Archives for September 2018

I am proposing to research the legal implications of state recognition because I want to find out what explains the shift in criteria that has shifted to more emphasis of the constitutive theory to understand the changes in the international state system in a post-Soviet time.

When beginning this research process, I focused mainly on the idea of Kosovo and specifically on the question of the future of it in the international stage. From here, I have broadened my scope on finding more information about puzzles that deal with the power of recognition and the factors that play into it. While Kosovo is an interesting case study for building my base knowledge of the subject I have focused on wider cases in my reading rather than focusing solely on Kosovo. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States set up for what became the declaratory theory of how states can be recognized.[1] This treaty, signed by primarily countries in North and South America, set out criteria that a state is a state when it has a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. [2] The convention lead much of the world to follow the declaratory theory in that states can exist whether they have been recognized internationally. Recognition is simply the act of recognizing the state that was already there. [3]

In the 1990’s, the Badinter Commission formed as a response to the crisis in Yugoslavia and the Commission’s finding were ultimately adopted by the UN Security Council. [4] The Badinter Commission found that the Soviet Former Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was a case of dissolution, with the adoption of this by the UN Security Council it became internationally accepted. The idea of constitutive theory goes to show the importance that recognition can have and play in the factor of being recognized. In acknowledging former countries of the Soviet Union, countries in the European Community (EC) began to expand upon the original ideas of the Montevideo Convention. Since there was much intra-state conflict, factors such as commitment to international law, respect for sovereignty, and protection for minorities became factors to be given recognition.[5] Then came the case of Kosovo, where EC members decided in accordance with their laws on recognition of Kosovo instead of as a collective community.[6] This lead to the international status of Kosovo being up for debate under the constitutive theory as how much recognition is needed for Kosovo to be considered a state? Instead of having the whole EC on their side, states such as Spain who had their own separatist movements did not want to validate the statehood of Kosovo.[7] Without the collective recognition of the EC, Kosovo became a state with partial recognition. Currently, Kosovo is recognized by 111 other states. [8] The debate over whether the constitutive or declaratory theory is more of a factor continues under the analyzation of specific cases such as in Kosovo.

The debate of constitutive theory is not limited to Europe/Eurasian relations and can be found through interesting puzzles such as the case of Taiwan. Taiwan and Caribbean nations might seem like unlikely allies, but their relationship can expose how states view the meaning of recognition.[9] The majority of states that recognize Taiwan are developing nations and depend on some aspect of foreign aid. Taiwan has taken advantage of this and has turned some of these allies into what can be described as “checkbook diplomacy.”[10] Based on the intense ongoing diplomatic rivalry between China and Taiwan, the Taiwanese rely on these relationships for recognition, specifically smaller Carribean states. This showcases the importance of the constitutive theory as the reliance of Taiwan on these states to be internationally viable. Taiwan experiencing this type of diplomacy can be explained through a social-psychological factor that that if anything legitimizes the statehood of Taiwan even if it does not have much effect internationally.(11) Taiwan uses the recognition by these Carribean nations to claim its status as a legitimate state even though other nations may not see it as such.

The significance of this puzzle lies on the conceptualization of the debates over the various cases. Over time there it has been more and more generally accepted that the declaratory theory is not to be considered the reigning theory.[12] As more information is discussed about the constitutive theory, it can help analyze the changing ideas of the state system. For many people, the idea of the state system seems set in stone. But, what are the changes that made the constitutive theory more significant in a post-Soviet Union world? These events can become key identifiers on how the criteria for states change and what the implications for new and currently unrecognized states may be.

As a general question, I would ask, what explains the shift in the legal implications of the recognition of states? For a more case-specific question, I would ask, what caused the constitutive theory to gain more value in thought as a criterion for states to be recognized since the end of the Soviet Union?

 

 

 

[1] Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Treaty, Montevido, Uruguay, 1933).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Vidmar, Jure. 2012. “Explaining the Legal Effects of Recognition.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly; Oxford 61 (2): 361. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020589312000164.

[4] United Nations Security Council Resolution 757 (1992)

[5] Newman, Edward, and Gëzim Visoka. 2018. “The European Union’s Practice of State Recognition: Between Norms and Interests.” Review of International Studies 44 (4): 779. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000104.

[6] Ibid. 780

[7] Vidmar. 374

[8] “Countries That Recognize Kosovo.” n.d. World Atlas. Accessed September 30, 2018. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-countries-recognize-Kosovo-as-a-country.html.

[9] Tudoroiu, T. 2017. “Taiwan in the Caribbean: A Case Study in State de-Recognition.” Asian Journal of Political Science 25 (2): 202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185377.2017.1334146

[10] Ibid. 205

[11] Ibid. 207

[12] Vidmar. 387

Jude Vidmar’s article “Explaining the Legal Effects of Recognition” aims to examine that the declaratory theory of state recognition should not be considered dogma. [i] The author uses an interpretivist approach as Vidmar investigates certain cases throughout the article to maintain their points. Primarily Vidmar investigates two cases: the legal effects of non-recognition in Macedonia in 1992 and legal effects of the recognition of Kosovo in 2008. When looking at these two cases, Vidmar examines them by breaking down the context of the situation and how the mode of state creation came to be. Contextuality is a core part of Vidmar’s claim as it shows the difference in situations that impact the legality of recognition.

The article by Edward Newman titled “The European Union’s Practice of State Recognition: Between Norms and Interests” examines EU approaches to recognition of states and advises for a more coherent approach and greater understanding in EU policy on recognition. [ii] The methodology used here is a Small-n neo-positivist approach. They use the data of cases since 1990 to showcase the normative divergence of member states on foreign issues.[iii It ultimately shows that EU practice heavily relies on a case-by-case basis and more clarity on policy would help expand its external influence.

Both articles echo very similar ideas with the Edward article focusing more intensely on EU practices. Since cases of post-Soviet states are much interest for contemporary research, they review similar cases with the Vidmar article relying more on the contextuality of the situations. They ultimately agree on the case-by-case approach that states take for recognition and that the mode of state creation plays a crucial factor for recognition in creating a state.

These sources seem useful in that they give me a common idea of heavily examined examples of where recognition can determine the legal status of states internationally. It was also interesting to see both papers come to very similar conclusions almost from their research even though they went through different methodology. I am hoping to use the Vidmar article as a really essential basis going forward for understanding the complications of the legal effects of recognition.

 

 

[i] Vidmar, Jure. 2012. “Explaining the Legal Effects of Recognition.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly; Oxford 61 (2): 361–87. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020589312000164.

 

[ii] Newman, Edward, and Gëzim Visoka. 2018. “The European Union’s Practice of State Recognition: Between Norms and Interests.” Review of International Studies 44 (4): 760–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000104.

 

[iii] Ibid 385

Ontology is a concept that seems to be one of the biggest puzzles in my personal life when it comes to discussions on it. That is because much of ontology centers around the simple question of “what’s out there to know.” Even from a young age, this is something that has continuously pressed my mind and made me ask questions about the reality of nature. Coming into class, I know a lot of my thought has been centered around ideas of abstraction and questioning the reality of everything. This makes it feel like I have a better grasp on constructivist thought which I believe is valuable because it tells that I need to focus more on becoming comfortable in discussing ideas of objectivists. Even though many of these works together for my philosophical benefit I would be able to gain more understanding more of the other viewpoint.

On the concept of methodology, I believe that it is a concept that is relatively easy to understand but much harder to unpack without experience. The essential part of methodology is how you can acquire knowledge. However, it becomes more interesting when you go about asking a question and what method you are going to use it to find it. Gaining a deeper understanding of methodology and the various ways to acquire knowledge can shape the focus to be the most suitable for the knowledge you are trying to gain.

As a researcher, I believe one is always a co-producer of their reality. This is because while much of research is supposedly driven by unbiased opinion, you can get in your way when it comes to researching. As Abbott says about yourself and research “There is probably nothing more important than coming to a good sense of your degree of self-confidence” (1). It may be easier to think about your biases in research on the topic, but there needs to be more self-reflection on how one sees themselves in the academic work. Good self-confidence means a researcher will understand when to listen to others and when to speak up. One who lacks confidence or is overconfident can hinder their research by getting ahead or behind themselves intellectually.

Research can commonly be seen as looking most usually for patterns or trends. However, I think many essential claims can come through abductive reasoning. The process of abductive reasoning is an incredible way for research because it makes one greatly aware of their discovery of the research and the overarching contextuality of the puzzle they are looking at (2). Finding hidden symbols or practices are valid knowledge claims that are commonly unseen to the common eye can be found through important research. By putting oneself deep in research and looking at structures, one can go through the circles of abductive reasoning.

 

1. Abbott, Andrew Delano. Methods of Discovery Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. 239

2. Boesenecker, Aaron. Asking Questions in Different Ways. Lecturelet, American University, Washington D.C, 2018

To those who were born after the dissolution of Yugoslavia the idea of a state has stayed relatively stable since then. There is not a question of whether how a state got there as for the most time they have just been there. While many former republics in Yugoslavia were able to find statehood and join the international order, there was one that has been entrapped in its history causing it to fall behind others and be recognized internationally as its neighbors. The state of Kosovo in the Balkans region of Europe now sits in a place of “what’s next” after their self-determination in 2008 led them to leave the UN interim administration they were under and declared themselves an independent state. Throughout my research, I want to explore the complexity of Kosovo and how they got to where they are today. From this process, I hope to understand more about the idea of a modern state that struggles to be globally recognized. I also am hoping to explore more behind the concepts of self-determinism.

As we start to get into the research process one of the first things have I started to inquire about was what I want to examine. I can see myself going towards the direction of examining self-determination, unrecognized states, and how Kosovo will be examined within the future. The direction I am going in feels correct, but I need a way to connect everything I want to do together more cohesively. I am also curious to if there are any other states similar to Kosovo that could provide me another opportunity to look at essentially another region of the world and see how the concepts about the conception about the constitution of a state applies to them.

The one puzzle I am dealing with is understanding the complexity of the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia. My interest in Kosovo came from all primarily self-taught information I took upon myself as I literally have never had it taught to me in a formal environment. One of the biggest things I would like to do is find more ways to understand this relationship that deals a lot with the order of Kosovo for the future internationally.

One source of information that sparks my interest is the Republic of Kosovo Ministry of Foreign Affairs website which states that “International recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Kosovo will remain a priority to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” (). This source has always intrigued my interest as I believe it defines the interests of the government of Kosovo for what they want in the future.

 

“International Recognitions Of The Republic Of Kosovo – Foreign Policy.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Republic of Kosovo. Accessed August 31, 2018. http://www.mfaks.net/?page=2,224.