THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND INFORMAL JUSTICE
International groups, particularly relief organizations, have long dealt with shuras and other local bodies involved in dispute resolution in Afghanistan. Following the American invasion in 2001, there was a dramatic increase in the international community's focus on rule of law and access to justice. his focus intensified following the shift in U.S. policy on Afghanistan under the Obama administration. Approaches to informal justice after 2001 initially focused on basic state institution building with a generally light footprint. his was followed by an increased emphasis on counterinsurgency and stabilization and, more recently, concerns over transition to Afghan-led security and governance. As a result of this shifting political interest, there has been a significant increase in funds and interest directed toward governance and rule-of-law issues, which has included an increase in funds for programs that deal with informal justice. For example, the USAID budget for all rule-of-law programs more than doubled between 2009 and 2010 to $75 million.64 his increase has led to the development of a range of programs, from those that strictly conduct research to ones that attempt to reshape informal structures to serve counterinsurgency goals.65 here are positive aspects to many of these projects, but their effectiveness has also been limited due to a series of issues, ranging from difficulties in understanding cultural aspects of the informal sector to the contradictory goals within some of these projects. In some instances, international programs have actually made local dispute resolution more difficult, while smaller Afghan-led initiatives have been somewhat more effective.
This section addresses primarily a series of programs that deal directly with the informal justice sector, beginning with some of the newest and largest in financial terms. Due to the politicized nature of how disputes are resolved in Afghanistan, any project that involves local political actors has the potential to create repercussions in how local disputes are resolved in the immediate term as well as in the future. Approaches such as "key leader engagement" by the military, which tend to increase the political capital of certain local figures at the expense of others, will shape how disputes are resolved within that community. In such instances, the simple act of holding a meeting with a leader can increase his reputation in some areas as someone who has access to international resources or, more dangerously, make them a target in less secure areas because of their affiliation with international forces. his association can also alter the balance of power in long-standing local feuds, perhaps generating new disputes as one lineage takes advantage of its enhanced status to attempt to resolve a disagreement on its own terms.
At the national level, international support for nationa