Between January 2010 and July 2011, a USIP researcher officer, Zuhal Nesari, observed court proceedings, collected data and conducted interviews in civil and criminal divisions of Kabul’s fourth zone Primary Court in addition to commercial and family courts.

pb 101

Summary

  • USIP observation in the Kabul court system shows that a significant number of legal disputes are being resolved through a combination of formal and informal justice mechanisms, contrary to the assumption that resorting to traditional dispute resolution bodies occurs only in rural areas where legal awareness and access to courts is low.
  • Specifically, the Kabul courts frequently refer cases to conciliators who are not part of the formal judiciary. This yields benefits for both the courts and litigants: Conciliators reduce the courts’ caseload and litigants receive a cost-effective and expeditious alternative to trials.
  • The Afghan civil and commercial procedural codes specifically allow decisions made between litigants and a conciliator to be formally registered with the court, which may provide a legal model for recognition of decisions by traditional shuras or jirgas.
  • In practice, however, litigants are not uniformly provided with the option of settling their cases through conciliators. Therefore, increased public awareness of the legal option to refer cases to conciliators would provide litigants with the relevant knowledge they need to make an informed decision about the best way to resolve their disputes, and reduce the demand for the already overburdened formal justice sector.

About This Brief

Between January 2010 and July 2011, a USIP researcher officer, Zuhal Nesari, observed court proceedings, collected data and conducted interviews in civil and criminal divisions of Kabul’s fourth zone Primary Court in addition to commercial and family courts. She is a Kabul native, who graduated from the Law and Political Science Faculty of Kabul University and is currently a judge in Kabul’s appeals court. She has also worked extensively on USIP’s informal justice projects in Afghanistan. Karima Tawfik works in USIP’s Rule of Law Center of Innovation in Washington, DC.

Related Publications

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

By: USIP Staff

The halt to U.S. peace talks with the Taliban, announced September 7 by President Trump, should be used as a starting point for new negotiations, according to U.S. and Afghan specialists. The United States and Afghans have a chance to shape a new phase of talks to maximize the possibilities for a peace accord that Afghans can accept, the experts said at USIP. Some urged resuming talks as quickly as possible. Others argued for focusing first on unifying non-Taliban Afghans following the planned September 28 elections, and on exploiting war fatigue among the Taliban.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: Alex Thier

While the negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban were recently thrown-off course, a peace agreement among Afghans remains an urgent priority. The U.S.-led negotiations over a phased drawdown of U.S. troops in exchange for a Taliban commitment to eschew terrorism and engage in intra-Afghan negotiations took nearly a year. Yet these talks excluded the Afghan government and other political elites and didn’t address the fundamental question of what it will take for Afghans to put a sustainable end to four decades of war: how will power be shared?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: William Byrd

As the United States has pursued peace talks with the Taliban, international discussions continue on the economic aid that will be vital to stabilizing Afghanistan under any peace deal. Yet the Afghan government has been mostly absent from this dialogue, an exclusion exemplified this week by a meeting of the country’s main donors to strategize on aid—with Afghan officials left out. The government’s marginalization, in large part self-inflicted, is a danger to the stabilization and development of Afghanistan. In the interests of Afghans, stability in the region and U.S. hopes for a sustainable peace, this rift in the dialogue on aid needs to be repaired.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

By: USIP Staff; Andrew Wilder

President Trump’s weekend announcement of a halt to U.S. peace talks with Afghanistan’s Taliban—including a previously unannounced U.S. plan for a Camp David meeting to conclude that process—leaves the future of the Afghanistan peace process unclear. USIP’s Andrew Wilder, a longtime Afghanistan analyst, argues that, rather than declaring an end to the peace process, U.S. negotiators could use the setback as a moment to clarify the strategy, and then urgently get the peace process back on track before too much momentum is lost.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications