Society, Culture, & Thought
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Society, Culture, & Thought by Subject "Dispute resolution (Law) -- Afghanistan."
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Hybrid Forms of Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice in Afghanistan: Conceptual Challenges, Opportunities and Concerns(Hamida Barmaki Organization for the Rule of Law, 2015-03) Coburn, Noah; Röder, Tilmann J.; Zia, Sayed HameedWhile the growing interest in informal justice is an important step in understanding the various forms of access to justice in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the conceptual dichotomy between formal and informal justice misinterprets the actual hybrid nature of accessing justice that most Afghans experience currently. Hybridity in access to justice, as opposed to duality, appears on all levels of the justice system from the Constitution to the resolution of local land disputes. This hybridity helps many gain access to justice since it makes up for an underdeveloped formal system while offering a system that is both faster and more flexible than a purely state system. The flexible nature of the system, however, also raises important concerns about issues such as “forum shopping” – i.e. the phenomenon of parties of a dispute selecting differing conflict resolution mechanism thought most likely to produce a favorable result – and the protection of individual rights. Both academics and policy makers could help improve access to justice across the population by rethinking the frames that they use to think about how disputes are being resolved and justice issues are being addressed.Item Informal Justices and the International Community in Afghanistan(United States Institute of Peace, 2013-04) Coburn, NoahThis report analyzes the array of programs that dealt with the so-called informal justice sector in Afghanistan from 2008 to 2011. It focuses on a series of pilot projects sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace that engaged local Afghan organizations at the district and provincial levels to observe and record how informal justice systems resolve (or fail to resolve) people’s disputes, and how informal and formal justice actors relate to each other in practice. It also examines the expanding role of international actors in local dispute resolution and the impact that such interventions have had on local practices and perceptions of justice. The report finds that the informal justice sector provides a pervasive and effective, if sometimes flawed, venue for the majority of the Afghan population to access justice and argues that the international community should commit more fully to supporting local informal justice mechanisms.Item The International Community and the 'Shura Strategy' in Afghanistan(International Development Law Organization, 2011) Coburn, NoahThe international community in Afghanistan has increasingly come to realize that the failure of the Afghan state to provide citizens with predictable access to justice has contributed significantly to the insurgency in much of the country. As a result, funders, policy makers and the international military have increasingly looked to alternative approaches to justice that rely on informal, non-state actors. While this acknowledgement of legal pluralism in Afghanistan has been an important step in attempting to understand the local context for both rule of law and governance challenges, whether international programs aimed at engaging the informal justice sector are actually effective remains an open question.Item Many Shuras Do Not a Government Make: International Community Engagement with Local Councils in Afghanistan(United States Institute of Peace, 2010-09-07) Coburn, Noah; Miakhel, ShahmahmoodThe need to engage local Afghan leaders and support community decision making has recently been promoted as a key element of both development and counterinsurgency strategies in Afghanistan. The resulting proliferation of community councils—commonly called shuras or jirgas— sponsored by different actors within the Afghan government and international community has decreased the effectiveness of local governance and rule of law in many places. Traditional Afghan dispute resolution and governance bodies are most effective when they are formed by local residents and genuinely reflect the interests of the community. Their legitimacy decreases if international or government sponsors create shuras or jirgas to promote their own interests. This paradox creates a dilemma for programs designed to foster good governance: how to promote community self-rule that reflects traditional values and mechanisms and that develop locally, while adhering to rigid counterinsurgency and development timelines and strategies. These so-called ‘traditional’ political structures have an important place in local governance in Afghanistan, but the international community should not assume that such bodies fairly represent their respective communities. Rather, sound understanding of local dynamics and in-depth consultation with local government actors and community leaders are necessary to help ensure that such bodies are represented and thus, legitimate within the community. A more coherent, sustainable vision of long-term local governance and coordinated strategies between the Afghan government and international forces is necessary to bring both stability and development to Afghanistan. In particular, this Peace Brief supports the attempts to create a coherent long-term goal of local governance based on legitimate local actors, most likely selected through elections.Item The Politics of Dispute Resolution and Continued Instability in Afghanistan(United States Institute of Peace, 2011-08) Coburn, NoahThis report argues that the assumed formal–informal dichotomy between justice systems in Afghanistan misdescribes the way in which most cases in the country are resolved. In fact, analysis in late 2010 of data from ongoing research and pilot projects sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace shows that most disputes have been handled by a combination of the two justice systems, with actors in each assuming different roles depending on the location and context of the dispute as well as on the parties involved, which has serious implications for many of the international programs recently created to engage the informal sector. Furthermore, this report suggests that the greatest barrier to local dispute resolution in Afghanistan is the current lack of security and political stability, which has made it more difficult for those involved in either formal or informal dispute-resolution systems to interact effectively.Item Promoting Stability and Resolving Provincial Disputes in Afghanistan: USIP’s Dispute Councils Program(United States Institute of Peace, 2011-06-10) Coburn, Noah; Miakhel, ShahmahmoodCurrently numerous disputes at the local level are unresolved in Afghanistan, leading to local instability, a growing distance between the government and people and encouraging communities to turn to the Taliban. In March 2010, USIP began working with local elders, government officials (particularly governors and officials from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs) and religious figures to address a range of disputes in Nangarhar and Kunar provinces in eastern Afghanistan. These networks of elders, working closely with government officials and, in some cases, the international military, have addressed conflicts that include land disputes, criminal cases, and disputes involving the Taliban. Since 2010, USIP’s Dispute Resolution Project has participated in and recorded the resolution of over 120 cases. The project suggests several methods for facilitating dispute resolution that rely on flexible networks of locally legitimate political figures which will strengthen the government, promote rule of law and decrease the appeal of the Taliban.Item Traditional Dispute Resolution and Stability in Afghanistan(United States Institute of Peace, 2010-02-16) Coburn, NoahStability in Afghanistan will remain elusive unless disputes between individuals and among communities can be resolved through peaceful and equitable means. However, state justice institutions are barely functioning in much of the country and are incapable of meeting many justice and dispute resolution needs of Afghans. Instead, the majority of Afghans turn to traditional justice mechanisms—including tribal councils and village and religious leaders—to address both civil and criminal disputes. In many parts of the country, including areas recently cleared of insurgents, the best way to make signi cant, visible, short-term (12 to 18 months) gains in peacefully resolving disputes is to work with community-based structures. USIP has drawn important lessons from its work with Afghan partners to implement pilot programs exploring links between the state and traditional justice systems in four provinces across the country (in Nangarhar, Khost, Paktia and Herat). Programs designed to create or strengthen existing links between traditional justice bodies and state institutions can build mutual trust and harness the strengths of each. Donor-funded traditional justice programs need to involve the Afghan government while also accounting for the practical needs of communities to settle disputes in line with their own traditions and procedures, as well as Afghanistan’s laws and human rights norms.