State Responsibility and Transnational Terrorism: A Case of the Pak-Afghan Crisis

In international relations and security studies, state responsibility theory defines that sovereign entities are legally and morally accountable for preventing their territories from being used for actions that harm other states. Under the Responsibility to Prevent doctrine (Evans & Sahnoun, 2001), the harbouring of terrorists within national boundaries constitutes a breach of international law and undermines the collective security system. When a state either tolerates or fails to restrain violent non-state actors, it transitions from a “weak state” to what scholars identify as a complicit host — a condition that perpetuates instability across borders.

Afghanistan under the Taliban regime increasingly exemplifies this dilemma. Despite repeated assurances under the 2020 Doha Accord, evidence from the United Nations and other credible institutions demonstrates that groups such as Fitna al-Khawarij — responsible for orchestrating attacks on Pakistani civilians and security personnel — continue to operate from sanctuaries within Afghan territory. Against this theoretical backdrop, the controversy surrounding the Istanbul talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan in October 2025 becomes not only a diplomatic episode but a test of state responsibility in practice.

Islamabad Refutes Kabul’s Distortion of the Istanbul Talks

On November 1, 2025, Pakistan categorically denied media claims suggesting that it had rejected an Afghan proposal to deport terrorists during the Istanbul peace discussions. The clarification followed a report by Ariana News quoting Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid, alleging that Pakistan had refused Kabul’s offer “to expel individuals whom Islamabad considers a threat.” The report also insinuated that Pakistan sought to create conditions for the United States to “retake the Bagram Air Base.”

Responding firmly, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting labelled the story “a deliberate twisting of facts.” In an official statement, the Ministry reiterated that the Istanbul talks revolved around a single-point agenda — ensuring decisive and verifiable action against terrorists operating from Afghan soil. The statement underscored that Pakistan had not refused any proposal; rather, it had sought credible mechanisms for accountability, verification, and monitoring to ensure Afghan compliance with counter-terrorism commitments.

Nature and Purpose of the Istanbul Dialogue

The Istanbul meeting, facilitated by Turkey and attended by delegations from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and select international partners, was designed to revive counter-terrorism coordination mechanisms in the region. Pakistani officials presented detailed dossiers containing evidence of cross-border attacks and the presence of organised terrorist sanctuaries in eastern Afghanistan.

The focus of Pakistan’s position, according to official sources, was the verifiable dismantlement of networks linked to Fitna al-Khawarij and associated transnational groups such as Al-Qaeda and Daesh Khorasan. Pakistan’s delegation maintained that only through transparent and reciprocal mechanisms could both states re-establish trust along the Pak-Afghan border, which has remained volatile since the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021.

Afghan Narrative and Its Strategic Deflection

The claim made by Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid — alleging that Pakistan declined a deportation proposal — appears inconsistent with Afghanistan’s own denial of terrorist presence within its borders. By portraying Pakistan as obstructive, the Afghan regime seeks to deflect attention from its inability to fulfil international counter-terrorism obligations.

This rhetorical strategy reflects what political theorists call discursive inversion — a process in which a state accused of complicity reframes itself as the victim of external manipulation. In this instance, the attempt to link Pakistan’s security concerns with a U.S. strategic agenda at Bagram is a clear example of narrative deflection, aimed at diverting domestic attention from Afghanistan’s internal crisis and economic collapse.

Empirical Evidence of the Terror Threat

Empirical data continues to validate Pakistan’s security concerns. According to the UN Security Council Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team (June 2025), at least 20 terrorist organisations currently maintain an operational presence inside Afghanistan under varying degrees of Taliban tolerance. Among these, Al-Qaeda, Daesh Khorasan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), and Fitna al-Khawarij have been documented as maintaining training camps and logistical networks in provinces including Kunar, Nangarhar, Khost, and Helmand.

Between 2021 and 2024, Pakistan suffered over 650 terrorist incidents, resulting in more than 400 deaths, largely linked to infiltration across the Pak-Afghan border. These attacks coincide with UNAMA’s record of 2,299 security-related incidents across Afghanistan from February to April 2025 — a three-percent rise over the previous year — indicating that Afghanistan remains a permissive environment for terrorist regrouping and cross-border operations.

Pakistan’s Policy Position and Regional Security Framework

In rejecting Kabul’s misrepresentation, Pakistan reaffirmed its consistent stance: peace in the region requires that Afghanistan’s territory be prevented from serving as a launchpad for terrorism. Islamabad’s statement aligns with the Collective Security Principle under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which mandates that no state should allow its territory to be used for hostile actions against another.

Pakistan’s recent measures — enhanced border fencing, intelligence-sharing initiatives, and localized counter-terror operations — reflect a doctrine of preventive deterrence, designed to neutralize transnational threats before they penetrate domestic territory. At the same time, Islamabad has called for a multilateral accountability mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to monitor compliance by all regional actors.

The Fitna al-Khawarij Phenomenon

From an ideological perspective, Pakistan’s reference to Fitna al-Khawarij is not merely rhetorical but rooted in Islamic political thought. Historically, the Khawarij represented a group that rebelled violently against legitimate authority, distorting religious doctrine to justify political insurgency. In contemporary academic analysis, the term aptly encapsulates extremist movements that misuse religious pretexts to perpetuate anarchy and terrorism.

Within Afghanistan, these groups exploit weak governance, porous borders, and unregulated terrain to sustain their operations. Pakistan’s framing of terrorism as Fitna al-Khawarij thus carries both theological and security implications, defining the current threat as not only a national-security issue but also a moral and ideological battle for stability in the Muslim world.

Reaffirming the Norm of Responsibility

The controversy arising from the Istanbul talks illustrates the tension between discursive politics and state responsibility in South Asia. Afghanistan’s attempt to manipulate the narrative undermines trust, while Pakistan’s firm rejection reasserts the international norm that sovereignty entails responsibility.

Pakistan’s message remains consistent: cooperation with Afghanistan is possible only through verifiable action against terrorist groups entrenched within its borders. Until the Taliban regime demonstrates tangible compliance with its commitments under the Doha Accord and the Istanbul framework, peace in the region will remain hostage to the persistence of Fitna al-Khawarij and the state’s unwillingness to confront them.

In the evolving regional order, Pakistan’s stance upholds both the theoretical and practical tenets of responsible statehood — a commitment to stability grounded in law, verification, and collective security rather than in rhetoric or denial.