This paper examines the concept of state recognition in international law, tracing its growing importance as the number of sovereign states has expanded dramatically over the twentieth century. The paper outlines the two principal theories governing recognition — the declaratory theory and the constitutive theory — and evaluates their respective strengths and weaknesses. It explores the legal consequences of recognition for both recognizing and newly recognized states, the role of political interests in recognition decisions, and the significance of the Montevideo Convention. Drawing on scholars such as Brownlie, Crawford, Lauterpacht, and Wilde, the paper also addresses the relevance of recognition to self-determination, United Nations membership, and the responsibilities of international organizations.
The number of states on the world map has been constantly increasing. At the beginning of the twentieth century there were approximately fifty-five states; by mid-century that figure had risen to around seventy-five; and by 2005 it had soared to roughly 200 in total (Crawford, 2006). With this increase in the number of states, the concept of state recognition has also emerged as a significant feature of the international platform, where states are acknowledged as entities possessing legal authority. The concept has gained considerable importance by virtue of its consequences. It has been formally defined as a process that enables state governments to respond to changes taking place at the international level (Grant, 1999). These changes can involve either the creation of a new state or changes in a state's internal circumstances and foreign relations.
The concept of state recognition is emerging in international law primarily because of the significant results it produces. Meeting the required qualifications is not the sole criterion for state recognition. The state seeking recognition must also build relations with other states. There are certain legal consequences attributed to states, and recognized states are granted certain privileges within domestic legal frameworks, along with certain immunities. Hence, political influences are considered more important than legal jurisdictions in the context of state recognition (Shaw, 2008). The matter of state recognition is closely tied to the interests of the state, and existing states that are expected to build relations with a prospective recognized state carefully analyze those interests, thoroughly estimating the associated advantages and disadvantages of entering into foreign relations with it.
There is an important question about the duty of recognition that must be addressed during the process of recognizing a state. Scholars hold mixed views on this matter. Brownlie is of the opinion that state recognition is a political practice and that no element of duty is associated with it. On the other hand, certain practitioners support the existence of a duty element in recognition and also consider recognition to fall within a constitutional purview (Brownlie, 2008).
The practice of state recognition takes place on the basis of one of two theories: the declaratory theory and the constitutive theory. The former deals mainly with qualifying for the recognition requirements laid down by international bodies and does not require the approval of any state that has already acquired recognized status. This theory is regarded as more practical and acceptable at the international forum (Shaw, 2008). It is also supported by Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention (1933). The latter — the constitutive theory — is the opposite of the declaratory theory. It calls for acceptance by existing states of the world as a prerequisite for a state to qualify for recognition. This theory is criticized on the grounds that a new state might be accepted by some states and rejected by others, in which case the protection of the new state against unfavourable acts by existing states also becomes a serious concern.
State recognition is not only a matter of meeting the international definition and criteria for statehood. It also requires the fulfilment of certain duties and responsibilities by both the recognizing state and the newly recognized state. It is important to note that acquiring the status of a state carries certain legal consequences for both parties (Ramzan, 2012).
With this in mind, state recognition becomes a matter of both political and international importance. Both the recognizing state and the recognition-seeking state have interests at stake, and both carefully examine those interests. It is also possible that not recognizing a state may be more beneficial to the existing states. Before finalizing their decision, existing states give fair consideration to both perspectives (Ramzan, 2012) in terms of creating or avoiding foreign relations with the new state.
The internal affairs of the prospective state also play a major role in determining whether it is advantageous to grant recognition. If the prospective state is internally unstable and its population is protesting for liberty or separation, recognition by a state that supports those protestors will further advance the protests and will not serve the interests of the state that applied for recognized status (Ramzan, 2012).
International law also plays an active role in the granting of recognition. There exists a strong difference of opinion among international scholars: some consider it a duty, while others reject the notion entirely. A few believe that compliance with the international definition of statehood is sufficient. There are also scholars who believe that no laid-down criteria or procedures for state recognition should exist and that the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the prospective state. On such grounds, acceptance by other states may be questioned as the only valid criterion for granting recognition to new states (Ramzan, 2012).
Guggenheim and Lauterpacht support the view that states should comply with defined criteria while existing states should also readily provide recognition. Ian Brownlie, by contrast, negates any responsibility on the part of other states to grant recognition (as cited in Ramzan, 2012). He regards recognition simply as an option that a state may adopt at its own discretion, with no responsibility attached to existing states in this context. There are two major theories related to the recognition of a new state (Ramzan, 2012).
1. Constitutive Theory: This theory finds its roots in the nineteenth century and focuses strongly on international law and the role of already-recognized states. Because a new state will have a considerable impact on the international community in terms of foreign relations, the probability of respectful relations is strong only if states mutually recognize and accept each other. Additionally, there is a widely held view that new states cannot join international bodies automatically; they can only be admitted once existing member states accept their membership (Ramzan, 2012).
2. Declaratory Theory: The central idea behind this theory is that a state's existence is visible in factual terms rather than purely in legal terms. This is one of the leading doctrines in political law, endorsing the view that a state should build and develop relations with other countries while respecting the associated legal, ethical, and administrative responsibilities. The Montevideo Convention is the most prominent expression of this theory and highlights two key articles (Ramzan, 2012):
Article 3: Whether or not other states grant recognition, a state exists in political terms. Moreover, in any case, a newly established state has complete freedom to defend its honour and sovereignty and to manage its internal affairs without external dictation (Ramzan, 2012).
Article 6: The sole outcome of state recognition is that other recognized states have accepted the new entrant as a separate entity (Ramzan, 2012).
It is generally assumed that a standard exists for allowing a territory to achieve statehood. However, this standard cannot be considered entirely practical because some states are unable to secure recognition even after meeting a given benchmark. International law and state policy were once considered closely intertwined, but with changing times, state interests and domestic policies have come to carry greater weight than international legal rules (Ramzan, 2012).
"Crawford's framework and territorial status debates"
"Self-determination, UN membership, and EU recognition"
Grant, T.D. The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 1999.
Ramzan, M.B. Redefining the Requirements for the Recognition of New and Independent States. Research Report, General Assembly Sixth Committee — Legal. Accessed February 26, 2012, from www.muimun.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GA6_topicA.pdf
Shaw, M.N. International Law, 6th edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
Wilde, R. et al. Recognition of States: The Consequences of Recognition or Non-Recognition in UK and International Law. Summary of the International Law Discussion, 2010. Accessed February 26, 2012, from www.chathamhouse.org/sites/.../International%20Law/040210il.pdf
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.