Geography

Geography

The Impact of Geopolitical Rivalries on the Non-Acceptance of Taliban Legitimacy at the International Level

Document Type : Article extracted From phd dissertation

Authors
Hassan Kamran 1
Yashar Zaki 2
Mehrdad Sahraei 3
1 Professor of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD student in Political Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/jiga.2025.2070570.1440
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The international legitimacy of the Taliban remains a highly contested issue, influenced by geopolitical rivalries among major global and regional powers. Since their return to power in August 2021, the Taliban have sought international recognition to consolidate their governance and secure economic aid. However, their failure to meet global expectations regarding human rights, particularly concerning women’s rights and inclusive governance, has prevented widespread diplomatic acceptance. Beyond internal policies, geopolitical dynamics have played a crucial role in shaping the global response. Major powers, including the United States, China, Russia, and regional actors such as Iran, Pakistan, and India, have adopted divergent strategies toward engagement with the Taliban, reflecting broader strategic interests rather than uniform support or rejection. Russia, in particular, has taken the step of officially recognizing the Taliban, a move that underscores the complex interplay of geopolitical factors at play. The rivalry between the U.S. and China, NATO’s cautious stance, and Russia’s strategic maneuvering have further complicated the Taliban’s quest for legitimacy. Additionally, Middle Eastern actors, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey, have engaged with Afghanistan based on their own political and economic interests, often reflecting ideological and strategic divisions. The intersection of these geopolitical rivalries has created an environment where no single bloc has been able to define a coherent international position on the Taliban’s legitimacy. While some states have engaged with the Taliban for security or economic reasons, official diplomatic recognition remains elusive. This paper analyzes how geopolitical competition among global and regional actors influences the non-recognition of the Taliban, focusing on the intersection of strategic interests, regional security concerns, and ideological conflicts.
 
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative approach, utilizing content analysis of diplomatic statements, policy documents, and media reports. Additionally, expert opinions and scholarly literature on geopolitical competition and Taliban governance were analyzed to understand how global rivalries shape international responses. A comparative analysis of key actors’ policies provided insights into their motivations and constraints.
 
Results and discussion
Findings suggest that geopolitical rivalries significantly impede the formation of a unified international stance on the Taliban’s legitimacy. The U.S. and its allies emphasize human rights and counterterrorism concerns, using economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation to pressure the Taliban. Conversely, China and Russia prioritize strategic stability, economic interests, and countering Western influence in Afghanistan. Notably, Russia has taken the step of formally recognizing the Taliban government, setting itself apart from many other global actors. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Russia’s regional security concerns have led them to engage with the Taliban pragmatically, but China without granting full recognition. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s historical ties with the Taliban contrast with India’s reluctance, reflecting broader South Asian tensions. Middle Eastern actors remain divided; Qatar has acted as a mediator, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE adopt cautious engagement policies. Iran’s stance fluctuates between pragmatic engagement and ideological opposition. These geopolitical complexities have resulted in a fragmented international response. While economic and security imperatives drive selective engagement with the Taliban, formal diplomatic recognition remains constrained by ideological and strategic conflicts. The findings underscore that the non-recognition of the Taliban is not solely due to governance failures but is deeply embedded in global power struggles.
 
Conclusion
The study highlights that the non-recognition of the Taliban is primarily a consequence of geopolitical rivalries rather than a unanimous rejection based on human rights concerns. The United States and its allies continue to leverage economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation as tools to prevent Taliban legitimacy, while China and Russia engage with the Taliban pragmatically to expand their influence in the region. South

 
Asian actors, particularly India and Pakistan, have pursued policies aligned with their broader strategic imperatives, further complicating a unified international stance. Middle Eastern actors’ divergent approaches reflect their unique economic and political interests. Given the absence of a cohesive global position, the Taliban’s quest for legitimacy remains uncertain. While economic incentives and security cooperation drive selective engagement, the lack of official recognition limits Afghanistan’s reintegration into the international system. This situation exacerbates Afghanistan’s economic struggles, prolongs its humanitarian crisis, and fuels regional instability. Future diplomatic efforts must address geopolitical competition to foster a more coordinated international approach. Recognizing the influence of strategic rivalries in shaping policies toward the Taliban is crucial for policymakers seeking a stable and pragmatic resolution to Afghanistan’s international isolation.
Keywords
Taliban
Afghanistan
International legitimacy
Geopolitic
recognition

Subjects

1)       Alaverdov, E. (2022). The importance of regional triangular-India-Pakistan-Afghanistan and Russian interests in the region. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 13(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs2022.2.85.94
2)       Amaritasari, A., & Sugiharto, B. (2022). Geopolitical Rivalries and State Legitimacy: A Case Study of Afghanistan under the Taliban Regime. Journal of International Relations, 34(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.18196/jmh.v30i1.16020
3)       Azizi, Sattar. (2021). Recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) from the Perspective of International Law. International Studies Quarterly, 18(2), 7-22. [Persian]
4)       Bakhsh, R. (2024). Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) threat spectrum: Assessing Pakistan’s counter-terrorism policy in post-US withdrawal era. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 13(2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2024.13.2.14
5)       Banerjee, A. (2023). The Resurgent Taliban: Implications for the Geo-Strategic Scenario in South Asia. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR), 5(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i03.3749
6)       Barrech, D. M., Chohan, Z. A., & Naru, N. A. (2021). The Taliban takeover in Afghanistan: Where does China stand? Geopolitics Journal, (Publication pages 67–94). DOI:10.55733/jpcs.v2i1.7
7)       Essar, M. Y., Ashworth, H., & Nemat, A. (2022). Addressing the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan through 10 billion Afghani assets: What are the challenges and opportunities at hand? Globalization and Health, 18(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-022-00868-8
8)       Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Political Theory Journal, 19(4), 67–89.
9)       Giandjian, M. (2023). Russian involvement in frozen conflicts of the post Soviet space as a means of geopolitical positioning. Governance: The Political Science Journal at UNLV, 7(1), Article 3. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/governance-unlv/vol7/iss1/3
 
10)   Gilley, B. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 45(3), 499–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00307.x?utm_source=chatgpt.com
11)   Ikenberry, G.J. (2001). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. World Politics Quarterly, 54(1), 45–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7t1s5
12)   Jackson, A. & Weigand, J. (2023). Social Media and Political Legitimacy: The Taliban's Online Strategy for Recognition. Media and Politics Quarterly, 9(4), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2019.118.807.143
13)   Khan, A., & Durrani, A. (2024). The future of Afghanistan under Taliban-led regime: Challenges and likely scenarios. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences International Journal (LASSIJ), 8(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.lassij/8.1.1
14)   Koesel, K. J. (2014). Religion and authoritarianism: Cooperation, conflict, and the consequences. Cambridge University Press, 17(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175504831500036X
15)   Kovalev, A. et al. (2017). Geopolitical Competition and State Sovereignty in Central Asia: Implications for Afghanistan’s Stability. Eurasian Studies Journal, 25(4), 24–48. https://tinyurl.com/2p8vmr5e
16)   Krasner, S. D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press, 22(2), 123–150.
17)   Manish, & Kaushik, P. (2024). Regime, Region and Reputation: Understanding China’s Multilevel Engagement in Afghanistan. Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 28(1), 52–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/09735984251327816
18)   Mawardi, I., Lutfirahman, & Idayanti, U. N. (2022). Politik Kekerasan Taliban Di Afghanistan: Telaah Historis-Sosiologis Perspektif Weberian [The Taliban Politics of Violence in Afghanistan: A Weberian Historical-Sociological Perspective]. Jurnal Tapis: Teropong Aspirasi Politik Islam, 18(2), 39–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24042/tps.v18i2.12160
19)   Mazzucco, L. J. M., & Alexander, K. P. (2024). Saudi and Qatari engagement with Afghanistan: Driving factors and foreign policy concerns. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 48(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsa.2024.a970317
20)   Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 27(1), 45–78.
21)   Milani, A. (2006). The Legitimacy of the Taliban Regime: A Historical Perspective. Journal of Historical Studies, 27(1), 10–25. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3913466
22)   Mohahed, Mohammad Ali. (2002). In the Air of Truth and Justice: From Natural Rights to Human Rights. Tehran: Karnama Publishing. [Persian]
23)   Muraviev, A. D. (2022, November). Russia’s views on and initial responses to the 2021 strategic retake of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 9(6), Article 234779702211331. https://doi.org/10.1177/23477970221133145
24)   Nasrat, K. (2025). Recognition of the Taliban government from the perspective of international law. Selçuk Law Review, 33(2), 1041–1058. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/suhfd/issue/93157/1588207?utm_source=chatgpt.com
25)   Nijat, A., Hamdard, N. M., & Hikmat, S. A. H. (2023). Legitimacy, international recognition and the Taliban. International Journal of Contemporary Issues in Social Sciences, 2(4), 361–368. https://ijciss.org/index.php/ijciss/article/view/156?utm_source=chatgpt.com
26)   Pati, S. S. (2023). Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan: Implications for Asia. Vidyawarta: International Multilingual Research Journal, 43(3), 45–52, 10(2), 20–35. https://www.academia.edu/105222124/Taliban_s_Return_to_Power_in_Afghanistan_Implications_for_Asia
27)   Pfeiffer, J. (2010). Afghanistan – Ein langer Weg zur Rechtsstaatlichkeit [Afghanistan – A long way to the rule of law], Sicherheit und Frieden, 28(3), 175–179. https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/document/download/pdf/uuid/94eb50b3-6c22-3281-9311-d0cabef106b4
 
28)   Qazi Zada, S., Saboor, A., & Rahim, A. (2024). The Taliban and women's human rights in Afghanistan: The way forward. International Journal of Human Rights, 28(10), 1687-1722. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2024.2369584
29)   Ranjbarian, Amirhossein, & Farahzad, Mahsa. (2015). The evolution of state formation elements: From effectiveness to legitimacy? Journal of Public Law Studies (University of Tehran), 45(2), 255‑272. [Persian]
30)   Riecke, H. (2013). Partners for stability: Afghanistan’s neighbors and regional cooperation. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik. https://dgap.org/system/files/article_pdfs/2013_01_riecke_etal_afghanistan_einl.pdf
31)   Russia Recognized the Taliban Government in Afghanistan," Islamic Republic News Agency, July 4, 2025, URL[Persian] https://irna.ir/xjTYnN
32)   Savaari, Akbar; Rahmatifar, Samaneh; Zarneshan, Shahram. (2022). The legitimacy of the Taliban government from the perspective of international law. Quarterly Journal of New Achievements in Public Law, 2(18), 82-101. [Persian]
33)   Shafiee, Nozar. (2012). India's Approach towards Afghanistan after September 11, 2001. Geopolitics Quarterly, 8(2), 125-152. [Persian]
34)   Shimada, H. (2025). Aid paradox for unrecognized governments: The Taliban and aid. Development Policy Review, 43(3) , 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.70008
35)   Swarna, S. S., & Akter, T. (2024, January 4). Rejuvenated ascendency of Taliban in Afghanistan examined through international legal lenses. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), 7(1), 1099–1132. https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7012083
36)   Telenko, O., & Prysiazhniuk, Y. (2021). Cursory viewpoint on Transnistria as the focus of the Russian Federation policy. Przegląd Strategiczny, (14), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.14746/ps.2021.1.13
37)   Trivedi, A. (2025). Topsy-Turvy journey of the Taliban recognition in international law: What next? Asian Journal of International Law, 15(2), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251324000304
38)   Tseun, Fernando. (2015). Philosophy of International Law. Translated by Mohsen Mohseni, 2nd edition. Tehran: Shahr Danesh Legal Research Institute. [Persian]
39)   Ulrichsen, K. C. (2016). The politics of economic reform in Arab Gulf states. James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2016-06/import/CME-GulfEconReform-060116.pdf
40)   Walton, O. E., Davies, T., Thrandardottir, E., & Keating, V. C. (2016). Understanding contemporary challenges to INGO legitimacy: Integrating top-down and bottom-up perspectives. Voluntas, 27(6), 2764–2786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9768-2
41)   Weigand, F. (2017). Afghanistan’s Taliban – Legitimate Jihadists or Coercive Extremists? Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 11(3), 359-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2017.1353755
42)   World Health Organization. (2024). Report on the health and humanitarian situation in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
43)   Zabihollah Mujahid: Girls' schools will definitely reopen." Islamic Republic News Agency, 16 October 2022. [Persian] https://isna.ir/xdMzSh
Geography
Volume 23, Issue 86
Autumn2024, pp.1-200.
Autumn 2025
Pages 145-163