Global Journal of Human Social Science, F: Political Science, Volume 22 Issue 5

recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state. Historically this has happened in the case of the Holy See (1870–1929), Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (during Soviet annexation), among other cases. The recognition of the State of Palestine by over one hundred states is a contemporary example. Some states do not establish relations with new nations quickly and thus do not recognise them despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations (Neff 2005, Shaw 2003, Grant, 1999). Yet some states maintain informal (officially non-diplomatic) relations with states that do not officially recognise them. The Republic of China, that is, Taiwan is one such state, as it maintains unofficial relations with many other states through its Economic and Cultural Offices, which allow regular consular services. This allows the ROC to have economic relations even with states that do not formally recognise it. A total of 56 states, including Germany, Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom, maintain some form of unofficial mission in the ROC. Kosovo, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, and Palestine also host informal diplomatic missions, and/or maintain special delegations or other informal missions abroad. In the U.S., such offices by unrecognized entities are required to be registered as foreign lobbyist organizations under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) and act as regular lobbyists (Grant, 1999). The question of recognition of government normally arises only with regard to recognized States. When a State recognizes a new “government,” it usually acknowledges a person or group of persons as competent to act as the organ of the State and to represent it in its international relations. The only criterion in international law for the recognition of an authority as the government of a State is its exercise of effective control over the State’s territory. States may, however, continue to recognize a government-in-exile if an incumbent government is forced into exile by foreign occupation or the de facto government in situ has been created in violation of international law. Despite a trend in the literature to the contrary, there is still no rule of general or regional customary international law that a de facto government, to be a government in the sense of international law, must be democratically elected. Attempts to introduce such a requirement either by treaty (Central American Treaties of Peace and Amity of 1907 and 1923) or as a matter of national (Tobar, Wilson and Betancourt doctrines) or regional policies (Santiago Commitment to Democracy and the Renewal of the Inter-American System, OAS General Assembly Resolution 1080 of 5 June 1991) have failed (Dugard 1987, Evans & Capps 2009, Talmon, 1998). States may be roughly divided into three groups according to their recognition policy: States (such as the United Kingdom before 1980) that formally recognize governments; States (such as the United States) that generally do not formally recognize governments but do so in exceptional circumstances for political reasons; and States (such as the United Kingdom since 1980, and other member States of the European Union) that formally recognize only States, not governments. The policy is reminiscent of the “Estrada doctrine” according to which States issue no declarations in the sense of grants of recognition in cases of change of regime but confine themselves to the maintenance or withdrawal, as they may deem advisable, of their diplomatic agents. Those States have not completely abolished the recognition of governments, only the making of official statements of recognition. They still have to decide whether a person or group of persons qualifies as the government of another State, especially where there are competing “governments” in the same recognized State or when there is an attempted secession and issues of governmental status and statehood are linked. In the case of the British government, its opinion on the legal status of a claimant may be determined on the basis of the nature of the dealings (non-existent, limited or government-to-government dealings) which it has with a claimant (Talmon, 2008, Evans & Capps 2009). III. A pproaches, T heories and P erspectives of I nternational R ecognition Recognition of statehood grants an entity international legal personality and binds it to comport itself according to the rules established by international law in its relations with other states and peoples. At the same time, it makes the entity eligible to enter into treaties and alliances with other states, as well as to participate in the development and enforcement of international law. Most importantly, recognition is an affirmation of an entity’s right to territorial sovereignty and integrity, and its right to exercise coercive jurisdiction within this territory (Brierly, 1955, Burchill, et al. eds. 2005, Chernoff, Fred. 2007). The rights and powers attached to statehood make it desirable for political entities to attain such a status. At the same time, the expectation that each new state will abide by the rules of international law makes it desirable to include as many qualified political entities as possible, insofar as this will further the goals of peace and stability. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 was a preliminary attempt to codify specific descriptive criteria for statehood: (i) a permanent population, (ii) a defined territory, (iii) a functioning government able to control the territory in question, and (iv) the capacity to enter into relations with other states on its own account (Brierly, 1955, Talmon 2004, Pettman, 2010, Weber, 2004, Shaw, 2003). Together, these four requirements defined a state, and presumably any entity aspiring to independent statehood that met these criteria would © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue V Version I 38 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 F International Law and the Politics of Diplomatic Recognition of States and Government: Crtical Discuss