Recognition of States: The Matters Still Unresolved

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume III, Issue X, October 2019 | ISSN 2454–6186

Recognition of States: The Matters Still Unresolved

K.A.A.N. Thilakarathna

 Attorney-at-Law, Institute of Human Resource Advancement, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

Abstract: – The question relating to recognition of states is a growing concern whereas new states under current state of things could only be created through breaking away from an already established state. Since there is no universally accepted legal document nor a guideline to properly recognizes an entity’s claim for statehood, recourse has been often made to Articles 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States which has become a customary international norm pertaining to the subject. However, the Montevideo Convention was not drafted to be used at a universal level and it was agreed upon by the American States to make their respective claims for their newly gained independence. The Montevideo Convention is outdated since the political realities has changed since its enactment. and this is also evident from the efforts of the European Union when they tried to establish new grounds for recognition of the entities making claims for statehood in the Eastern Europe which became a futile endeavor. Matters were further complicated by the International Court of Justice’s judgement regarding the unilateral declaration of Kosovo where the ICJ failed to either decide or comment on the international law relating to recognition of states.Therefore, this article attempts to bring into context the issues related to recognition of states and where the international legal community stands regarding building up a proper mechanism to recognize statehood of entities making such claims.

Key Words: International Law, Montevideo Convention, Recognition of States

I. INTRODUCTION

International Law was once considered as a part of the positive morality and not as a law per se. John Austin, in his book ‘The Province of Jurisprudence Determined’ made these remarks looking at the fact that, since the international legal order does not possess a sovereign to whom all the State actors have given their habitual obedience where according to Austin law is the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions. In his analysis it can also be found that, Austin refuted International Law as law per se because it not only lacked a sovereign, but it also lacked a proper implementation mechanism which remains true to some extent even in the modern day. International law is seen as a normative order and therefore, in the hands of positivism international law is not law in the proper sense.

Read More