RECOGNITION in international law refers to how a state or government acknowledges

the existence of a new state, government, or authority. It is a way for countries to decide if they
will treat this new entity as legitimate, both in international affairs and within their own legal
systems.

For example, when a new state is created, or a government is established through means outside
of the declared constitution (such as through a revolution or coup), other countries must decide
whether to recognize this new state or government. This recognition comes with legal
consequences, such as the rights and duties that the recognized state would enjoy in the
recognizing country’s courts.

There are two key levels of recognition:

International Recognition: This affects how a recognized state or government interacts with
others on the global stage. For instance, recognized states can enter into treaties, establish
diplomatic relations, and be subject to international law.

Example 1: Recognition of South Sudan (2011)

 Context: South Sudan became an independent state in 2011 after a referendum where the
population voted for independence from Sudan.
 Recognition: Many countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and
members of the United Nations, recognized South Sudan as a sovereign state. This
recognition allowed South Sudan to join the UN and establish diplomatic relations with
other countries.
 Effect: As a recognized state in the international community, South Sudan could
participate in international treaties, receive foreign aid, and exercise its rights under
international law.

Example 2: Recognition of the People's Republic of China (PRC) (1971)

 Context: For a long time, the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan held the seat in the
United Nations, despite the People's Republic of China (PRC) controlling mainland
China.
 Recognition: In 1971, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, which
recognized the PRC as "the only legitimate representative of China" in the UN and
removed the ROC from the organization. Many countries also shifted diplomatic
recognition from the ROC to the PRC.
 Effect: The PRC, as the internationally recognized government, could participate in
international organizations and treaties, while the ROC lost its seat and status in the UN.

Municipal Law Recognition: Within a country’s legal system, recognition of a state can allow
that entity to claim privileges, such as immunity from lawsuits, that would not apply to non-
recognized entities.

Example 1: Palestine and Diplomatic Immunity in the United States

  Context: The United States does not officially recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
As a result, in U.S. courts, the Palestinian Authority (PA), which governs parts of the
West Bank and Gaza, is not treated as a foreign state entitled to sovereign immunity.
 Effect: This means that individuals can sue the PA in U.S. courts for actions that they
would not be able to sue a recognized foreign government for, as recognized
governments typically enjoy legal protections under the principle of state immunity.

Example 2: Taiwan and Diplomatic Privileges in the United Kingdom

 Context: While the UK does not officially recognize Taiwan as a separate state from
China, it has allowed Taiwan to maintain an office in London that functions like an
embassy.
 Effect: This office does not have the same legal status as an embassy of a recognized
state. Taiwanese diplomats do not enjoy the full diplomatic immunity and privileges that
diplomats from recognized states would have in UK courts. However, the office can still
operate in a limited diplomatic capacity under UK law.

Recognition is heavily influenced by political considerations, meaning that decisions are not
based purely on legal factors. Often, countries choose to recognize new entities based on their
own political interests rather than strict legal principles.

However, it’s not simply about acknowledging facts—like who controls a country—but also
involves political decisions about whether the recognizing state wants the legal consequences
that come with recognition.

For example, the U.S. didn’t recognize China’s government (People's Republic of China) for
many years, even though China clearly controlled its territory. The U.S. made this choice not
because they didn’t believe China was in control but because they didn’t want the legal
implications (like diplomatic relations) that come with recognition.

Recognition can take different forms. A state could be recognized as a full sovereign state, or just
as a local authority within a territory, or even as a subordinate government to another state.
Sometimes, recognition is symbolic and doesn’t lead to legal effects—for instance, recognizing a
group as the "representative of the people" without granting them the status of a state.

Once a state grants recognition, legal consequences follow, meaning the recognizing state
accepts the new situation and its obligations under international law toward the recognized
entity. Recognition plays a role in the broader international legal process, but it also affects how
states interact bilaterally and within their own domestic legal systems.

RECOGNITION OF STATES

There are two main theories that explain how recognition works:

1. Constitutive Theory:
  This theory says that a new state only becomes a "real" state and gets legal recognition when
other countries recognize it. So, even if a region declares independence, it isn't considered a
state under international law until other countries acknowledge it.
 Downside: If a state isn’t recognized, it technically isn’t bound by international laws, like the
rules against war or aggression, which could cause problems.
 Issue of partial recognition: Sometimes, a new state might be recognized by some countries but
not others. For instance, some countries might recognize a new government, while others
refuse. This leads to confusion about whether the new state has full legal status internationally.

2. Declaratory Theory:

 In contrast, the declaratory theory argues that a state becomes a legitimate entity in
international law as soon as it meets certain conditions, like having a permanent population,
defined territory, government, and the ability to engage in foreign relations. Recognition by
other countries isn’t what creates the state, but rather, recognition is just a way for other
countries to acknowledge an already existing reality.
 This view suggests that recognition doesn’t grant a state its status—it simply confirms it.
 For example, when Poland was recognized in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, the
treaty only confirmed something that already existed—it didn’t create Poland as a state,
because Poland had declared independence and was functioning as a state before the treaty.
 During the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, the Arbitration Commission stated
that a state’s existence is a question of fact. This means that whether a state exists
depends on its actual situation, like its ability to govern, not on whether other states
recognize it.
  However, recognition still matters because it helps other states interact with the new
entity. Even though recognition doesn’t create the state, it still has practical importance
in establishing the state’s position in the international community.

Middle Ground (Practical Approach):

 In practice, international law often finds a balance between these two theories. Recognition by
other countries serves as an acknowledgment that the new state has met the requirements of
international law to be called a state. However, politics play a huge role in recognition.
 For example, during discussions about Israel in 1948, the U.S. stated that no other country had
the right to question its decision to recognize a state. The decision to recognize can often be
based on political alliances or strategic interests, rather than purely legal grounds.

Example of Political Recognition:

 The United Kingdom tends to recognize a new state once it feels the state has a stable
government that’s likely to last and has control over its territory. This suggests that recognition
is more about accepting a new political reality rather than creating legal rights and duties.

Conclusion:

 While the constitutive theory says recognition is what makes a state "real," the declaratory
theory is generally seen as more practical. It suggests that a state exists once it meets certain
 legal criteria, regardless of recognition. Countries may choose not to recognize a state for
political reasons, but that doesn’t mean the state lacks legal responsibilities, like following
international rules. For instance, even though some Arab states didn’t recognize Israel in the
past, they didn’t argue that Israel was free from international law
 A state can exist even if it's not recognized by other countries. Recognition doesn’t create a
state—it just acknowledges that a state already exists.
 Declaratory theory focuses on the facts of statehood, while constitutive theory emphasizes the
importance of being recognized by other states.

Lauterpacht’s Adaptation of Constitutive Theory:

 Hersch Lauterpacht, a significant legal scholar, proposed that if a new entity meets the criteria
for statehood under international law, existing states have a duty to grant recognition. He
argued that:
o Since there is no central authority to determine statehood, it is up to states to recognize
entities that meet the criteria.
o This view blends both declaratory and constitutive aspects: it recognizes that an entity
exists as a state (declaratory) while also asserting that the act of recognition gives it
rights and obligations (constitutive).

Challenges with Lauterpacht’s Theory:

 While Lauterpacht's theory tries to bridge the gap between recognizing the reality of new states
and adhering to international law, it overlooks the political dynamics involved in recognition.
 Recognition can serve as a political tool, indicating approval or disapproval of a particular
government or regime.
 The question arises: if there’s a duty to recognize a state, can that state demand recognition
from others? This could lead to scenarios where a non-state entity tries to enforce rights against
states that refuse to recognize it.
 State Practice: Despite Lauterpacht's theory, most states do not believe they are legally obliged
to recognize every entity that claims statehood. They exercise discretion in their recognition
decisions.

United Kingdom's Criteria:

 The UK government stated that it generally recognizes a state if it has:

o A defined territory and population.
o An effective government capable of controlling that territory.
o Independence in foreign relations.
 The UK also considers other factors, including resolutions from the United Nations, which can
influence its decision on recognition.

Emerging Factors in Recognition:

 Human Rights Considerations: Recent practices indicate that states may also take into account
human rights issues and other relevant factors when deciding whether to recognize a new state.
  European Community Guidelines: In December 1991, the European Community adopted
guidelines for recognizing new states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which
included:

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, significant political changes occurred in Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union, leading to the emergence of several new states. As
communist regimes fell, republics within the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia sought
independence. The recognition of these new states raised critical questions about their
legitimacy and the criteria for their acceptance into the international community.

In response to these developments, on December 16, 1991, the European Community

(EC) adopted guidelines for recognizing new states, especially in Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union. These guidelines aimed to provide a framework that would ensure
that new states adhered to principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, as
laid out in key international agreements.

o Respect for International Principles: New states must uphold the UN Charter,
which emphasizes the importance of peace, security, and the rights of individuals.
Additionally, commitments from the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of
Paris were emphasized, which call for respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
o Protection of Minorities: The guidelines stressed the need for new states to
guarantee the rights of ethnic and national groups, ensuring that minorities are not
oppressed or marginalized.
o Territorial Integrity: States were required to respect existing borders, which
could only be changed through peaceful means and mutual agreement. This
principle was especially significant given the historical context of ethnic conflicts
and territorial disputes in the region.
o Commitments to Disarmament: New states needed to accept commitments
related to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation to promote regional security
and stability.
o Peaceful Dispute Resolution: The guidelines mandated that all disputes
regarding state succession and regional issues be resolved amicably, including
through arbitration if necessary

Conclusion:

The process of state recognition is complex and influenced by various legal, political, and
humanitarian factors. While some legal theories suggest a duty to recognize, in practice, states
retain significant discretion. The criteria for recognition can vary widely based on political
contexts, historical relationships, and evolving international norms, such as respect for human
rights and territorial integrity.

On the same day the guidelines were adopted, the EC issued a declaration regarding the
Yugoslav republics. This declaration outlined conditions under which these republics could be
recognized as independent. They needed to express a desire for independence and adhere to the
commitments laid out in the guidelines. This was particularly relevant for regions experiencing
ethnic tensions and conflict, as seen in the Yugoslav Wars.

The situation escalated in the late 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo War (1998-1999).
Following a period of international administration authorized by UN Security Council
Resolution 1244, Kosovo declared independence on February 17, 2008. This declaration was
influenced by a proposal from Martti Ahtisaari, which called for Kosovo's independence under
international supervision. However, Serbia rejected this proposal, viewing Kosovo as part of its
sovereign territory.

The international response to Kosovo's declaration of independence was mixed. Countries such
as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and a majority of EU member states
recognized Kosovo shortly after its declaration. They saw this recognition as a step towards
stability and democracy in the Balkans. Conversely, countries like Russia, Serbia, Spain, and
Greece opposed recognition, citing concerns over territorial integrity and the precedent it set for
other separatist movements.

This division continues to impact Kosovo's quest for full UN membership, as countries that
oppose its recognition, particularly Russia, wield significant influence and have the power to
veto such a move.

In summary, the recognition of new states, particularly in the context of the breakup of
Yugoslavia and the situation in Kosovo, illustrates the complex interplay of international law,
political considerations, and historical grievances. These events highlight the challenges new
states face in gaining acceptance and the significance of upholding international principles in the
process of recognition.

Historical Background

1. Ethnic Composition of Kosovo:

o Kosovo is a region in the Balkans that has been home to a diverse population, primarily
consisting of ethnic Albanians and Serbs. Historically, Kosovo is significant to both
groups: it is seen as the cradle of Serbian identity, while ethnic Albanians have viewed it
as their homeland.

2. Yugoslav Era:
o After World War II, Kosovo became an autonomous province within the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. In the 1980s, rising nationalism among ethnic Albanians and the
Serbian government’s attempts to assert control led to tensions and unrest.

3. Dissolution of Yugoslavia:
o In the early 1990s, Yugoslavia began to disintegrate into separate republics. Slovenia,
Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence, leading to violent
conflicts. Serbia, under Slobodan Milošević, aimed to retain control over Kosovo and
other regions with significant Serbian populations.
The Kosovo War

4. Escalation of Conflict (1998-1999):

o Tensions escalated into armed conflict in 1998 when the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA),
composed mostly of ethnic Albanians, began to fight for independence from Serbia. The
Serbian government responded with military force, leading to widespread human rights
abuses against the Albanian population.

5. International Intervention:
o The situation prompted international concern. After failed diplomatic efforts to resolve
the conflict, NATO intervened militarily in March 1999, launching airstrikes against
Serbia to stop the humanitarian crisis. The bombing lasted for 78 days, leading to a
withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.

UN Administration

6. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999):

o Following NATO's intervention, the United Nations took control of Kosovo, establishing a
UN administration to maintain peace and order. Resolution 1244 called for the
establishment of a democratic self-governing entity in Kosovo while reaffirming the
territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which included Serbia and
Montenegro).

Path to Independence

7. Proposal for Independence:

o In 2007, UN envoy Martti Ahtisaari presented a proposal for Kosovo’s status, suggesting
supervised independence. However, Serbia rejected this proposal, insisting on its
sovereignty over the region.

8. Declaration of Independence (2008):

o On February 17, 2008, Kosovo’s Assembly declared independence from Serbia. This
move was driven by the belief that continued ties to Serbia were untenable, especially
after years of conflict and a significant ethnic Albanian majority in the region.

International Recognition and Ongoing Issues

9. Mixed International Response:

o The declaration of independence was recognized by countries including the United
States, United Kingdom, Germany, and most EU member states. However, several
countries, including Russia, Serbia, Spain, and Greece, opposed recognition, citing
concerns about international law and the precedent it might set for other separatist
movements.

10. Challenges in International Relations:

  Kosovo’s quest for full UN membership has been complicated by the divided international
response. Russia, a key ally of Serbia, has used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block
Kosovo’s admission. As a result, Kosovo operates as a partially recognized state, facing
difficulties in diplomatic relations and international organizations.

Summary

In essence, the situation in Kosovo is a complex interplay of ethnic tensions, historical

grievances, and international politics. The region’s path to independence has been marked by
conflict, international intervention, and ongoing debates about sovereignty and self-
determination. Kosovo's declaration of independence reflects its aspirations for self-governance,
while the lack of universal recognition underscores the challenges that new states face in gaining
acceptance on the global stage.

Comparison

 Legitimacy:
o De jure: Recognizes a country as legitimate.
o De facto: Recognizes that a country exists but not necessarily that it’s legitimate.
 Relationships:
o De jure: Countries with de jure recognition can have full diplomatic relations.
o De facto: Countries may trade or interact but won’t have full diplomatic ties.

Recognition vs. Cognition

1. Recognition:
o Definition: This is the formal acknowledgment by one state of another state or
government. It involves an intention to accept the new entity as having rights and
responsibilities under international law.
o Importance: Recognition allows the new entity to participate in international relations,
such as forming diplomatic ties and receiving protection under international law.

2. Cognition:
o Definition: This is simply knowing or being aware of the facts about an entity's existence
or status. For example, a state may know that a new government has been formed but
not formally recognize it.
o Difference: Cognition does not imply any intention to act upon that knowledge. Just
being aware of another state's existence doesn't mean the recognizing state is willing to
accept the legal consequences of that existence.

Legal Consequences of Recognition

 When a state recognizes another entity, it means it is willing to treat that entity as a legitimate
player in international affairs. This includes:
o Granting diplomatic privileges (like sending ambassadors).
o Allowing the recognized state to have certain protections under international law.
Timing of Recognition

 There is often a delay between the actual events that establish a new state or government and
the formal recognition by other states. This can happen for various reasons, including political
considerations or the desire to see if the new entity stabilizes.

Retroactive Effect

 Once a state recognizes another, it is usually considered that this recognition is retroactive. This
means:
o The recognized entity’s statehood is treated as effective from the date it actually
became a state (which is based on factual circumstances), not the date when it received
formal recognition.
o For instance, if a country declared independence on January 1 but wasn't recognized
until March 1, the legal status of being a state is considered to have existed since
January 1.

Summary

In summary, recognition is an important legal act that not only acknowledges the existence of a
state but also entails a willingness to accept the legal rights and responsibilities that come with
that recognition. Understanding this process is crucial for grasping how states interact and
establish formal relationships in international law.

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENTS

Recognition of governments, as distinct from the recognition of states, focuses on whether a new
ruling authority can be accepted as the legitimate government of an existing state. While
recognizing a state involves assessing if it meets criteria like having a defined territory,
population, and government, recognizing a government is about deciding if a newly formed
government has enough control and legitimacy, especially when there has been an
unconstitutional or irregular change in leadership.

Key Differences:

 Recognition of a State: Involves assessing if a new state meets the necessary criteria for
statehood, like having a defined territory and population.
 Recognition of a Government: Looks at whether a government has effectively taken
control of an already existing state, especially in cases of revolution or coup.

Recognition in Unconstitutional Changes:

If a government comes to power through unconstitutional means (such as a coup or revolution),

recognition is more complicated. States will examine whether the new government:
 1. Has effective control over the country, meaning it governs most of the population and
territory.
2. Seems stable and likely to remain in power for the foreseeable future.

For example, the UK has often used a practical approach, recognizing governments that show
effective control over a state. In 1970, a UK official stated that recognition would depend on
whether the new government controlled the country with a reasonable chance of permanence and
had the obedience of most of the population.

Political Factors:

Although practical control is important, political considerations also play a large role.
Sometimes, states choose not to recognize a government even if it meets the control criteria due
to political reasons. For example, although the UK recognized the communist government of
China and a Russian-installed government in Hungary, it refused to recognize North Vietnam
and North Korea for many years.

Example - Tinoco Case (1919):

In this case, the government of Tinoco in Costa Rica was overthrown. The new government
refused to honor agreements made by the Tinoco regime with British nationals. Chief Justice
Taft, the arbitrator, ruled that because the Tinoco government had effective control over Costa
Rica when the agreements were made, it was the valid government, even though many countries,
including the UK, had not recognized it. This case illustrates the principle that effective control
matters more than recognition by other states.

The Tinoco case (also known as the Tinoco Arbitration, 1923) is an important case in
international law that dealt with the issue of recognizing governments. This case is often cited
when discussing the principle of effective control—a key concept in the recognition of
governments. Here’s a more detailed explanation of the case and how it applies to the topic of
recognition.

Context of the Tinoco Case:

In 1917, Federico Tinoco seized power in Costa Rica through a military coup, overthrowing the
existing government. He ruled the country as a dictator for two years, from 1917 to 1919, but his
government was never officially recognized by the United Kingdom or other nations. During his
time in power, Tinoco’s government entered into certain financial agreements and granted oil
concessions to foreign nationals, including British companies and individuals.

In 1919, Tinoco's regime was overthrown, and a new government took power in Costa Rica. This
new government, which replaced Tinoco’s, repudiated (refused to honor) the obligations and
agreements made by Tinoco's government, especially the contracts and concessions made with
British nationals.

The Dispute:
The UK, on behalf of its citizens affected by this, claimed that Costa Rica was still responsible
for honoring the agreements made during the Tinoco regime, even though it had been an
unrecognized government. This led to an international arbitration between Costa Rica and the
UK.

The case was decided by Chief Justice William Howard Taft of the U.S. Supreme Court, who
acted as the sole arbitrator.

Key Legal Question:

The central legal question was whether the new government of Costa Rica was bound by the
agreements made by the unrecognized Tinoco government. Essentially, the question was:
should obligations created by a government that was not recognized internationally still be
considered valid?

Taft’s Decision:

Chief Justice Taft ruled in favor of the UK. He held that:

 Tinoco’s government was valid under international law because it had effective control
over Costa Rica during its time in power, even if other states had not recognized it.
 The new Costa Rican government could not avoid obligations just because the Tinoco
government wasn’t formally recognized by other countries, including the UK.
 Recognition by other states was not the decisive factor. What mattered was that Tinoco's
government was the de facto (in practice, actual) government of Costa Rica when the
agreements were made. Since it controlled the country, it had the authority to enter into
binding agreements.

The "Effective Control" Principle:

This ruling is important in the context of recognition of governments because it established that
recognition by foreign states is not the only factor in determining whether a government’s
actions are valid. Instead, what matters is whether the government has effective control over the
territory and people of the state.

 Even though the Tinoco government wasn’t recognized internationally, it had effective
control over Costa Rica. Therefore, its agreements were legally binding.
 The fact that the new Costa Rican government didn’t like the Tinoco government or
didn’t want to honor its agreements didn’t change the legal reality that those agreements
were valid when Tinoco was in power.

How It Applies to the Topic of Recognition:

The Tinoco case is relevant to the discussion of recognition of governments because it shows
that international recognition by other states isn’t the only factor in determining whether a
government’s actions are legitimate under international law.
  A government that has effective control (the ability to govern and enforce laws over its
territory) is treated as the de facto government, even if other countries don’t officially
recognize it.
 In the context of recognition of governments, this case highlights that political
recognition by other states is secondary to the fact that a government controls the
country. If a government is in control of a state’s territory and population, it has the
authority to make binding agreements.

Conclusion:

The Tinoco case demonstrates that a government’s legitimacy doesn’t necessarily depend on
international recognition but rather on its actual control over the state. Even if other states refuse
to recognize a government (due to political reasons or preferences), if that government
effectively governs the country, its actions are legally valid. In the context of the recognition of
governments, the case emphasizes the importance of the effective control principle, which plays
a significant role in determining whether to recognize a government and honor its agreements.

Summary:

Recognition of a government depends on both factual control (is the new government really
running the country?) and political considerations (do other countries want to recognize it?).
While effective control is important, political reasons can sometimes override this when states
decide whether to extend recognition.

Effective Control Doctrine

The most commonly accepted principle for recognizing a new government is the doctrine of
effective control. This doctrine says:

 If a new government has effective control over its country’s territory and people,
meaning it can govern and enforce laws, then it should be recognized as the legitimate
government, regardless of how it came to power.
 Even if other countries don’t recognize the new government, if it has effective control, it
is still considered the de facto (in practice) government and can make legally binding
decisions.

For example, in the Tinoco case that we discussed earlier, although Tinoco's government in
Costa Rica wasn’t recognized by some countries, it had effective control over Costa Rica. That’s
why the agreements it made were considered valid.

When Non-Recognition Happens

Sometimes, countries refuse to recognize a new government. There are generally two reasons
for this:
 1. Lack of Effective Control: The new government doesn’t actually control most of the
country or its population.
o In this case, non-recognition is strong evidence that the government isn’t
legitimate.
2. Illegitimacy or Irregular Origins: The new government may control the country, but it
came to power through unconstitutional or illegal means (for example, a military coup).
o In this case, non-recognition has less weight because the government still has
effective control, even if the way it came to power is questionable.

Declaratory vs. Constitutive Theories of Recognition

There are two main theories on how recognition works:

1. Declaratory Theory: This theory says that recognition is just a formality. A government
that controls the country is already legitimate, and recognition by other states is just a
way of acknowledging this reality. Recognition here is more symbolic or declaratory.
o Taft’s ruling in the Tinoco case aligns with this theory because even though
Tinoco’s government wasn’t recognized by other countries, it was still legitimate
due to its effective control over Costa Rica.
2. Constitutive Theory: This theory says that a government becomes legitimate only after
other countries recognize it. Without recognition, the government isn’t considered
legitimate in international law.

In most cases, the declaratory theory is preferred because the reality of control is what matters
more than formal recognition.

Tobar Doctrine and Legitimacy

The Tobar Doctrine (or doctrine of legitimacy) is another approach to recognition that is based
on how the government came to power. It suggests:

 Governments that come to power through extra-constitutional means (like a coup or

revolution) shouldn’t be recognized right away, at least not until the people accept the
new government.
 The United States applied this policy in Central America to promote stability in the
region.

Later, this idea was linked to democratic legitimacy under President Wilson’s policy.
According to this policy, the U.S. would recognize governments that were supported by their
people, but wouldn’t recognize governments that came to power without popular support.

Conclusion:

 Recognition of governments is mainly about deciding whether a government is the

legitimate authority of a state.
  The key factor is effective control—if a government is in control of its country, it is
generally recognized, even if its rise to power was controversial.
 Non-recognition can happen for different reasons, but effective control remains the most
reliable standard.
 The Tobar Doctrine adds another layer, suggesting that governments coming to power
through illegitimate means shouldn’t be recognized until they have public support.
However, this doctrine has declined in importance over time.

1. Estrada Doctrine – Automatic Recognition:

 What it is: The Estrada Doctrine was introduced by Mexico’s Foreign Secretary,
Genaro Estrada, and it advocated for automatic recognition of all governments, no
matter how they came to power (whether constitutionally or by force).
 Key Point: The doctrine was a response to the confusion and complexity of deciding
whether to recognize governments. Instead of getting involved in judging whether a
government was legitimate or not, the Estrada Doctrine said that other states should
automatically recognize governments and not interfere in internal affairs.
 Problem: This approach was criticized because it ignored political realities, especially
when there were competing governments (e.g., two groups claiming to be the
government). Automatic recognition might give the impression that the recognizing
country approves of the way the government came to power, which isn’t always the case.

2. Problem with Recognition – Approval vs. Diplomatic Relations:

 Issue of Approval: Recognizing a new government (especially one that came to power
through violence or a coup) might be seen as approval or support for that government,
even if the recognizing country just wants to keep diplomatic relations.
 U.S. and UK Response:
o In 1977, the United States said it would stop emphasizing formal recognition of
new governments. Instead, the U.S. would focus on whether it wants to have
diplomatic relations with that government. This means the U.S. can engage with
a government without appearing to approve or disapprove of it.
o In 1980, the United Kingdom followed a similar policy. The UK decided it
would no longer formally recognize governments, because doing so could imply
approval. Instead, they would deal with governments based on practical
considerations like effective control (whether the government actually controls
the country).

3. Shifting from Formal Recognition to Informal Dealings:

 What Changed:
o Instead of formally recognizing governments, countries like the UK, Australia,
Canada, and others shifted to an informal practice of deciding how to deal with
new governments based on whether they have effective control of the country.
 o This means the countries would engage with a new government if it is actually
running the country and likely to stay in power, even if they didn’t officially
"recognize" it.
o These exceptions show that while formal recognition of governments was being
avoided in most cases, countries could still choose to recognize a government
when there was clear international support or a pressing political reason to do
so.

5. Recognition vs. Diplomatic Relations:

 The passage makes a distinction between recognizing a government and maintaining

diplomatic relations. Recognition implies approval or support, while diplomatic
relations simply mean a willingness to engage with the government for practical reasons.
 The shift in policy (by the U.S., UK, and others) was to avoid the embarrassment of
appearing to support undemocratic or violent regimes, while still being able to engage
diplomatically if needed.

Why This Matters in International Law:

 Recognition is a political act that can have legal implications. Recognizing a government
can signal approval or support for how it came to power.
 By moving away from formal recognition, countries can avoid appearing to endorse a
government that may have come to power through a coup or other illegal means. Instead,
they can decide whether or not to deal with the government based on whether it is
actually running the country.

In summary:

 The Estrada Doctrine pushed for automatic recognition of all governments, regardless
of how they came to power, but was criticized for ignoring political realities.
 The U.S., UK, and other countries shifted away from formal recognition of
governments, focusing instead on whether to engage diplomatically with those in power.
 While the policy is generally to avoid formal recognition, there are exceptions when there
is strong international support for a government or when recognition serves a political
purpose (like in Côte d'Ivoire and Libya).

1. De Facto Recognition:

 What it is: When a government is recognized de facto, it means that the recognizing
country acknowledges that this government is currently in control of the country or
territory, but there is some uncertainty about its long-term stability or legitimacy.
 Why it matters: De facto recognition is like a temporary or cautious acknowledgment.
It’s a “wait and see” approach, where the recognizing country is saying: “We see that you
are in charge now, but we aren’t fully sure if you will stay in power or if we fully approve
of how you came to power.”
 For example:

o The United Kingdom recognized the Soviet government de facto in 1921,

meaning that the UK saw the Soviets were in control of Russia, but wasn’t yet
ready to fully endorse them as the permanent government. It wasn’t until 1924
that the UK recognized the Soviet government de jure (more on this later).
 Consequences of de facto recognition:
o It allows the recognizing state to protect its own interests (like the safety of its
citizens and property in that country).
o It also means that the recognizing state can deal with the de facto government on
a practical level (for example, trading goods or making agreements).
o However, de facto recognition usually does not lead to full diplomatic relations
(like exchanging ambassadors).

2. De Jure Recognition:

 What it is: De jure recognition means that the recognizing country fully accepts the new
government as the legitimate, lawful, and permanent government of the state.
 Why it matters: When a government is recognized de jure, the recognizing country no
longer has doubts about its stability or legality. It signals a stronger and more formal
endorsement of the government.

For example:

o In the case of the Soviet Union, the UK recognized the Soviet government de
jure in 1924 after it became clear that the Soviet government was going to stay in
power.
 Consequences of de jure recognition:
o Full diplomatic relations are often established, including the exchange of
ambassadors.
o The recognized government can claim property located in the recognizing
country (for example, if that government wants to reclaim assets like a building or
financial holdings in the UK, de jure recognition would allow it to do so).

3. How De Facto and De Jure Recognition Work in Practice:

Sometimes, countries will first give de facto recognition and later, if they are satisfied with the
government’s stability and legality, will upgrade to de jure recognition. This two-step process
gives countries time to assess whether the new government will last and whether it operates in a
way that aligns with their own interests..

4. Advantages of De Facto Recognition:

 It allows a country to act according to political realities without fully committing to

recognizing the new government as legitimate.
  It provides flexibility for the recognizing state to engage with the government
temporarily or cautiously while protecting its own citizens and interests.

5. Key Differences:

 De Facto Recognition: Limited, cautious acknowledgment of a government’s control.

It’s not a full endorsement. It usually doesn’t include full diplomatic relations, and the
recognized government might not be able to make legal claims (like to property) in the
recognizing country.
 De Jure Recognition: Full and formal recognition of a government as the legitimate and
permanent authority. It usually includes full diplomatic relations and allows the
recognized government to make legal claims in the recognizing country.

6. Other Considerations:

 Civil Wars: In cases of civil war, a country might recognize one side de jure (as the
legitimate government) but also recognize the other side de facto (because they are
effectively controlling part of the territory).
 Foreign Influence: A government might be denied de jure recognition if it is seen as
being under the control of a foreign power. For example, if a government is seen as a
puppet regime for another country, it might not get full recognition because it’s not seen
as truly independent.

In summary:

 De facto recognition is a provisional and cautious acknowledgment of a government’s

control, while de jure recognition is a formal and full acceptance of the government’s
legitimacy and stability. Countries use de facto recognition when they’re unsure about a
government’s permanence or legality, and later may grant de jure recognition if those
doubts are resolved.

Premature recognition refers to the situation where a state is recognized by another state or
states too early, before it fully meets the criteria for being recognized as a sovereign,
independent country. This can be a controversial decision and is sometimes seen as an
intervention in the internal affairs of the country from which the new state is trying to secede.

Let’s break this down step-by-step:

1. What is Premature Recognition?

 Recognition of a new state or government can be seen as premature if it happens before

the entity fully meets the accepted criteria for statehood.
 A state needs to have certain factual characteristics to be recognized as a country, such
as control over its territory and government, a permanent population, and the ability to
engage in international relations (often called the Montevideo criteria of statehood). If a
state is recognized before it has these characteristics, the recognition might be premature.
Why Premature Recognition is Controversial

 Premature recognition can be seen as an interference in the internal affairs of another

country. For example, recognizing a region that’s trying to secede might encourage more
conflict, or it could disrupt efforts to peacefully resolve disputes.
 Recognizing a state too early can create international tension, especially if other
countries see the new state as not fully legitimate or not ready for recognition.

. International Flexibility on Statehood:

 Sometimes, the international community might be more flexible in its recognition of a

state. For example, in the case of the breakup of Yugoslavia, the international
community, including the United Nations, was more willing to recognize the new states
(like Croatia and Bosnia) even though they didn’t fully meet the traditional criteria for
statehood. This was a special case because of the unique situation in the Balkans and the
desire to stabilize the region after Yugoslavia’s collapse.

. Overdue Recognition

 On the flip side, recognition can also be overdue, which means that even though a state
clearly meets the criteria for statehood, it hasn’t been recognized yet. This happens
because recognition is a political decision, and states are not obligated to recognize
another state. For example, a country may choose not to recognize another state due to
political reasons, even if the new state meets all the legal criteria.

Conclusion:

In the case of the Yugoslav Wars, the international community’s decision to recognize Croatia
and Bosnia-Herzegovina early on, despite their lack of control over large parts of their
territories, represents a flexible approach to state recognition. This flexibility was driven by the
urgent need to stabilize the region, respond to the humanitarian crisis, and provide a framework
for diplomatic engagement. Although the traditional criteria of statehood were relaxed, these
decisions were part of a broader international effort to prevent further violence and legitimize
the new political realities in the Balkans.

IMPLIED RECOGNITION
Implied recognition refers to situations where a country acknowledges the existence of another
state or government without formally declaring it. This type of recognition is not openly stated in
a formal manner but is inferred from the actions or behavior of the country. In contrast, express
recognition is when a country directly and clearly announces that it recognizes another state.

Here’s a simplified explanation of key points about implied recognition:

1. Actions vs. Formal Declarations

  Formal recognition happens when a country officially declares that it recognizes another state
or government.
 Implied recognition can occur when a country's actions suggest it is treating another state as
legitimate, even if it doesn’t make a public declaration. These actions can imply recognition.

2. Examples of Implied Recognition

Certain actions by a country might imply recognition of another state, even if no official
announcement is made. Here are some examples:

 Sending congratulations: If a country congratulates another nation on becoming independent, it

is typically seen as a form of recognition.
 Diplomatic relations: If two countries set up formal diplomatic relations (like embassies or
consulates), that is usually considered recognition of each other as sovereign states.
 Issuing a consular exequatur: This is a formal document that allows a representative from
another country to perform consular duties. Granting this document can imply recognition, but
not always. For example, the UK has allowed a British consul to operate in Taiwan, but the UK
does not formally recognize Taiwan’s government as a state.

3. When Implied Recognition Does Not Occur

 Informal contacts: Not all actions imply recognition. For example, informal contacts between
countries don’t necessarily imply recognition. The USA and China had informal talks in Warsaw
in the 1960s and 1970s, but the USA did not recognize Communist China at that time.
 Multilateral treaties: If two countries sign a treaty together, like the United Nations Charter, it
doesn’t automatically mean they recognize each other. For instance, Israel and some Arab
countries are both members of the United Nations, but that didn’t mean the Arab countries
recognized Israel as a state.

4. Exceptions and Declarations

Countries sometimes take steps to prevent implied recognition. For example, Arab countries
have long maintained that their interactions with Israel (such as signing agreements or attending
the same conferences) should not be seen as recognition of Israel. By stating this clearly, they
prevent their actions from being interpreted as recognition.

5. Voting in the UN:

A key action that often leads to implied recognition is voting in favor of another country’s
membership in the United Nations. The UK, for example, voted to admit Macedonia to the UN,
which implied recognition of Macedonia as a state because, under Article 4 of the UN Charter,
only states can be UN members.

6. Careful Interpretation
Implied recognition is rare and carefully considered. Countries generally prefer to keep
recognition as a formal and deliberate decision. However, in some cases, international actions
might be interpreted as implied recognition, depending on the context.

Conclusion:

Implied recognition is about interpreting a country’s actions, which may suggest that it
recognizes another state, even if it hasn’t said so outright. But countries can take steps to make
sure their actions don’t imply recognition if that’s not their intent. Understanding implied
recognition requires looking closely at the actions and context surrounding international
relations.

1. Conditional Recognition

This happens when a country agrees to recognize another state or government, but only if certain
conditions are met. In other words, it says, “We will recognize you, but only if you do certain
things.”

Examples:

 In the late 19th century, some Balkan countries were recognized as independent states, but
they had to promise to protect religious minorities within their borders.
 In 1933, the United States recognized the Soviet Union under the Litvinov Agreement. In return
for this recognition, the Soviets agreed to not interfere in US internal affairs and to settle some
financial disputes with the USA.

Key Points:

 Conditions do not cancel recognition: Once a country is recognized, even if the conditions are
broken later, the recognition still holds. Breaking the conditions may cause political problems or
be seen as a breach of international law, but it doesn’t undo the recognition.
 Recognition remains valid unless there is a specific agreement between the parties stating
otherwise.

2. Collective Recognition

This refers to the idea of countries recognizing a new state together, through an international
body or group, rather than each country doing it individually.

Example:

 The idea of collective recognition was discussed when the League of Nations (after World War I)
and the United Nations (after World War II) were created. However, the idea never fully took
off.
Key Points:

 Countries have preferred to keep control of recognition as a national decision, meaning each
country chooses on its own whether to recognize another state or government. They don’t want
international organizations (like the UN) to make that decision for them.
 Even if a country is a member of the United Nations, other UN members can still choose not to
recognize that country. This means UN membership is strong evidence of statehood, but it does
not force other countries to recognize the state.

What is Withdrawal of Recognition?

Withdrawal of recognition refers to the act of a state deciding to no longer recognize another
state or government. This can happen under specific circumstances, and there are two main types
of recognition involved: de facto and de jure.

How Withdrawal Happens

 Direct Withdrawal: A state might explicitly state that it no longer recognizes another
state or government. For example, when the United States recognized the People’s
Republic of China in 1979, it withdrew recognition from the Republic of China
(Taiwan). The U.S. declared that, from a formal relations standpoint, Taiwan’s
government no longer existed.
 Implied Withdrawal: Sometimes, withdrawal of recognition does not need to be
formally stated. If a government collapses or is overthrown, it’s assumed that the
previous government is no longer recognized.
 Diplomatic Relations: A common way to show disapproval of a government is to break
diplomatic relations. For instance, if a country does not like how another country is
behaving, it might decide to cut off diplomatic ties. This is different from withdrawing
recognition because it doesn’t have the same legal implications. For example, the UK and
the USSR severed diplomatic ties in 1927, but this didn't mean the UK officially
withdrew recognition of the USSR.

3. Complexity of Withdrawal

The process of withdrawing recognition can be complex and is often driven by political
interests rather than just legal considerations. A state may decide to withdraw recognition based
on its perception of changing political situations or in response to specific actions taken by the
recognized government.

Summary

 Recognition can be withdrawn based on changes in the situation, particularly in cases of de

facto recognition.
 De jure recognition is more permanent and harder to withdraw.
 Withdrawal can be either explicit or implied, and breaking diplomatic relations is not the same
as withdrawing recognition.
  Ultimately, withdrawal of recognition is a political decision influenced by the state’s interests
and perceptions of legitimacy.

Key Concepts of Non-Recognition

1. Definition of Non-Recognition: Non-recognition occurs when a state chooses not to

acknowledge a situation or government due to concerns about the legality or morality of
how that situation came to be. This doctrine asserts that legal rights cannot arise from
illegal actions (the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur).

Stimson Doctrine

 Specific Origin: The Stimson Doctrine is a specific application of the broader non-recognition
principle, articulated in the early 1930s by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson in response to
Japan's invasion of Manchuria.

THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF RECOGNITION

Internationally
on-recognition, with its consequent absence of diplomatic relations, may affect the unrecognised state
in asserting its rights or other states in asserting its duties under international law, but will not affect the
existence of such rights and duties. The position is, however, different under municipal law

Internally
Example 1: Recognition of a New State

Scenario: A new state called "Newland" declares independence from a larger country and seeks
recognition from other states.

1. Political Recognition:
o The government of Country A (let’s say the United States) decides to recognize Newland
as an independent state based on political considerations (e.g., supporting self-
determination).
o The executive branch of Country A officially announces this recognition.

2. Legal Effects:
o Because Country A has recognized Newland, its judiciary must accept this decision.
o Now, Newland can:
 Sue in Courts: If a company in Newland wants to sue a business in Country A for
breach of contract, it can do so in Country A's courts.
 Enjoy Immunities: Newland’s diplomats can now travel to Country A and claim
diplomatic immunity, meaning they cannot be arrested or sued while
performing their official duties.
  Have Property Rights: If Newland had property or assets in Country A before its
recognition, it can now assert ownership of those assets.

3. Transformation of Status:
o The recognition changes Newland's status from an unrecognized entity to a fully
functioning participant in international and domestic legal systems within Country A.

Example 2: Non-Recognition and Its Impact

Scenario: A region called "Region X" claims independence but is not recognized by other
countries.

1. No Political Recognition:
o Country B (let’s say the United Kingdom) decides not to recognize Region X. The
executive branch makes a formal announcement stating this position.

2. Legal Consequences:
o Since Region X is not recognized, it faces significant challenges:
 Cannot Sue: If a business in Region X wants to sue a company in Country B for a
contract dispute, it cannot do so in Country B's courts because it lacks legal
status.
 No Diplomatic Immunity: Diplomats from Region X cannot claim the same
protections when traveling to Country B, making their engagement with Country
B very limited.
 No Access to Assets: Any property or assets belonging to Region X in Country B
may be subject to seizure or may not be recognized as belonging to a legitimate
entity.

3. Effect on International Relations:

o Other countries that do recognize Region X may have to navigate complex legal
frameworks to engage with it, but because Country B has chosen not to recognize it, this
complicates matters significantly for Region X.

Distinction in Recognition and Legal Consequences

Additional Example:

Suppose Country C recognizes Newland but the courts in Country C do not automatically grant
all legal rights without the executive’s guidance.

 If the executive branch issues a certificate recognizing Newland, the courts in Country C will
enforce legal claims from Newland, but if the executive does not provide that certificate, the
judiciary might be hesitant to allow Newland to sue in their courts.
 The courts are bound to follow the executive’s decisions about recognition but have the
authority to interpret how that recognition affects legal matters within the domestic law.
Summary

Through these examples, you can see how recognition by one state of another can lead to
significant legal rights and privileges, allowing the recognized state to engage in legal processes
and relations that it otherwise could not. In contrast, non-recognition leads to limitations and
challenges in asserting rights and engaging in legal actions within recognized states.