This Peace Brief reports on controversies surrounding interpretation of the 2004 Afghanistan Constitution, which have created a crisis of confidence in the rule of law that the authors argue must be resolved for national reconciliation to occur.

pb 113

Summary

  • The recent controversy in Afghanistan over the outcome of the 2010 parliamentary elections ultimately resolved the question of who sits in Parliament, but left a more fundamental question unanswered: “Who has the power to interpret the Afghan Constitution?”
  • Ambiguities in the language of the Constitution make it difficult to determine who has the legal authority to interpret it. The Supreme Court maintains that the Constitution gives it the power of judicial review, but the Constitution also calls for the Independent Commission on the Supervision of Implementation of the Constitution (ICSIC), which the Parliament has mandated to decide constitutional issues instead.
  • Without political and legal consensus over who has final authority to decide different types of constitutional claims, Afghanistan cannot achieve a rule of law where government activities are subject to consistent and transparent rules.
  • Afghanistan must establish clear and unambiguous rules for constitutional interpretation to avoid damaging crises about political leadership and the separation of powers as the security transition and Presidential election approach in 2014.

About This Brief

This Peace Brief reports on controversies surrounding interpretation of the 2004 Afghanistan Constitution, which have created a crisis of confidence in the rule of law that the authors argue must be resolved for national reconciliation to occur. The research in this report reflects USIP’s ongoing work from its office in Kabul on Afghan constitutional law and rule of law reform.

Scott Worden is a senior rule of law adviser for USIP in Washington, DC with responsibility for the Institute’s rule of law programs. Sylvana Sinha is a rule of law advisor in USIP’s Kabul Office.

Related Publications

The Political Deal with Hezb-e Islami

The Political Deal with Hezb-e Islami

Friday, July 6, 2018

By: Casey Garret Johnson

The deal signed with Hezb-e Islami in September 2016 was the Afghanistan government’s first major success at negotiating a peace agreement with an insurgent group. This new report examines how the deal was negotiated, what progress has been made on its implementation, and what lessons can be applied to prospective peace talks with the Taliban.

Peace Processes; Reconciliation; Justice, Security & Rule of Law

War-Weary Afghans March for Peace

War-Weary Afghans March for Peace

Friday, June 29, 2018

By: Maria J. Stephan; Johnny Walsh; USIP Staff

A recent grassroots peace movement in Afghanistan began in late March 2018 as a series of sit-ins and a hunger strike in Helmand province demanding that both the government and Taliban implement a cease-fire. USIP’s Maria Stephan and Johnny Walsh discuss the significance of this nonviolent movement, how its bottom-up approach can strengthen the push for a peace, and what to expect from the movement going forward.

Nonviolent Action

View All Publications