政治秩序的混合特征的国际研究人员如何最终确定权力的认识论政治力量。