To Sue or Not to Sue: How Afghan Merchants Strategically Choose to Use or Avoid Courts
Dr. Haroun Rahimi This article explores how and why Afghan merchants choose to use courts or informal dispute resolution methods. It goes beyond the common corruption and inefficiency arguments, which maintain that Afghans do not use courts because they are corrupt and inefficient. It leverages rich, original data on variation of dispute resolution practices across provinces and types of disputes to gain insights into Afghan merchants’ dispute resolution decisions. In so doing, I reveal a more complex picture of commercial dispute resolution in Afghanistan. In this article, I demonstrate that Afghan merchants do choose courts when courts enforce the parties’ expectations and the courts’ judgments are necessary and effective. Moreover, while Afghan merchants do prefer informal dispute resolution methods, they do so because informal methods hold important advantages over courts in the context of Afghanistan where the formal property rights system is a failure, and the business climate is highly volatile. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 November 2019 Please click here to view it online!
The Role of Shariah in the Judicial System of Afghanistan
Dr. Lutforahman Saeed has completed and published research on The Role of Shariah in the Judicial System of Afghanistan. This article is composed of three main sections. It begins with a shortdescription of the meaning of shariah and fiqh in the context of Afghanistan, and a review of the historical path of shariah since the arrival of Islam until the era of constitutionalism in Afghanistan. The second section then focuses on the role of shariah in the judiciary after the first constitution was adopted in 1923 until the current constitution. This section reviews the role of shariah within a centralised judiciary and codified law system. The third and final section proceeds to explain the position of shariah in the current judicial system since the 2004 Constitution. It describes how the 2004 Constitution opened a space for the implementation of shariah. It also sheds light on the qualification and appointment of judges before providing a conclusion and policy recommendations. Please click here to view it online.
Religion and Violence (Exploring the Religious Perspective on Violence)
Abdul Nafay Khaleeq has conducted a research on Religion and Violence (Exploring the Religious Perspective on Violence), in May 2020. This research aims to provide a possible answer as to whether religion does or does not cause violence. First the paper critically analyses the current literature explaining religion and it being the cause of violence and identifying its loopholes and inaccuracies. The research then explores the probable causes of such loopholes and inaccuracies. Finally, it digs into a religious perspective on what religion is and whether or not it may cause violence. With most of the anti-religion literature being focused on Islam, the research presents only the Islamic view on religion and where possible,brings brief examples from other religions as well. Click here to view it online.
Electoral Choices, Ethnic Accommodations, and the Consolidation of Coalitions: Critiquing the Runoff Clause of the Afghan Constitution
Dr. Mohammad Bashir Mobasher has completed and published research on Critiquing the Runoff Clause of the Afghan Constitution. This article provides a systematic analysis of the runoff clause of Article 61 of the Afghan Constitution and its impact on the formation and consolidation of coalitions. Please Click here to read the full article. Compilation © 2017 Washington International Law Journal Association.
Examining Ethnic Accommodation and Coalition-Building Under Alternative Forms of Government in Afghanistan
Dr. Mohammad Bashir Mobashir has completed and published research on Examining Ethnic Accommodation and Coalition-Building Under Alternative Forms of Government in Afghanistan. In post-conflict states like Afghanistan, facilitating ethnic accommodationthrough encouraging inclusive institutions and policies are among the first concerns of constitutional designers. While some constitutional choices successfully address these concerns, others wholly or partially fail. The Afghan Constitution tells a story partly of success and partly of failure. Its success story highlights the formation of cross-ethnic electoral coalitions and the practices of relatively inclusive political distributions. Its failure underlines the less inclusive policies of the government and the inability of electoral coalitions to institutionalize. Many scholars and politicians link the failures to the presidential system and advocate for adopting a parliamentary or semi-presidential constitution. Others highlight the advantages of the presidential system and argue against any constitutional change. This article engages the literature by examining both the current system and the alternatives. However, it goes beyond the conventional discourse to examine the optimality of adapting the current presidential system as well. Please click here to read the full article.