Misplaced Pages

Sovereign state: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:26, 2 February 2017 editMaterialscientist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators1,993,826 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 38.80.64.50 identified as test/vandalism using STiki← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:11, 28 November 2024 edit undo191.125.167.172 (talk) Undid revision 1260055238 by 191.125.167.172 (talk)Tag: Undo 
(752 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|State having the highest authority over a territory}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2018}}
{{Use British English|date=November 2014}} {{Use British English|date=November 2014}}
A '''sovereign state''' is a ] that has the supreme ] or ultimate ] over a ].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Philpott |first=Daniel |date=1995 |title=Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History |journal=Journal of International Affairs |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=353–368 |jstor=24357595 }}</ref> It is commonly understood that ].<ref>See the following:
], all of which are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members]]
* {{cite book|title=Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science|first=Henry |last=Wheaton|publisher=Carey, Lea & Blanchard |date=1836|page=51|quote=A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.|ref=none}}
* {{Citation |title=sovereign |work=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language |date=2004 |url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign |access-date=21 February 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151007000128/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign |archive-date=7 October 2015 |url-status=live |edition=4th |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company |quote=adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.}}
* {{citation|title=sovereign|work=The ]|edition=2nd|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|place=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-517077-1|quote=adjective ... (of a nation or state) fully independent and determining its own affairs.}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Pellet |first1=Alain |title=The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples |journal=European Journal of International Law |date=1992 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=178–185 |doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035802 |quote=The Committee considers that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty; }}</ref> When referring to a specific ], the term "]" may also refer to a constituent country, or a ].<ref name="Fowler Bunck 1996 pp. 381–404">{{Cite journal |last1=Fowler |first1=Michael Ross |last2=Bunck |first2=Julie Marie |date=1996 |title=What constitutes the sovereign state? |journal=Review of International Studies |publisher=Cambridge University Press (CUP) |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=381–404 |doi=10.1017/s0260210500118637 |s2cid=145809847 }}</ref><ref name="World Population by Country 2024 (Live) 1945 w673">{{Cite web |date=June 26, 1945 |title=Countries Not in the United Nations 2024 |url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-not-in-the-un |access-date=March 2, 2024 |website=World Population by Country 2024 (Live)}}</ref><ref name="academic.oup.com i784">{{cite book |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248391.003.0003 |chapter=Recognition and its Variants |title=Recognition of Governments in International Law |date=2001 |last1=Talmon |first1=Stefan |pages=44–112 |isbn=978-0-19-924839-1 }}</ref>


A '''sovereign state''' is, in ], a nonphysical ] that is represented by one ] that has ] over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one ], and the capacity to enter into ].<ref>See the following: A sovereign ] is usually required to have a permanent population, defined territory, a ] not under another, and the capacity to ].<ref>See the following:
* {{Cite book|title=International law|first1=Malcolm Nathan|last1=Shaw|year=2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=178|quote=Article 1 of the ] on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'}} * {{Cite book |last=Shaw |first=Malcolm Nathan |url=https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380 |title=International law |date=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-5215-3183-2 |page= |quote=Article 1 of the ] on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states' |url-access=limited}}.
* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on international law|editor1-first=Nandasiri|editor1-last=Jasentuliyana|publisher=Kluwer Law International|year=1995|page=20|quote=So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.}}</ref> It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or ].<ref>See the following: * {{cite book|title=Perspectives on international law|editor-first=Nandasiri|editor-last=Jasentuliyana|publisher=Kluwer Law International|date=1995|page=20|quote=So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.|ref=none}}</ref> In actual practice, recognition or non-recognition by other states plays an important role in determining the status of a country. ] often have difficulty engaging in ] with other sovereign states.<ref name="Visoka 2022 pp. 133–151">{{Cite journal |last=Visoka |first=Gëzim |date=2022 |title=Statehood and recognition in world politics: Towards a critical research agenda |journal=Cooperation and Conflict |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=133–151 |doi=10.1177/00108367211007876 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Hoch 2018 pp. 382–407">{{Cite journal |last=Hoch |first=Tomáš |date=2018 |title=Legitimization of Statehood and its Impact on Foreign Policy in De Facto States: A Case Study of Abkhazia |journal=Iran & the Caucasus |publisher=Brill |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=382–407 |doi=10.1163/1573384X-20180406 |jstor=26626701}}</ref>
* {{Cite book|title=Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science|first1=Henry |last1=Wheaton|publisher=Carey, Lea & Blanchard |year=1836|page=51|quote=A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.}}
* {{Citation|title=sovereign|work=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|edition=4th|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company|year=2004|accessdate=21 February 2010|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign|quote=adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.}}
* {{Citation|title=sovereign|work=The ]|edition=2nd|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|place=Oxford|isbn=0-19-517077-6|quote=adjective ... (of a nation or state) fully independent and determining its own affairs.}}</ref>


==History==
The existence or disappearance of a state is a ].<ref name="Lalonde2002">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=x7qEqVpq9poC |title=Determining boundaries in a conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis |first=Suzanne |last=Lalonde |chapter=Notes to pages |publisher=McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-7735-2424-8 |page=181}}</ref> While according to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being ], unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in ] with other sovereign states.
{{More citations needed section|date=May 2023}}
Since the end of the 19th century, almost the entire globe has been divided into sections (countries) with more or less defined borders assigned to different states.{{Citation needed|date=April 2023}} Previously, quite large plots of land were either unclaimed or deserted, or inhabited by ]s that were not organized into states.{{fact|date=July 2024}} However, even in modern states, there are large remote areas, such as the ], that are either uninhabited or inhabited exclusively or mainly by ] (and some of them are still not in constant contact). Additionally, there are states where de facto control is contested or where it is not exercised over their whole area.{{fact|date=July 2024}}


Currently, the ] includes more than 200 sovereign states, most of which are represented in the ]. These states exist in a system of international relations, where each state takes into account the policies of other states by making its own calculations. From this point of view, States are integrated into the international system of special internal and external security and legitimization of the dilemma. Recently, the concept of the international community has been formed to refer to a group of States that have established rules, procedures and institutions for the implementation of relations. Thus, the foundation for ], diplomacy between officially recognized sovereign states, their organizations and formal regimes has been laid.
==Emergence of states==
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state".<ref>{{cite book |first=Martin Ira |last=Glassner |first2=Chuck |last2=Fahrer |title=Political Geography |location=Hoboken |publisher=Wiley |year=2004 |edition=3rd |page=14 |isbn=0-471-35266-7 }}</ref> States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe, others being ], ], and ] with universalist claims to authority.<ref>{{cite book |last=Spruyt |first=H. |year=1994 |title=The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change |location=Princeton, NJ |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=0-691-03356-0 }}</ref>


==Westphalian sovereignty== ==Westphalian sovereignty==
{{Main|Westphalian sovereignty}} {{Main|Westphalian sovereignty}}
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of ] sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, ]s, and organizations that began with the ] in 1648.{{citation needed|date=February 2024}}


Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.<ref>{{cite book |title=Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy |first=Stephen D. |last=Krasner |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-691-00711-3 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Núñez|first1=Jorge Emilio|title=About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty|journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law|volume=27|issue=4|pages=645–664|doi=10.1007/s11196-013-9333-x|year=2013|s2cid=150817547}}</ref> Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain people in the world were "uncivilized", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of the "civilized" people".<ref>{{cite journal |first=Ralph |last=Wilde |title=From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers |year=2009 |volume=31 |journal=Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. |pages=85–142 }}</ref> ] said, "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning, which was universally agreed upon."<ref>Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)</ref> In the opinion of ] of the ], "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all".<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories |title=International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity |first=Sackey |last=Akweenda |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |year=1997 |isbn=978-90-411-0412-0 |page=40 }}</ref>
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of ] sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, ], and organizations that began with the ] in 1648.


Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of ] and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as '']'' norms of modern ]. The ], the ], and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States|url=http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4|work=Charter of the Organization of American States|publisher=Secretariat of The Organization of American States|access-date=21 November 2010|archive-date=9 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120409062542/http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States|url=http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf|publisher=UN Treaty Organization|access-date=21 November 2010|year=1949|archive-date=17 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017051712/http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.<ref>{{cite web|title=General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources"|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/resources.htm|publisher=United Nations|access-date=21 November 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110218220818/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/resources.htm|archive-date=18 February 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schwebel |first1=Stephen M. |title=The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=1963 |volume=49 |issue=5 |pages=463–469 |jstor=25722375 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx|title=OHCHR {{pipe}} International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|website=www.ohchr.org|access-date=2 March 2021|archive-date=4 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181204121546/https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.<ref>{{cite book |title=Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy |first=Stephen D. |last=Krasner |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=1999 |isbn=0-691-00711-X }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Núñez|first1=Jorge Emilio|title=About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty|journal=International Journal for the Semiotics of Law|url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11196-013-9333-x}}</ref> Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were "uncivilised", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of "civilised" people."<ref>{{cite journal |first=Ralph |last=Wilde |title=From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers |year=2009 |volume=31 |journal=Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. |pages=85–142 }}</ref> ] said "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."<ref>Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)</ref> In the opinion of ] of the ], "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all."<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories |title=International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity |first=Sackey |last=Akweenda |publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |year=1997 |isbn=90-411-0412-7 |page=40 }}</ref>


In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Grinin |first1=L. E |title=Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives? |journal=Age of Globalization |issue=1 |date=2008 |url=https://www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/127716/ }}</ref>
Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of ] and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as '']'' norms of modern ]. The ], the ], and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States|url=http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4|work=Charter of the Organization of American States|publisher=Secretariat of The Organization of American States|accessdate=21 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States|url=http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf|publisher=UN Treaty Organization|accessdate=21 November 2010|year=1949}}</ref> The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.<ref>{{cite web|title=General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources" |url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/resources.htm|publisher=United Nations|accessdate=21 November 2010}}</ref><ref>Schwebel, Stephen M., The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 49 A.B.A. J. 463 (1963)</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|url=http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx}}</ref>


Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, according to Bryan Turner, "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of princes "to confessionalize" the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of ''cuius regio eius religio'' {{Bracket|]}}."<ref name=MariahSutt>{{cite journal |last1=Turner |first1=Bryan S. |title=Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State |journal=The Muslim World |date=July 2007 |volume=97 |issue=3 |pages=405–418 |doi=10.1111/j.1478-1913.2007.00187.x }}</ref>
In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.<ref>Grinin L. E. Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives? Age of Globalization. Number 1 / 2008 </ref>


Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed ] from the judicial process, derived from the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian ]. First articulated by ], the powers of the state are considered to be ''suprema potestas'' within territorial boundaries. Based on this, the jurisprudence has developed along the lines of affording immunity from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In '']'', Chief Justice ] of the ] wrote that the "perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns" has created a class of cases where "every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Simpson |first1=Gerry |chapter=Sovereign Equalities |pages=25–61 |title=Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=2004 |doi=10.1017/CBO9780511494185 |isbn=978-0-521-82761-4 }}</ref><ref name=bankas>{{cite book |doi=10.1007/3-540-27883-4 |title=The State Immunity Controversy in International Law |date=2005 |last1=Bankas |first1=Ernest K. |isbn=978-3-540-25695-3 }}{{pn|date=July 2024}}</ref>
Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognised the right of princes 'to confessionalise' the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of ]."<ref name=MariahSutt>{{cite journal|last1=Turner|first1=Bryan|title=Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State|journal=Muslim World|date=July 2007|volume=97|issue=3|pages=405–418|accessdate=26 October 2014}}</ref>


Absolute sovereign immunity is no longer as widely accepted as it has been in the past, and some countries, including the United States, Canada, Singapore, Australia, Pakistan and South Africa, have introduced ] by statute, which explicitly limits jurisdictional immunity to public acts, but not private or commercial ones, though there is no precise definition by which public acts can easily be distinguished from private ones.<ref name=bankas />
The Westphalian model of state sovereignty has increasingly come under fire from the "non-west" as a system imposed solely by Western Colonialism. What this model did was make religion a subordinate to politics,<ref name=MariahSutt /> a problem that has caused some issues in the Islamic world. This system does not fit in the Islamic world because concepts such as "separation of church and state" and "individual conscience" are not recognised in the Islamic religion as social systems.


==Recognition==
In casual usage, the terms "]", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were ]ous; but in stricter usage they can be distinguished:{{Citation needed|date=January 2011}}
{{See also|List of states with limited recognition}}
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.{{cn|date=September 2024}} Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.{{cn|date=September 2024}}


There are debates over whether states can exist as a fact independent of recognition or whether recognition is one of the facts necessary to bring states into being.<ref name="auto"/> No definition is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. Some argue that the criteria are mainly political, not legal.<ref>See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47–48 in ''International law: achievements and prospects'', UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, {{ISBN|92-3-102716-6}} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113127/https://books.google.com/books?id=jrTsNTzcY7EC&lpg=PA47&client&pg=PA47|date=14 November 2022}}</ref> L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and ] states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."<ref>See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, ], Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, {{ISBN|0-7923-0450-0}}, page 135-136 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113129/https://books.google.com/books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&lpg=PA136&ots=ARGGNDm7G-&dq=t&pg=PA136|date=14 November 2022}}</ref> International lawyer ] states that recognition is not merely a formality but an active interpretation in support of any facts. Once made however it cannot be arbitrarily revoked on account of another state's own discretion or internal politics.<ref name="auto"/>
* '']'' denotes a region of land defined by geographical features or political boundaries.
* '']'' denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion, language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives ''national'' and ''international'' are frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly ''sovereign states'', as in ''national capital'', ''international law''.
* '']'' refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have ] over a definite territory and ]. Sovereign states are ].


===Constitutive theory<!--'Constitutive theory of statehood' and 'Constitutive theory' redirect here-->===
==Recognition==
The '''constitutive theory of statehood'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> defines a state as a ] of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.<ref name="ctos">{{cite book |title=Sourcebook on Public International Law |last=Hillier |first=Tim |year=1998 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-85941-050-9 |pages=201–2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kr0sOuIx8q8C }}</ref> In 1815, at the ], the ] recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result, it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the ]s.<ref>] ''Taming the Sovereigns'' .</ref>
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.<ref>, ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy''.</ref> Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.


One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that a state must grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.<ref name="ctos" />
There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.<ref>See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47-48 in ''International law: achievements and prospects'', UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 92-3-102716-6 </ref> L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn ] and ] states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."<ref>See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, ], Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 </ref>


In 1912, ] said the following, regarding constitutive theory:
In ], however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognised as sovereign.<ref>Thomas D. Grant, ''The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution'' (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.</ref>


{{Blockquote|International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.<ref>{{cite book | author = Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh | title = International Law: A Treatise | publisher = The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. | year = 2005 | isbn = 978-1-58477-609-3 | pages = 135 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA135}}</ref>}}
===Constitutive theory<!--'Constitutive theory of statehood' and 'Constitutive theory' redirect here-->===
The '''constitutive theory of statehood'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 14th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.<ref name="ctos">{{cite book |title=Sourcebook on Public International Law |last=Hillier |first=Tim |year=1998 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=1-85941-050-2 |pages=201–2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kr0sOuIx8q8C }}</ref> In 1815 at the ] the ] recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the ]s.<ref>Kalevi Jaakko Holsti ''Taming the Sovereigns'' .</ref>


Recognition or non-recognition by other states can override declarative theory criteria in cases such as ] and ].<ref name=EJIL />
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.<ref name="ctos" />


===Declarative theory<!--' Declarative theory of statehood and 'Declarative theory' redirect here-->===
In 1912, ] had the following to say on constitutive theory:
{{Main|Montevideo Convention}}
By contrast, the '''declarative theory of statehood'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> defines a state as a ] if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was expressed in the 1933 ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Hersch Lauterpacht|title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=419|isbn=9781107609433|access-date=13 August 2015|archive-date=15 January 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130620/https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|url-status=live}}</ref>


A "territory" in the international law context consists of land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, and air space above the territory. There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be considered as territories sufficient for statehood. The term "permanent population" defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable to support the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement of a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as "effective control test") and guarantee the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The "capacity to enter into relations with other states" reflects the entity's degree of independence.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bachmann|first1=Sascha Dov|last2=Prazauskas|first2=Martinas|date=19 December 2019|title=The Status of Unrecognized Quasi-States and Their Responsibilities Under the Montevideo Convention|url=https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=641117074119116071091029095088081024016073027027075062101005081022079120102112119011096100063045053098009088083101104031096022059021009023036095081099026082082087125060082063067114003111020000119012085025124069081114093080123002084107102096092069024110&EXT=pdf|journal=The International Lawyer|volume=52|issue=3|pages=400–410|access-date=19 May 2020|via=SSRN}}{{Dead link|date=February 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
<blockquote>
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.<ref>{{cite book | author = Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh | title = International Law: A Treatise | publisher = The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. | year = 2005 | isbn = 1-58477-609-9 | pages = 135 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA135}}</ref></blockquote>


Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html|title=Convention on Rights and Duties of States|website=www.oas.org|access-date=11 March 2015|archive-date=29 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529173110/http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
===Declarative theory<!--'Declarative theory of statehood' and 'Declarative theory' rediret here-->===
By contrast, the '''declarative theory of statehood'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> defines a state as a ] if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 ].<ref>{{cite book|author=Hersch Lauterpacht|title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=419}}</ref>


A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the ] ''Opinions of the ]'', which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.<ref>{{cite book|last=Castellino|first=Joshua|title=International Law and Self-Determination: The Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession With Formulations of Post-Colonial National Identity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC|year=2000|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=978-90-411-1409-9|page=}}</ref>
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.<ref>http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html</ref> In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.


The Montevideo Convention criteria do not automatically create a state because additional requirements must be met. While they play an important role, they do not determine the status of a country in all cases, such as ], ], and ].<ref name=EJIL>{{cite web |last1=Akande |first1=Dapo |title=The Importance of Legal Criteria for Statehood: A Response to Jure Vidmar |url=https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-importance-of-legal-criteria-for-statehood-a-response-to-jure-vidmar/ |website=EJIL: Talk! |language=English |date=7 August 2013}}</ref>
A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the ] ''Opinions of the ]'', which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.{{citation needed|date=June 2015}}


In practice international relations take into account the effect of recognition and non-recognition. It is the act of recognition that affirms whether a country meets the requirements for statehood and is now subject to international law in the same way that other sovereign states are.<ref name="auto">{{Cite book |first=Thomas D. |last=Grant |title=The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution |location=Westport, Connecticut |publisher=Praeger |date=1999 |chapter=Chapter 1}}</ref><ref name="RecognitionofStates">{{Cite book |last=Lauterpacht |first=Hersch |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64 |title=Recognition in International Law |publisher=] |date=2012 |isbn=9781107609433 |pages=64 |access-date=19 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130619/https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64 |archive-date=15 January 2023 |url-status=live |df=dmy-all}}</ref>
===State practice===
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.<ref>{{cite book |title=International law |first1=Malcolm Nathan |last1=Shaw |year=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=369 |edition=5th |isbn=0-521-53183-7 }}</ref> International law does not require a state to recognise other states.<ref>Opinion No. 10. of the ].</ref>


===State recognition===
Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of ] and ] are good examples of this. In the former case, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of ], a move that the ] described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".<ref>]</ref> In the latter case, recognition was widely withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.<ref>]</ref>
{{See also|List of states with limited recognition}}
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.{{Sfn|Shaw|2003|p=}} International law does not require a state to recognise other states.<ref>Opinion No. 10. of the ].</ref> Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of ] and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority ] and attempted to form a state along the lines of ], a move that the ] described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".<ref>]</ref>

In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus.<ref>]</ref> International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180522102518/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573 |date=22 May 2018 }} The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."</ref> and the recognition of a country is a political issue.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113130/https://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ |date=14 November 2022 }} p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was apolitical.</ref> On 2 July 2013, ] decided that "notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".<ref> The decision of 02.07.2013. paragraph 29</ref> On 9 October 2014, the US's Federal Court stated that "the ] purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Abbott |first=Ryan |date=October 13, 2014 |title=Property Spat Over Turk-{{!}}Controlled Cyprus Fails |url=https://www.courthousenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231021033633/https://www.courthousenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/ |archive-date=Oct 21, 2023 |website=Courthouse News Service}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002 |title=Michali Toumazou, Nicolas Kantzilaris and Maroulla Tompazou versus Republic of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus |website=Justia |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231020134245/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002 |archive-date= Oct 20, 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Opinion stating the reasons for the Court's Order of September 30, 2014 granting both the TRNC's and the HSBC defendants' motions to dismiss, denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, and dismissing this action with prejudice for Toumazou et al v. Republic of Turkey et al |url=https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231021033632/https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53 |archive-date=Oct 21, 2023 |website=Justia}}</ref> On 2 September 2015, ECtHR decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".<ref> The decision of 02.09.2015. paragraph 237.</ref> On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island".<ref> Criminals fleeing British justice can no longer use Cyprus as a safe haven, judges rule, in landmark decision</ref> and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal. ] gained "observer status" in the ], and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113128/https://books.google.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC |date=14 November 2022 }} The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States, p.149</ref> As a country, Northern Cyprus became an observer member in various international organizations (the ] (OIC), the ] (ECO), the ] (OTS), the ], etc.).


===''De facto'' and ''de jure'' states=== ===''De facto'' and ''de jure'' states===
]
Most sovereign states are states '']'' and '']'' (i.e., they exist both in law and in reality). However, a state may be recognised only as a ''de jure'' state, in that it is recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which it has no actual control. For example, during the ], ] of a number of continental European states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the ], notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. The ] and ] claim that the ] is a sovereign state, a claim which has been ], though the territory it claims is under the ''de facto'' control of ].<ref name="saeb"/>{{#tag:ref|Israel allows the ] to execute some functions in the ], depending on ]. Israel maintains ] (retaining control of borders: ],<ref name="GazaSeaAir">] - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: , Retrieved 2012-03-24.</ref> sea ],<ref name="GazaSeaAir"/><ref></ref> ]<ref>: "Israel will guard the perimeter of the Gaza Strip, continue to control Gaza air space, and continue to patrol the sea off the Gaza coast. ... Israel will continue to maintain its essential military presence to prevent arms smuggling along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (]), until the security situation and cooperation with Egypt permit an alternative security arrangement."</ref>) in the ] and maximum in "]".<ref>{{Cite web | last = Gold | first = Dore |author2=Institute for Contemporary Affairs | title = Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws | work = Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3 | publisher = Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Most sovereign states are both '']'' and ''de facto'' (i.e., they exist both according to law and in practice).<ref name="Czapliński Kleczkowska Scholar 2019 p. 26">{{cite book | last1=Czapliński | first1=W. | last2=Kleczkowska | first2=A. | last3=Scholar | first3=W.N. | title=Unrecognised Subjects in International Law | publisher=Scholar Publishing House | year=2019 | isbn=978-83-7383-964-9 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XuKnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26 | access-date=2024-02-05 | page=26}}</ref> However, states which are only ''de jure'' are sometimes recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control.<ref name="Goodwin-Gill Talmon 1999 p. ">{{cite book | last1=Goodwin-Gill | first1=Guy S. | last2=Talmon | first2=Stefan | title=The Reality of International LawEssays in Honour of Ian Brownlie | publisher=Oxford University Press | date=1999-10-14 | isbn=978-0-19-826837-6 | doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268376.003.0023 | page=}}</ref> For example, during the ], ] of several states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the ], notwithstanding that their countries were under occupation by ].
| date = 26 August 2005 | url = http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-3.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web
Other entities may have ''de facto'' control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the ] to be only ''de facto'' states. They are considered ''de jure'' states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf |title=De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland |access-date=4 January 2010 |year=2008 |last=Arieff |first=Alexis |journal=Yale Journal of International Affairs |volume=3 |pages=60–79 |archive-date=13 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213214545/http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3903 |title=The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon |access-date=4 January 2010 |date=July 2007 |publisher=Foreign Policy Magazine |archive-date=13 January 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090113111413/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3903 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/ |title=Overview of De-facto States |access-date=4 January 2010 |date=July 2008 |publisher=] |archive-date=3 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100603124308/http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/15055_mahamudsalahnur_eng.html |title=France recognises de facto Somaliland |access-date=4 January 2010 |date=April 2008 |author=Wiren, Robert |publisher=Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine |archive-date=25 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825054320/http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/15055_mahamudsalahnur_eng.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| last = Bell | first = Abraham | title = International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense

| work = Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29 | publisher = Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs | date = 28 January 2008
Outlining the concept of a ''de facto'' state for '']'' in early 2024, Laurence Broers wrote:
| url = http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-3.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release | title = Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference | publisher = Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel | date = 22 January 2008 | url = http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/Address+by+FM+Livni+to+the+8th+Herzliya+Conference+22-Jan-2008.htm?DisplayMode=print | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | last = Salih

| first = Zak M. | title = Panelists Disagree Over Gaza’s Occupation Status | publisher = University of Virginia School of Law | date = 17 November 2005 | url = http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2005_fall/gaza.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | title = Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation | publisher = Human Rights Watch
{{Blockquote
| date = 29 October 2004 | url = https://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref> See also ].<br><ref name="saeb">{{Cite news|author=Staff writers|title=Palestinians 'may declare state'|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7254434.stm|newspaper=BBC News|publisher=British Broadcasting Corporation|date=20 February 2008|accessdate=2011-01-22}}:"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence".</ref><ref>{{Cite web
|text=De facto states can be understood as a product of the very system that excludes the possibility of their existence: the ] and ] system of sovereign and equal states covering every centimeter of the globe.
| last = Gold | first = Dore |author2=Institute for Contemporary Affairs | title = Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws | work = Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3 | publisher = Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs | date = 26 August 2005 | url = http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-3.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | last = Bell | first = Abraham | title = International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense | work = Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29 | publisher = Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs | date = 28 January 2008 | url = http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-3.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite press release | title = Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference | publisher = Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel | date = 22 January 2008 | url = http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2008/Address+by+FM+Livni+to+the+8th+Herzliya+Conference+22-Jan-2008.htm?DisplayMode=print
<br/><!--Leave this in to preserve the line break in the source material-->
| accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | last = Salih | first = Zak M. | title = Panelists Disagree Over Gaza’s Occupation Status | publisher = University of Virginia School of Law | date = 17 November 2005 | url = http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2005_fall/gaza.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | title = Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation | publisher = Human Rights Watch | date = 29 October 2004 | url = https://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm | accessdate = 2010-07-16}}</ref> |name="israel"}}
The hegemony of this system, at least until recent years, is what created the possibility of a de facto state as an anomaly existing outside of it - or in ]'s memorable phrase, as "temporary technical errors within the system of international law." The ] and ] resulted in the emergence of numerous such entities, several of which, including Abkhazia, Transdniester, South Ossetia and the ], survived in the margins of international relations for decades despite non-recognition.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://eurasianet.org/the-nagorno-karabakh-republic-the-life-and-death-of-an-unrecognized-state |title=The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: The life and death of an unrecognized state |last=Broers |first=Laurence |date=2024-01-02 |publisher=EurasiaNet |access-date=2024-01-04}}</ref>
Other entities may have ''de facto'' control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the ] to be only ''de facto'' states. They are considered ''de jure'' states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, ] is commonly considered to be such a state.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf |title=De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland |accessdate=2010-01-04 |year=2008 |last=Arieff |first=Alexis |journal=Yale Journal of International Affairs |volume=3 |issue= |pages=60–79 |doi= }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3903 |title=The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon |accessdate=2010-01-04 |date=July 2007 |publisher=Foreign Policy Magazine}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/ |title=Overview of De-facto States |accessdate=2010-01-04 |date=July 2008 |publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/15055_mahamudsalahnur_eng.html |title=France recognises de facto Somaliland |accessdate=2010-01-04 |date=April 2008 |author=Wiren, Robert |publisher=Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine}}</ref> For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide ], see the ].
}}

=== Semi-sovereign states ===
Sovereignty is most commonly conceptualised as something categorical, which is either present or absent, and the coherence of any intermediate position in that binary has been questioned, especially in the context of international law.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Grant |first1=John P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ |title=Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law |last2=Barker |first2=J. Craig |date=2009-10-02 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-987491-0 |pages=552 |language=en |access-date=7 March 2022 |archive-date=15 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130624/https://books.google.com/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ |url-status=live }}</ref> In spite of this, some authors admit the concept of a ''semi-sovereign state'', a state which is officially acknowledged as sovereign but whose theoretical sovereignty is significantly impaired in practice, such as by being ''de facto'' subjected to a more powerful neighbour; Belarus, in its relationship with Russia, has been proposed as a contemporary example of a semi-sovereign state.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hancock |first1=Kathleen J. |title=The Semi-Sovereign State: Belarus and the Russian Neo-Empire |journal=Foreign Policy Analysis |date=April 2006 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=117–136 |doi=10.1111/j.1743-8594.2006.00023.x |s2cid=153926665 }}</ref> In a somewhat different sense, the term ''semi-sovereign'' was famously applied to West Germany by political scientist ] in his 1987 book ''Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State,''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Katzenstein |first=Peter J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBrQgAACAAJ |title=Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semisovereign State |date=1987 |publisher=Temple University Press |isbn=978-0-87722-264-4 |language=en |access-date=7 March 2022 |archive-date=15 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBrQgAACAAJ |url-status=live }}</ref> due to having a political system in which the sovereignty of the state was subject to limitations both internal (West Germany's federal system and the role of civil society) and external (membership in the European Community and reliance on its alliance with the United States and NATO for its national security).<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Padgett |first1=Stephen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XHrQtwEACAAJ |title=Rethinking Germany and Europe: Democracy and Diplomacy in a Semi-Sovereign State |last2=Jeffery |first2=C. |last3=Bulmer |first3=Simon |date=2014-01-14 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-349-58924-1 |language=en |access-date=7 March 2022 |archive-date=15 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=XHrQtwEACAAJ |url-status=live }}</ref>


==Relationship between state and government== ==Relationship between state and government==
Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=E. H. |year=2013 |url=http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/State_and_Government.pdf |title=The Distinction Between State and Government |journal=The Geography Compass |volume=7 |issue=8 |pages=556–566 }}</ref> international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of "]" is predicated upon that distinction.<ref name="Crawford, J. 2006">{{cite book |last=Crawford |first=J. |year=2006 |title=The Creation of States in International Law |location=Oxford |publisher=Clarendon Press |edition=2nd |isbn=0-19-826002-4 }}</ref> States are non-physical juridical entities, and not organisations of any kind.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Edward Heath |url=http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/States_v_Legal_Persons.pdf |title=An Ontological Analysis of States: Organizations vs. Legal Persons |journal=Applied Ontology |year=2010 |volume=5 |issue= |pages=109–125 }}</ref> However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.<ref name="Crawford, J. 2006"/> Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Robinson |first1=Edward Heath |title=The Distinction Between State and Government |journal=Geography Compass |date=August 2013 |volume=7 |issue=8 |pages=556–566 |doi=10.1111/gec3.12065 |bibcode=2013GComp...7..556R }}</ref> international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of "]" is predicated upon that distinction.<ref name="Crawford, J. 2006">{{cite book |last=Crawford |first=J. |year=2006 |title=The Creation of States in International Law |location=Oxford |publisher=Clarendon Press |edition=2nd |isbn=978-0-19-826002-8 }}</ref> States are non-physical juridical entities, not organisations of any kind.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Robinson |first1=Edward Heath |title=An ontological analysis of states: Organizations vs. legal persons |journal=Applied Ontology |date=2010 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=109–125 |doi=10.3233/AO-2010-0077 }}</ref> However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.<ref name="Crawford, J. 2006"/>


==State extinction== ==State extinction==
Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though it is possible for them to be become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. According to a 2004 study, violent state death has virtually ceased since the end of World War II.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fazal|first=Tanisha M.|date=2004-04-01|title=State Death in the International System|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/state-death-in-the-international-system/293E2E30C054DEE72899DAAA643B61AD|journal=International Organization|volume=58|issue=2|pages=311–344|doi=10.1017/S0020818304582048|issn=1531-5088}}</ref> Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Edward Heath |url=http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf |title=The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since the Second World War |journal=The Journal of Military Geography |year=2011 |volume=1 |pages=17–29 }}</ref> Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions in order to abolish a state. Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though they can become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. Violent state abolition has virtually ceased since the end of World War II.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fazal |first1=Tanisha M. |title=State Death in the International System |journal=International Organization |date=2004 |volume=58 |issue=2 |pages=311–344 |doi=10.1017/S0020818304582048 |doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |jstor=3877860 }}</ref> Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued that their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Edward Heath |url=http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf |title=The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since the Second World War |journal=The Journal of Military Geography |year=2011 |volume=1 |pages=17–29 |access-date=6 June 2013 |archive-date=19 February 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180219023941/http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions for a state to be abolished.


==Ontological status of the state== ==Ontological status of the state==
The ] status of the state has been the subject of debate,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ringmar |first=Erik |date=1996 |title=On the ontological status of the state |url= |journal=European Journal of International Relations |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages= |doi=10.1177/1354066196002004002 |accessdate=}}</ref> specially, whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,<ref>A. James (1986). ''Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society'' (London: Allen & Unwin)</ref> actually exists. The ] status of the state has been a subject of debate,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ringmar |first=Erik |date=1996 |title=On the ontological status of the state |journal=European Journal of International Relations |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages= 439–466|doi=10.1177/1354066196002004002 |s2cid=145248100 }} ()</ref> especially, whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,<ref>A. James (1986). ''Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society'' (London: Allen & Unwin)</ref> actually exists.


===The state as "quasi-abstract"=== ===The state as "quasi-abstract"===
It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract.<ref name="dl.dropboxusercontent.com">{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Edward H. |date=2014 |title=A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-abstract entities |url= https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46395762/My%20Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf |journal=Geopolitics |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=1–29 |doi=10.1080/14650045.2014.913027 |accessdate=16 September 2014}}</ref> Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have spatial position, but states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Also, abstract objects are characteristically completely non-causal, which is also not a characteristics of states, since states can act in the world and can cause certain events (though only by actions taken on their behalf through a representative).<ref>{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Edward H. |date=2011 |title=A theory of social agentivity and its integration into the descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering |url= http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Social_Agentivity.pdf |journal=International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=62–86 |doi=10.4018/jswis.2011100103 |accessdate=16 September 2014}}</ref> Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, specially in the area of ], an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.<ref name="dl.dropboxusercontent.com"/> It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract.<ref name="dl.dropboxusercontent.com">{{cite journal |last=Robinson |first=Edward H. |date=2014 |title=A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-abstract entities |url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46395762/My%20Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf |journal=Geopolitics |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=461–489 |doi=10.1080/14650045.2014.913027 |s2cid=67844415 |access-date=16 September 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213829/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46395762/My%20Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf |archive-date=3 March 2016 |df=dmy-all }}</ref> Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have a position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have a spatial position, states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have a position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have a temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, especially in the area of ], an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.<ref name="dl.dropboxusercontent.com"/>


Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors.<ref name=MariahSutt2>{{cite journal|last1=Ringmar|first1=Erik|title=On the Ontological Status of the State|journal=European Journal of International Relations|date=1996|volume=10|issue=2}}</ref> Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors.<ref name=MariahSutt2>{{cite journal|last1=Ringmar|first1=Erik|title=On the Ontological Status of the State|journal=European Journal of International Relations|date=1996|volume=10|issue=2}}</ref>


===The state as "spiritual entity"=== ===The state as "spiritual entity"===
Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual<ref name=Fundamentals71>Fundamentals of Government, pg. 71,</ref> or "mystical entity"<ref name=Fundamentals71/> with its own being, distinct from the members of the state.<ref name=Fundamentals71/> The German ] philosopher ] (1770-1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory.<ref name=Fundamentals71/> The Hegelian definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on ]."<ref>Fundamentals of Government, pg. 71 (citing Hegel's ''Philosophy of History'', trans. J. Sibree ).</ref> Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual,<ref name=Fundamentals71>{{harvnb|Schmandt|Steinbicker|1956|p=71}}</ref> or "mystical entity"<ref name=Fundamentals71/> with its own being, distinct from the members of the state.<ref name=Fundamentals71/> The German ] philosopher ] (1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory.<ref name=Fundamentals71/> The Hegelian definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth".<ref>{{harvnb|Schmandt|Steinbicker|1956|p=71}} (citing Hegel's ''Philosophy of History'', trans. J. Sibree ); see also {{cite book|last=Hegel|first=Georg Wilhelm Friedrich|title=The Philosophy of History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bniImd3dIMkC|year=2012|orig-year=1899|publisher=Courier Corporation|isbn=978-0-486-11900-7|page=}}</ref>


== Trends in the number of states == ==Trends in the number of states==
Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents|title=The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy|date=|publisher=SAGE Publications|pages=294-295|access-date=2016-11-17}}</ref> Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organizations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fazal|first=Tanisha M.|last2=Griffiths|first2=Ryan D.|date=2014-03-01|title=Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/misr.12099/abstract|journal=International Studies Review|language=en|volume=16|issue=1|pages=79–106|doi=10.1111/misr.12099|issn=1468-2486}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/the-state-of-secession-in-international-politics/|title=The State of Secession in International Politics|website=E-International Relations|access-date=2016-11-16}}</ref> Harvard economist ] and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, ''Size of Nations,'' that the increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration, democratization, and the presence of international organizations that coordinate economic and political policies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations|title=The Size of Nations|website=MIT Press|access-date=2016-11-16}}</ref> Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents|title=The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy|publisher=SAGE Publications|pages=294–295|access-date=17 November 2016|archive-date=17 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161117145048/https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents|url-status=live}}</ref> Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organisations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fazal |first1=Tanisha M. |last2=Griffiths |first2=Ryan D. |title=Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood |journal=International Studies Review |date=March 2014 |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=79–106 |doi=10.1111/misr.12099 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/the-state-of-secession-in-international-politics/|title=The State of Secession in International Politics|website=E-International Relations|date=23 September 2016|access-date=16 November 2016|archive-date=17 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161117064713/http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/the-state-of-secession-in-international-politics/|url-status=live}}</ref> Harvard economist ] and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, ''Size of Nations,'' that the increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration, democratisation, and the presence of international organisations that co-ordinate economic and political policies.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations|title=The Size of Nations|date=7 November 2003|isbn=9780262012041|access-date=16 November 2016|archive-date=17 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161117063734/https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations|url-status=live |last1=Alesina |first1=Alberto |last2=Spolaore |first2=Enrico |publisher=MIT Press }}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
{{div col||25em}} {{portal|Politics|World}}

* ]
* ] * ]
{{div col|colwidth=25em}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] (]) * ] (])
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ], a rare example of a contemporary sovereign, non-state entity
* ]
{{div col end}} {{div col end}}


==References== == References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|30em}}
{{Reflist}}
===Bibliography===

*Schmandt, Henry J., and Paul G. Steinbicker. ''Fundamentals of Government'' (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954 ).
=== Sources ===
{{Refbegin}}
* {{Cite book |last1=Schmandt |first1=Henry J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ |title=Fundamentals of Government |last2=Steinbicker |first2=Paul G. |publisher=Bruce Publishing Company |date=1956 |edition=2nd printing |access-date=17 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ |archive-date=15 January 2023 |url-status=live |orig-year=1954 |ol=43450205M}}
{{Refend}}


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
* {{cite book|author=Angie, Antony|title=Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VJuHlZ1_fbEC|date=26 April 2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-82892-5}}
*Chen, Ti-chiang. ''The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States''. London, 1951.
* {{cite journal |last1=Butcher |first1=Charles R. |last2=Griffiths |first2=Ryan D. |title=States and their international relations since 1816: introducing version 2 of the International System(s) Dataset (ISD) |journal=International Interactions |date=17 January 2020 |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=291–308 |doi=10.1080/03050629.2020.1707199 |doi-access=free }}
*Crawford, James. ''The Creation of States in International Law''. Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-825402-4, pp.&nbsp;15–24.
* Chen, Ti-chiang. ''The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States''. London, 1951.
*{{cite book|author=Lauterpacht, Hersch |title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}
* Crawford, James. ''The Creation of States in International Law''. Oxford University Press, 2005. {{ISBN|0-19-825402-4}}, pp.&nbsp;15–24.
*Raič, D. ''Statehood and the Law of Self-determination''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. ISBN 978-90-411-1890-5. p 29 (with reference to Oppenheim in International Law Vol. 1 1905 p110)
* {{cite book|author=Dieter Grimm|title=Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PbXoBgAAQBAJ|date=21 April 2015|publisher=Columbia University Press|isbn=978-0-231-53930-2}}
*Schmandt, Henry J., and Paul G. Steinbicker. ''Fundamentals of Government'', "Part Three. The Philosophy of the State" (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954 ). 507 pgs. 23 cm. LOC classification: JA66 .S35 https://lccn.loc.gov/54010666
* {{cite book|author=Lauterpacht, Hersch |title=Recognition in International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419|year=2012|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107609433}}
* {{cite book |last1=Muir |first1=Richard |title=Modern Political Geography |date=1981 |publisher=Macmillan International Higher Education |isbn=9781349860760 |edition=Second |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GlBdDwAAQBAJ }}{{Dead link|date=November 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* Raič, D. ''Statehood and the Law of Self-determination''. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. {{ISBN|978-90-411-1890-5}}. p 29 (with reference to Oppenheim in International Law Vol. 1 1905 p110)
* Schmandt, Henry J., and Paul G. Steinbicker. ''Fundamentals of Government'', "Part Three. The Philosophy of the State" (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954 ). 507 pgs. 23&nbsp;cm. LOC classification: JA66 .S35


==External links== ==External links==
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110081904/http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.htm |date=10 November 2016 }} With cases and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
* at the ''European Journal of International Law''
* With cases and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
* by Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck * by Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck
* information on tracking, evaluating and managing sovereign risk for trade and permanent investment * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120801184630/http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com/ |date=1 August 2012 }} information on tracking, evaluating and managing sovereign risk for trade and permanent investment
* * (PDF)
* {{cite EB1911 |wstitle=State |volume=25 |pages=799–801 |first=Thomas |last=Barclay |short=1}}


{{Types of state}}
{{Terms for types of country subdivisions}} {{Terms for types of country subdivisions}}
{{Authority control}}


{{DEFAULTSORT:Sovereign State}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Sovereign State}}

Latest revision as of 16:11, 28 November 2024

State having the highest authority over a territory

A sovereign state is a state that has the supreme sovereignty or ultimate authority over a territory. It is commonly understood that a sovereign state is independent. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may also refer to a constituent country, or a dependent territory.

A sovereign state is usually required to have a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states. In actual practice, recognition or non-recognition by other states plays an important role in determining the status of a country. Unrecognized states often have difficulty engaging in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

History

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Since the end of the 19th century, almost the entire globe has been divided into sections (countries) with more or less defined borders assigned to different states. Previously, quite large plots of land were either unclaimed or deserted, or inhabited by nomadic peoples that were not organized into states. However, even in modern states, there are large remote areas, such as the Amazon's tropical forests, that are either uninhabited or inhabited exclusively or mainly by indigenous people (and some of them are still not in constant contact). Additionally, there are states where de facto control is contested or where it is not exercised over their whole area.

Currently, the international community includes more than 200 sovereign states, most of which are represented in the United Nations. These states exist in a system of international relations, where each state takes into account the policies of other states by making its own calculations. From this point of view, States are integrated into the international system of special internal and external security and legitimization of the dilemma. Recently, the concept of the international community has been formed to refer to a group of States that have established rules, procedures and institutions for the implementation of relations. Thus, the foundation for international law, diplomacy between officially recognized sovereign states, their organizations and formal regimes has been laid.

Westphalian sovereignty

Main article: Westphalian sovereignty

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused. Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain people in the world were "uncivilized", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of the "civilized" people". Lassa Oppenheim said, "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning, which was universally agreed upon." In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all".

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.

Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, according to Bryan Turner, "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of princes "to confessionalize" the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio eius religio [whose realm, his religion]."

Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed absolute immunity from the judicial process, derived from the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian equality of states. First articulated by Jean Bodin, the powers of the state are considered to be suprema potestas within territorial boundaries. Based on this, the jurisprudence has developed along the lines of affording immunity from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote that the "perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns" has created a class of cases where "every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation".

Absolute sovereign immunity is no longer as widely accepted as it has been in the past, and some countries, including the United States, Canada, Singapore, Australia, Pakistan and South Africa, have introduced restrictive immunity by statute, which explicitly limits jurisdictional immunity to public acts, but not private or commercial ones, though there is no precise definition by which public acts can easily be distinguished from private ones.

Recognition

See also: List of states with limited recognition

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state. Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

There are debates over whether states can exist as a fact independent of recognition or whether recognition is one of the facts necessary to bring states into being. No definition is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. Some argue that the criteria are mainly political, not legal. L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government." International lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht states that recognition is not merely a formality but an active interpretation in support of any facts. Once made however it cannot be arbitrarily revoked on account of another state's own discretion or internal politics.

Constitutive theory

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them. In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result, it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that a state must grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim said the following, regarding constitutive theory:

International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.

Recognition or non-recognition by other states can override declarative theory criteria in cases such as Kosovo and Somaliland.

Declarative theory

Main article: Montevideo Convention

By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

A "territory" in the international law context consists of land territory, internal waters, territorial sea, and air space above the territory. There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be considered as territories sufficient for statehood. The term "permanent population" defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable to support the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement of a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as "effective control test") and guarantee the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The "capacity to enter into relations with other states" reflects the entity's degree of independence.

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The Montevideo Convention criteria do not automatically create a state because additional requirements must be met. While they play an important role, they do not determine the status of a country in all cases, such as Kosovo, Rhodesia, and Somaliland.

In practice international relations take into account the effect of recognition and non-recognition. It is the act of recognition that affirms whether a country meets the requirements for statehood and is now subject to international law in the same way that other sovereign states are.

State recognition

See also: List of states with limited recognition

State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches. International law does not require a state to recognise other states. Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".

In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus. International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence, and the recognition of a country is a political issue. On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention". On 9 October 2014, the US's Federal Court stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary". On 2 September 2015, ECtHR decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality". On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island". and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal. Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus. As a country, Northern Cyprus became an observer member in various international organizations (the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (TURKPA), etc.).

De facto and de jure states

De facto map of control of the world, May 2019

Most sovereign states are both de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both according to law and in practice). However, states which are only de jure are sometimes recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of several states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under occupation by Axis powers. Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.

Outlining the concept of a de facto state for EurasiaNet in early 2024, Laurence Broers wrote:

De facto states can be understood as a product of the very system that excludes the possibility of their existence: the post-Second World War and post-colonial system of sovereign and equal states covering every centimeter of the globe.


The hegemony of this system, at least until recent years, is what created the possibility of a de facto state as an anomaly existing outside of it - or in Alexander Iskandaryan's memorable phrase, as "temporary technical errors within the system of international law." The Soviet and Yugoslav collapses resulted in the emergence of numerous such entities, several of which, including Abkhazia, Transdniester, South Ossetia and the NKR, survived in the margins of international relations for decades despite non-recognition.

Semi-sovereign states

Sovereignty is most commonly conceptualised as something categorical, which is either present or absent, and the coherence of any intermediate position in that binary has been questioned, especially in the context of international law. In spite of this, some authors admit the concept of a semi-sovereign state, a state which is officially acknowledged as sovereign but whose theoretical sovereignty is significantly impaired in practice, such as by being de facto subjected to a more powerful neighbour; Belarus, in its relationship with Russia, has been proposed as a contemporary example of a semi-sovereign state. In a somewhat different sense, the term semi-sovereign was famously applied to West Germany by political scientist Peter Katzenstein in his 1987 book Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State, due to having a political system in which the sovereignty of the state was subject to limitations both internal (West Germany's federal system and the role of civil society) and external (membership in the European Community and reliance on its alliance with the United States and NATO for its national security).

Relationship between state and government

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably, international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of "government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction. States are non-physical juridical entities, not organisations of any kind. However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.

State extinction

Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though they can become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. Violent state abolition has virtually ceased since the end of World War II. Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued that their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone. Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions for a state to be abolished.

Ontological status of the state

The ontological status of the state has been a subject of debate, especially, whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect, actually exists.

The state as "quasi-abstract"

It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract. Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have a position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have a spatial position, states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have a position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have a temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, especially in the area of Documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war.

Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors.

The state as "spiritual entity"

Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual, or "mystical entity" with its own being, distinct from the members of the state. The German Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory. The Hegelian definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth".

Trends in the number of states

Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged. Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organisations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system. Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, Size of Nations, that the increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration, democratisation, and the presence of international organisations that co-ordinate economic and political policies.

See also

References

Citations

  1. Philpott, Daniel (1995). "Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History". Journal of International Affairs. 48 (2): 353–368. JSTOR 24357595.
  2. See the following:
    • Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. p. 51. A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.
    • "sovereign", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, archived from the original on 7 October 2015, retrieved 21 February 2010, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
    • "sovereign", The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-517077-1, adjective ... (of a nation or state) fully independent and determining its own affairs.
    • Pellet, Alain (1992). "The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples". European Journal of International Law. 3 (1): 178–185. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035802. The Committee considers that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;
  3. Fowler, Michael Ross; Bunck, Julie Marie (1996). "What constitutes the sovereign state?". Review of International Studies. 22 (4). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 381–404. doi:10.1017/s0260210500118637. S2CID 145809847.
  4. "Countries Not in the United Nations 2024". World Population by Country 2024 (Live). 26 June 1945. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
  5. Talmon, Stefan (2001). "Recognition and its Variants". Recognition of Governments in International Law. pp. 44–112. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248391.003.0003. ISBN 978-0-19-924839-1.
  6. See the following:
    • Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-5215-3183-2. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'.
    • Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995). Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law International. p. 20. So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.
  7. Visoka, Gëzim (2022). "Statehood and recognition in world politics: Towards a critical research agenda". Cooperation and Conflict. 57 (2): 133–151. doi:10.1177/00108367211007876.
  8. Hoch, Tomáš (2018). "Legitimization of Statehood and its Impact on Foreign Policy in De Facto States: A Case Study of Abkhazia". Iran & the Caucasus. 22 (4). Brill: 382–407. doi:10.1163/1573384X-20180406. JSTOR 26626701.
  9. Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00711-3.
  10. Núñez, Jorge Emilio (2013). "About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 27 (4): 645–664. doi:10.1007/s11196-013-9333-x. S2CID 150817547.
  11. Wilde, Ralph (2009). "From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers". Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 31: 85–142 .
  12. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)
  13. Akweenda, Sackey (1997). "Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories". International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 40. ISBN 978-90-411-0412-0.
  14. "Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States". Charter of the Organization of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Archived from the original on 9 April 2012. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
  15. "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" (PDF). UN Treaty Organization. 1949. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
  16. "General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources"". United Nations. Archived from the original on 18 February 2011. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
  17. Schwebel, Stephen M. (1963). "The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources". American Bar Association Journal. 49 (5): 463–469. JSTOR 25722375.
  18. "OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". www.ohchr.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 December 2018. Retrieved 2 March 2021.
  19. Grinin, L. E (2008). "Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives?". Age of Globalization (1).
  20. Turner, Bryan S. (July 2007). "Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State". The Muslim World. 97 (3): 405–418. doi:10.1111/j.1478-1913.2007.00187.x.
  21. Simpson, Gerry (2004). "Sovereign Equalities". Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–61. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511494185. ISBN 978-0-521-82761-4.
  22. ^ Bankas, Ernest K. (2005). The State Immunity Controversy in International Law. doi:10.1007/3-540-27883-4. ISBN 978-3-540-25695-3.
  23. ^ Grant, Thomas D. (1999). "Chapter 1". The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
  24. See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47–48 in International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 92-3-102716-6 Archived 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  25. See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 Archived 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine
  26. ^ Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law. Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN 978-1-85941-050-9.
  27. Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128.
  28. Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-58477-609-3.
  29. ^ Akande, Dapo (7 August 2013). "The Importance of Legal Criteria for Statehood: A Response to Jure Vidmar". EJIL: Talk!.
  30. Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 419. ISBN 9781107609433. Archived from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 13 August 2015.
  31. Bachmann, Sascha Dov; Prazauskas, Martinas (19 December 2019). "The Status of Unrecognized Quasi-States and Their Responsibilities Under the Montevideo Convention". The International Lawyer. 52 (3): 400–410. Retrieved 19 May 2020 – via SSRN.
  32. "Convention on Rights and Duties of States". www.oas.org. Archived from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 11 March 2015.
  33. Castellino, Joshua (2000). International Law and Self-Determination: The Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession With Formulations of Post-Colonial National Identity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 77. ISBN 978-90-411-1409-9.
  34. Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 64. ISBN 9781107609433. Archived from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 19 January 2018.
  35. Shaw 2003, p. 369.
  36. Opinion No. 10. of the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia.
  37. United Nations Security Council Resolution 216
  38. United Nations Security Council Resolution 541
  39. BBC Archived 22 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."
  40. Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016 Archived 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was apolitical.
  41. ECtHR The decision of 02.07.2013. paragraph 29
  42. Abbott, Ryan (13 October 2014). "Property Spat Over Turk-|Controlled Cyprus Fails". Courthouse News Service. Archived from the original on 21 October 2023.
  43. "Michali Toumazou, Nicolas Kantzilaris and Maroulla Tompazou versus Republic of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Justia. Archived from the original on 20 October 2023.
  44. "Opinion stating the reasons for the Court's Order of September 30, 2014 granting both the TRNC's and the HSBC defendants' motions to dismiss, denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, and dismissing this action with prejudice for Toumazou et al v. Republic of Turkey et al". Justia. Archived from the original on 21 October 2023.
  45. ECtHR The decision of 02.09.2015. paragraph 237.
  46. The Telegraph 03.02.2017 Criminals fleeing British justice can no longer use Cyprus as a safe haven, judges rule, in landmark decision
  47. James Ker-Lindsay (UN SG's Former Special Representative for Cyprus) Archived 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States, p.149
  48. Czapliński, W.; Kleczkowska, A.; Scholar, W.N. (2019). Unrecognised Subjects in International Law. Scholar Publishing House. p. 26. ISBN 978-83-7383-964-9. Retrieved 5 February 2024.
  49. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S.; Talmon, Stefan (14 October 1999). The Reality of International LawEssays in Honour of Ian Brownlie. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268376.003.0023. ISBN 978-0-19-826837-6.
  50. Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs. 3: 60–79. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 December 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  51. "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon". Foreign Policy Magazine. July 2007. Archived from the original on 13 January 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  52. "Overview of De-facto States". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. July 2008. Archived from the original on 3 June 2010. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  53. Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognises de facto Somaliland". Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. Archived from the original on 25 August 2018. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  54. Broers, Laurence (2 January 2024). "The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: The life and death of an unrecognized state". EurasiaNet. Retrieved 4 January 2024.
  55. Grant, John P.; Barker, J. Craig (2 October 2009). Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. Oxford University Press. p. 552. ISBN 978-0-19-987491-0. Archived from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  56. Hancock, Kathleen J. (April 2006). "The Semi-Sovereign State: Belarus and the Russian Neo-Empire". Foreign Policy Analysis. 2 (2): 117–136. doi:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2006.00023.x. S2CID 153926665.
  57. Katzenstein, Peter J. (1987). Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semisovereign State. Temple University Press. ISBN 978-0-87722-264-4. Archived from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  58. Padgett, Stephen; Jeffery, C.; Bulmer, Simon (14 January 2014). Rethinking Germany and Europe: Democracy and Diplomacy in a Semi-Sovereign State. Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-1-349-58924-1. Archived from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
  59. Robinson, Edward Heath (August 2013). "The Distinction Between State and Government". Geography Compass. 7 (8): 556–566. Bibcode:2013GComp...7..556R. doi:10.1111/gec3.12065.
  60. ^ Crawford, J. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-826002-8.
  61. Robinson, Edward Heath (2010). "An ontological analysis of states: Organizations vs. legal persons". Applied Ontology. 5 (2): 109–125. doi:10.3233/AO-2010-0077.
  62. Fazal, Tanisha M. (2004). "State Death in the International System". International Organization. 58 (2): 311–344. doi:10.1017/S0020818304582048 (inactive 1 November 2024). JSTOR 3877860.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  63. Robinson, Edward Heath (2011). "The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since the Second World War" (PDF). The Journal of Military Geography. 1: 17–29. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
  64. Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the ontological status of the state". European Journal of International Relations. 2 (4): 439–466. doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002. S2CID 145248100. (full text)
  65. A. James (1986). Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin)
  66. ^ Robinson, Edward H. (2014). "A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-abstract entities" (PDF). Geopolitics. 19 (3): 461–489. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027. S2CID 67844415. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 16 September 2014.
  67. Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the Ontological Status of the State". European Journal of International Relations. 10 (2).
  68. ^ Schmandt & Steinbicker 1956, p. 71
  69. Schmandt & Steinbicker 1956, p. 71 (citing Hegel's Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree ); see also Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (2012) . The Philosophy of History. Courier Corporation. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-486-11900-7.
  70. "The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy". SAGE Publications. pp. 294–295. Archived from the original on 17 November 2016. Retrieved 17 November 2016.
  71. Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (March 2014). "Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79–106. doi:10.1111/misr.12099.
  72. "The State of Secession in International Politics". E-International Relations. 23 September 2016. Archived from the original on 17 November 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2016.
  73. Alesina, Alberto; Spolaore, Enrico (7 November 2003). The Size of Nations. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262012041. Archived from the original on 17 November 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

Sources

Further reading

External links

Types of state
Designations for types of administrative division
English terms
Common English terms
Area
Borough
CantonHalf-canton
Capital
City
Community
County
Country
Department
District
Division
Indian reserve/reservation
Municipality
Prefecture
Province
Region
State
Territory
Town
Township
Unit
Zone
Other English terms
Current
Historical
Non-English terms or loanwords
Current
Historical
Used by ten or more countries or having derived terms. Historical derivations in italics.
See also
Autonomous administration
Census division
Electoral district
List of administrative divisions by country
Slavic administrative divisions
Categories: