Theories of recognition in international law include declaratory and constitutive theories. Declaratory theory sees statehood as based on objective criteria. Constitutive theory holds that recognition by existing states is necessary for a state to gain legal status and international personality. 

Introduction to Recognition in International Law

Recognition in international law refers to the formal acknowledgment by one state or a group of states that another entity possesses the qualifications of statehood or that a particular government is the legitimate authority representing a state. This acknowledgment can be explicit or implicit and carries significant political and legal consequences.

The concept of recognition is essential because it plays a pivotal role in determining how entities interact within the international system. When a state is recognized, it gains access to a variety of rights and privileges, such as the ability to enter into diplomatic relations, sign treaties, and become a member of international organizations. Recognition can influence whether a new state is allowed to participate in the global legal order or remains isolated without formal diplomatic ties.

Recognition also has a strong symbolic value. It signals legitimacy, affirms sovereignty, and often solidifies an entity’s status in the eyes of the global community. Without recognition, even an entity that functions like a state in practice may face significant barriers in engaging with other states or asserting its legal personality on the international stage.

In some cases, the act of recognition can even help resolve conflicts or contribute to peace processes by legitimizing new political realities. Conversely, the denial of recognition can be used as a diplomatic tool to express disapproval of unlawful or illegitimate actions, such as secession through the use of force or occupation.

Legal Basis under International Law

The legal foundation for recognition in international law is not codified in a single universal treaty. Instead, it is derived from a combination of customary international law, legal doctrine, state practice, and international court decisions.

One of the key instruments that indirectly influences recognition is the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, adopted in 1933. According to the convention, an entity must fulfill four criteria to be considered a state: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. While the convention does not explicitly require recognition as a condition for statehood, it provides the legal criteria that are often used by states when deciding whether to extend recognition to an emerging entity.

In addition to the Montevideo criteria, recognition practices are shaped by principles found in the United Nations Charter, particularly those related to the sovereignty and equality of states, as well as the peaceful settlement of disputes. International jurisprudence, especially decisions of the International Court of Justice, has also contributed to the development of legal reasoning around recognition, although the Court tends to avoid making direct rulings on recognition itself.

Importantly, international law distinguishes between the recognition of a state and the recognition of a government. Recognizing a state acknowledges its existence as a legal entity, while recognizing a government involves accepting a particular regime as the legitimate authority of an already recognized state. Each carries its own legal and political implications.

In practice, the decision to recognize often involves a combination of legal assessment and political judgment. There is no binding obligation on states to recognize a new entity, and recognition remains a sovereign act. However, once granted, recognition can have far-reaching consequences, especially in terms of legal obligations, treaty enforcement, and diplomatic conduct.

Historical Evolution of Recognition Theories

The concept of recognition in international law has evolved significantly over time, reflecting changes in political ideologies, state practice, and the structure of the international legal system. While the practice of recognizing political entities dates back centuries, the legal theories that underpin recognition began to develop more systematically in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

In early international relations, recognition was often driven by power dynamics and the strategic interests of dominant empires. For example, in the context of European colonialism, recognition was frequently withheld from non-European entities regardless of their political organization or societal stability.

This practice reflected a Eurocentric view of statehood, where only entities adhering to Western political models were deemed legitimate international actors. During this period, there were no clear legal criteria or frameworks to guide the process of recognition. Instead, it was treated primarily as a discretionary political act.

The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw the emergence of a more formalized approach to recognition, especially following the collapse of empires and the rise of new nation-states in Latin America and Europe.

The recognition of newly independent states in the Americas, such as Colombia and Argentina, sparked international debates about the legal significance of recognition and whether it should be granted based on objective criteria or political considerations.

In the early twentieth century, legal scholars and statesmen began to develop theoretical frameworks to explain and justify recognition. These efforts culminated in the formulation of two dominant theories: the constitutive theory, which views recognition as essential for the existence of a state under international law, and the declaratory theory, which argues that statehood is an objective status that exists independently of recognition once certain legal criteria are met.

A pivotal moment in the legal treatment of recognition came with the adoption of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States in 1933. This treaty, although regional in scope, strongly influenced the declaratory theory by listing the necessary qualifications for statehood, such as a defined territory, permanent population, government, and capacity to engage in international relations, without requiring recognition as a condition.

The Montevideo Convention helped shift legal thinking toward the idea that recognition merely confirms a factual situation, rather than creating it.

However, state practice did not always follow legal theory. During the Cold War, for instance, recognition often became entangled with ideological conflict, with both Western and Eastern blocs using recognition to legitimize or delegitimize regimes aligned with or opposed to their interests.

The recognition of East and West Germany, and later the question of Taiwan versus the People’s Republic of China, underscored the deeply political nature of recognition decisions.

In the post-Cold War era, especially during the breakup of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, recognition once again became a central issue. The international community faced difficult choices in determining when and how to recognize new states emerging from the ashes of larger federations.

These events led to the adoption of more cautious and procedural approaches to recognition, often coordinated through regional bodies like the European Union or guided by United Nations involvement.

Theories of Recognition

1. Declaratory Theory of Recognition
2. Constitutive Theory of Recognition

#1 Declaratory Theory of Recognition

The declaratory theory holds that a state becomes legally recognized under international law once it meets objective criteria of statehood, such as a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity for foreign relations. Recognition by other states is not legally required under this theory.

The declaratory theory of recognition holds that a state exists as a subject of international law once it meets the objective criteria for statehood, regardless of whether other states have formally recognized it.

Under this theory, recognition is not what creates a state; it is merely an acknowledgment of a factual situation that already exists. This approach emphasizes the legal and functional attributes of statehood over the political choices of other states.

The foundation of the declaratory theory is most clearly expressed in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933). Article 1 of the Convention lays out four essential elements of statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

According to the declaratory theory, once an entity satisfies these requirements, it qualifies as a state under international law, regardless of whether it is recognized by other members of the international community.

Supporters of the declaratory theory argue that this approach upholds the principle of sovereign equality. It prevents powerful states from unilaterally deciding which entities can participate in the international legal system. By grounding recognition in objective legal criteria, the declaratory theory also provides more predictability and fairness in the recognition process.

This theory also aligns with the principles of self-determination and decolonization, especially in the context of former colonies seeking independence. Many newly decolonized states in the mid-twentieth century were not immediately recognized by all members of the international community, but they were nonetheless regarded as states under international law because they met the Montevideo criteria.

Strengths and Criticisms

One of the main strengths of the declaratory theory is its emphasis on legal certainty. It helps prevent the arbitrary and politically motivated denial of statehood and protects entities that may be politically unpopular or strategically inconvenient to recognize.

For example, an entity that fulfills all the requirements for statehood should not be excluded from the rights and obligations of international law simply because a powerful country chooses not to recognize it.

Another benefit is the clarity it provides in legal and diplomatic practice. If statehood depends only on meeting objective criteria, then international obligations, such as the duty to respect territorial integrity or the prohibition of the use of force, can apply more consistently.

However, the declaratory theory is not without its critics. In reality, recognition by other states often has a profound practical effect, particularly when it comes to participation in international institutions like the United Nations or the World Bank. An unrecognized state may find itself unable to secure diplomatic relations, sign treaties, or access international aid, regardless of its legal qualifications.

Critics also argue that the declaratory theory may oversimplify the complexities of statehood in today’s world, where issues like contested sovereignty, internal instability, and international politics play a critical role in whether a new state can effectively operate on the world stage.

Examples

One of the clearest examples supporting the declaratory theory is the case of South Sudan. Prior to its widespread recognition in 2011, South Sudan had already established a defined territory, a stable government, a permanent population, and the capacity to engage in foreign relations through peace negotiations and provisional arrangements.

The international community eventually recognized South Sudan, but its legal statehood, according to the declaratory theory, existed as soon as it met the Montevideo criteria.

Another illustrative example is Taiwan, which operates with all the attributes of a sovereign state, complete with its own government, military, currency, and international trade policies. However, due to political pressures, particularly from China, many countries do not formally recognize Taiwan. According to the declaratory theory, this lack of recognition does not negate Taiwan’s factual statehood.

The declaratory theory thus emphasizes the rule of law in international relations and challenges the notion that legitimacy depends solely on political acceptance. It insists that facts on the ground matter more than diplomatic approval, reinforcing the legal identity of states even in the absence of universal recognition.

#2 Constitutive Theory of Recognition

The constitutive theory asserts that a state gains legal status under international law only when it is recognized by existing sovereign states. Without such recognition, an entity cannot claim international legal personality or full statehood, regardless of whether it meets the standard criteria of statehood.

The constitutive theory of recognition takes the position that an entity becomes a state under international law only when it is recognized by existing states. In other words, statehood is not based solely on fulfilling legal criteria such as territory, population, and government; rather, it is “constituted” or brought into being through the act of recognition by other members of the international community.

This theory emphasizes the inter-subjective nature of international law, where rights and obligations are created through the mutual acknowledgment of legal personality. According to the constitutive view, recognition is not merely declaratory or symbolic.

It is legally transformative. Without recognition, a political entity may function like a state domestically but lacks international legal standing. This includes the inability to engage in diplomatic relations, become a member of international organizations, or claim protection under international treaties.

Supporters of the constitutive theory often argue that, since international law is based on consensus and mutual interaction among sovereign states, recognition must play a constitutive role. In this view, legal personality in the international system requires acceptance by other legal actors. Without that acceptance, an entity cannot fully participate in or benefit from the international legal order.

This theory also reflects the political reality of international relations. In practice, access to legal and diplomatic rights is often determined by recognition. For example, an entity might meet all the legal criteria for statehood but still be excluded from the international community if it lacks recognition from key powers or a significant number of states.

Important Cases Relating to Constitutive Theory of Recognition

The constitutive theory finds support in numerous historical examples where recognition, or the lack thereof, had direct consequences on an entity’s international status. One of the most debated cases is Palestine.

Despite having a defined territory, a government structure, and recognition by over 130 countries, Palestine’s status remains contested, particularly because it lacks recognition from some major powers and has not achieved full membership in the United Nations. According to the constitutive theory, its limited recognition prevents it from fully attaining statehood in the legal sense.

Another example is Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in 2008. While Kosovo has received recognition from a significant number of countries, including the United States and many European states, several influential states such as Russia, China, and India do not recognize it. As a result, Kosovo remains outside of the United Nations and faces ongoing disputes about its legal status. From a constitutive standpoint, Kosovo’s statehood remains incomplete because of this lack of universal recognition.

On the other hand, Taiwan presents a unique challenge to the constitutive theory. Despite operating with complete autonomy and fulfilling the factual requirements for statehood, Taiwan is recognized by only a small number of countries. Most states have shifted recognition to the People’s Republic of China. Under the constitutive theory, Taiwan’s marginal recognition undermines its claim to statehood in legal terms, even though it functions as a sovereign state in practice.

Criticism and Limitations

The constitutive theory has been widely criticized for placing too much emphasis on political will rather than objective legal standards. Critics argue that tying statehood to recognition creates uncertainty and allows powerful countries to act as gatekeepers, arbitrarily deciding who qualifies as a state. This undermines the principle of equality among peoples and may hinder the legitimate aspirations of emerging nations.

Another limitation of this theory is that it offers no clear threshold for how many or which recognitions are required to constitute statehood. Is recognition by one state sufficient? Or is a majority of UN members necessary? The lack of legal consensus on this question weakens the consistency and predictability of the constitutive theory.

Moreover, the constitutive approach can be inconsistent with the principle of self-determination, which is a cornerstone of modern international law. According to the UN Charter and other international instruments, peoples have the right to determine their political status. If statehood depends entirely on recognition, this right could be obstructed by political considerations beyond the control of the population concerned.

Despite these criticisms, the constitutive theory continues to influence international relations, especially in cases involving disputed sovereignty, contested borders, and strategic alliances. It reflects the realpolitik of diplomacy, where legal recognition often follows geopolitical interests rather than legal principles.

Declaratory vs. Constitutive Theory

Modes of Recognition in International Law

In the context of international law, recognition is not always a straightforward, one-time event. States may express recognition in various ways depending on their political objectives, legal interpretations, or the stage of diplomatic engagement. These different approaches are referred to as modes of recognition.

The most commonly accepted modes of recognition include de jure recognition, de facto recognition, express recognition, and implied recognition. Each carries different legal weight and implications in international relations.

#1 De Jure Recognition

De jure recognition refers to the formal and legal acknowledgment of a state or government. When a state grants de jure recognition, it affirms that the recognized entity meets the legal qualifications of statehood or legitimate governance and is entitled to full rights under international law.

De jure recognition is typically extended through official diplomatic acts, such as public declarations, the establishment of full diplomatic relations, or the signing of treaties. Once granted, de jure recognition is usually permanent and irrevocable, unless there is a fundamental change in the recognized entity’s status.

An example of de jure recognition is when the majority of the international community recognized South Sudan as a sovereign state in 2011, following its declaration of independence and successful referendum.

#2 De Facto Recognition

De facto recognition is a more limited and pragmatic form of acknowledgment. It recognizes that an entity or government has effective control over a territory and is functioning as the authority, but without necessarily endorsing it as legitimate in the full legal or diplomatic sense.

De facto recognition is often used when a state wants to engage with another entity out of necessity, for trade, security, or regional stability, without fully endorsing it under international law. It allows for limited diplomatic interaction, such as setting up liaison offices or informal talks, while stopping short of formal diplomatic relations.

For instance, many countries engage with Taiwan on a de facto basis through trade and cultural offices, even though they do not extend full diplomatic recognition due to the One China Policy.

#3 Express Recognition

Express recognition occurs when a state openly and clearly declares its recognition of another state or government. This can take the form of an official statement by a head of state, a resolution in parliament, or a formal diplomatic note.

Express recognition leaves little room for ambiguity and is often used when a state wants to make its position unmistakably clear, whether in support of an emerging state or in opposition to a contested regime.

An example of express recognition would be when states announced their recognition of Kosovo’s independence in the days immediately following its declaration in 2008.

#4 Implied Recognition

Implied recognition arises when a state acts in a way that reasonably suggests recognition, even if no formal statement is made. This might include signing bilateral agreements, allowing the opening of consulates, or participating in official functions together.

Implied recognition is often debated because the intent behind the act may not be entirely clear. However, in diplomatic practice, a pattern of conduct that indicates acceptance of statehood or legitimacy can be interpreted as tacit recognition.

For example, if one state allows another to open a diplomatic mission and exchange envoys, this may be interpreted as implied recognition of its sovereignty, even if no public announcement has been made.

#5 Conditional Recognition

While not always listed as a formal mode, conditional recognition is another important concept. It occurs when a state grants recognition subject to specific conditions being met, such as the holding of democratic elections, the signing of peace agreements, or respect for human rights. This approach is often used in the recognition of governments rather than states.

Conditional recognition reflects a growing trend in international diplomacy to tie recognition to political or ethical benchmarks, thereby influencing the behavior of new or transitional authorities.

Recognition of Governments vs. States

One of the most important distinctions in international law is the difference between the recognition of a state and the recognition of a government. Though often discussed together, these two forms of recognition carry different legal implications and are governed by separate considerations.

Recognition of a State

Recognition of a state is the formal acknowledgment by other sovereign states that an entity meets the qualifications of statehood under international law. As discussed earlier, these qualifications typically include a permanent population, a defined territory, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into international relations. Once a state is recognized, whether under the declaratory or constitutive theory, it is treated as a full member of the international community, with rights and duties under international law.

State recognition is generally considered to be irrevocable and enduring. Once granted, it is rare for a state to lose its recognized status, even in cases of civil war, occupation, or political collapse. For instance, Somalia remained a recognized state during its prolonged period of internal anarchy, despite the absence of a functioning central government. This illustrates how recognition of statehood is tied more to the legal existence of the entity rather than to the performance or continuity of its governing institutions.

Recognition of a Government

In contrast, recognition of a government is the acknowledgment by other states that a particular regime is the legitimate authority in control of an already recognized state. Unlike the recognition of statehood, which is relatively stable, recognition of governments can be temporary, conditional, and politically sensitive. It is not about the existence of the state itself but about who represents it and exercises authority on its behalf.

Recognition of a government becomes a legal and diplomatic issue when a state undergoes political upheaval, such as a revolution, coup d’état, foreign intervention, or disputed election. In such cases, the international community must decide whether to continue recognizing the previous government or to recognize the new one as the legitimate representative.

There are different approaches states use in deciding whether to recognize a new government:

1. Effectiveness Doctrine: A government is recognized if it has effective control over the state’s territory and population. This is a pragmatic approach that prioritizes stability and governance over legitimacy.
2. Legitimacy and Constitutionalism: Some states base recognition on whether the new government came to power through constitutional or democratic means. This approach is normative and may deny recognition to regimes that seize power through violence or foreign intervention.
3. Non-recognition Policies: In some cases, states adopt a general policy of not recognizing governments, choosing instead to maintain diplomatic relations with the state itself, regardless of who is in power. The United Kingdom, for instance, has often pursued such a policy to avoid becoming entangled in domestic political disputes.

Legal and Political Impact

The recognition of a government affects a wide range of legal and practical matters, including:

• Diplomatic Relations: Recognition allows for the exchange of ambassadors and the operation of embassies.
• Treaty Obligations: Recognized governments can enter into binding treaties and agreements on behalf of the state.
• International Representation: Recognition determines who speaks for the state in international organizations and negotiations.
• Sovereign Immunity and Legal Standing: Courts may refuse to hear cases or enforce judgments involving unrecognized governments, especially in issues like property disputes, debt obligations, or state immunity.

Failure to recognize a government can lead to diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, or exclusion from multilateral bodies. However, premature or politically motivated recognition may also trigger controversy and undermine stability.

Notable Examples

• Afghanistan (Taliban Regime): After the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 2021, most of the international community refrained from recognizing the new government, despite its effective control over the country. This illustrates how recognition of a government is not automatically granted based on control alone but is influenced by political and human rights considerations.
• Venezuela: The recognition battle between Nicolás Maduro and opposition leader Juan Guaidó in 2019 highlighted the political nature of government recognition. Some countries recognized Guaidó as the interim president based on claims of electoral illegitimacy, while others continued to support Maduro due to his de facto control.
• Libya: During the 2011 civil war, many states switched recognition from the Gaddafi regime to the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya, once it gained territorial control and international support.

These cases show that the recognition of governments remains a fluid and politically driven process, distinct from the more stable and legalistic concept of recognizing a state.

Recognition and the United Nations

The relationship between recognition and the United Nations (UN) is a nuanced and often misunderstood aspect of international law. While the UN does not formally “recognize” states in the way individual nations do, its processes and decisions play a significant role in legitimizing and reinforcing statehood on the global stage.

Role of UN Membership in Recognition

Gaining membership in the United Nations is widely regarded as a powerful signal of international recognition. Although UN admission does not equate to legal recognition by all member states, it does indicate a broad consensus on the applicant’s statehood. This makes UN membership an important practical marker in the recognition process, particularly under the declaratory theory of recognition.

According to Article 4 of the UN Charter, membership is open to all “peace-loving states” that accept the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgment of the organization, are able and willing to carry out those obligations. This implies that for a state to be admitted, it must already exist as a sovereign entity. Therefore, recognition by the UN does not create statehood but affirms the existence of the state under international law.

However, the absence of UN membership does not automatically mean that an entity is not a state. For example, Switzerland remained outside the UN until 2002, despite being universally recognized for decades. Conversely, entities such as Palestine have obtained non-member observer state status, which some view as partial recognition of statehood, even though they are not full members.

Security Council vs. General Assembly Roles

The process of admitting new members to the United Nations is shared between two principal organs: the Security Council and the General Assembly. Their roles, however, differ significantly in function and impact.

The Security Council acts as the gatekeeper in the admission process. According to the UN Charter, any application for membership must first be approved by the Security Council. This means that any of the five permanent members, like China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, or the United States, can exercise their veto power to block a state’s admission, regardless of support from the broader UN membership.

The General Assembly, on the other hand, votes on the admission of new members only after the Security Council has given its recommendation. A two-thirds majority is required for approval. While the General Assembly reflects the democratic will of the international community, its decision is dependent on the prior approval of the Security Council. This dynamic gives political considerations substantial weight in what might otherwise be a legal or factual determination of statehood.

An illustrative example of this interplay can be seen in the case of Palestine. In 2011, Palestine applied for full UN membership, but the Security Council did not reach a consensus to recommend its admission. In response, the General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status in 2012, signaling political support but falling short of full recognition as a member state.

The division of roles between the Security Council and the General Assembly reflects a balance between legal criteria for statehood and the political realities of international relations. While legal scholars may focus on declaratory criteria, such as territory, population, and governance, the UN system inevitably incorporates geopolitical considerations into the recognition process.

Case Studies in International Recognition

Taiwan

Taiwan presents one of the most complex and politically sensitive cases of recognition in international law. Officially known as the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan has functioned as an independent state since 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist government retreated to the island following the Communist victory in mainland China.

Although Taiwan meets the traditional criteria for statehood, defined territory, permanent population, effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, its international recognition is limited. Most countries, including major powers like the United States, do not formally recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state due to diplomatic and economic pressures from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which claims Taiwan as a part of its territory under the “One China Policy.”

Despite its lack of widespread diplomatic recognition, Taiwan operates de facto as an independent state. It has its own constitution, military, currency, and democratic institutions. It also maintains unofficial relationships with many countries through trade offices and other forms of engagement.

This duality makes Taiwan a textbook example of the declaratory theory of recognition, where statehood exists regardless of international recognition. However, the constitutive theory is also evident in how Taiwan’s limited formal recognition impacts its participation in international organizations like the United Nations.

Palestine

The recognition of Palestine is another highly contentious issue in international law. The State of Palestine declared independence in 1988 and has since been recognized by over 130 UN member states. It claims the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem as its territories, although much of this land remains under Israeli control.

In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status. This move was widely interpreted as a form of implicit recognition by the international community. However, key countries such as the United States, Israel, and several EU member states do not officially recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.

The case of Palestine illustrates the tensions between legal recognition and political realities. It also highlights the limitations of the constitutive theory, where lack of recognition by certain influential states hampers Palestine’s ability to fully exercise its rights as a state, even though a large portion of the international community supports its claims.

At the same time, its broad recognition supports the declaratory theory, asserting that statehood is a matter of fact based on fulfillment of legal criteria, not international approval.

Western Sahara

Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, remains one of the last major unresolved decolonization issues in the world. After Spain withdrew in 1975, Morocco claimed sovereignty over the territory, while the Polisario Front declared the establishment of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which seeks independence for the region.

The SADR has been recognized by numerous countries and is a member of the African Union. However, its recognition has been inconsistent, with some countries withdrawing recognition over time due to political pressure or changing alliances. Morocco, which controls most of the territory, strongly opposes any recognition of Sahrawi independence and has pushed for an autonomy plan under Moroccan sovereignty.

Western Sahara’s case is a clear illustration of how recognition becomes politicized, and how the constitutive theory is used strategically to legitimize or delegitimize claims to statehood. The lack of a universally recognized status and continued territorial dispute mean that the SADR’s status remains in limbo under international law, despite its claims and partial recognition.

Crimea and the Russia–Ukraine Conflict

The situation in Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, represents a contemporary and highly controversial example of unilateral recognition and non-recognition in international law. Following political unrest in Ukraine, Russian forces occupied Crimea, and a local referendum was held under Russian control. Subsequently, Russia recognized Crimea as part of its sovereign territory.

However, the international community overwhelmingly rejected this annexation. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming Ukraine’s territorial integrity and declaring the referendum in Crimea invalid. The United States, the European Union, and most other countries continue to recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine.

This case underscores the principle that recognition cannot legitimize violations of international law, particularly the prohibition on the use of force and the requirement to respect territorial sovereignty. It also highlights the legal and political limits of constitutive recognition, where unilateral recognition by one or a few states cannot override broader international norms.

In this scenario, the declaratory theory is largely upheld, as the lack of effective control and widespread recognition undermines Russia’s claim, despite its de facto administration of the territory.

Recognition in Customary International Law

Recognition of states and governments has traditionally been examined through the lens of two primary theories: the declaratory and constitutive approaches. However, beyond theoretical frameworks, recognition is also deeply rooted in the practice and evolution of customary international law.

Customary international law is formed through consistent state practice combined with a belief in the legality or necessity of that practice, known as opinio juris. When it comes to recognition, both elements play a critical role in shaping how the international community treats new or contested state entities.

State Practice and Opinio Juris

State practice refers to the actual behavior of states, including their diplomatic actions, treaties, statements, and policies. In the context of recognition, this includes decisions to establish diplomatic relations, grant or withhold recognition, or engage with entities on a case-by-case basis.

For example, if a majority of states consistently recognize new states only after certain legal and political criteria are met, such as effective control over territory, a permanent population, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, this pattern may contribute to a customary rule.

Opinio juris complements state practice by representing the belief that the behavior in question is carried out not merely as a matter of convenience or political expediency, but because it is legally required. In matters of recognition, opinio juris is more difficult to establish since recognition is often intertwined with political motives.

However, when states refrain from recognizing entities due to perceived violations of international law, such as illegal occupation or unilateral secession, this may reflect a normative belief that recognition should be withheld under certain legal circumstances.

A key example can be seen in the global non-recognition of Northern Cyprus or Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Many states have explicitly stated that they refuse to recognize these entities not simply due to political disagreements, but because recognition would violate established principles of international law, particularly territorial integrity. This signals the presence of opinio juris, reinforcing a customary norm against recognizing states created through unlawful means.

Evolving Norms

The customary rules surrounding recognition are not static; they evolve with international political developments, legal interpretations, and technological changes. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, recognition was more freely exercised, often based on strategic or imperial interests. Over time, however, the process has become more constrained by legal principles and collective mechanisms, particularly through institutions like the United Nations.

One of the most notable developments is the increasing weight given to legality and legitimacy over mere factual control. This is evident in the growing reluctance to recognize governments that come to power through unconstitutional means, such as coups or military takeovers, especially in regions like Africa, where regional organizations like the African Union have taken a strong stance on unconstitutional changes of government.

Moreover, evolving norms have led to a more cautious approach in recognizing secessionist movements. States are increasingly aware of the implications such recognition might have on their own internal stability and on the international legal order.

As a result, there is a growing trend of conditional engagement, where states may cooperate with an unrecognized entity for practical purposes, such as humanitarian aid or conflict resolution, without granting formal recognition.

Another area where norms are shifting is the recognition of digital or virtual entities. As technology redefines the boundaries of sovereignty and statehood, customary law may soon need to adapt to questions about the legitimacy of “cyber states” or digitally declared governments-in-exile. While this remains a speculative frontier, it reflects the dynamic nature of recognition norms in customary international law.

Recognition and Non-State Actors

In international law, the concept of recognition has traditionally applied to sovereign states and their legitimate governments. However, the evolving nature of global politics and armed conflicts has brought non-state actors into the spotlight.

These entities, which include governments-in-exile, liberation movements, and rebel groups, often claim legitimacy and seek recognition from the international community.

Although international law does not offer a clear or codified framework for recognizing non-state actors, state practice and international institutions have developed certain patterns over time. Recognition in such cases is typically political rather than strictly legal, which means it often depends on the strategic interests and foreign policy goals of other states.

Governments-in-Exile

A government-in-exile is a political group that claims to be the legitimate government of a country but operates from outside its borders, often because its leaders have been forced to flee due to occupation, civil war, or a coup d’état. These governments often retain symbolic and diplomatic roles, hoping to return to power once conditions change in their home countries.

Historically, governments-in-exile have played important roles, especially during times of war and occupation. For example, during World War II, several European governments operated in exile from London after Nazi Germany occupied their countries. These governments were often recognized by Allied powers and participated in diplomatic efforts and post-war planning.

Recognition of a government-in-exile by other states can take several forms. It may involve official diplomatic relations, the accreditation of ambassadors, or participation in international organizations. However, recognition is not always granted. Some states may withhold recognition to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of another country or because they support the regime currently in power.

Legal scholars debate whether recognition of governments-in-exile should be based on democratic legitimacy, continuity of governance, or effective control. Nevertheless, recognition continues to be largely driven by political considerations rather than strict legal criteria.

Liberation Movements and Rebel Groups

Liberation movements and rebel groups represent another category of non-state actors that occasionally receive forms of recognition. These groups typically operate within a state’s territory and claim to represent a people or region seeking independence, autonomy, or regime change. While these groups often lack full control over a defined territory, they may gain support and recognition from other states or international organizations based on political, humanitarian, or ideological grounds.

One of the most prominent examples of a recognized liberation movement is the African National Congress (ANC) during apartheid in South Africa. The ANC was granted observer status by the United Nations and received political and material support from various countries despite not being a state.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) offers another example. It has been recognized by the United Nations and many individual states as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, even though Palestine was not a full UN member state at the time.

Recognition of liberation movements often serves strategic or moral purposes. States may use recognition as a tool to delegitimize an existing regime or to show solidarity with a cause. However, it also raises questions about sovereignty, non-intervention, and the use of force in internal conflicts.

In legal terms, recognition of a liberation movement does not necessarily equate to recognition of a state. Instead, it acknowledges the political legitimacy or moral authority of a group’s cause. Recognition can pave the way for future negotiations, peace processes, or eventual statehood, but it does not in itself confer legal personality under international law.

Legal Consequences of Non-Recognition

#1 Diplomatic Relations

When a state or government is not recognized by other states, one of the most immediate consequences is the absence of formal diplomatic relations. Recognition serves as a legal acknowledgment that a state or government exists and has the capacity to engage in international relations. Without recognition, states typically refrain from establishing embassies, appointing ambassadors, or entering into bilateral agreements.

This lack of diplomatic ties can lead to international isolation. The unrecognized entity may find it difficult to participate in multilateral forums or engage in direct dialogue with other nations. Even in cases where informal contacts are maintained, these do not carry the same legal or political weight as formal diplomatic relations.

Moreover, non-recognition can hinder the unrecognized state’s ability to advocate for its interests on the global stage, secure foreign aid, or mediate conflicts.

For example, many countries do not formally recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state due to the “One China Policy.” As a result, while Taiwan maintains informal offices abroad, they do not have official embassies in most countries, which limits its diplomatic influence despite its robust economy and functioning government.

#2 Treaty Rights and Obligations

Another major consequence of non-recognition concerns the ability to enter into and benefit from international treaties. Under international law, only recognized states and governments are generally seen as having the full legal capacity to conclude treaties with other states. Non-recognition therefore calls into question the validity and enforceability of any agreements made by the unrecognized entity.

In practice, this means that treaties negotiated by an unrecognized state may not be honored or acknowledged by the broader international community. It also creates uncertainty regarding obligations under multilateral treaties, such as those related to trade, environmental protection, or human rights. While an unrecognized entity may claim adherence to certain treaties, such claims are often not officially accepted or enforced by other parties.

For instance, if a non-recognized state attempts to sign a bilateral trade agreement, the treaty may lack legal force in the partner state unless special legislative measures are taken. This undermines the entity’s ability to secure stable international partnerships or benefit from international legal protections.

#3 International Court Jurisdiction

Non-recognition can also affect an entity’s standing before international courts and tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Recognition is often a prerequisite for gaining legal personality in the international system, which in turn determines whether an entity can be a party to a case or invoke international legal protections.

An unrecognized state may be barred from initiating proceedings before international courts because it is not considered a subject of international law. Even if a case involving such an entity is brought forward by a recognized state, the court may face jurisdictional challenges rooted in the issue of recognition.

Moreover, enforcement of international legal decisions may be hampered when one of the parties is not recognized. Without mutual recognition, there is often no legal or political mechanism to ensure compliance with judgments or arbitral awards. This legal vacuum can perpetuate conflicts and obstruct peaceful resolution mechanisms.

A notable example involves entities like Northern Cyprus or Abkhazia, which have limited recognition. These territories face significant barriers in pursuing legal claims or defending themselves in international judicial forums due to their ambiguous legal status.

Bottom Line

The theories of recognition in international law primarily revolve around two dominant frameworks: the declaratory theory and the constitutive theory. These theories seek to explain how and when a state becomes recognized as a sovereign entity under international law.

The declaratory theory of recognition holds that a state becomes a legal entity once it meets the objective criteria for statehood, defined by the Montevideo Convention, namely: a permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to this view, recognition by other states is merely a political acknowledgment and does not affect the legal status of the state.

In contrast, the constitutive theory asserts that a state only gains international legal personality once it is recognized by existing states. Under this theory, recognition is not just a political act but a necessary condition for the creation of statehood under international law. This view often leads to complex geopolitical consequences, especially in cases like Palestine, Taiwan, and Kosovo.

Both theories are widely debated, and in practice, states often take a hybrid approach, combining elements of both doctrines based on political, strategic, and legal interests.

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…