Justice in Afghanistan:

Definition of justice often depends on culture, religion, and governmental

structures. Since the consolidation of the state under Amir Abd al-Rahman Khan
religious beliefs have played a major role in the definition of justice in Afghanistan.
The law of the nation was the law of the Sharia. Culturally, justice in Afghanistan
often has a communal component. This means the justice is often not merely
personal, meaning that the outcome does not just affect one person. Instead, justice
is often seen as benefiting a whole group of people in a community. Justice in a
democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people, the voters, who are
charged with selecting their government.

Legal Pluralism in Afghanistan:

Legal pluralism refers to situations in which there is more than one source
of law, each of which exerts control over the behavior of individuals in that society.
Afghanistan is a nation with legal pluralism because in addition to the formal written
law- the civil and criminal codes- other non-written, informal, or tribal law has
significant effects.
Informal legal institutions also called alternative dispute resolution are the
processes outside of the formal court system through which individuals settle legal
dispute. Formal dispute resolution is when disputes are settled in the statecontrolled system. Any discussion of Afghanistans legal system would be
incomplete without addressing the central role played by these informal institutions,
such as Shuras and Jirgas. These institutions are based upon local custom, tradition,
and religious practices and have existed in Afghanistan for centuries.
Shuras are local councils, either religious or secular and the two principal
types are: shuras of the Ulema (Islamic Scholars) or Shuras of elders. Jirga is
gathering of elders or leaders who sit in a large circle to resolve a dispute or make
collective decisions about an issue of community-wide importance.
Advantages and disadvantages of informal institutions: many citizen
of Afghanistan, especially in rural areas, turn to shuras or jirga to resolve disputes
because they are considered more fair, efficient, accessible and respectful of local
values than the state system. Corruption, lack of accessibility, and slow response
are three common complaints about the formal justice system. Informal institutions
lack the procedural safeguards, uniformity, and oversight present in formal courts,
and they sometimes suffer from a lack of transparency.