Module 02

Recognition of States

Introduction: Recognition of states is a fundamental concept in

international law that refers to the formal acknowledgment by existing
states that a political entity possesses the qualifications of statehood and
is capable of entering into relations governed by international law. This
process plays a critical role in conferring legitimacy, enabling new states
to participate in international organizations, form diplomatic relations, and
engage in treaties. Recognition can be de facto (factual acknowledgment
without legal endorsement) or de jure (formal legal recognition), and may
be granted either individually or collectively by the international
community. The recognition of states remains a political as well as legal
act, often influenced by strategic interests and international norms, such
as those outlined in the Montevideo Convention (1933), which sets out the
criteria for statehood—permanent population, defined territory,
government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

1. Meaning and Significance of recognition

Recognition of a state means that other countries officially accept a new

country as an independent and legal member of the international
community. It shows that the new state has a defined area (territory),
people (population), a working government, and the ability to make
agreements with other countries.

For example, when South Sudan became independent from Sudan in

2011, many countries around the world, including the United Nations,
recognized it as a new country. This made South Sudan an official member
of the international community.

Significance of Recognition of a State:

1. Legal Identity in the World:

1 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Recognition gives the new state a legal identity on the global stage. It can
now sign treaties, become a member of the United Nations, and establish
embassies.

2. Diplomatic Relations:

The recognized state can create formal relationships with other countries
—like having ambassadors, signing trade deals, and getting foreign aid.

3. Protection of Rights:

A recognized state can take help from international law to protect its
rights and solve disputes.

4. Access to International Organizations:

Once recognized, a country can join global organizations like the UN,
WHO, IMF, etc.

5. Stability and Peace:

Recognition often helps bring peace after independence movements or

wars, by showing that the new government is accepted and respected.

Examples:

India recognized Bangladesh in 1971 after it became independent from

Pakistan.

Palestine is recognized by many countries, but not by some, including the

USA and Israel. So its recognition is partial and disputed.

Taiwan operates like an independent country, but many countries don’t

officially recognize it due to pressure from China.

2 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

2. Theories of Recognition– Constitutive & Declaratory/Evidentiary
theory

There are two main theories in international law that explain how a new
state is recognized: the Constitutive Theory and the Declaratory (or
Evidentiary) Theory.

Constitutive Theory

According to the Constitutive Theory, a political entity becomes a state in

the eyes of international law only when it is recognized by other existing
states. This means that recognition is essential to grant a new state legal
personality, allowing it to enter into international relations, sign treaties,
and seek protection under international law. Without recognition, the
entity cannot function as a state at the global level. For example,

Example: Taiwan has its own territory, government, and people. But
since many countries do not recognize it (due to China's opposition), its
international legal status is limited, despite functioning like a state.

Criticism:

Makes statehood dependent on political will, not facts.

Unfair to genuine states that are denied recognition for political reasons.

Encourages double standards in international politics.

Declaratory (or Evidentiary) Theory.

In contrast, the Declaratory Theory asserts that a state exists as a subject

of international law the moment it fulfills the essential criteria of
statehood, regardless of whether it is recognized by other countries. These
criteria are clearly mentioned in the Montevideo Convention of 1933,
which includes a permanent population, defined territory, effective
government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Recognition, under this theory, is merely a formal acknowledgment of a
factual situation.

3 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

This theory is more objective and avoids political bias, supporting the idea
that statehood should be based on factual qualifications rather than
political approval.

While the Declaratory Theory is considered more legally sound and is

widely supported in international law, in practice, the Constitutive Theory
often plays a dominant role. Without recognition, a state may struggle to
participate in the global system, face diplomatic isolation, and be denied
access to international courts and financial institutions. Thus, recognition
remains both a legal and political process that can significantly impact a
state's ability to function internationally. Together, both theories help
explain the legal and practical aspects of how new states gain their place
in the world.

Example: South Sudan declared independence in 2011 and met all the
criteria. Even before full global recognition, it was already a state under
the declaratory theory.

Bangladesh in 1971 was functioning as a state before recognition by

many.

Merits:

More objective and fair.

Reduces political influence.

Supports the sovereignty and equality of all states.

4 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

3. Types of recognition – De facto & De Jure, Express & Implied,
Conditional and Collective

Recognition of states and governments can take several forms depending

on how and when it is granted. The main types of recognition are de facto
and de jure, express and implied, as well as conditional and collective.

The most commonly discussed types are de facto and de jure recognition.

De facto recognition means temporary or provisional acceptance of a

state or government, where recognition is given on the basis of practical
control over a territory, but without full legal acceptance. This form of
recognition is often granted when the recognizing state is unsure whether
the new state or government will be stable or permanent. For example, if
a new government comes to power through a revolution, another state
might grant it de facto recognition while observing how it governs.

Example: The Taliban government in Afghanistan (as of 2021 onwards)

has received de facto recognition from some neighboring states (like
Pakistan and China), meaning those countries deal with the Taliban for
practical reasons (like trade and border control) but do not officially
recognize it as the legal government (no de jure recognition yet).

On the other hand, de jure recognition is the full and formal recognition
of a state or government in accordance with international law. It is
permanent and unconditional, acknowledging that the entity meets all
requirements of statehood and is legally entitled to international rights
and duties. Once de jure recognition is granted, it cannot be withdrawn
unless the state ceases to exist.

Example: India recognized Bangladesh as an independent country in

December 1971. This was de jure recognition, affirming Bangladesh’s
complete and legal statehood.

South Sudan was granted de jure recognition by the UN and many

countries in 2011 after its independence from Sudan.

5 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Recognition can also be express or implied.

Express recognition occurs when a state openly declares through official

statements or diplomatic notes that it recognizes another state or
government. For example, when India officially recognized Bangladesh in
1971, it issued an express statement.

Example: The United States recognized Israel in 1948 through a formal

public statement issued by President Harry Truman.

India’s recognition of Palestine was also express, declared through official

diplomatic statements.

In contrast, implied recognition is not formally declared but can be

understood from the conduct of states, such as entering into treaties,
opening diplomatic missions, or other formal interactions. These acts show
acknowledgment of statehood or legitimacy without a direct statement.

Example: When Britain opened a diplomatic mission in the Soviet Union

in the 1920s without formally recognizing it, this was seen as implied
recognition.

If a state signs a treaty with an unrecognized government, it may amount

to implied recognition.

Another type is conditional recognition, where a state grants

recognition only if certain conditions are fulfilled by the new state or
government. These conditions may include respect for human rights,
democratic governance, or peaceful conduct. If the conditions are not met,
recognition may be delayed or withdrawn.

Example: The European Union offered conditional recognition to the

former Yugoslav republics in the 1990s, requiring them to protect minority
rights and respect democratic norms.

Some countries have recognized Palestine conditionally, demanding

peaceful resolution of conflicts and adherence to international
agreements.

6 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Finally, collective recognition refers to recognition granted by a group
of states acting together, often through international organizations like the
United Nations or the European Union. For example, collective recognition
may occur when a majority of UN member states vote to admit a new
country as a member.

Example: UN membership acts as a form of collective recognition —

when the General Assembly votes to admit a new country (e.g., South
Sudan in 2011).

European Union recognition of Kosovo: Though not all individual countries

in the EU recognize Kosovo, the EU as a bloc has engaged with Kosovo’s
institutions, showing a level of collective recognition.

In summary, recognition can be legal or political, temporary or permanent,

and individual or collective. These various forms reflect the complex
nature of international relations and the balance between legal principles
and political interests.

7 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

4. Recognition of Insurgency & Belligerency

Recognition of Insurgency

Recognition of insurgency is a form of limited acknowledgment granted by

a state to a group of rebels or insurgents who have taken up arms against
an existing government, usually within the same country. This recognition
is not the same as recognizing a new state or government but rather
admits that the group has achieved a certain degree of organization,
stability, and control over territory. It also means that the group is
conducting hostilities in a manner that resembles warfare, and the conflict
has reached a level beyond mere internal disturbance. The purpose of
recognizing insurgency is to apply minimum international humanitarian
standards (like those under the Geneva Conventions) and allow limited
international dealings, such as humanitarian aid. However, it does not give
the rebels full international status or recognition as a state.

Example: During the American Civil War, the Union government

recognized the Confederate states as insurgents, not as a separate
sovereign nation. Similarly, other countries may recognize a rebel group
as insurgents in order to maintain neutral relations without supporting
secession.

Recognition of Belligerency

Recognition of belligerency is a higher level of recognition than

insurgency. It is granted when a rebel group or a de facto government
exercises effective control over a significant part of a country, maintains a
stable administration, and conducts organized warfare against the existing
government. Recognition of belligerency means that the group is treated
as a party to an international armed conflict, which brings them under the
laws of war (international humanitarian law). This recognition allows
thirdparty states to remain neutral and deal equally with both sides of the
conflict without being accused of interfering in domestic matters.

8 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Belligerent parties are allowed to blockade ports, control territory, and
receive support — as long as it does not violate neutrality.

Example: During the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), several countries

recognized the rebel forces led by General Franco as belligerents.
Similarly, in the American Civil War, Britain and France recognized the
Confederacy as a belligerent, although they did not recognize it as an
independent state.

Key Difference:

Insurgency is a lower form of recognition, admitting the existence of an

internal armed group with some influence.

Belligerency recognizes that the group is engaged in warlike conflict and

holds territory, granting it more formal status under international law.

9 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

5. Recognition of Government

Recognition of government refers to the formal acknowledgment by one

state of the legitimacy and authority of another state's government. This
recognition is separate from the recognition of the state itself — a state
may continue to exist, but its government may change due to elections,
revolution, military coup, or civil war. When such changes happen, other
states must decide whether or not to recognize the new regime as the
legitimate representative of that country in the international community.
This is important because recognition of a government allows it to
represent the state in diplomatic relations, international organizations,
and treaties.

Example: The initial international approach to the Taliban government in

Afghanistan (post2021) — some countries deal with them functionally (de
facto), but do not recognize them legally.

When France recognized the new government of the USA after its
independence, it was de jure recognition.

Factors Considered Before Recognizing a Government

Effective control over the population and territory

Stability and durability of the new regime

Willingness to follow international obligations and treaties

Respect for human rights and democratic principles (especially for

democratic countries considering recognition)

Significance of Government Recognition

Enables the government to enter treaties and maintain diplomatic

missions.

10 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Allows access to foreign aid, membership in international organizations,
and legal standing in international courts.

Signals international legitimacy and acceptance.

Examples: In 2009, many countries refused to recognize the Honduran

government after a military coup.

6. Doctrines of Recognition

In international law, doctrines of recognition are principles or policies

followed by states when deciding whether to recognize new governments
or states. These doctrines reflect a country’s foreign policy and legal
stance on how recognition should be granted — especially in situations
involving revolutions, coups, or illegal occupation.

a) Stimson Doctrine (1932)

The Stimson Doctrine, named after U.S. Secretary of State Henry L.

Stimson, is based on the principle of nonrecognition of illegal territorial
acquisitions. This doctrine was declared in response to Japan’s invasion
and occupation of Manchuria in 1931. The U.S. government stated that it
would not recognize any situation, treaty, or agreement brought about by
aggression or in violation of international law.

This doctrine emphasizes the idea that forceful or unlawful acquisition of

territory cannot create legal rights, and it aims to discourage aggression
by denying legitimacy to territorial gains achieved by military force.

Example: The U.S. and several Western countries refused to recognize

the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania)
during World War II under this doctrine.

b) Estrada Doctrine (1930)

The Estrada Doctrine, introduced by Genaro Estrada, Foreign Minister of

Mexico, opposes the practice of states formally recognizing or not
recognizing foreign governments. According to this doctrine, recognition is
seen as interference in the internal affairs of another country. Instead, the

11 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

focus should be on maintaining or suspending diplomatic relations,
depending on whether the new government is able to fulfill its
international obligations.

This doctrine reflects a noninterventionist approach, suggesting that a

government that effectively controls a country should be dealt with
diplomatically, without passing judgment on how it came to power.

Example: Mexico did not recognize or condemn various revolutionary or

military governments in Latin America but maintained relations based on
practical governance, not legitimacy.

c) Tobar Doctrine (1907)

The Tobar Doctrine, proposed by Carlos Tobar, Foreign Minister of

Ecuador, states that recognition should not be granted to governments
that come to power through unconstitutional means, such as coups or
revolutions. It promotes the idea that only legally and democratically
established governments should be recognized.

The aim of this doctrine was to uphold constitutionalism and democracy in

Latin America. It suggests that premature recognition of unlawful regimes
encourages instability and undermines legitimate authority.

Example: Some Latin American countries applied the Tobar Doctrine to

withhold recognition from governments formed after military coups,
especially in the early 20th century.

Conclusion

These three doctrines reflect different attitudes toward recognition:

Stimson Doctrine: No recognition of illegal territorial gains. Estrada
Doctrine: Noninterference in how governments come to power. Tobar
Doctrine: Recognition only for constitutionally established governments.

India follows a pragmatic and flexible approach to recognition of states

and governments. However, in spirit and practice, India largely follows the
principles of the Estrada Doctrine — especially in terms of non-
interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

12 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

7. Is there a legal duty to recognize?

In international law, there is no legal duty or obligation on any state to

recognize a new state or government. Recognition is considered a political
act, not a legal requirement. It is discretionary, meaning that each state is
free to decide whether, when, and how to recognize another entity based
on its own interests, policies, and principles.

Why No Legal Duty?

Sovereign Equality of States: Under the UN Charter, every state is

sovereign and equal. Recognition involves political judgment, and no state
can be forced to recognize another against its will.

No Binding Rule in International Law: There is no treaty or customary

international law that imposes a positive obligation to recognize a newly
emerged state or government, even if it fulfills the Montevideo criteria
(permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to
enter into relations).

Recognition is Voluntary: Recognition may depend on a country’s

foreign policy, strategic interests, or concerns over legitimacy, human
rights, or regional stability.

Examples: Kosovo declared independence in 2008. Over 100 countries

have recognized it, but several, including India, Russia, and China, have
not, and there is no legal penalty for doing so.

Taliban in Afghanistan (2021): Although they control the territory and

government, no country is legally bound to recognize them.

Conclusion:

13 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Recognition is a right, not a duty.

States are free to decide recognition based on legal, political, and

strategic factors.

No legal consequences arise for not recognizing a state or government.

Legal Effects of Recognition

Recognition of a state or government has significant legal effects in

international law. Once recognition is granted—whether explicitly or
implicitly—it gives the recognized entity certain legal rights and status in
the international community. Firstly, a recognized state can enter into
diplomatic relations, open embassies, and sign treaties with other
countries. It also becomes eligible to join international organizations like
the United Nations, the World Bank, or the IMF. Secondly, recognition
provides legal standing in international courts, such as the International
Court of Justice (ICJ), allowing the state or government to bring claims or
defend itself in legal disputes. Recognition also means that the laws, acts,
and decrees of the recognized government are considered valid and
enforceable within its territory, and may be respected in foreign legal
systems (such as in courts). Moreover, recognition removes uncertainty in
international dealings—like trade, defense, or diplomacy—because it
confirms the entity’s legal identity. Lastly, it may affect issues like state
immunity, ownership of assets abroad (such as embassies and bank
accounts), and the validity of contracts and debts signed with foreign
parties.

Summary Points:

Recognition gives legal personality in international law

Allows diplomatic and treaty relations

Grants legal standing in courts and international organizations

Confirms validity of laws and Acts of the recognized government

Affects state immunity, property, and contract rights internationally

14 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

Example: When India recognized Bangladesh in 1971, it allowed
Bangladesh to send diplomats, join the UN, and represent itself
internationally. On the other hand, when countries do not recognize a
government (e.g., Taliban in Afghanistan), that regime cannot represent
the state officially in international forums or claim its assets abroad.

9. Retroactivity of recognition

Retroactivity of recognition refers to the legal idea that once a state or

government is recognized, that recognition can have effect from an earlier
date—often from the time when the new state or government actually
came into existence or began exercising control, rather than from the date
of formal recognition. This concept is important because recognition is
often granted after a delay, especially when political or diplomatic issues
are involved. When retroactivity is applied, all acts done by the
unrecognized state or government before formal recognition are treated
as legally valid from the earlier date. This helps in validating treaties,
official acts, contracts, and foreign relations that occurred prior to
recognition.

Example: When a country is formed through revolution or secession (like

Bangladesh in 1971), other countries may recognize it months later. But
with retroactive recognition, all actions taken by Bangladesh’s
government before formal recognition—such as signing agreements or
enforcing laws—are treated as valid from the actual date of its
independence or effective control.

Similarly, if a new government comes to power after a coup or revolution

and is later recognized, retroactive recognition may validate the
government’s acts (e.g., decrees, appointments, contracts) made before
recognition.

Legal and Practical Impact:

Retroactivity helps avoid legal uncertainty.

15 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

It protects third parties who dealt with the unrecognized government in
good faith.

It allows courts and states to accept past acts of the new

state/government as valid and binding.

Conclusion: Retroactivity of recognition gives past legal effect to the acts

of a state or government before it was formally recognized. It ensures
continuity, stability, and legal certainty in international relations.

How does a new State or Government obtain

recognition by the United Nations?

16 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare

17 by Dr. Shalini Ghumare