 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Diplomatic recognition" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(August 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Diplomatic recognition ininternational law is aunilateral declarative political act of astate that acknowledges an act or status of another state orgovernment in control of a state (may be also a recognized state). Recognition can be accorded either on ade facto orde jure basis. Partial recognition can occur if many sovereign states refuse to recognize an entity as a peer. Recognition can be a declaration to that effect by the recognizing government or may be implied from an act of recognition, such as entering into atreaty with the other state or making astate visit. Recognition may, but need not, have domestic and international legal consequences. If sufficient countries recognize a particular entity as a state, that state may have a right to membership ininternational organizations, while treaties may require all existing member countries unanimously agreeing to the admission of a new member.
A vote by a country in theUnited Nations in favour of themembership of another country is an implicit recognition of that country by the country so voting, as only states may be members of the UN.[citation needed] On the other hand, a negative vote for UN membership does not necessarily mean non-recognition of the applicant as a state, as other criteria, requirements or special circumstances may be considered relevant for UN membership. Similarly, a country may choose not to apply for UN membership for its own reasons, as is the case withVatican City, andSwitzerland was not a member until 2002 because of its concerns to maintain itsneutrality policy.
The non-recognition of particular acts of a state does not normally affect the recognition of the state itself. For example, the international rejection of theoccupation of particular territory by a recognized state does not imply non-recognition of the state itself, nor a rejection of a change of government by illegal means.
Diplomatic recognition must be distinguished from formal recognition of states or their governments.[2] The fact that states do not maintain bilateral diplomatic relations does not mean that they do not recognize or treat one another as states. A state is not required to accord formal bilateral recognition to any other state, and some have a general policy of not doing so, considering that a vote for its membership of an international organisation restricted to states, such as theUnited Nations, is an act of recognition.
Some consider that a state has a responsibility not to recognize as a state any entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood by a violation of basic principles of theUN Charter: theUN Security Council has in several instances (Resolution 216 (1965) andResolution 217 (1965), concerningRhodesia;Resolution 541 (1983), concerningNorthern Cyprus; andResolution 787 (1992), concerning theRepublika Srpska) issued Chapter VII resolutions (binding in international law) that denied their statehood and precluded recognition. In the 2010International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, theICJ ruled that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence."[3] The Court carefully noted "that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawfuluse of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular, those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo, the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council."[4]
States can exercise their recognition powers either explicitly or implicitly.[5] The recognition of a government implies recognition of the state it governs, but even countries which have a policy of formally recognising states may not have a policy of doing the same regarding governments.[citation needed]
De facto recognition of states, rather thande jure, is rare.[citation needed]De jure recognition is stronger, whilede facto recognition is more tentative and recognizes only that a government exercises control over a territory. An example of the difference is when theUnited Kingdom recognized theSoviet statede facto in 1921, butde jure only in 1924.[citation needed] Another example is the state ofIsrael in 1948, whose government was immediately recognizedde facto by theUnited States and three days laterde jure by theSoviet Union.[citation needed] Another example is theRepublicof Indonesia which was whose government was recognizedde facto by theNetherlands in 1946 andde jure by the international community in 1949.[citation needed] Also, theRepublic of China, commonly known as "Taiwan", is generally recognized asde facto independent and sovereign, but is not universally recognized asde jure independent due to the complexpolitical status of Taiwan related to the United Nations' withdrawal of recognition in favor of thePeople's Republic of China in 1971.[citation needed]
Renewing recognition of a government is not necessary when it changes in a normal, constitutional way (such as anelection orreferendum), but may be necessary in the case of acoup d'etat orrevolution.[citation needed] Recognition of a new government by other states can be important for its long-term survival.[citation needed] For instance, theTaliban government of theIslamic State of Afghanistan, which lasted from 1996 to 2001, was recognized only byPakistan, theUnited Arab Emirates, andSaudi Arabia, while far more had recognized the government of ousted PresidentBurhanuddin Rabbani.[citation needed] India's administration ofJammu and Kashmir, part of adisputed territory, is not recognized by eitherPakistan or thePeople's Republic of China, and theRepublic of Turkey.[citation needed]
Recognition can be implied by other acts, such as a visit of thehead of state, or the signing of a bilateral treaty. If implicit recognition is possible, a state may feel the need to explicitly proclaim that its acts do not constitute diplomatic recognition, like when the United States commenced its dialogue with thePalestine Liberation Organization in 1988.[citation needed]
Formal diplomatic recognition can be used as a tool of political influence with examples includingEuropean Community's conditional recognition of independence of former republics ofSFR Yugoslavia in early 1990s dependent on new states commitment to protection ofhuman andnational minorities rights.[6]
States may withdraw diplomatic recognition of another state. States that experience derecognition are typically those excluded from theUnited Nations System, such asTaiwan, theSahrawi Arab Democratic Republic,Kosovo,Abkhazia, andSouth Ossetia.[7] Derecognition is achieved throughcheckbook diplomacy, diplomatic pressure, or military threats.[7] Smaller states have engaged in "rental recognition" by bartering their (de)recognition of states in exchange for aid.[8]
There is no clear consensus on the legality of derecognition.[7][8][9] While certain academics argue that recognition of statehood is irrevocable under international law, others contend that derecognition is legal, and that the position that recognition is irrevocable is "outdated" and challenged by current state practices.[7] There is a broader consensus that derecognition is permitted when (a) a state was created through theuse of force (e.g. Abkhazia and South Ossetia), or (b) a state ceases to exist (e.g. the United States' derecognition ofArmenia in 1920).[9][10]
The doctrine of non-recognition of illegal or immoral situations is called theStimson Doctrine, and has become more important since theSecond World War, especially in theUnited Nations where it is a method of ensuring compliance withinternational law – for instance, in the case ofRhodesia in 1965.[citation needed] Withdrawal of recognition of a government is a more severe act of disapproval than the breaking ofdiplomatic relations.[citation needed]
Besides recognizing other states, states also can recognize the governments of states. This can be problematic particularly when a new government comes to power by illegal means, such as acoup d'état, or when an existing government stays in power by fixing an election. States once formally recognized both the government of a state and the state itself, but many no longer follow that practice,[11] even though, if diplomatic relations are to be maintained, it is necessary that there be a government with which to engage in diplomatic relations.[12] Countries such as theUnited States answer queries over the recognition of governments with the statement: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."[13]
| This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(August 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Several of the world'sgeopolitical entities lack general international recognition, but wish to be recognized assovereign states. The degree ofde facto control these entities exert over the territories they claim varies.
Most are subnationalregions with anethnic ornational identity of their own that haveseparated from the original parentstate. Such states are commonly referred to as "break-away" states. Some of these entities are in effect internallyself-governingprotectorates that enjoy military protection and informal diplomatic representation abroad through another state to prevent forced reincorporation into their original states.
The word "control" in this list refers tocontrol over the areaoccupied, notoccupation of the areaclaimed. Unrecognized countries may have either full control over their occupied territory (such asNorthern Cyprus), or only partial control (such asWestern Sahara). In the former, thede jure governments have little or no influence in the areas they claim to rule, whereas in the latter they have varying degrees of control, and may provide essential services to people living in the areas.
Other elements that may be recognized includeoccupation orannexation of territory, orbelligerent rights of a party in a conflict. Recognition of the latter does not imply recognition of a state.
Formal recognition ofbelligerency, which is rare today, signifies that the parties to the civil war or other internal conflict "are entitled to excise belligerent rights, thus accepting that the rebel group possesses sufficientinternational personality to support the position of such rights and duties."[14] Extension of the rights of belligerency is usually done by other states, rather than by the government fighting the rebel group.[14] (A 1907 report byWilliam E. Fuller for theSpanish Treaty Claims Commission noted that "A parent state never formally recognizes the insurgents as belligerents, although it may in fact treat them as such by carrying on war against them in accordance with the rules and usages of international warfare."[15])
Examples of recognition ofbelligerent status include:
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)