The International Criminal Court’s authorization of an investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan represents the culmination of a complex debate over the law and politics of a probe into the court’s most powerful and persistent critic.
Latest in Afghanistan
The deal signed in Doha is a major achievement, but will require rigorous enforcement of the terms to succeed.
Warlords are often necessary tools of statecraft, but support for them often comes at the expense of building a functioning central government.
With this U.N. Security Council vote, the U.S. has made good on a promise included in the peace agreement with the Taliban. But many are skeptical of the deal.
The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation held a hearing on prospects for peace in Afghanistan at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 10, 2020. The subcommittee heard testimony from Laurel Miller, the former State Department acting special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Douglas Lute, the former U.S. permanent representative to NATO; and Luke Coffey, the director of the Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
The U.S.-Taliban peace agreement technically conditions U.S. military withdrawal on the Taliban’s agreement to deny al-Qaeda the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist safe haven. But the agreement is lopsided.
The United States just made two different deals with the Taliban and the Afghan government. Can they be reconciled?
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 5 unanimously approved an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan committed by the United States military, Afghan authorities and the Taliban. The prosecutor is authorized to investigate crimes alleged to have been committed in Afghanistan since May 1, 2003, as well as other alleged crimes linked to the Afghan conflict committed on the territory of other states party to the Rome Statute since July 1, 2002.