https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8WSN6_nEqw
Research Portfolio Post #9: Mentor Meeting
Overall, regarding my progress with my project there has been a lot of variation within the idea of what I am researching from where I began this semester. With recognition, I initially started examining Kosovo directly and examining state system theory in itself as focusing on the declaratory and constitutive theory. But as the semester has progressed it became more focused on how states choose to give or withhold recognition. To where I am today with my research there is a clear line in how from gaining deeper understandings on the topic I have progressed to where I am now. Working with my mentor has given me a broader scope on understanding recognition and analyzing puzzles like mine. There has also been a lot of perspectives when it comes to the methodology that I will be using for 306. While I will be explicitly using interpretivism for my final narrative paper as the methodology of choice, there is still quite an opening to use a small-N approach. As working up to my final narrative paper as of now, I feel comfortable in being able to add my voice to research on how powerful actors construct the identity of recognition.
For looking ahead to 306, I think the most substantial thing I could do it to keep up on readings and become better acquainted with primary resources for researching. For keeping up on the readings, this involves being aware of current events going on with recognition and being more familiar with the theory that drives the conversation. Due to being interested in looking at official discourse, I am hoping over the break to learn better how to use sources that give me access to speeches from Russian officials and US officials. Even the smaller stuff like quotes from Ambassadors and diplomats are things I need to understand how to obtain easier. I also need to emphasize understanding how Russia constructed recognition as a tool before the independence of Kosovo was declared. From what my research has led to I can comprehend what happens after. As seeing what happened before will help understand the construction of recognition.
Research Portfolio Post #8: Qualitative Data Sources for Interpretivist Research
I am proposing to research the effects of state recognition practices after the International Court of Justice opinion on the independence of Kosovo because I want to find out the impact this had on the use of self-determination to understand the different ways that states use recognition practices.[1]
Overall, the general conclusion on the ruling from the ICJ is that the declaration of independence from Kosovo was legal.[2] But, the ICJ never states anything on if Kosovo was a legal state under international law. The wording through the ruling is incredibly precise trying to balance this very tight line of making sure that they are getting their point across. The ruling left many questions to be answered since Kosovo’s independence came off the idea of self-determination. This is essentially the idea that those should be able to be ruled by who they want to be. This data source helps me understand the basics of the conversation around the court ruling and what the possible effects of it may be. The text represents the confusion that came into the initial conversation about the independence of Kosovo. But it ultimately helped ground Kosovo somewhat in being able to exist by itself due to their legal independence.
In the text, one of the most interesting aspects is analyzing the statements said during the public hearing part of the case. In this part, numerous states voiced their opposition or approval of the independence set forth by Kosovo. The wording of states is incredibly important as it helps to understand the ideas of how states view self-determination movements. States from all over the world helped set ground on what they believed was legal secession movements and some of the standards for being able to declare independence.
This text is connected to many other texts, practices, and discourses as it played a large role in influencing conversation around self-determination and recognition after it was released. A term that popped up was “Kosovo Precedent,” and it led to an idea of dangerous secessionist movements happening due to Kosovo having a legal declaration of independence based off self-determination.[3] Comprehending the effect that this court ruling has on the state system is very valuable into understanding the evolution of self-determination theory and state recognition practices.
[1] “Latest Developments, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion), International Court of Justice.” n.d. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/141.
[2] Bilefsky, Dan. 2010. “World Court Rules Kosovo Declaration Was Legal.” The New York Times, July 22, 2010, sec. Europe. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/world/europe/23kosovo.html.
[3] “Putin Calls Kosovo Independence ‘Terrible Precedent.’” n.d. Accessed November 11, 2018. https://www.smh.com.au/world/putin-calls-Kosovo-independence-terrible-precedent-20080223-gds2d5.html
Research Portfolio Post #7: Qualitative Data Sources
For my small-n research question, I am asking what explains the legal implications of state recognition for those who are not internationally recognized. Using the constitutive theory, I plan on looking at the shift in criteria for needing recognition to be considered a state in the international system. My dependent variable would be the number of states that recognize a state that is unrecognized (ex. Kosovo, Taiwan). The issue with using these types of states is that there is not too much information from databases that will usually include these states when conducting their research. I want to use a source such as the Fragile States index, but they do not research Kosovo or Taiwan.[1] That is why I am planning to use the Fragile States Index but will have to use their indicators but composite my score for their indicators. This will take extra time as some of their sources for indicators may not have statistics on the cases that I think are the best fit for my research. These cases would be most likely as they represent some of the most influential and most prominently known ideas of states that do not have full recognition from other states internationally.[2]
My dependent variable focuses on looking at the amount of recognition a state has from others and from there looking at its relative stability and performance. Going into this dependent variable, the information I find can sometimes vary on things like who formally recognizes a state and who does not. As of recently especially in cases of Taiwan where there have been cases of checkbook diplomacy some states will rescind recognition of states and databases may not capture that. I am planning on trying to do a deep dive into finding accurate sources that show what states recognize Kosovo or Taiwan.[3] Most research that I have found on Kosovo analyzed the aspects of it being partially unrecognized but do not examine the specific relationship of if elements of the economy increase with more diplomatic ties from recognition.
[1] “Fragile States Index | The Fund for Peace.” n.d. Accessed October 29, 2018. http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/
[2] “When Good Fences Make Bad Neighbors Fixed Borders, State Weakness, and International Conflict on JSTOR.” n.d. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137510?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
[3] [3]“When Good Fences Make Bad Neighbors Fixed Borders, State Weakness, and International Conflict on JSTOR.” n.d. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137510?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.
Research Portfolio Post #6: Quantitative Data Sources
During the shift to using a large-n approach to research, I found complications in finding data sets to help research the question I was asking. My question shifted to ask what explains the trend in needing recognition to be considered a state. Through researching various databases, I was able to find a few sources that would help me be able to unpack my question better. I decided to use years as a state system member as my dependent variable to help explain the stability of the state. The idea behind this was to see if there was any correlation in the stability of a state compared to how long they have been considered a member of the state system.
The first dataset I located is from the Correlates of War Project database that focuses on State System Membership.[1] The data measures from 1816 year-by-year of what states have been included as part of the state system. A state is considered part of the state system before 1920 if they have a population greater than 500,000 and have diplomatic missions at or above rank with Britain and England. Post-1920 they must be a member of the League of Nations or UN or have a population of more than 500,000 and have diplomatic missions from two major powers. This can be beneficial especially when seeing large amounts of new states being entered such as in post-World War II and collapse of the Soviet Union. The limitations are that the data can be somewhat limited in the considerations of the state system as the data could be differentiated heavily if the conditions were ever so slightly tweaked.
Another resource I wanted to use was the Fragile State Index Report of 2016.[2] This report uses different analytics to a sum of scores from twelve separate indicators that can show a state’s strengths and weakness. They are rated on a scale of 1 to 10 and are divided into social, economic, and political categories. The data in 2016 covers 176 states, and I choose the 2016 report specifically because that is when the date ended for the Correlates of War Project database. The limitations of this source are that it focuses entirely on almost the negative aspects of state-building. Even the title implies that almost all states are fragile, it is limited including methods of state building and time period.
[1] “State System Membership (V2016) — Correlates of War.” n.d. Folder. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://www.correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/state-system-membership.
[2] Fragile States Index 2016 – Annual Report | Fragile States Index.” n.d. Accessed October 15, 2018. http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/2016/06/27/fragile-states-index-2016-annual-report/.
Research Portfolio Post #5: Research Topic Post
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
Research Portfolio Post #4: Article Comparison
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
Research Portfolio Post #3: Philosophical Wagers
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.
- Abbott, Andrew Delano. Methods of Discovery Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. 239
- Boesenecker, Aaron. Asking Questions in Different Ways. Lecturelet, American University, Washington D.C, 2018
Research Portfolio Post #2
On the tenth of September, I was able to meet with Professor Stewart for the first time for around fifteenth minutes. Overall, we discussed the beginning stages of my research and where to start off with when formulating a question initially. I was very fortunate for Professor Stewart to have previously e-mailed me some valuable articles to help express ideas. In the next few weeks, I am hoping to be able to read these in-depth to build a foundation of scholarly articles. One of the initial topics we discussed was about broadening my ideas of what to be asking questions about. Instead as of now I should focus more on broader ideas than concentrating solely on Kosovo. This is where we discussed the intersectionality of self-determination and unrecognized states. Professor Stewart provided some examples, and I began to formulate a little more about where my research could go. It felt like I would be looking closer at questions surrounding dealing with how states get to this unrecognized place and surrounding factors on the future of their status. This was an essential part for me as it helped me feel a sense of comfortability in what I would be looking deeper into. We both agreed that I should begin looking at states that fall into the gray area of being recognized by at least one other state to those recognized by almost all of the international community. Finishing this part of the discussion Professor Stewart also discussed antique colonial projects and how recognition of states would work historically before the 21st century. Being able to read up on this would be valuable in gaining a broader perspective of where to formulate my question.
Going from the discussion with Professor Stewart I have no initial questions or concerns that arise immediately. The meeting helped confirm my interest in the topic and know where to go next regarding my research. As of now for next steps, I need to read up more on academic articles focusing on the concepts of self-determination, unrecognized states, and specific cases of unrecognized states. I am thinking of finding time weekly to specifically think about my “puzzle” and where I can add to this conversation. If anything, I must keep my mind open to new ideas and ways to ask my question.
Research Portfolio Post #1: Research Interests
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.