M WAQAR..... "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Albert Einstein !!! NEWS,ARTICLES,EDITORIALS,MUSIC... Ze chi pe mayeen yum da agha pukhtunistan de.....(Liberal,Progressive,Secular World.)''Secularism is not against religion; it is the message of humanity.'' تل ده وی پثتونستآن
Thursday, September 16, 2021
To recognise Taliban or not? This question shows poor understanding of international law
Whenever a new individual comes to power in China or North Korea, the recognition of their govts is never questioned despite the absence of democratic legitimacy.
Much has been made of the tortuous hurdles faced by the Taliban in obtaining international recognition as the government of Afghanistan. It has been asserted that India should wield its recognition powers punitively, refraining from conferring governmental status on the Taliban to rebuke it for previous acts of terrorism. Equally, arguments have been proffered that the Taliban’s violent takeover of Afghanistan and its protracted history of human rights abuses are sufficient grounds to repudiate its governmental status. There appears to be a belief that international recognition of the Taliban ought to be withheld until sufficient guarantees are obtained from them that they will be willing to comply with international law. Some have even suggested that a de facto recognition may be extended to the outfit, to enable minimal diplomatic engagement, but that de jure recognition (i.e. legal recognition) should be withheld as leverage to avoid any ‘adverse consequences at the hands of this regime.
To anyone working in the field of public international law, such conversations are perplexing. They seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of recognition.
The recognition of governments is not a legitimacy-conferring exercise whereby the entity granted recognition is absolved of all past wrongs and welcomed into the international community with open arms. To the contrary, recognition simply acknowledges a political reality: that a particular entity possesses effective control of the territory of a State. Nothing more and nothing less. As such, not only is withholding recognition of the Taliban government a futile exercise that achieves little more than political posturing, it might actually be counter-productive to those who wish to hold the Taliban legally accountable for their actions.
Effective control or democratic legitimacy
In the Tinoco Arbitration case, Great Britain sought to uphold concessions granted to it by a revolutionary Costa Rican government perceived to be illegitimate by the international community at large. However, as the arbitrator noted in that case, “when recognition vel non of a government is by such nations determined by inquiry, not into its de facto sovereignty and complete governmental control, but into its illegitimacy or irregularity of origin, their non-recognition loses something of evidential weight on the issue with which those applying the rules of international law are alone concerned…[s]uch non-recognition for any reason, however, cannot outweigh the evidence disclosed by this record before me as to the de facto character of Tinoco’s government, according to the standard set by international law”.
The standard referenced in the preceding quote is that of effective control. Whichever entity possesses factual control over the territory of a State is the government of that State and ought to be recognised as such. International law does not look towards the means through which a particular entity comes to power in this assessment; instead, recognition hinges on “demonstrable and sustainable effective control over the majority of the territory and over the state institutions”. Although there was a brief instance in the late 20th century that seemed to augur the emergence of a new requirement for democratic legitimacy, with the non-recognition of governments established through military coups in Haiti in 1991 and in Sierra Leone in 1997, it was short-lived. As Professor de Wet has argued, subsequent practise by States on this requirement has been ambivalent, with governments that came to power through illegitimate means routinely gaining international recognition, including in São Tomé and Príncipe (2003), Côte d’Ivoire (2010), Mali (2012) and Egypt (2013). Indeed, whenever a new individual comes to power in China or in North Korea, the recognition of their governments is never questioned despite the absence of democratic legitimacy. As a result, there is nothing to indicate that the sole requirement for governmental recognition in international law has ever been displaced. Effective control remains the only decisive factor in determining whether an entity has acquired governmental status. After the fall of Panjshir Valley, there is little 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 governmental status.
Recognition creates accountability
There are also strong political reasons that support extending legal recognition to the Taliban government. For better or for worse, international law is a system primarily geared to regulate the conduct of States. As a non-State actor, the Taliban will remain poorly regulated through international law. However, by recognising the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, new avenues for accountability open up. Recognition enables diplomatic engagement with the Taliban, with the possibility of concluding treaties that bind the latter entity to enforceable human rights and anti-terror commitments. Simultaneously, through Art.10(1) of the Articles on State Responsibility, recognition of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan makes its actions attributable 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 breaches of customary human rights law, humanitarian law, and for sponsoring terrorism. Moreover, for those who fear the worst, if the Taliban government were to perpetrate violence beyond its borders, recognising it as the government of Afghanistan enables third States that suffer such attacks to respond against them in self-defence. Notably, Art.51 of the UN Charter only creates a right of self-defence against an armed attack perpetrated by a State. No such direct right to take armed action exists for violence perpetrated by non-State actors, which is what the Taliban would be were they not to be recognised.
By withholding recognition, the Taliban’s actions are left in a legal vacuum with little accountability. On the other hand, by recognising them as the government of Afghanistan, India and the international community have an opportunity to make the Taliban shoulder international legal responsibility for its actions.
https://theprint.in/opinion/to-recognise-taliban-or-not-this-question-shows-poor-understanding-of-international-law/733495/
'Why do we risk...': Pakistan wants countries to recognise Taliban, miffed with wait-and-watch policy
By Kunal Gaurav
Pakistan’s national security adviser Moeed Yusuf said that the current approach would push the war-torn country towards an economic slump.
Pakistan is miffed with the international community’s wait-and-watch policy on recognising the Taliban’s interim government in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s national security adviser Moeed Yusuf said that the current approach would push the war-torn country towards an economic slump, reported Dawn newspaper. "If the world is interested in this conversation, it needs to happen directly with the new government. For influencing and moulding governance in the way the world wants, it should have a conversation with them. Without engagement that would not be possible," Dawn quoted Yusuf as saying. While the international community has stepped up humanitarian aid efforts in Afghanistan, it has shown no immediate interest in recognising the Taliban, given the Sunni Pashtun group’s history of gross human rights violation in name of imposing their harsh version of Sharia law. Several countries have said that they will wait and watch the actions of the Taliban, which claim to be different from the last time they ruled Afghanistan.Warning about the consequences of abandoning Afghanistan, Pakistan’s NSA said that a security vacuum could again make the region safe haven for terrorists. “You already know ISIS (the militant Islamic State group) is already present there, Pakistani Taliban are there, Al Qaeda is there. Why do we risk a security vacuum?" he added.Yusuf has been repeatedly calling on countries to engage with the Taliban while warning about either the refugee crisis or terrorism or both. Earlier this month, the security official said that the world needs to constructively engage the Afghan Taliban in order to prevent governance collapse and avert another refugee crisis, reported news agency PTI. "The world must think about the cost of abandonment of Afghanistan," he said at a webinar organised by the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS). Meanwhile, Pakistan, accused of supporting the Taliban during years of insurgency, was proactive in the government formation in Afghanistan. Pakistan's powerful intelligence chief Lt Gen Faiz Hameed recently met the group’s de-factor leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was later named the deputy prime minister of the provisional government.https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-wants-countries-to-recognise-taliban-miffed-with-wait-and-watch-policy-101631788055515.html
Chairman PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari rejects the rise in petrol price, demands withdrawing the decision
Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has rejected the sharp rise in prices of petroleum products. Petrol price has risen by Rs.5/litre. Khan Sahib when will the nation witness the good days, he asked.
Imran Khan has robbed the people by bringing petrol price to the highest level in the history of the country. When the values of the dollar and petrol are at the highest level in history, everything is out of reach of the people. Where did those big claims of providing relief to the people after the budget go, Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari asked the Prime Minister.
Chairman Bilawal said that those who came to power by lying about providing cheap petrol are defending it today despite the prices of petroleum products being the highest in history. Billions of rupees collected from increase in prices of petroleum products will be squandered by this incapable PTI government in corruption, Chairman PPP concluded.
https://www.ppp.org.pk/pr/25502/