State Versus Non-State Justice Systems In Afghanistan
State Versus Non-State Justice Systems in Afghanistan
1. Introduction
Afghanistan's justice landscape is characterized by the coexistence of:
State Justice System: Formal courts and law enforcement agencies operating under Afghan national law.
Non-State Justice Systems: Traditional and informal mechanisms such as Shuras (councils), Jirgas, Mullah courts, and tribal or community-based dispute resolution.
Both systems are vital for resolving disputes, but they differ in structure, procedures, and legitimacy.
2. Legal and Social Framework
State Justice System
Based on Afghan Constitution (2004) and Afghan Penal and Civil Codes.
Includes Primary, Appeals, and Supreme Courts.
Formal procedures, legal representation, and codified laws.
Challenges include lack of accessibility, corruption, delays, and insecurity.
Non-State Justice System
Rooted in customary law, Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), and local traditions.
Jirgas and Shuras consist of community elders or religious leaders.
Often used due to accessibility, faster resolution, cultural acceptance.
Can conflict with formal law, especially in human rights issues (e.g., women’s rights).
3. Interaction Between State and Non-State Systems
Sometimes complementary: State courts may refer cases to Jirgas, or vice versa.
Sometimes conflicting: Non-state decisions may contravene constitutional rights.
Attempts at integration or harmonization have been made by Afghan governments and NGOs.
4. Case Studies and Examples
Case 1: The Case of the “Badal” (Revenge) Murder (2009)
Facts: A family sought revenge killing for a murdered relative.
Non-State System: Jirga sanctioned the killing as per tribal custom.
State System: Police arrested perpetrators and prosecuted under Penal Code.
Outcome: Conflict between Jirga verdict and state law; some perpetrators imprisoned, others protected by tribal immunity.
Significance: Highlights clash between tribal customs and state justice, and challenges in enforcement.
Case 2: Forced Marriage and Jirga Decision (2012)
Facts: A young woman’s family arranged her forced marriage.
Non-State System: Local elders approved the marriage via a Jirga decision.
State System: Woman appealed to court citing EVAW law against forced marriage.
Outcome: Court ruled in favor of the woman, annulled marriage; local elders resisted.
Significance: Illustrates tension between women’s legal rights and traditional practices.
Case 3: Land Dispute Resolved by Jirga and Court (2015)
Facts: Two families disputed ownership of farmland.
Non-State System: Jirga mediated and reached a compromise agreement.
State System: Parties later contested the agreement in formal court.
Outcome: Court enforced Jirga decision as a contractual agreement.
Significance: Shows potential cooperation where informal decisions are integrated into formal legal system.
Case 4: Honor Killing and Lack of State Prosecution (2017)
Facts: A woman was killed by family members over alleged dishonor.
Non-State System: Jirga deemed killing justified under tribal customs.
State System: Police failed to prosecute due to local pressure.
Outcome: Perpetrators not convicted; human rights groups condemned impunity.
Significance: Demonstrates serious gaps in state justice protection for vulnerable groups.
Case 5: Torture Allegations Against Police and Parallel Tribal Resolution (2018)
Facts: A detainee alleged torture by police.
Non-State System: Family sought resolution via tribal elders.
State System: Formal complaint lodged with prosecutor’s office.
Outcome: Police officers were disciplined, but family preferred tribal compensation.
Significance: Reflects dual reliance on both systems depending on trust and outcome preferences.
5. Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses
| Aspect | State Justice System | Non-State Justice System |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | Limited in rural areas, costly, slow | Easily accessible, culturally accepted |
| Procedural Formality | Formal rules, legal representation | Informal, consensus-based |
| Protection of Rights | Constitutionally guaranteed rights | Often patriarchal, may violate women’s rights |
| Enforcement | Backed by police and law enforcement | Relies on social pressure and community enforcement |
| Conflict Resolution | Legalistic, based on codified law | Mediation, reconciliation-focused |
6. Conclusion
Afghanistan’s justice system is pluralistic, with state and non-state mechanisms coexisting and interacting.
Non-state systems provide accessible and culturally legitimate justice, especially in rural areas.
However, non-state justice can undermine constitutional protections, particularly for women and minorities.
Efforts are ongoing to harmonize these systems, strengthen the rule of law, and improve women’s and minorities’ access to justice.
Cases demonstrate the complex realities and need for context-sensitive legal reforms.
RELATED Blog
comments