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
Hi Griffin,
I think you should try and find varied sources that could be put into a larger variety of baskets. You’re definitely off to a great start, Griffin, But, maybe investigate new sources on a different database or possibly look at a greater combination of interpretivsit or neopositivist research articles. Otherwise, I find your topic very interesting! investigating the Birth of statehood is fascinating. You’re off to a great start!
Griffin — you’ve found two articles here that both provide good information for your project. With regard to your particular sources, I would suggest that the Vidmar piece is not really an interpretivist account (legal scholars are almost all (neo)-positivists by definition!) but rather a historically grounded discussion of how a particular concept has been understood over time. This piece is more of an extended literature review / concept formation piece rather than the explanatory scholarship (scholarship that focuses on analyzing particular cases or instances of a phenomenon) that is usually more useful for framing a project and developing a literature review. Nonetheless, the piece can certainly provide valuable background information.
The second piece is, as you note, a case study comparison. With that in mind, though, some more detail on the specific methodological elements that the article analyzes would be good. What is the DV? What key IVs are identified? What hypotheses are tested? Keep reading with an eye to these things as you use these articles as a starting point for continuing your research.
Hey Griffin,
It seems like you’re finding some decent sources for your research. I am curious, however, as to how the first article might inform your research. As Professor Boesenecker said, it’s a bit more in line with the positivist side of things. Are you still considering it as some sort of methodological model, or are you more in the interpretivist camp? I would also echo lf5995a’s suggestion of searching in different databases, trying to find sources that disagree with one another so as to better define where the conversation is on your topic. You might also be able to find some more interesting cases to examine outside of Europe. Perhaps Palestine, Taiwan, and Panama?
Best of luck to you!