Afghanistan som ett förvaltningsprojekt: En studie om icke-erkännandet av talibanregeringen och förfoganderätten över den afghanska statens tillgångar

Abstract

This essay examines the legality of the United States’ unilateral decision to freeze, and in practice administer, the foreign currency reserves of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB). The analysis focuses in particular on principles of international law relating to central bank and state immunity, non-recognition, and the prohibition of unlawful seizure. The essay demonstrates that, in formal terms, the United States has acted within the framework of central bank immunity. The distinction between judicial attachment and administrative freezing under sanctions law has been maintained, and U.S. courts have also prevented private creditors from enforcing claims against DAB’s assets. At the same time, it is observed that the practical purpose of immunity - namely, to protect the core financial functions of the state - has been weakened. Through the non-recognition of the Taliban regime, the United States has established an arrangement in which Afghanistan’s effective control over its reserves is replaced by external decision-making, thereby shifting authority to institutions outside the country. Furthermore, the essay highlights that the prolonged and conditional nature of the asset freeze risks functioning as a de facto deprivation of the assets’ purpose, particularly given that these reserves are essential for currency stabilization and the maintenance of fundamental monetary policy instruments. The humanitarian impact, combined with the absence of a clear mechanism for the return of the assets, suggests that the measure may be disproportionate and, in practice, more far-reaching than what a temporary exception should permit. Finally, the measure is situated within a critical analytical framework that illustrates how control in the contemporary international system may be exercised through financial infrastructure rather than territorial domination. The methodology is primarily doctrinal, but is complemented by a Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) perspective in order to contrast the formal legal framework with the reality of control over the assets. From a TWAIL perspective, the essay considers whether this arrangement may be understood as a form of financial trusteeship colonialism. The essay concludes by proposing the introduction of clear temporal limits, a requirement of proportionality, and greater transparency regarding the conditions for lifting asset freezes, ideally anchored in multilateral processes. The aim is to shift the analytical focus from the stated purpose of such measures to their actual effects, and to ensure that the protections of international law operate in practice as well as in theory.