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

rejects a claim itself challenging the status quo . For example, that of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to constitute a state comprising territory formerly part of Cyprus. Recognition, then, can be an attempt to alter or reaffirm the existing order (Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010, Birdsall 2009, Brownlie 2008, Crawford 1977, Crawford, 2006). There are two main international law aspects to the recognition process. One, recognition can play a role in the international legality of the object of recognition. Sometimes, a state is or is not a state legally because, amongst other things, other states have decided to treat it as such. Two, the recognition itself is regulated by international law, in that states are sometimes constrained in their choices when comes to recognition. These two aspects are related, and can come into tension insofar as states seek through recognition to create a new sovereignty arrangement which challenges the legal status quo and thereby is potentially at odds with their obligations to another state or group of states whose entitlements are being altered by this change (Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010, Brownlie 2008, Crawford 1977, Crawford, 2006). The starting point for understanding the legalities of any regime of recognition or non- recognition, then, is to consider what the object of that recognition or non-recognition itself claims to be. In the words a government is only recognized for what it claims to be. One cannot determine fully what the legal significance of recognition is to that being recognized, and whether this recognition is itself lawful, without first focusing more closely on the legalities surrounding the claim itself. As for self-determination, if the claimant state constitutes a self-determination unit (SDU), an entity that has a lawful right to external self- determination, then it may be regarded to lawfully constitute a state even if in some respects its conformity to the viability criteria is somewhat deficient. This would be the case, for example, with certain newly independent former colonial states in the post-Second World War era of decolonization, for example, the Congo (Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010). By contrast, if the existence of the new state would involve a violation of self-determination, whether internal or external, then this may operate as a bar to statehood that would otherwise be valid on the basis of conformity to the viability criteria. So, for example, the claim of Rhodesia to independent statehood was invalid because, amongst other things, being constituted on the basis of an apartheid system of white minority rule, it violated internal self-determination (Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010, Neff 2005, Schoiswohl 2004, Shaw 2003, Evans & Capps, 2009, Dugard, 1987, James, 1986). Moreover, the existence of the international law rules restricting the use of military force have led to a position suggesting that the creation of a new state, or the extinction of an existing state or the loss of its territory, will be invalid if brought about through the use of force and/or the conduct of military occupation. There are important difficulties and uncertainties, however, in distinguishing between lawful and unlawful uses of force, and considering circumstances where force is used to support the exercise of a claim to external self- determination, for example India in relation to Bangladesh. The UN Security Council also sometimes takes positions on these issues, although usually it is questionable whether this amounts merely to reinforcement rather than an alteration of the position that would exist anyway as a matter of general international law (Hobach, Lefeber & Ribbelink, 2007, Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010). V. T he R elevance and C onsequence of R ecognition in I nternational L aw The view of most international lawyers is that the position taken by other states, whether recognition or non-recognition; as to the creation of a new state or the continuance of an existing state is merely declaratory, not also constitutive of, the legal position in this regard. In other words, the usual position is to apply the criteria reviewed above, irrespective of the view taken on this matter by other states. However, most of those who adopt this ‘declaratory’ theory of recognition accept that recognition can have a constitutive role in certain marginal cases: it is capable of pushing things further in favour of a particular outcome towards which the existing criteria are pointing but which itself is not reached by considering them alone (Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010, Jackson, and Georg, 2013). Thus, if an entity claims to be a new state, but is somewhat deficient in conformity to the viability criteria, recognition by other states in favour of its claim to statehood may tip the balance. This is especially significant given the presumption mentioned earlier against the creation of new states. In order for recognition to have this constitutive effect, however, it needs to be of a certain quantum, since this effect is based on the general notion that international law is made, and altered, only if one can identify a general trend across most, if not all, states. One would have to see, therefore, considerable recognition by states generally, ideally, although not necessarily, manifest through a decision by the United Nations to admit the claimant entity as a new member, something which presupposes statehood (Wilde, Cannon and Wilmshurst, 2010, Neff 2005, Schoiswohl 2004, Shaw 2003, Evans & Capps, 2009, Dugard, 1987, James, 1986). The juridical significance of this recognition is relatively straightforward when focusing only the viability criteria. However, things are more difficult, when considering the policy-based criteria, since there is a potential for the two. The outcome suggested by these criteria, on the one hand, and that © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue V Version I 40 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 F International Law and the Politics of Diplomatic Recognition of States and Government: Crtical Discuss