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

recognition and the opportunities that come along with it allow new, weak States to consolidate their domestic power base where little existed before. These States did not enter into the system fully established. Instead, new States entered only partially formed in terms of capability and governance, but through the external legitimacy and substantive benefits provided by membership, those States become increasingly similar to the Weberian ideal. Thus in Africa, where independent Statehood is a relatively new phenomenon, borders have been highly resistant to change and new States have not emerged due to the powerful effects of legitimacy accorded existing States by widespread external recognition (Herbst, 2000). Recognition of a rebel group as the legitimate representative of the people, as a rule, confers several advantages: (1) it legitimizes the struggle of the group against the incumbent government; (2) it provides international acceptance; (3) it allows the group to speak for the people in international organizations and represent it in other States by opening “representative offices”; and (4) it usually results in financial aid. In the case of the NTC, there may be an additional advantage. VI. L aw and P olitics of R ecognition in I nternational L aw First and foremost, recognition is a political act whereby a subject of international law, whether a state or any other entity with legal personality, expresses its unilateral interpretation of a given factual situation, be it the birth of a new state, the coming to power of a new government, the creation of a new Recognition by other States then, rather than (and sometimes in spite of) simple de facto control and authority, is an important initial distinction between States and non-State ‘others’ in the international system. The contemporary dynamics of secession and Statehood might be one of the most dramatic examples of the second image reversed; the international system and its members determine not only the form and function of institutions within States but potentially, who those States are to begin with. It is both theoretically and practically misleading to disregard the important social component of Statehood in favor of purely objectivist definitions. There are very few cases in recent history where new State members unambiguously met the theoretical or legal standards for Statehood, yet States have proliferated. The vagaries of the legal standards are partially responsible for the gap between law and practice, but it is also due to the fact that recognition was intended, and continues to be, a practice of mutual self-interest among States (Jackson, 1987, Jackson, and Georg, 2013). It probably comes as no surprise that recognition, like myriad other decisions statesmen make, might be politically motivated rather than based upon absolute standards of governmental capacity. Indeed, with rare exception political scientists expect that self-interests guide the decisions of Statesmen, even where standards of appropriate behavior exist. Similarly, international lawyers bemoan the overtly political nature of recognition in practice and often attempt to rectify it through greater legal specificity. Perhaps Statesmen use the lure of system membership in order to gain economic or political favors from the new State. Perhaps a historical kinship with a particular secessionist group engenders sympathy and acceptance. Probably, certain systemic conditions within the international system predispose its members to greater and lesser support for recognition (Jackson, 1987, James, 2004, Meijknecht 2001, Milano, 2006). Although there is little room for political motive within the current legal requirements for recognition in theory, there is little question that politics matter in practice. Self-interest has the potential to explain quite a bit about the determinants of Statehood, but not in the ad hoc (and often post hoc ) manner that it is most commonly employed. States must consider other States’ actions and reactions to their policies. While recognition is theoretically a bilateral contract between two States, many States must recognize a new State before it secures full membership in international society. In international relations, the dynamics of recognition can be thought of as a threshold model of sorts. Unanimous recognition is not necessary, but a “critical mass” of acceptance must be reached prior to full participation as a State within the international community. Once past the tipping point, Statehood is almost never revoked (Jackson, 1987, James, 2004, Milano, 2006). Each State’s recognition is juridical equivalent, but the most important players constituting this “critical mass” are the Great Powers. Although all States are both members and progenitors of international society, the Great Powers constitute an extremely powerful sub-group within that population. In fact, some argue successful secession is impossible without the support of a powerful patron State. The Great Powers act as the gatekeepers of Statehood. Their decisions play a decisive role in recognition and, consequently, in defining ‘Statehood’s’ meaning for its aspirants. This is true even if Statesmen are not conscious of the precedents themselves. When acting in concert, Great Power recognition decisions are not easily overruled (Jackson, and Georg, 2013, Jackson, 1987). When there is a harmony of opinion over recognition or a lack thereof, the international politics of Statehood will be uncontroversial and the Great Powers will make decisions consistent with the group consensus. States with support will be elevated into the international community and those without it will remain subject to the jurisdiction of other States. In other cases, recognition is more contested. The Great Powers often have competing motives and therefore differ over what constitutes a legitimate claim to Statehood. When there is a lack of consensus among the Great Powers, the © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue V Version I 42 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 F International Law and the Politics of Diplomatic Recognition of States and Government: Crtical Discuss