THE CONCEPT OF STATE RECOGNITION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Thesis Overview

<p> </p><div><p><strong>GENERAL</strong>&nbsp;<strong>INTRODUCTION</strong></p><p><strong>1.1</strong>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong>Background</strong>&nbsp;<strong>to</strong>&nbsp;<strong>the</strong>&nbsp;<strong>Study</strong></p><p>The term ―recognition‖ implies a process whereby a person or an entity admits to</p><p>the existence or the being of another person, entity or state of affairs. The Chambers</p><p>Twentieth Century Dictionary defines the concept as a sign, token or indication of</p><p>acknowledgment of a thing or a state of being in relation to nation state.1</p><p>State recognition is one of the oldest practice in international relations, and one of</p><p>the most vexed concepts in international law since the middle ages, political communities</p><p>have interacted with each other as sovereign, territorial states under an accepted system</p><p>of rules. Determining which entity is to be recognized as state subject to these rules has</p><p>hence been a basic component of international relations. As such, it is one of the most</p><p>common discussed topics in the international law literatures.2</p><p>Recognition of statehood grants an entity international legal personality and binds</p><p>it to comfort it according to the rules established by international law in its relations with</p><p>other states and peoples. At the same time, it makes the entity eligible to enter into</p><p>treaties and alliances with other states as well as to participate in the development and</p><p>enforcement of international law. Most importantly recognition is an affirmation of an</p><p>entity‘s right to territorial sovereignty and integrity and its right to exercise coercive</p><p>jurisdiction within this territory.</p><p>1 McDonald, A.M. (1972) Chambers Twentieth Dictionary, 1 &amp; A Constable Ltd., p. 1128</p><p>2 Maraina O. Secession, Statehood and Recognition: Princeton University pdf document available at <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="https://psujja.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/secession.final.pdf">http://psujja.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/secession.final.pdf. </a>Accessed on 27/2/2013</p><p>1</p></div><div><p>The right and powers attached to statehood make it desirable for a political entities</p><p>to attain such a status, at the same time the expectation that each new state will abide by</p><p>the rule of international law makes it desirable to include as many qualified political</p><p>entities as possible in so far as this will further the goals of peace and stability.3</p><p>While in conformity with the above the Monte Video Convention of 1933 made a</p><p>preliminary attempt to codify specific descriptive criteria for statehood thus:</p><p>(1) Permanent Population</p><p>(2) Define territory</p><p>(3) Functional government able to control the territory</p><p>(4) Capacity to enter into relation with other state voluntarily</p><p>Together these four requirements defined a state and presumably any entity</p><p>aspiring independent statehood that met these criteria would automatically be regarded as</p><p>a state under international law.</p><p>However and unfortunately the present practice of recognition is not in conformity</p><p>with the above criteria. According to the present recognition an entity is considered a</p><p>state to the extent that other state recognized it as such, since new state cannot exercise</p><p>right and obligation against state that do not recognize it. For example taking into</p><p>consideration the case of Palestine, applying the Montevideo criteria for statehood, it</p><p>becomes clear that Palestine should be considered a state and also be recognized, as it has</p><p>a permanent population, concentrated in a defined territory, a functional representative</p><p>3 Erticle 3 of Monte video Convention (1933)</p></div><div><br> </div><br><p></p>