The Politics of International Recognition: Research Conference on May 6, 2010
What are the criteria by which political entities are to be internationally recognised as sovereign states? And who should judge these criteria and decide whether international recognition will be provided or not? These questions were discussed by leading researchers and practitioners at a conference at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs on May 6, 2010. The full conference program is available here.
Below you can read more about the politics of international recognition or listen to excerpts from some of the presentations.
Is there a politics of international recognition? Hans Agné believes that such a politics exists, and he rejects the paradigm of international law.
Listen to Agné speaking
Why do political entities seek international recognition? And how does this affect international relations? Stephen Krasner identifies motives for political action.
Listen to Krasner speaking
Can political conflicts over self-determination be peacefully resolved? Daniele Archibugi applies the theory of cosmopolitan democracy in addressing this issue.
Listen to Archibugi speaking
Should all states be treated equally? Christine Chwaszcza thinks not, and she explains why.
Listen to Chwaszcza speaking
Do good political decisions require good theories? Pål Wrange observes how standard theories fail to explain the facts of international recognition but suggests that we base political action on these theories nevertheless.
Listen to Wrange speaking
More About the Politics of International Recognition
On the basis of what criteria should political entities be internationally recognised as sovereign states? And who should judge these criteria and decide whether international recognition will be provided or not?
Prior to the emergence of a new state on the international scene, these two questions will in one way or the other have been settled in political practice. Still, they are anything but uncontroversial, as seen in political disagreements over the legal status, or the right to statehood, of Kosovo, Palestine, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Taiwan, Tibet, and many other contested territories and political communities. Whether people in Kurdistan or West Sahara should have their own state is contested both within and beyond their territories. Whether Kosovo or Taiwan in fact constitutes sovereign states is disputed by people as well as governments.
These political conflicts can be played out across different dimensions. International recognition can be provided to governments which control a territory of their own, or to governments which protect democracy and human rights within their territories. Decisions to recognise new states can be made unilaterally by other states, or negotiated multilaterally within supra-national institutions. International recognition can be an administrative decision that confirms past developments within a territory, or an offensive and ideologically driven policy of creating new states and breaking up old ones.
The consequences of such political differences are significant. International recognition provides, among other things, legal protection against aggressors, financial and technical support from international institutions, enhanced control over natural resources and the terms of their trade, authorisation to print money and to sell it abroad, and the psychological satisfaction of being treated as a people equal to others.
Hence issues of what criteria should determine the international establishment of new states, and of who should be authorised to decide on such matters, are of permanent yet urgent relevance in political theory, international relations, and political practice.