The purpose of this book is to test the following four hypotheses throughout its analysis. First, it hypothesizes the fact that legitimacy is the main driver for the rise and fall of the Taliban movement, and that the Taliban leadership is cognizant of the importance of legitimacy ahead of material strength or coercion.


International Norm Geneva Convention Political Dynamic Civilian Casualty Internal Legitimacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Alison Brysk, “From Above and Below: Social Movements, the International System, and Human Rights in Argentina,” Comparative Political Studies, 26 (3), (1993); Margret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders. Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998; A. M. Clark, Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Hafner-Burton and K. Tsutsui, “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises,” American Journal of Sociology, 110 (5), (2005); Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009; John A. Simmons and Richard Nielsen, “Rewards for Ratification: Payoffs for Participating in the International Human Rights Regime?” International Studies Quarterly, 59 (2), (2015).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Philip Alston and James Crawford, The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks, “Measuring the Effects of Human Rights Treaties,” European Journal of International Law, 13 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 15.
    Marco Sassoli, “Taking Armed Groups Seriously: Ways to Improve their Compliance with International Humanitarian Law,” International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 1 (2010), p.28.Google Scholar
  5. 17.
    Frederick Rawski, “Engaging with Armed Groups: A Human Rights Field Perspective from Nepal,” International Organizations Law Review, 6 (2009), p.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 20.
    The findings were presented during the thirty-first Conference of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in November 2011. See also Geneva Academy, Rules of Engagement—Protecting Civilians through Dialogue with Armed Non-State Actors, Geneva: Geneva Academy (October 2011).Google Scholar
  7. 21.
    Sandesh Sivakuruman, “Lessons for the Law of Armed Conflict from Commitments of Armed Groups: Identification of Legitimate Targets and Prisoners of War,” International Review of the Red Cross, 93 (882), (June 2011).Google Scholar
  8. 28.
    Christopher J. Finlay, “Legitimacy and Non-State Political Violence,” The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18 (3), (2010), p.288.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    Roger Trinquier, Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency, New York: Praeger, 1964, p.8; Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes since 1956, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992, p.8. Julia Black, “Legitimacy, Accountability and Polycentric Regulation: Dilemmas, Trilemmas and Organizational Response,” Non State Actors as Standard Setters, ed. Anne Peters, Lucy Koechlin, and Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.249; see also R. Barker, Political Legitimacy and the State, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 30.
    Weinstein focuses, for example, on the relationship between prospect for resource extraction and mobilization of members. See Jeremy M. Weinstein, Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 31.
    Klejda Mulaj, “Violent Non-State Actors: Exploring their State Relations, Legitimation, and Operationality,” Violent Non-State Actors in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p.16.Google Scholar
  12. 32.
    A. Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. See also Peter J. Katzenstein, The Culture of National Security—Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996; Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, 3 (3), (1997); Jeffrey T. Checkel, “The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory,” World Politics, 50 (2), (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 33.
    David Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010, p.159.Google Scholar
  14. 36.
    David Kilcullen, The Accidental Guerrilla, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009; Kilcullen, Counterinsurgency.Google Scholar
  15. 37.
    Gretchen Peters, “The Taliban and the Opium Trade,” Decoding the New Taliban, ed. Antonio Giustozzi, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 38.
    Talatbek Masadykov, Antonio Giustozzi, and James Michael Page, “Negotiating with the Taliban: Toward a Solution for the Afghan Conflict,” Working Papers, Crisis States Research Centre, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 39.
    Abdulkader Sinno, “The Strategic Use of Islam in Afghan Politics,” Religion and Politics in South Asia, ed. Ali Riaz, New York: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 40.
    Tim Foxley, “The Taliban’s Propaganda Activities: How Well Is the Afghan Insurgency Communicating and What Is It Saying?,” A SIPRI Project Paper, 2007; Carsten Bockstette, “Taliban and Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic Communication,” Connections, 8 (3), (2009); Joanna Nathan, “Reading the Taliban,” Decoding the New Taliban, ed. Antonio Giustozzi, New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 44.
    A. Niaz Shah, “The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan: A Layeha (Rules and Regulations) for Mujahidin,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 35 (6), (2012); A. Niaz Shah, “The Taliban Layeha for Mujahidin and the Law of Armed Conflict,” International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 3 (2012); Muhammad Munir, “The Layha for the Mujahideen: An Analysis of the Code of Conduct for the Taliban Fighters under Islamic Law,” International Review of the Red Cross, 93 (881), (March 2011).Google Scholar
  20. 45.
    Amnesty International, “Afghanistan—All Who Are Not Friends, Are Enemies: Taleban Abuses against Civilians,” London, 2007.Google Scholar
  21. 46.
    Thomas H. Johnson and Matthew C. DuPee, “Analysing the New Taliban Code of Conduct (Layeha): An Assessment of Changing Perspectives and Strategies of the Afghan Taliban,” Central Asian Survey, 31 (1), (2012).Google Scholar
  22. 50.
    Cedric Ryngaert, “Imposing International Duties on Non-State Actors and the Legitimacy of International Law,” Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law, ed. Cedric Ryngaert and Match Noortmann, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 51.
    Ryan Philip Motta, “The Necessary Connection between Internal and External State Legitimacy: Concerns Regarding Intervention,” Journal of Global Ethics, 9 (1), (2013).Google Scholar
  24. 52.
    Tatiana Kostova and Srilata Zaheer, “Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise,” The Academy of Management Review, 24 (1), (January 1999). See also Israel Drori and Benson Honig, “A Process Model of Internal and External Legitimacy,” Organization Studies, 34 (3), (March 2013).Google Scholar
  25. 54.
    Max Abrahms, “Why Terrorism Does Not Work,” International Security, 31 (2), (Fall 2006); Max Abrahms, “What Terrorists Really Want,” International Security, 32 (4), (Spring 2008).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Yoshinobu Nagamine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshinobu Nagamine

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations