Why UN child-rights advocates are alarmed by Afghanistan’s new marriage rules

NEW YORK CITY: The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has issued one of its strongest condemnations yet of Taliban policies toward girls in Afghanistan, warning that a newly adopted decree effectively legalizes child marriage and violates numerous international human rights obligations.

At the center of the controversy is Taliban Decree No. 18, adopted in May and formally titled “Principles of Separation Between Spouses.” The decree removes Afghanistan’s previous fixed minimum marriage age for girls and instead ties marital eligibility to puberty.

The decree, approved by the Taliban’s supreme leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, further states that a girl’s silence after reaching puberty can be interpreted as legal consent to marriage.

For Sophie Kiladze, chair of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the implications are clear.

“The committee views the decree as a deeply alarming measure that effectively legitimizes child marriage and undermines the fundamental rights of children in Afghanistan,” Kiladze told Arab News.

The committee argues that the law is a direct challenge to international standards designed to protect children from forced and early marriage.

“The provision that allows marriage upon reaching puberty and treats a girl’s silence as consent is incompatible with international human rights standards and with Afghanistan’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” Kiladze said.

Since returning to power in 2021, the Taliban government has banned girls from continuing their education beyond primary school, walking in parks and going to gyms, swimming pools or beauty salons.

They are required to cover themselves from head to toe and are barred from many jobs. Any breach of the rules can result in arrest and imprisonment.

This latest decree marks yet another dramatic departure from Afghanistan’s pre-Taliban legal framework.

Under Afghanistan’s 1977 Civil Code, girls generally could not marry before the age of 16, while boys had to be at least 18. Limited exceptions allowed marriage at age 15 with explicit authorization from a father or a court.

The country’s 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women law went further, criminalizing marriage of girls under 15 under any circumstances and penalizing those who forced minors into marriage.

Those protections largely disappeared after the Taliban returned to power. The group suspended the 2004 constitution, ceased enforcement of much of the previous civil code, and gradually replaced the country’s legal system with religious decrees and Taliban-run courts.

Now, under the provisions of the new decree, fathers and grandfathers are granted broad authority to arrange marriages for minors.

Marriages arranged by other relatives may also be deemed valid if Taliban judges determine that the groom is socially compatible with the bride’s family and that the dowry is appropriate.

Perhaps most controversial is the decree’s treatment of consent. A “virgin girl” who has reached puberty can be considered to have consented to marriage through silence alone. The rule does not apply to boys.

For Kiladze, that distinction is central to the problem.

“Puberty cannot be considered as adulthood or legal capacity to marry,” she said. “A child, by definition under the convention, is any person under the age of 18. Children inherently lack the maturity and the legal autonomy necessary to provide consent to marriage.”

ne of the most common misconceptions surrounding child marriage is that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child contains an explicit article banning it. It does not.

Instead, the convention prohibits child marriage indirectly through a network of protections guaranteeing children’s rights to education, health, protection from abuse, non-discrimination, participation in decisions affecting them, and consideration of their best interests.

Kiladze argues that the Taliban decree violates all these principles simultaneously.

“The decree raises concerns across multiple provisions of the convention,” she said. “It undermines the principle of non-discrimination, particularly because it disproportionately targets and affects girls.

“It conflicts with the obligation to ensure that the best interests of the child is a primary consideration in all actions affecting children.”

She added that the decree also threatens children’s rights to education, health, protection from violence, and the right to freely express their views.

“Silence cannot reasonably be interpreted as genuine consent,” she said.

Other international treaties are even more explicit.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women states that “the betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect” and requires countries to establish a minimum marriage age.

Likewise, the Convention on Consent to Marriage requires the “full and free consent” of both parties before a marriage can be legally entered into.

For child-rights advocates, the Taliban decree appears to move in precisely the opposite direction.

Taliban officials have pointed to another provision of the decree that theoretically allows children married at a young age to seek annulment once they reach puberty, a concept derived from Islamic jurisprudence known as khiyar al-bulugh, or the “option upon puberty.”

On paper, this appears to offer a remedy. In practice, critics say it may be largely illusory.

Under the Taliban system, annulment is not automatic. A girl must petition a Taliban-controlled religious court and persuade a judge that specific legal conditions have been met.

Human rights groups say that these requirements create enormous barriers. A minor may need to demonstrate misconduct by a guardian or irregularities involving dowry arrangements.

At the same time, girls face severe restrictions on education, movement, and economic independence.

“The committee’s primary concern is that the decree itself facilitates child marriage,” Kiladze said. “The Convention on the Rights of the Child (is) to prevent child marriage, not merely provide remedies after a violation has already occurred.”

The practical realities of Taliban courts help explain why many observers remain skeptical.

After taking power, the Taliban replaced Afghanistan’s former civil judiciary with a network of religious tribunals staffed almost entirely by male clerics and judges.

Women’s access to justice has become increasingly restricted.

According to legal analyses of the new system, women seeking divorce or protection from abuse face significant evidentiary burdens.

A husband’s denial of wrongdoing often carries substantial weight unless the woman can produce witnesses.

Family mediation frequently requires approval from male relatives or husbands before cases can proceed.

For girls attempting to challenge child marriages, the obstacles can be even greater.

The decree gives Taliban judges broad discretion to determine whether marriages are valid, whether spouses are socially compatible, and whether annulments should be granted.

Human rights advocates argue that expecting a teenage girl with limited education, financial resources, or legal representation to navigate such proceedings places meaningful relief out of reach for many.

The Taliban’s lack of international recognition creates another difficult question: if most governments do not formally recognize the regime, how can the international community influence its behavior?

According to Kiladze, Afghanistan’s treaty obligations remain intact regardless of who governs the country.

“The fact that Afghanistan’s de facto authorities are not formally recognized by many states does not eliminate the country’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” she said.

“Afghanistan remains a state party to it, and the rights guaranteed under that treaty continue to apply to all children within its jurisdiction.”

The committee’s tools are largely diplomatic rather than coercive. Its role is to monitor compliance with international obligations, issue public findings, conduct reviews, and draw international attention to violations.

The committee recently exercised that authority through a public statement condemning the decree and declaring that “silence is not consent.”

While such interventions cannot force immediate policy change, they can shape international pressure campaigns, support local civil society organizations, and establish a public record of offences.

“The committee therefore sees continued monitoring and engagement as essential,” Kiladze said.

Taliban officials have brushed off the criticism.

Objections from “those who contradict the religion of Islam are not new and we should not pay attention to them,” Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban government, told the RTA state broadcaster.

Mujahid claimed the group’s supreme leader had issued a previous decree banning the forced marriage of girls.

Afghan courts and the country’s ministry of vice and virtue have investigated thousands of such cases in the past year alone, he said, “which shows the Islamic emirate’s concern for women’s rights.”

Although Afghanistan’s decree has drawn international outrage, Kiladze stressed that child marriage is a global issue.

“One of the key lessons from this situation is that legal systems matter,” she said.

“When legal frameworks permit marriage below the age of 18 and create exceptions based on parental consent, customary practices, or concepts such as puberty, they often leave children vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.”

The committee supports establishing 18 as the minimum age of marriage for girls and boys, without exceptions.

Yet legal reform alone, she said, is insufficient.

Around the world, child marriage is frequently driven by poverty, conflict, insecurity, gender discrimination, and lack of educational opportunities.

Successful efforts to reduce the practice typically combine legal protections with investments in education, economic opportunities, birth registration systems, and child protection services.

“Access to secondary education is particularly important,” Kiladze said. “Girls who remain in school are less likely to marry as children.”

The issue is surprisingly relevant even in countries often viewed as leaders on children’s rights. Sierra Leone did not prohibit child marriage until 2024.

In the US, meanwhile, child marriage is legal in dozens of states despite a growing reform movement. Several states have enacted bans in recent years, but the practice has not been eliminated nationwide.

For Kiladze, that broader context reinforces a central point.

“Child marriage should not be viewed as a cultural or private matter,” she said. “It is fundamentally a children’s rights issue.”

The Taliban decree, she says, demonstrates what happens when legal systems move away from that principle.

“The Afghanistan situation demonstrates the risks that arise when legal frameworks move in the opposite direction and normalize practices that the Convention on the Rights of the Child seeks to eliminate.”

For the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the question is no longer whether the decree is compatible with international standards.

A law that allows a child’s silence to be treated as consent, and a girl’s puberty to be treated as adulthood, is not simply a controversial policy.

It is, in the committee’s view, a fundamental violation of children’s rights.