reaty relations are essential to contemporary international life, and Afghanistan has acceded to numerous instruments; yet domestic execution remains inconsistent. This article examines how treaties are accepted and implemented within Afghanistan’s legal order, mapping constitutional and statutory mechanisms (e.g., Article 7 of the Constitution and the Law on Treaties) governing signature, ratification, oversight, and judicial review. It finds persistent normative ambiguity about the rank of treaties vis-à-vis the Constitution and ordinary statutes, a hybrid monist–dualist practice, and weak institutional habits: courts seldom cite treaties, ministries lack clear procedures, and reservations are uneven. These gaps risk international responsibility and erode legal certainty. Drawing on comparative practice, the study recommends clarifying the hierarchy of norms through constitutional or interpretive guidance; adopting systematic implementing legislation; empowering the Supreme Court and the Commission for Supervision of the Implementation of the Constitution to guide courts; strengthening MFA monitoring; and building capacity for judges and officials. Effective implementation is both a legal duty and a prerequisite for credible international engagement.

The Journal of Afghan Legal Studies (JALS) is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to Afghan law and related legal topics. It is published by the Institute for Law and Society in Afghanistan (ILSAF) and includes articles in Dari, Pashto, and English. The journal focuses on state law, Islamic law, customary law, international law, and other legal norms relevant to Afghanistan and its people. JALS is distributed both within Afghanistan and internationally.