Is negotiation with the Taliban legal?

Zeynab Malakoutikhah

For several years, we have been observing war, conflict and terrorist attacks in Afghanistan with the Taliban being the one most responsible for this turmoil. Since 1966, the United Nations Security Council has established thirty sanction regimes and there are fourteen ongoing sanction regimes in place, three of which are related to terrorism, including ‘the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida’, ‘the 1988 (the Taliban)’ and ‘the 1636 (Killing the Former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others in a terrorist attack)’. 
As a result of terrorist attacks conducted by the Taliban, it was the sanctions under the Resolution 1267 (1999) of the United Nations of Security Council which determined that the failure of the Taliban to comply with a demand to stop providing sanctuary and training for international terrorism, as well as cooperating in order to bring terrorists to justice, constituted a threat to international peace and security. It is only the UN which recognises the Taliban as a terrorist group alongside Al-Qaeda and ISIS, not the UK, the US or the EU. In this regard, as the Iranians were sometimes a victim of the Taliban’s attacks, such as the killing of Iranian diplomats and journalists in Afghanistan in 1998, Iran recognised the Taliban as a terrorist organisation. Under international law, due to the structure and terrorist activities of the Taliban, for Iran to designate the Taliban as a terrorist group was the correct move, however under international relations and international politics it can be a different subject. In international relations what is important for any specific state is to persuade the other party of its national interest, which in many circumstances can be achieved by negotiation. Negotiation should not be a taboo.
The fact is that the Taliban is a powerful organisation in Afghanistan and with it governing some parts of Afghanistan this cannot be overlooked; the process of peace must be through conciliation with the Taliban. Because of this, the United States and the European countries do not designate the Taliban as a terrorist group. Negotiation with a terrorist group implies a de facto recognition of the group with equal rights and a legitimate counterpart of the negotiation process. Sometimes, for example in the case of the Taliban, the ‘no negotiation’ doctrine is more of a strict view rather than a realistic approach. 
In terms of negotiation with the Taliban, one important criterion can be the effectiveness of the negotiation and each country must answer this question: ‘to what extent will the negotiations with the Taliban be effective in order to establish peace in Afghanistan after these dramatic years of turmoil?’. In addition, it must be borne in mind that if negotiation by the Taliban is accepted, the issue is not negotiation per se, it must be a proper negotiation, in that it must be in line with the process of peace in Afghanistan not the recognition of the legitimacy demands or accepting the Taliban’s behaviour or activities. If Iran is serious in negotiating with the Taliban, it must firstly remove it from the terrorist list. Secondly, all steps that are taken must be in consultation with the current legitimate government of Afghanistan. Finally, the negotiation must be effective for both Iran and Afghanistan’s peace and security. 

the issue is not negotiation 
per se, it must be a proper negotiation