Sovereign state

A sovereign state is a state that has the highest authority over a territory.[1] It is commonly
understood that a sovereign state is independent.[2] When referring to a specific polity, the term
"country" may also refer to a constituent country, or a dependent territory.[3][4][5]

A sovereign state is usually required to have a permanent population, defined territory, a

government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states.[6] In
actual practice, recognition or non-recognition by other states plays an important role in
determining the status of a country. Unrecognized states often have difficulty engaging in
diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.[7][8]

History

Since the end of the 19th century, almost the entire globe has been divided into sections
(countries) with more or less defined borders assigned to different states. Previously, quite large
plots of land were either unclaimed or deserted, or inhabited by nomadic peoples that were not
organized into states. However, even in modern states, there are large remote areas, such as the
Amazon's tropical forests, that are either uninhabited or inhabited exclusively or mainly by
indigenous people (and some of them are still not in constant contact). Additionally, there are
states where de facto control is contested or where it is not exercised over their whole area.

Currently, the international community includes more than 200 sovereign states, most of which
are represented in the United Nations. These states exist in a system of international relations,
where each state takes into account the policies of other states by making its own calculations.
From this point of view, States are integrated into the international system of special internal and
external security and legitimization of the dilemma. Recently, the concept of the international
community has been formed to refer to a group of States that have established rules, procedures
and institutions for the implementation of relations. Thus, the foundation for international law,
diplomacy between officially recognized sovereign states, their organizations and formal regimes
has been laid.

Westphalian sovereignty

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the
absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of
states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in
1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[9][10] Up until the 19th century, the radicalised
concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain people in
the world were "uncivilized", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and
constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking or at least of an
inferior character when compared to that of the "civilized" people".[11] Lassa Oppenheim said,
"There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of
sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was
introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning, which was
universally agreed upon."[12] In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia,
"sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise
at all".[13]

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-
determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of
modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties
of States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states
are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their
existence as persons under international law.[14][15] The right of nations to determine their own
political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial
jurisdictions is widely recognized.[16][17][18]

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in
the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy
in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one.[19]

Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty,
according to Bryan Turner, "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and
recognized the right of princes "to confessionalize" the state, that is, to determine the religious
affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio eius religio [whose realm,
his religion]."[20]

Before 1900, sovereign states enjoyed absolute immunity from the judicial process, derived from
the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian equality of states. First articulated by Jean
Bodin, the powers of the state are considered to be suprema potestas within territorial
boundaries. Based on this, the jurisprudence has developed along the lines of affording immunity
from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon,
Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote that the "perfect equality
and absolute independence of sovereigns" has created a class of cases where "every sovereign
is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction,
which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation".[21][22]
Absolute sovereign immunity is no longer as widely accepted as it has been in the past, and
some countries, including the United States, Canada, Singapore, Australia, Pakistan and South
Africa, have introduced restrictive immunity by statute, which explicitly limits jurisdictional
immunity to public acts, but not private or commercial ones, though there is no precise definition
by which public acts can easily be distinguished from private ones.[22]

Recognition

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a
sovereign state. Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its
effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

There are debates over whether states can exist as a fact independent of recognition or whether
recognition is one of the facts necessary to bring states into being.[23] No definition is binding on
all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. Some argue that the
criteria are mainly political, not legal.[24] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and
Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a
matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes,
regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government."[25] International lawyer
Hersch Lauterpacht states that recognition is not merely a formality but an active interpretation
in support of any facts. Once made however it cannot be arbitrarily revoked on account of
another state's own discretion or internal politics.[23]

Constitutive theory

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only
if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was
developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state
recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the
international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to
respect international law in their dealings with them.[26] In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, the
Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result,
it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other
states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.[27]

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a
new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents,
suggested that a state must grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use
any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such
criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage.[26]

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim said the following, regarding constitutive theory:

International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not
recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition
only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of
International Law.[28]

Recognition or non-recognition by other states can override declarative theory criteria in cases
such as Kosovo and Somaliland.[29]

Declarative theory

By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if
it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government
and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an
entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty
was not gained by military force. The declarative model was expressed in the 1933 Montevideo
Convention.[30]

A "territory" in the international law context consists of land territory, internal waters, territorial
sea, and air space above the territory. There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or
minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be
considered territories sufficient for statehood. The term "permanent population" defines the
community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable of
supporting the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement for a minimum
population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and
population (the requirement known in legal theory as the "effective control test") and guarantee
the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The "capacity to enter into
relations with other states" reflects the entity's degree of independence.[31]

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of

recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself.[32]

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by
the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found
that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter
into relations with other states.[33]
The Montevideo Convention criteria do not automatically create a state because additional
requirements must be met. While they play an important role, they do not determine the status of
a country in all cases, such as Kosovo, Rhodesia, and Somaliland.[29]

In practice, international relations take into account the effect of recognition and non-
recognition. It is the act of recognition that affirms whether a country meets the requirements for
statehood and is now subject to international law in the same way that other sovereign states
are.[23][34]

State recognition

State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the
declaratory and constitutive approaches.[35] International law does not require a state to
recognise other states.[36] Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate
or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the
international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former
only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case
of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and
attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United
Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".[37]

In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern
Cyprus.[38] International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[39] and the
recognition of a country is a political issue.[40] On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) decided that "notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime
in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical
purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal
law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as
having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".[41] On 9 October 2014,
the US's Federal Court stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with
a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary".[42][43][44] On 2 September 2015, ECtHR
decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been
"established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated,
and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence
and/or impartiality".[45] On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was
no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern
Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and
facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island".[46] and revealed that the co-
operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal.
Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE), and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus.[47] As a
country, Northern Cyprus became an observer member in various international organizations (the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), the
Organization of Turkic States (OTS), the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkic States (TURKPA),
etc.).

De facto and de jure states

De facto map of control of the world, May 2019

Most sovereign states are both de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both according to law and in
practice).[48] However, states which are only de jure are sometimes recognised as being the
legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control.[49] For example,
during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of several states continued to enjoy
diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under occupation
by Axis powers. Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international
recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states.
They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise
them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.[50][51][52][53]

Outlining the concept of a de facto state for EurasiaNet in early 2024, Laurence Broers wrote:

De facto states can be understood as a product of the very system that excludes
the possibility of their existence: the post-Second World War and post-colonial
system of sovereign and equal states covering every centimeter of the globe.

The hegemony of this system, at least until recent years, is what created the
possibility of a de facto state as an anomaly existing outside of it - or in
Alexander Iskandaryan's memorable phrase, as "temporary technical errors
within the system of international law." The Soviet and Yugoslav collapses
 resulted in the emergence of numerous such entities, several of which, including
Abkhazia, Transdniester, South Ossetia and the NKR, survived in the margins of
international relations for decades despite non-recognition.[54]

Semi-sovereign states

Sovereignty is most commonly conceptualised as something categorical, which is either present

or absent, and the coherence of any intermediate position in that binary has been questioned,
especially in the context of international law.[55] In spite of this, some authors admit the concept
of a semi-sovereign state, a state which is officially acknowledged as sovereign but whose
theoretical sovereignty is significantly impaired in practice, such as by being de facto subjected
to a more powerful neighbour; Belarus, in its relationship with Russia, has been proposed as a
contemporary example of a semi-sovereign state.[56] In a somewhat different sense, the term
semi-sovereign was famously applied to West Germany by political scientist Peter Katzenstein in
his 1987 book Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a Semi-sovereign State,[57] due
to having a political system in which the sovereignty of the state was subject to limitations both
internal (West Germany's federal system and the role of civil society) and external (membership
in the European Community and reliance on its alliance with the United States and NATO for its
national security).[58]

Relationship between state and government

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,[59] international law
distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of
"government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction.[60] States are non-physical juridical
entities, not organisations of any kind.[61] However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can
obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty.[60]

State extinction

Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though they can become extinguished, either
through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. Violent state abolition has
virtually ceased since the end of World War II.[62] Because states are non-physical juridical
entities, it has been argued that their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone.[63] Instead,
the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions
for a state to be abolished.
Ontological status of the state

The ontological status of the state has been a subject of debate,[64] especially, whether or not the
state, is an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect,[65] actually exists.

The state as "quasi-abstract"

It has been argued that one potential reason why the existence of states has been controversial
is that states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the
abstract.[66] Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have a position in time and space,
which states do not have (though their territories have a spatial position, states are distinct from
their territories), and abstract objects have a position in neither time nor space, which does not fit
the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have a temporal position (they can
be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been
argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to
garner philosophical attention, especially in the area of Documentality, an ontological theory that
seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract
objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used
to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a
war.[66]

Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and
pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world
is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any
international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not
the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is
competing against many other actors.[67]

The state as "spiritual entity"

Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual,[68] or "mystical entity"[68]
with its own being, distinct from the members of the state.[68] The German Idealist philosopher
Georg Hegel (1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory.[68] The Hegelian
definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth".[69]
Trends in the number of states

Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has
surged.[70] Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional
organisations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of
self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for
the increase in the number of states in the international system.[71][72] Harvard economist Alberto
Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, Size of Nations, that the
increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free
trade and international economic integration, democratisation, and the presence of international
organisations that co-ordinate economic and political policies.[73]

See also

Politics portal

World portal

Non-interventionism

List of sovereign states

Associated state

Dependent territory

Exclusive mandate

Failed state

Federated state

List of former sovereign states

List of sovereign states (by formation date)

List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent

List of states with limited recognition

List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies

Nation-building

Non-Aligned Movement

Rule according to higher law

Stateless society
 Unitary state

Quasi-state

Princely state

Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a rare example of a contemporary sovereign, non-state entity

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

References

Citations

1. Philpott, Daniel (1995). "Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History". Journal of

International Affairs. 48 (2): 353–368. JSTOR 24357595 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2435
7595) .

2. See the following:

Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the
science. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. p. 51. "A sovereign state is generally defined to be any
nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs
itself independently of foreign powers."

"sovereign" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign) , The American

Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004,
archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151007000128/http://dictionary.reference.co
m/browse/sovereign) from the original on 7 October 2015, retrieved 21 February
2010, "adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state."

"sovereign", The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005, ISBN 978-0-19-517077-1, "adjective ... [ attrib. ] (of a nation or state) fully
independent and determining its own affairs."

Pellet, Alain (1992). "The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee A Second
Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples". European Journal of International Law. 3
(1): 178–185. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035802 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Foxf
ordjournals.ejil.a035802) . "The Committee considers [...] that the state is commonly
defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an
organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty; [...]"

3. Fowler, Michael Ross; Bunck, Julie Marie (1996). "What constitutes the sovereign state?".
Review of International Studies. 22 (4). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 381–404.
doi:10.1017/s0260210500118637 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs0260210500118637) .
S2CID 145809847 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145809847) .
 4. "Countries Not in the United Nations 2024" (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-ran
kings/countries-not-in-the-un) . World Population by Country 2024 (Live). Retrieved 2 March
2024.

5. Talmon, Stefan (2001). "Recognition and its Variants". Recognition of Governments in

International Law. pp. 44–112. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248391.003.0003 (https://d
oi.org/10.1093%2Facprof%3Aoso%2F9780199248391.003.0003) . ISBN 978-0-19-924839-
1.

6. See the following:

Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law (https://archive.org/details/internation
allaw00shaw_380) . Cambridge University Press. p. 178 (https://archive.org/details/in
ternationallaw00shaw_380/page/n320) . ISBN 978-0-5215-3183-2. "Article 1 of the
Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely
accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the
state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a
permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter
into relations with other states' ".

Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995). Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law

International. p. 20. "So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided
for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted."

7. Visoka, Gëzim (2022). "Statehood and recognition in world politics: Towards a critical
research agenda" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00108367211007876) . Cooperation and
Conflict. 57 (2): 133–151. doi:10.1177/00108367211007876 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0
0108367211007876) .

8. Hoch, Tomáš (2018). "Legitimization of Statehood and its Impact on Foreign Policy in De
Facto States: A Case Study of Abkhazia". Iran & the Caucasus. 22 (4). Brill: 382–407.
doi:10.1163/1573384X-20180406 (https://doi.org/10.1163%2F1573384X-20180406) .
JSTOR 26626701 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26626701) .

9. Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.

ISBN 978-0-691-00711-3.

10. Núñez, Jorge Emilio (2013). "About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty".
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 27 (4): 645–664. doi:10.1007/s11196-013-
9333-x (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11196-013-9333-x) . S2CID 150817547 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:150817547) .

11. Wilde, Ralph (2009). "From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of
the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of
Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers". Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 31: 85–142 [p. 94].
12. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)

13. Akweenda, Sackey (1997). "Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories". International law
and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 40.
ISBN 978-90-411-0412-0.

14. "Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States" (http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41

_Charter_of_the_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4) . Charter of the Organization
of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20120409062542/http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_A-41_Charter_of_the
_Organization_of_American_States.htm#ch4) from the original on 9 April 2012. Retrieved
21 November 2010.

15. "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" (http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/

english/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf) (PDF). UN Treaty Organization. 1949. Archived (ht
tps://web.archive.org/web/20131017051712/http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/engli
sh/draft%20articles/2_1_1949.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 17 October 2013. Retrieved
21 November 2010.

16. "General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty
over natural resources" " (https://web.archive.org/web/20110218220818/http://www2.ohch
r.org/english/law/resources.htm) . United Nations. Archived from the original (http://www
2.ohchr.org/english/law/resources.htm) on 18 February 2011. Retrieved 21 November
2010.

17. Schwebel, Stephen M. (1963). "The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent
Sovereignty over Natural Resources". American Bar Association Journal. 49 (5): 463–469.
JSTOR 25722375 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25722375) .

18. "OHCHR | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pr

ofessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx) . www.ohchr.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20181204121546/https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf) (PDF)
from the original on 4 December 2018. Retrieved 2 March 2021.

19. Grinin, L. E (2008). "Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign
Prerogatives?" (https://www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/127716/) . Age of Globalization
(1).

20. Turner, Bryan S. (July 2007). "Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State". The Muslim
World. 97 (3): 405–418. doi:10.1111/j.1478-1913.2007.00187.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2
Fj.1478-1913.2007.00187.x) .
21. Simpson, Gerry (2004). "Sovereign Equalities". Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal
Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 25–
61. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511494185 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO9780511494185) .
ISBN 978-0-521-82761-4.

22. Bankas, Ernest K. (2005). The State Immunity Controversy in International Law.
doi:10.1007/3-540-27883-4 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F3-540-27883-4) . ISBN 978-3-540-
25695-3.

23. Grant, Thomas D. (1999). "Chapter 1". The recognition of states: law and practice in debate
and evolution. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

24. See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47–48 in International law: achievements and
prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991,
ISBN 92-3-102716-6 [1] (https://books.google.com/books?id=jrTsNTzcY7EC&pg=PA47)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113127/https://books.google.com/book
s?id=jrTsNTzcY7EC&lpg=PA47&client&pg=PA47) 14 November 2022 at the Wayback
Machine

25. See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 [2] (https://books.google.com/
books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&dq=t&pg=PA136) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221
114113129/https://books.google.com/books?id=5okNqth8I9wC&lpg=PA136&ots=ARGGND
m7G-&dq=t&pg=PA136) 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine

26. Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law (https://books.google.com/book

s?id=Kr0sOuIx8q8C) . Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN 978-1-85941-050-9.

27. Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Jh

6gjr-2ho8C&dq=Final+Act+of+the+Congress+of+Vienna&pg=PA128) .

28. Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA135) . The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 135.
ISBN 978-1-58477-609-3.

29. Akande, Dapo (7 August 2013). "The Importance of Legal Criteria for Statehood: A
Response to Jure Vidmar" (https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-importance-of-legal-criteria-for-state
hood-a-response-to-jure-vidmar/) . EJIL: Talk!.

30. Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law (https://books.google.com/boo

ks?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419) . Cambridge University Press. p. 419.
ISBN 9781107609433. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130620/https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419) from the original on 15 January
2023. Retrieved 13 August 2015.
31. Bachmann, Sascha Dov; Prazauskas, Martinas (19 December 2019). "The Status of
Unrecognized Quasi-States and Their Responsibilities Under the Montevideo Convention" (h
ttps://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=641117074119116071091029095088081024
016073027027075062101005081022079120102112119011096100063045053098009088
083101104031096022059021009023036095081099026082082087125060082063067114
003111020000119012085025124069081114093080123002084107102096092069024110
&EXT=pdf) . The International Lawyer. 52 (3): 400–410. Retrieved 19 May 2020 – via SSRN.

32. "Convention on Rights and Duties of States" (http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a

-40.html) . www.oas.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190529173110/http://w
ww.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html) from the original on 29 May 2019.
Retrieved 11 March 2015.

33. Castellino, Joshua (2000). International Law and Self-Determination: The Interplay of the
Politics of Territorial Possession With Formulations of Post-Colonial National Identity (https://
books.google.com/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC) . Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 77 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=uGMxfj4oedEC&pg=PA77) . ISBN 978-90-411-1409-9.

34. Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law (https://books.google.com/bo

oks?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64) . Cambridge University Press. p. 64.
ISBN 9781107609433. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230115130619/https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA64) from the original on 15 January
2023. Retrieved 19 January 2018.

35. Shaw 2003, p. 369 (https://archive.org/details/internationallaw00shaw_380/page/n511) .

36. Opinion No. 10. of the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia.

37. United Nations Security Council Resolution 216

38. United Nations Security Council Resolution 541

39. BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573) Archived (https://web.archive.

org/web/20180522102518/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573) 22 May
2018 at the Wayback Machine The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of
independence."

40. Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016 (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ) Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20221114113130/https://books.google.com/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ) 14
November 2022 at the Wayback Machine p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of
recognition was apolitical.
41. ECtHR (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122907) The decision of 02.07.2013.
paragraph 29

42. Abbott, Ryan (13 October 2014). "Property Spat Over Turk-|Controlled Cyprus Fails" (https://
www.courthousenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/) . Courthouse
News Service. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20231021033633/https://www.courth
ousenews.com/property-spat-over-turk-controlled-cyprus-fails/) from the original on 21
October 2023.

43. "Michali Toumazou, Nicolas Kantzilaris and Maroulla Tompazou versus Republic of Turkey
and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-colu
mbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002) . Justia. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202
31020134245/https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv0196
7/139002) from the original on 20 October 2023.

44. "Opinion stating the reasons for the Court's Order of September 30, 2014 granting both the
TRNC's and the HSBC defendants' motions to dismiss, denying the plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend, and dismissing this action with prejudice for Toumazou et al v. Republic of
Turkey et al" (https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcd
ce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53) . Justia. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20231021
033632/https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:
2009cv01967/139002/53) from the original on 21 October 2023.

45. ECtHR (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155000) The decision of 02.09.2015.

paragraph 237.

46. The Telegraph 03.02.2017 (https://web.archive.org/web/20230424173316/https://www.tel

egraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/criminals-fleeing-british-justice-can-no-longer-use-cyprus-s
afe/) Criminals fleeing British justice can no longer use Cyprus as a safe haven, judges
rule, in landmark decision

47. James Ker-Lindsay (UN SG's Former Special Representative for Cyprus) (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221114113
128/https://books.google.com/books?id=4PwmeRG9QsUC) 14 November 2022 at the
Wayback Machine The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of
Contested States, p.149

48. Czapliński, W.; Kleczkowska, A.; Scholar, W.N. (2019). Unrecognised Subjects in International
Law (https://books.google.com/books?id=XuKnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA26) . Scholar
Publishing House. p. 26. ISBN 978-83-7383-964-9. Retrieved 5 February 2024.
49. Goodwin-Gill, Guy S.; Talmon, Stefan (14 October 1999). The Reality of International
LawEssays in Honour of Ian Brownlie. Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198268376.003.0023 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Facprof%3A
oso%2F9780198268376.003.0023) . ISBN 978-0-19-826837-6.

50. Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20111213214545/http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/0832
06arieff.pdf) (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs. 3: 60–79. Archived from the
original (http://yalejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/083206arieff.pdf) (PDF) on
13 December 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2010.

51. "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon" (https://foreignpolicy.com/story/c
ms.php?story_id=3903) . Foreign Policy Magazine. July 2007. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20090113111413/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=390
3) from the original on 13 January 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010.

52. "Overview of De-facto States" (http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/) .

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. July 2008. Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20100603124308/http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8418/244/) from the
original on 3 June 2010. Retrieved 4 January 2010.

53. Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognises de facto Somaliland" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20180825054320/http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/1
5055_mahamudsalahnur_eng.html) . Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. Archived from the
original (http://www.lesnouvelles.org/P10_magazine/15_grandentretien/15055_mahamuds
alahnur_eng.html) on 25 August 2018. Retrieved 4 January 2010.

54. Broers, Laurence (2 January 2024). "The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic: The life and death of
an unrecognized state" (https://eurasianet.org/the-nagorno-karabakh-republic-the-life-and-d
eath-of-an-unrecognized-state) . EurasiaNet. Retrieved 4 January 2024.

55. Grant, John P.; Barker, J. Craig (2 October 2009). Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of
International Law (https://books.google.com/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ) . Oxford
University Press. p. 552. ISBN 978-0-19-987491-0. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0230115130624/https://books.google.com/books?id=Qu7QCwAAQBAJ) from the original
on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2022.

56. Hancock, Kathleen J. (April 2006). "The Semi-Sovereign State: Belarus and the Russian Neo-
Empire". Foreign Policy Analysis. 2 (2): 117–136. doi:10.1111/j.1743-8594.2006.00023.x (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1743-8594.2006.00023.x) . S2CID 153926665 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:153926665) .
57. Katzenstein, Peter J. (1987). Policy and Politics in West Germany: The Growth of a
Semisovereign State (https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBrQgAACAAJ) . Temple
University Press. ISBN 978-0-87722-264-4. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2023011
5130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=nwBrQgAACAAJ) from the original on 15
January 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2022.

58. Padgett, Stephen; Jeffery, C.; Bulmer, Simon (14 January 2014). Rethinking Germany and
Europe: Democracy and Diplomacy in a Semi-Sovereign State (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=XHrQtwEACAAJ) . Palgrave Macmillan UK. ISBN 978-1-349-58924-1. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=XHrQtwEA
CAAJ) from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 7 March 2022.

59. Robinson, Edward Heath (August 2013). "The Distinction Between State and Government".
Geography Compass. 7 (8): 556–566. Bibcode:2013GComp...7..556R (https://ui.adsabs.harv
ard.edu/abs/2013GComp...7..556R) . doi:10.1111/gec3.12065 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2
Fgec3.12065) .

60. Crawford, J. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-826002-8.

61. Robinson, Edward Heath (2010). "An ontological analysis of states: Organizations vs. legal
persons". Applied Ontology. 5 (2): 109–125. doi:10.3233/AO-2010-0077 (https://doi.org/10.
3233%2FAO-2010-0077) .

62. Fazal, Tanisha M. (2004). "State Death in the International System". International
Organization. 58 (2): 311–344. doi:10.1017/S0020818304582048 (https://doi.org/10.1017%
2FS0020818304582048) (inactive 1 November 2024). JSTOR 3877860 (https://www.jstor.
org/stable/3877860) .

63. Robinson, Edward Heath (2011). "The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of
the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since
the Second World War" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180219023941/http://www.edward
heath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf) (PDF). The Journal of
Military Geography. 1: 17–29. Archived from the original (http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-c
ontent/uploads/2013/01/Destruction-of-States.pdf) (PDF) on 19 February 2018. Retrieved
6 June 2013.

64. Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the ontological status of the state". European Journal of
International Relations. 2 (4): 439–466. doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002 (https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F1354066196002004002) . S2CID 145248100 (https://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:145248100) . (full text (https://archive.org/stream/RingmarOntologicalStatus
OfTheState/RingmarOntologicalStatusOfTheState_djvu.txt) )
65. A. James (1986). Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen &
Unwin)

66. Robinson, Edward H. (2014). "A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-
abstract entities" (https://web.archive.org/web/20160303213829/https://dl.dropboxuserco
ntent.com/u/46395762/My%20Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf)
(PDF). Geopolitics. 19 (3): 461–489. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027 (https://doi.org/1
0.1080%2F14650045.2014.913027) . S2CID 67844415 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:67844415) . Archived from the original (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/463
95762/My%20Articles/Documentary%20Theory%20of%20States.pdf) (PDF) on 3 March
2016. Retrieved 16 September 2014.

67. Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the Ontological Status of the State". European Journal of
International Relations. 10 (2).

68. Schmandt & Steinbicker 1956, p. 71

69. Schmandt & Steinbicker 1956, p. 71 (citing Hegel's Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree
[New York: Wiley Book Co., 1934]); see also Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (2012) [1899].
The Philosophy of History (https://books.google.com/books?id=bniImd3dIMkC) . Courier
Corporation. p. 39 (https://books.google.com/books?id=bniImd3dIMkC&dq=%22divine+ide
a%22&pg=PA39) . ISBN 978-0-486-11900-7.

70. "The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy" (https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-handboo

k-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents) . SAGE Publications. pp. 294–295. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20161117145048/https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-sage-ha
ndbook-of-diplomacy/book242760#contents) from the original on 17 November 2016.
Retrieved 17 November 2016.

71. Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (March 2014). "Membership Has Its Privileges: The
Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79–106.
doi:10.1111/misr.12099 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fmisr.12099) .

72. "The State of Secession in International Politics" (http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/the-state

-of-secession-in-international-politics/) . E-International Relations. 23 September 2016.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161117064713/http://www.e-ir.info/2016/09/23/t
he-state-of-secession-in-international-politics/) from the original on 17 November 2016.
Retrieved 16 November 2016.

73. Alesina, Alberto; Spolaore, Enrico (7 November 2003). The Size of Nations (https://mitpress.
mit.edu/books/size-nations) . MIT Press. ISBN 9780262012041. Archived (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20161117063734/https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/size-nations) from the
original on 17 November 2016. Retrieved 16 November 2016.
Sources

Schmandt, Henry J.; Steinbicker, Paul G. (1956) [1954]. Fundamentals of Government (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ) (2nd printing ed.). Bruce Publishing Company.
OL 43450205M (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL43450205M) . Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20230115130622/https://books.google.com/books?id=zCaLngEACAAJ) from the
original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 17 November 2017.

Further reading

Angie, Antony (26 April 2007). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=VJuHlZ1_fbEC) . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-
521-82892-5.

Butcher, Charles R.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (17 January 2020). "States and their international
relations since 1816: introducing version 2 of the International System(s) Dataset (ISD)" (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F03050629.2020.1707199) . International Interactions. 46 (2): 291–
308. doi:10.1080/03050629.2020.1707199 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F03050629.2020.1707
199) .

Chen, Ti-chiang. The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in Great
Britain and the United States. London, 1951.

Crawford, James. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press, 2005.
ISBN 0-19-825402-4, pp. 15–24.

Dieter Grimm (21 April 2015). Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political and Legal Concept
(https://books.google.com/books?id=PbXoBgAAQBAJ) . Columbia University Press.
ISBN 978-0-231-53930-2.

Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law (https://books.google.com/book

s?id=EWgEv1Qq2TwC&pg=PA419) . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107609433.

Muir, Richard (1981). Modern Political Geography (https://books.google.com/books?id=GlBdD

wAAQBAJ) (Second ed.). Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 9781349860760.

Raič, D. Statehood and the Law of Self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002.
ISBN 978-90-411-1890-5. p 29 (with reference to Oppenheim in International Law Vol. 1 1905
p110)

Schmandt, Henry J., and Paul G. Steinbicker. Fundamentals of Government, "Part Three. The
Philosophy of the State" (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1954 [2nd printing,
1956]). 507 pgs. 23 cm. LOC classification: JA66 .S35 Fundamentals of government (https://lc
cn.loc.gov/54010666)
External links

A Brief Primer on International Law (http://www.burneylawfirm.com/international_law_primer.h

tm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161110081904/http://www.burneylawfirm.co
m/international_law_primer.htm) 10 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine With cases
and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.

What constitutes the sovereign state? (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?ty

pe=1&fid=6305536&jid=RIS&volumeId=22&issueId=04&aid=6305528&bodyId=&membershipN
umber=&societyETOCSession=) by Michael Ross Fowler and Julie Marie Bunck

Links to the best political risk websites, ipoliticalrisk.com (http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com)

Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120801184630/http://www.ipoliticalrisk.com/) 1
August 2012 at the Wayback Machine information on tracking, evaluating and managing
sovereign risk for trade and permanent investment

Legal opinion by the Negotiations Support Unit in the Palestinian Authority on transitional
sovereignty (http://thepalestinepapers.com/files/1402.PDF) (PDF)

Barclay, Thomas (1911). "State" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Br

itannica/State) . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 25 (11th ed.). pp. 799–801.