Systematic Problems in International Engagement with Informal Justice
In addition to these broad programming concerns and guidelines, USIP's evaluations of its own and others' work in this field consistently point to a number of systematic issues in the way that the international community approaches justice programming, particularly vis-a-vis the informal justice system. Questions of project funding, monitoring and evaluation, and staffing and capacity issues, as well as a lack of clarity or transparency in goal setting, have often encumbered otherwise well-intentioned and well-resourced efforts. Some of these issues go beyond efforts to work with the justice system and bedevil related international efforts to improve governance and development sectors as well. Nonetheless, a discussion of what has impeded success in working with the informal justice system would be incomplete without a discussion of these factors.
The Need for Both Preliminary and Ongoing Research
Perhaps one of the most serious limitations for internationally sponsored projects in Afghanistan is that projects are designed and planned with a significant lack of quality research. If the international community is to be responsive to the nuances in the political, social, and economic organization of each community, they need to ground any programmatic intervention in sound empirical research that focuses on the ways in which disputes are being resolved in a community both before and after the implementation of the program. his means taking approaches that go beyond the basic assessment tools that are being employed at the end of projects to justify the use of funds to international donors. For example, most research would demonstrate that it is insufficient to judge the success of a project on the number of people who attended a workshop. Contrary to the flawed assumptions on which many projects are based, just because a workshop is well attended does not mean it is effective and has led to any observable change in perceptions or behaviors of attendees.
It should be recognized that it is exceedingly difficult to assess the impact of projects that work on local dispute resolution, because there are so many variables that shape the way in which disputes are resolved and it is not always obvious when a specific project is actually responsible for improving dispute resolution. Beyond this, it is clear that the questions being asked are often the wrong ones because they focus on participants in the project as opposed to the general experience of the community in accessing justice. hey