Sovereign state

A sovereign state is a state that has the supreme sovereignty or ultimate authority over a territory.[1] It is
commonly understood that a sovereign state is independent.[2] When referring to a specific polity, the
term "country" may also refer to a constituent country, or a dependent territory.[3][4][5]

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.[6] 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.[7][8]

History
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
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.[9][10] 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".[11] 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."[12] 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".[13]

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.[14][15] The right
of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of
their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.[16][17][18]

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.[19]

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]."[20]

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".[21][22]

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.[22]

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.[23] 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.[24] 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."[25] 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.[23]

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.[26] 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.[27]

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.[26]

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.[28]

Recognition or non-recognition by other states can override declarative theory criteria in cases such as
Kosovo and Somaliland.[29]

Declarative theory
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.[30]
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 territories sufficient for
statehood. The term "permanent population" defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the
territory permanently and is capable of supporting the superstructure of the State, though there is no
requirement for a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control
over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as the "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.[31]

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.[32]

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.[33]

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.[29]

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.[23][34]

State recognition
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and
constitutive approaches.[35] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.[36]
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".[37]

In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus.[38]
International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[39] and the recognition of a
country is a political issue.[40] 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".[41] 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".[42][43][44] 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".[45] 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".[46] 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.[47] 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

Most sovereign states are both de jure and de facto
(i.e., they exist both according to law and in
practice).[48] 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.[49] 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 De facto map of control of the world, May 2019
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.[50][51][52][53]

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.[54]

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.[55] 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.[56] 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,[57] 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).[58]

Relationship between state and government

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,[59] 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.[60] States are non-physical juridical entities, not organisations
of any kind.[61] However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for
example by treaty.[60]

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.[62] Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued
that their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.[63] 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,[64] especially, whether or not the state, is
an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,[65] actually exists.

The state as "quasi-abstract"

It has been argued that one potential reason why the existence of states has been controversial is that
states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract.[66]
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.[66]

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.[67]

The state as "spiritual entity"

Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual,[68] or "mystical entity"[68] with
its own being, distinct from the members of the state.[68] The German Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel
(1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory.[68] The Hegelian definition of the state is
"the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth".[69]

Trends in the number of states

Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged.[70]
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.[71][72] 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.[73]

See also

Politics portal

World portal

Non-interventionism
List of sovereign states
 Associated state
Dependent territory
Exclusive mandate
Failed state
Federated state
List of former sovereign states
List of sovereign states (by formation date)
List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent
List of states with limited recognition
List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies
Nation-building
Non-Aligned Movement
Rule according to higher law
Stateless society
Unitary state
Quasi-state
Princely state
Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a rare example of a contemporary sovereign, non-state
entity
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

References

Citations
1. Philpott, Daniel (1995). "Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History". Journal of
International Affairs. 48 (2): 353–368. JSTOR 24357595 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24357
595).
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" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign), The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20151007000128/http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/so
vereign) 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 ... [ attrib. ] (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 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Foxford
journals.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 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0260210500118637).
S2CID 145809847 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145809847).
4. "Countries Not in the United Nations 2024" (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-ranki
ngs/countries-not-in-the-un). World Population by Country 2024 (Live). 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 (https://do
i.org/10.1093%2Facprof%3Aoso%2F9780199248391.003.0003). ISBN 978-0-19-924839-1.
6. See the following:
Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law (https://archive.org/details/internationall
aw00shaw_380). Cambridge University Press. p. 178 (https://archive.org/details/internati
onallaw00shaw_380/page/n320). 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" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00108367211007876). Cooperation and
Conflict. 57 (2): 133–151. doi:10.1177/00108367211007876 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001
08367211007876).
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 (https://doi.org/10.1163%2F1573384X-20180406).
JSTOR 26626701 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/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 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11196-013-9333-x). S2CID 150817547 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID: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 [p. 94].
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" (http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41
_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4). Charter of the Organization
of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20120409062542/http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the_O
rganization_of_American_States.htm#ch4) from the original on 9 April 2012. Retrieved
21 November 2010.
15. "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/en
glish/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf) (PDF). UN Treaty Organization. 1949. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20131017051712/http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/dra
ft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf) (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" " (https://web.archive.org/web/20110218220818/http://www2.ohchr.o
rg/english/law/resources.htm). United Nations. Archived from the original (http://www2.ohch
r.org/english/law/resources.htm) 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 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25722375).
18. "OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pr
ofessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx). www.ohchr.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20181204121546/https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf) (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?" (https://www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/127716/). 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 (https://doi.org/10.11
11%2Fj.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 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO97805114941
85). 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 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F3-540-27883-4). 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 [1] (https://books.google.com/books?id=jrTsNTzcY7EC&pg=PA47)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113127/https://books.google.com/books?id
=jrTsNTzcY7EC&lpg=PA47&client&pg=PA47) 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 [2] (https://books.google.com/
books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&dq=t&pg=PA136) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2022111
4113129/https://books.google.com/books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&lpg=PA136&ots=ARGGNDm7
G-&dq=t&pg=PA136) 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine
26. Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=Kr0sOuIx8q8C). Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN 978-1-85941-050-9.
27. Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Jh6
gjr-2ho8C&dq=Final+Act+of+the+Congress+of+Vienna&pg=PA128).
28. Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA135). 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" (https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-importance-of-legal-criteria-for-stateh
ood-a-response-to-jure-vidmar/). EJIL: Talk!.
30. Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419). Cambridge University Press. p. 419.
ISBN 9781107609433. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130620/https://book
s.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419) 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"
(https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=641117074119116071091029095088081024
0160730270270750621010050810220791201021121190110961000630450530980090880
8310110403109602205902100902303609508109902608208208712506008206306711400
3111020000119012085025124069081114093080123002084107102096092069024110&E
XT=pdf). The International Lawyer. 52 (3): 400–410. Retrieved 19 May 2020 – via SSRN.
32. "Convention on Rights and Duties of States" (http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-4
0.html). www.oas.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190529173110/http://www.o
as.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html) 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 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 77 (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC&pg=PA77). ISBN 978-90-411-1409-9.
34. Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64). Cambridge University Press. p. 64.
ISBN 9781107609433. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130619/https://book
s.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64) from the original on 15 January 2023.
Retrieved 19 January 2018.
35. Shaw 2003, p. 369 (https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380/page/n511).
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 (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573) Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20180522102518/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573) 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 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
221114113130/https://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ) 14 November 2022
at the Wayback Machine p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was
apolitical.
41. ECtHR (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907) The decision of 02.07.2013.
paragraph 29
42. Abbott, Ryan (13 October 2014). "Property Spat Over Turk-|Controlled Cyprus Fails" (https://
www.courthousenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/). Courthouse
News Service. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20231021033633/https://www.courtho
usenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/) 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" (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-colum
bia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002). Justia. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20231020
134245/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002)
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" (https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/
1:2009cv01967/139002/53). Justia. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2023102103363
2/https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv019
67/139002/53) from the original on 21 October 2023.
45. ECtHR (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000) The decision of 02.09.2015.
paragraph 237.
46. The Telegraph 03.02.2017 (https://web.archive.org/web/20230424173316/https://www.telegr
aph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/criminals-fleeing-british-justice-can-no-longer-use-cyprus-safe/)
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) (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202211141131
28/https://books.google.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC) 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 (https://books.google.com/books?id=XuKnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26).
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 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facprof%3Aos
o%2F9780198268376.003.0023). ISBN 978-0-19-826837-6.
50. Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20111213214545/http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206a
rieff.pdf) (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs. 3: 60–79. Archived from the original (htt
p://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf) (PDF) on 13 December
2011. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
51. "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon" (https://foreignpolicy.com/story/cm
s.php?story_id=3903). Foreign Policy Magazine. July 2007. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20090113111413/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3903) from
the original on 13 January 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
52. "Overview of De-facto States" (http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/). Unrepresented
Nations and Peoples Organization. July 2008. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201006
03124308/http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/) from the original on 3 June 2010.
Retrieved 4 January 2010.
53. Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognises de facto Somaliland" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20180825054320/http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/150
55_mahamudsalahnur_eng.html). Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. Archived from the
original (http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/15055_mahamudsal
ahnur_eng.html) 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" (https://eurasianet.org/the-nagorno-karabakh-republic-the-life-and-d
eath-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 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ). Oxford
University Press. p. 552. ISBN 978-0-19-987491-0. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0230115130624/https://books.google.com/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ) 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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1743-8594.2006.00023.x).
S2CID 153926665 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:153926665).
57. Katzenstein, Peter J. (1987). Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a
Semisovereign State (https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBrQgAACAAJ). Temple
University Press. ISBN 978-0-87722-264-4. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2023011
5130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBrQgAACAAJ) 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 (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=XHrQtwEACAAJ). Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-1-349-58924-1. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=XHrQtwEAC
AAJ) 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 (https://ui.adsabs.har
vard.edu/abs/2013GComp...7..556R). doi:10.1111/gec3.12065 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2F
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 (https://doi.org/10.3
233%2FAO-2010-0077).
62. Fazal, Tanisha M. (2004). "State Death in the International System". International
Organization. 58 (2): 311–344. doi:10.1017/S0020818304582048 (https://doi.org/10.1017%
2FS0020818304582048) (inactive 1 November 2024). JSTOR 3877860 (https://www.jstor.or
g/stable/3877860).
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" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180219023941/http://www.edwardhe
ath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf) (PDF). The Journal of
Military Geography. 1: 17–29. Archived from the original (http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf) (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 (https://doi.org/
10.1177%2F1354066196002004002). S2CID 145248100 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:145248100). (full text (https://archive.org/stream/RingmarOntologicalStatusOfTheSt
ate/RingmarOntologicalStatusOfTheState_djvu.txt))
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" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213829/https://dl.dropboxuserconte
nt.com/u/46395762/My%20Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf) (PDF).
Geopolitics. 19 (3): 461–489. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027 (https://doi.org/10.1080%
2F14650045.2014.913027). S2CID 67844415 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:67
844415). Archived from the original (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46395762/My%20
Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf) (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
[New York: Wiley Book Co., 1934]); see also Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (2012) [1899].
The Philosophy of History (https://books.google.com/books?id=bniImd3dIMkC). Courier
Corporation. p. 39 (https://books.google.com/books?id=bniImd3dIMkC&dq=%22divine+ide
a%22&pg=PA39). ISBN 978-0-486-11900-7.
70. "The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy" (https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook
-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents). SAGE Publications. pp. 294–295. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20161117145048/https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handbook
-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents) 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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fmisr.12099).
72. "The State of Secession in International Politics" (http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/the-state-of
-secession-in-international-politics/). E-International Relations. 23 September 2016.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161117064713/http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/the-
state-of-secession-in-international-politics/) from the original on 17 November 2016.
Retrieved 16 November 2016.
73. Alesina, Alberto; Spolaore, Enrico (7 November 2003). The Size of Nations (https://mitpress.
mit.edu/books/size-nations). MIT Press. ISBN 9780262012041. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20161117063734/https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations) from the original on
17 November 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

Sources
Schmandt, Henry J.; Steinbicker, Paul G. (1956) [1954]. Fundamentals of Government (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ) (2nd printing ed.). Bruce Publishing
Company. OL 43450205M (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL43450205M). Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ)
from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 17 November 2017.

Further reading
Angie, Antony (26 April 2007). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law
(https://books.google.com/books?id=VJuHlZ1_fbEC). Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-82892-5.
Butcher, Charles R.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (17 January 2020). "States and their international
relations since 1816: introducing version 2 of the International System(s) Dataset (ISD)" (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1080%2F03050629.2020.1707199). International Interactions. 46 (2): 291–
308. doi:10.1080/03050629.2020.1707199 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F03050629.2020.170
7199).
Chen, Ti-chiang. The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in
Great Britain and the United States. London, 1951.
Crawford, James. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press,
2005. ISBN 0-19-825402-4, pp. 15–24.
Dieter Grimm (21 April 2015). Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal
Concept (https://books.google.com/books?id=PbXoBgAAQBAJ). Columbia University Press.
ISBN 978-0-231-53930-2.
Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107609433.
 Muir, Richard (1981). Modern Political Geography (https://books.google.com/books?id=GlBd
DwAAQBAJ) (Second ed.). Macmillan International Higher Education.
ISBN 9781349860760.
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 [2nd
printing, 1956]). 507 pgs. 23 cm. LOC classification: JA66 .S35 Fundamentals of
government (https://lccn.loc.gov/54010666)

External links
A Brief Primer on International Law (http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.
htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161110081904/http://www.burneylawfirm.com/
international_law_primer.htm) 10 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine With cases and
commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
What constitutes the sovereign state? (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?t
ype=1&fid=6305536&jid=RIS&volumeId=22&issueId=04&aid=6305528&bodyId=&members
hipNumber=&societyETOCSession=) by Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck
Links to the best political risk websites, ipoliticalrisk.com (http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120801184630/http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com/) 1
August 2012 at the Wayback Machine information on tracking, evaluating and managing
sovereign risk for trade and permanent investment
Legal opinion by the Negotiations Support Unit in the Palestinian Authority on transitional
sovereignty (http://thepalestinepapers.com/files/1402.PDF) (PDF)
Barclay, Thomas (1911). "State" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia
_Britannica/State). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). pp. 799–801.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_state&oldid=1268351627"