Afghanistan, explained.
A poster of Taliban Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada is seen along a road in Kabul in 2023 (Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty Images)
Newly unsealed arrest warrants won’t move the Taliban, but they sharpen the question for governments courting it.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The ICC has made the Taliban’s crimes impossible to ignoreThe ICC has made the Taliban’s crimes impossible to ignore
In rejecting the authority of the International Criminal Court, Afghanistan’s Taliban regime has powerful company. China, Iran, Russia and the United States all remain outside the court’s founding treaty. Afghanistan, however, is a member – whatever its ruling regime says.
The ICC has unsealed (Opens in new window)arrest warrants for four of the Taliban’s senior figures, including the Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada, the hermit who leads the terrorist group from a base in southern Kandahar. Also wanted are Chief Justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani, Education Minister Habibullah Agha and Higher Education Minister Neda Mohammad Nadim.
All four are accused of the crime against humanity of gender persecution. The Taliban said it had “no form of cooperation or engagement” with the ICC and rejected any claims of jurisdiction over Afghanistan, which acceded to the Rome Statute in 2003.
The warrants against Akhundzada and Haqqani were announced in July 2025; those against the education ministers were issued in September 2025 but remained secret until 5 October this year.
Their inclusion brings the men overseeing the exclusion of girls from secondary school and women from university directly into the court’s sights.
The harder question is: who will act?
ICC Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan said: “Afghan women and girls are systematically discriminated against, on the basis of their gender. They deserve justice.” (ICC)
The court’s 125 member states are obliged to cooperate with requests to arrest and surrender the suspects. But engagement with the Taliban can continue through capitals whose governments are under no treaty obligation to execute its warrants. These include countries willing to extend the welcome mat, and sometimes even the red carpet – Russia, China, Iran and Qatar.
A lawyer with extensive experience in Afghanistan explains the calculation behind keeping warrants secret: “The benefit of secrecy is that you may be more likely to arrest someone because they might choose to travel outside their country not knowing they risk arrest.”
But Taliban leaders rarely travel and when they do, usually choose destinations where they can be confident they will not be arrested. So the lawyer – who asked not to be identified – said the benefit of making the warrants public is to help push back against the normalisation and recognition of the Taliban.
That leaves a political test alongside a legal one. Governments pursuing closer relations with the Taliban must now explain how that engagement squares with public arrest warrants accusing four of its senior figures of persecuting women and girls, people targeted for their gender identity or expression and those perceived as allies of women and girls.
The prospect of arrest might be remote. The allegations are harder to sidestep.
The warrants confront that political convenience with allegations of individual criminal responsibility.
“The plight of Afghan women and girls is one of the gravest examples of gender persecution,” the ICC’s Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan said. (Opens in new window) “Afghan women and girls are systematically discriminated against, on the basis of their gender. They deserve justice.”
The arrest warrants, she said, vindicated the rights of Afghanistan’s women and girls, “particularly their right to education”.
For five years, the Taliban have operated with brazen impunity, often doubling down when criticised. The Supreme Leader rules by decree (Opens in new window), with 166 orders specifically targeting the rights of women and girls. Misogynist subordination is a defining feature of Taliban rule.
The significance of the warrants lies in the court’s treatment of institutionalised discrimination as persecution. By including the education ministers, the ICC has extended individual accountability to officials responsible for administering the exclusions, alongside those directing them. The ICC’s judges found reasonable grounds to believe all four Taliban figures had ordered, induced or solicited persecution.
The court’s reasoning provides a basis for examining how governments use institutions to deprive people of fundamental rights on gender grounds.
It also sharpens the question for the Taliban’s diplomatic partners: what are they legitimising when they embrace this regime?
Mao Zedong, the founding father of the People’s Republic of China, claimed “women hold up half the sky,” yet Beijing welcomed a Taliban “ambassador” whose credentials were accepted by President Xi Jinping.
China, Russia, India and Iran pursue their own security and economic interests in Afghanistan. Governments seeking to return Afghan migrants and convicted criminals also have reasons for accommodating the Taliban. Domestic pressure to deliver deportations gives them the incentive, often while holding their noses.
France has confirmed talks with the Taliban to facilitate deportation of Afghans “in the country illegally and who pose a national security risk”. The foreign ministry described (Opens in new window) the discussion as strictly technical and said they did not amount to recognition of the regime.
The warrants confront that political convenience with allegations of individual criminal responsibility. Will governments attach demands over women’s rights to those dealings, or pay lip service to accountability while migration priorities dictate the terms?
The ICC warrants alone will not reopen classrooms or restore women’s freedom. Their force depends on what governments do with them.
If accommodation continues without consequences for persecution, the Taliban will have further reason to believe that the rights of Afghan women are a price the world is willing to pay.
About the author
Lynne O'Donnell
Lynne O’Donnell is an Australian writer and journalist.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
