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
Tina Maglakelidze says
Dear Griffin,
Tina Maglakelidze says
Hey Griffin,
Let me start off by saying that I think the interplay between international law and state behavior is an area that warrants more and more research. I also think that you zooming out from the specific case of Kosovo to the broader idea of state recognition under international law was a wise move at this stage in our research. The first “hat” that we put on will be a Neo-positivist one. I wonder if you can do a Large-N statistical analysis of the conditions under which a substantial number of states become recognized. You might consider drafting a list of all recognized states and all states seeking recognition and then use a software to randomly sample them. Recognition or the lack of it could act as your dependent variable. It might be a good idea to start thinking of possible independent variables and controls. One could be the most prominent legal doctrine present at the time of recognition, was it the constitutive theory or the declaratory one? Maybe consider mapping out two parallel timelines of how international law has evolved on the issue of state sovereignty and a number of separate timelines for state recognition processes from all over the globe. I think you have an interesting puzzle here to explore, I just think that, moving forward, you should think of different independent variables as well.
Good Luck!
gd6505a says
Thank you for the advice, Tina! I have mostly shied away from large-N approaches because I had trouble seeing where it would fit into my puzzle. But this is a great suggestion, and I will take it into account when doing my first research design sketch.
Dr. Boesenecker says
Overall a fine job here, Griffin–keep reading and researching! I wonder if you can’t make the general question itself — “what explains the shift in criteria that has shifted to more emphasis of the constitutive theory…?” — a bit more precise by highlighting exactly what has shifted in this regard. How could you perhaps reframe the question as one that more clearly points to a number of cases (“What explains variation in…?”). Similarly, the case-specific question should point more directly to particular cases for analysis/comparison, drawing on the ideas of control and variation from Baglione. What would this more case-specific question look like?