Talk:2004 Constitution of Afghanistan

Comments

Based on Bush's debate comments, I gather that the electrion has been pushed back to January? If this is correct, could someone who know's what he/she is talking about please get on it? --Chinasaur 22:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official Languages

Hold on. There was a series of edits that emphasized Pashto, and the tone of the edit descriptions suggests POV, but in working with those I looked at the constitution (English version) and it actually does say, "Pashto and Dari shall be the official languages of the state." So the pre-edit version is inaccurate. Let's stick to what the constitution actually says. -Kris Schnee 09:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution of Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006075140/http://www.afghan-web.com/history/const/const1923.html to http://www.afghan-web.com/history/const/const1923.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006075140/http://www.afghan-web.com/history/const/const1923.html to http://www.afghan-web.com/history/const/const1923.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fundamental Principles of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Anybody have a full text of it? I'd like to read it. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

BirdValiant

@BirdValiant: I see you also reverted other 3 users claiming "The constitution may still apply in the Panjshir valley". Source? Also Taliban controls the whole area. Claiming the Islamic Republic still exist is like a conspiracy theory. Please do your edits carefully. Beshogur (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Ghulam Isaczai continues to represent the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan at the UN.[1] At least as of writing this and to my knowledge, no country has formally recognized the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Thus the former government appears to remain a de jure legal entity, even if it does not exercise any authority anywhere. This is similar to how something like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta can be a legal entity, with its own constitution and governance, without controlling any actual territory. Additionally, members of the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan are present and apparently active in Tajikistan.[2]

Do these groups constitute a government in exile? Seeing as how the remnants of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan retains control of the Afghanistan envoy to the UN, and in light of such facts as Amrullah Saleh proclaiming himself as the "Acting President", does the IRA remain a legal entity? And if so, does the 2004 Constitution remain in force for that legal entity? These are difficult questions to answer, as what does or does not constitute a "government" or "law" depends on social recognition, as these things are not concrete objects but social constructs. Until humanity decides that the IRA as a legal entity has completely vanished, then it's certainly plausible that it remains. After all, what are the people in e.g. those running the Embassy of the IRA in Geneva - Switzerland [3] doing if they don't believe that the IRA remains an entity of some sort? In order to retain a NPOV, we must not take a stance on the legal status of the 2004 Constitution until this has been decided, such as by the UN, which has not yet decided on the accreditation of the Afghan seat. After that, of course, we could then use reliable sources to make a claim that the "is" became "was".

As for calling it a "conspiracy theory" that the government or the constitution remain technical entities, I'm not saying that these entities have any de facto force in the actual country of Afghanistan. Obviously, they do not anymore. But they may yet exist de jure.

And as for "plan your edits carefully". I agree, we all should do so. But seeing as how changing the "is" to "was" represents a change in consensus, a new consensus must be achieved before your proposed change can stand. BirdValiant (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@BirdValiant: I don't know how your argument is convincing. Pure original research. Even some people declare themselves president, the institutions of the Islamic Republic collapsed and they don't control any territory. I'm still not sure what you're trying to prove. Beshogur (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)