The primary data informing this study consists of 32 semi-structured interviews. Interview data was used to understand why each LPA was initiated; how each LPA was negotiated and by who; why specific terms were valued (and by who); how terms were interpreted in practice; how each LPA was implemented after signature; and how the key stakeholders involved in drafting, signing, and implementing each LPA perceived the LPA affected durable solutions and community relations. All interviews were conducted in Iraq in May 2021 by a female Iraqi researcher. Due to government restrictions on intra-governorate travel and meetings (in response to the COVID-19 pandemic) the interviews were all conducted by phone, in Arabic. Interviewees were drawn equally from the eight sub-districts associated with the LPAs, and were chosen based on their direct involvement in, or direct knowledge of, the process of negotiating, drafting, and implementing each LPA. As a result, most interviewees were tribal leaders (13 respondents) or representatives of the local authorities (12), with a smaller number of interviewees drawn from civil society, NGOs or academia (5) or the federal government (2). All interviewees were Iraqi and resided in the area where the LPA applied. Respondents were identified using snowball sampling, with the ‘start’ of each snowball typically a signatory of each LPA or a prominent tribal leader in the sub-district. After the data collection was completed, the authors coded the (translated) interviews utilizing a line-by-line reading of the transcripts in order to identify common themes, and then instigated a second round of focused coding that refined the themes and identified sub-themes for analysis.<sup>65</sup> The interview data exhibits several limitations. The first is that community members and IDPs affected by each LPA were not interviewed, and all interviewees occupied a relative position of power (whether as a tribal leader, government official, or as an active member of civil society). The primary reason for this narrow approach was that data collection took place during the COVID pandemic, when government restrictions on movement and gatherings were enforced across Iraq. The topic of the return of families with perceived ISIL affiliation remains sensitive, and while inperson interviews could have overcome these sensitivities, it was not feasible to conduct phone interviews with ‘ordinary’ community members or IDPs without the risk of creating suspicion upon them; moreover, ordinary residents would be unlikely to discuss the issue on the phone (due to the sensitivity). Powerbrokers, on the other hand, have a wider latitude to talk about these topics since broaching sensitive issues is typically perceived as part of their social responsibilities.<sup>66</sup> A second limitation was that the authors struggled to identify any women who were involved in, or even had direct knowledge of any of the LPAs – a point that speaks to the broader exclusion of women from

> 65 <mark>Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011).</mark> _<mark>Writing ethnographic fieldnotes</mark>_ <mark>. University of Chicago Press; Pokorny, J. J., Norman, A., Zanesco, A. P., Bauer-Wu, S., Sahdra, B. K., & Saron, C. D. (2018). Network analysis for the visualization and analysis of qualitative data.</mark> _<mark>Psychological methods</mark>_ <mark>,</mark> _<mark>23</mark>_ <mark>(1), 169.</mark> 66 Based on multiple experienced with data collection on the same topic by the authors, as well as advice by the Iraqi researcher.

11