Will you recognize the Taliban or not? This question reflects a poor understanding of international law

Form of words:
a-
A+

Mhas been good created About the troubling obstacles faced by the Taliban in gaining international recognition as the government of Afghanistan. this is done emphasis on That India should use its recognition powers punitively, refrain from granting official status to the Taliban so as to reprimand them for past acts of terrorism. uniformly, arguments are given That the Taliban’s violent occupation of Afghanistan and its long history of human rights abuses are sufficient grounds to reject its official position. It appears that international recognition of the Taliban should be withheld until sufficient get a guarantee from them that they will be prepared to abide by international law. some have even suggested A de facto recognition may be given to the organization to enable minimal diplomatic engagement, but legal recognition (i.e. legal recognition) should be withheld as leverage to avoid any ‘adverse consequences’ at the hands of this regime.

For anyone working in the field of public international law, such conversations are astonishing. They misunderstand the nature and purpose of recognition.

Recognition of governments is not a legitimizing exercise whereby the recognized entity is cleared of all past mistakes and welcomed into the international community with open arms. In contrast, the belief accepts only one political reality: that a particular entity has effective control of the territory of the state. Nothing more and nothing less. Thus, withholding the recognition of the Taliban government is not only a futile exercise that receives little more than political posture, it can actually be counter-productive to those seeking to hold the Taliban legally accountable for their actions. want.

Read also: Afghanistan and Pakistan are in a strategic embrace that cannot have a happy ending

effective control or democratic legitimacy

In the Tinoco arbitration case, Great Britain sought to uphold concessions granted by a revolutionary Costa Rican government, considered illegitimate by the international community at large. However, as The arbitrator noted in that case, “When Identified” well non A government is determined by nations that are determined by inquiry, not by its Actually Sovereignty and absolute government control, but in its illegality or irregularity of origin, their non-recognition loses some of the evidence weight on the issue with which the enforcers of the rules of international law alone are concerned…[s]Such non-recognition for any reason, however, cannot exceed the evidence disclosed to me by this record. Actually The character of the government of Tinoco in accordance with the standard set by international law”.

The standard referred to in the preceding quote is that effective control. Whatever entity has factual control over the territory of a state is the government of that state and should be recognized as such. International law does not look to the means through which a particular entity comes to power in this assessment; Instead, the recognition rests on “Performable and lasting effective control over most of the field and state institutions”Although there was a brief example in the late 20’s^th The non-recognition of governments established through military coups in Haiti in 1991 and Sierra Leone in 1997, which seemed to signal the emergence of a new need for democratic legitimacy, was short-lived. as Professor De Waite have argued, Subsequent practice by states on this requirement has been ambiguous, with governments coming to power through illegal means, including So Tomé and Principe (2003), Cte d’Ivoire (2010), Mali (2012) and Egypt, regularly receiving international recognition. have been (2013). In fact, whenever a new person comes to power in China or North Korea, their governments are recognized. Despite the lack of democratic legitimacy, it was never questioned. Consequently, there is nothing to indicate that the sole requirement of government recognition has ever been superseded in international law. Effective control is the single deciding factor in determining whether an entity has achieved government status. After the fall of Panjshir Valley, There is no doubt that the Taliban now have effective control over the territory of Afghanistan.. Therefore, there are no compelling legal reasons to withhold recognition of their official position.

Read also: Afghanistan shows US failed to address issues beyond military means

Recognition creates accountability

There are also strong political reasons that support legal recognition of the Taliban government. For better or worse, international law is primarily a system designed to regulate the conduct of states. As a non-state actor, the Taliban will remain poorly regulated through international law. However, recognizing the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan opens up new avenues for accountability. The recognition enables diplomatic engagement with the Taliban, with the possibility of concluding treaties that bind the latter entity to enforceable human rights and counter-terrorism commitments. together, Via Article 10(1) of the Articles on the State’s ResponsibilityThe recognition of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan makes its actions responsible to the State of Afghanistan, creating a mechanism for international legal responsibility to be borne by it. This means that it can now be brought to justice for violating customary human rights law, humanitarian law and sponsoring terrorism. Furthermore, for those who fear the worst, if the Taliban government wants to commit violence beyond its borders, it will recognize it as the government of Afghanistan and allow third states to respond in self-defense against such attacks. have to face. Specifically, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes the right of self-defense only against an armed attack by a state. There exists no direct authority to take armed action for violence perpetrated by non-state actors, which would have happened had the Taliban not been recognized.

By withholding recognition, Taliban actions are left in a legal vacuum with little accountability. On the other hand, by recognizing him as the government of Afghanistan, India and the international community have an opportunity to give international legal responsibility to the Taliban for their actions.

The author is a D.Phil candidate and a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford. Thoughts are personal.

(Edited by Anurag Choubey)

subscribe our channel youtube And Wire