This research aims to find out the reasons why Palestine and Kosovo could not get general international recognition and become members of the UN and also to assess the plausibility of two theories regarding their explanations for states’ decisions toward the recognition of new states (Palestine and Kosovo in our case).
This master thesis elaborates the issue of new states and their struggle for gaining general international recognition. It fits in the field of International Relations since it deals with the issue of possible new members in the international society of states, which can have an impact on global issues and threats that are of common relevance.
Some states that have been created since the end of the 1980s have achieved to gain general recognition like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Eritrea, Moldova, and Timor-Leste. Some other states, also created (or separated from a parent state) have not achieved to gain general recognition. Such states are Palestine, Kosovo, Abkhazia, and Somaliland.
At a glance
- Grade: 1.3 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Groups non-recognizers by their votes on Palestine and Kosovo
- Uses a least-similar cases design and process tracing
- Compares declaratory and constitutive recognition theories with classical and structural realism
- 207 sources in the bibliography
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF STATES
2.2.1 THE DECLARATORY THEORY OF RECOGNITION
2.2.2 THE CONSTITUTIVE THEORY OF RECOGNITION
2.2.3 A MIDDLE GROUND THEORY ON RECOGNITION
2.3 REALISM
2.3.1 CLASSICAL REALISM
2.3.2 STRUCTURAL REALISM (NEOREALISM)
2.3.3 CLASSICAL REALISM VS. STRUCTURAL REALISM
2.3.4 A (NEO)REALIST THEORY OF STATE ACTION IN FOREIGN POLICY
2.4 THE FRAME FOR ANALYSIS
2.5 CONCLUSION
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 POSSIBILITY OF CHOICES
3.2 THE CHOSEN RESEARCH DESIGN
3.3 DETAILED REPORT ON METHODOLOGY
4. PALESTINE, KOSOVO AND TIMOR-LESTE – BACKGROUND ON STATE CREATION AND CURRENT SITUATION REGARDING RECOGNITION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 PALESTINE
4.3 KOSOVO
4.4 TIMOR-LESTE
4.5 CONCLUSION
5. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 PALESTINE’S NON-RECOGNIZERS AND THEIR REASONS
5.2.1 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT VOTED ‘PRO’ PALESTINE
5.2.2 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT ABSTAINED IN THE VOTING FOR PALESTINE
5.2.3 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT VOTED AGAINST PALESTINE
5.3 KOSOVO’S NON-RECOGNIZERS AND THEIR REASONS
5.3.1 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT VOTED ‘PRO’ KOSOVO IN UNESCO
5.3.2 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT ABSTAINED FOR KOSOVO IN UNESCO
5.3.3 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT VOTED AGAINST KOSOVO IN UNESCO
5.3.4 ‘NON-RECOGNIZERS’ THAT DID NOT VOTE AT ALL FOR KOSOVO IN UNESCO
5.4 EVALUATION OF HYPOTHESES AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
5.4.1 EVALUATION OF THE HYPOTHESES
5.4.2 DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
5.5 CONCLUSION
6. CONCLUSION
Objectives and Themes
This thesis asks why Palestine and Kosovo have not gained general international recognition and examines whether recognition theories or realist approaches better explain existing states’ decisions. It compares their experiences with Timor-Leste and considers relations with parent states, alliances, domestic separatism and the conditions for United Nations membership.
- Declaratory, constitutive and middle-ground theories of recognition
- Classical realism and structural realism in foreign policy
- State formation and recognition in Palestine, Kosovo and Timor-Leste
- Official statements and voting patterns of non-recognizing states
- Parent-state relations, alliances and separatist precedents
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.3 A middle ground theory on recognition
One of the most significant differences between the constitutive and declaratory theory of recognition, despite the role of recognition in state-formation, is the freedom of states in making the decision to extend recognition or not to an entity trying to achieve statehood. The declaratory theory considers that existing independent states have an ‘automatic duty’ to recognize an entity whenever the statehood requirements have been fulfilled while the constitutive theory allows the possibility for the recognizing states to make such a decision in full discretion.
Despite the fact that in the current doctrine and jurisprudence, the declaratory theory is the dominant theory, none of the recognition theories discussed above can completely explain the international politics regarding recognition. In this position, we should think of a version that conciliates these two theories and offers a more realistic explanation of the states’ practice. On one hand, the declaratory theory of recognition considers recognition to be only a political act with no effect on statehood or the legal personality of a new state, and assumes that territorial entities, by the fact of their existence, can readily be classified as having a legal status, something that is considered a confusion of ‘fact’ with ‘law’. However, considering the development and the evolution of the international politics we can easily argue that recognition is very important for the new states, especially when it comes to their interaction with other independent states and international organizations, since, member states usually are supposed to decide who is going to participate and who is not. In this sense, if recognition was not that important, why would new states struggle that much and spend all that energy to gain it? This is an indicator that recognition is a very important thing for the new states, in order to give them the possibility to act and fulfill their duties and also gain the privileges as sovereign and independent states.
On the other hand, as discussed earlier, the constitutive theory does not give a reasonable explanation towards the states’ practice regarding recognition either. As Crawford argues, the constitutive theory despite putting attention on the need for cognition of the subjects of international law, it incorrectly identifies cognition with diplomatic recognition and does not accept the possibility that the cognition of new subjects can be achieved in accordance with general rules rather than in discretionary basis.
Chapter Summaries
1. INTRODUCTION: Introduces the research question, hypotheses, cases and research design. It also defines key terms and outlines the study’s scope.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW: Examines recognition theories and classical and structural realism, then establishes a framework for classifying reasons for non-recognition.
3. METHODOLOGY: Explains the qualitative least-similar cases design, alternative designs and the use of process tracing and official statements.
4. PALESTINE, KOSOVO AND TIMOR-LESTE – BACKGROUND ON STATE CREATION AND CURRENT SITUATION REGARDING RECOGNITION: Traces the three cases’ paths to statehood and discusses their international recognition and institutional relationships.
5. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Presents statements by states that have not recognized Palestine or Kosovo, assesses five hypotheses and interprets the evidence against the theoretical framework.
6. CONCLUSION: Draws together the study’s arguments about recognition, parent-state relations and the prospects for United Nations membership.
Keywords
international recognition, statehood, Palestine, Kosovo, Timor-Leste, United Nations membership, declaratory theory, constitutive theory, realism, structural realism, Montevideo criteria, separatism, comparative case study
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this thesis about?
It examines international recognition of new states, focusing on Palestine and Kosovo and using Timor-Leste as a comparative case.
What are its central themes?
The work explores statehood, recognition theories, realist international relations, parent-state relationships, alliances and separatist movements.
What is the main research question?
The author asks why Kosovo and Palestine remain without general international recognition.
What research method does the author use?
The study uses qualitative research, a least-similar cases design and process tracing, alongside analysis of government statements and media reports.
What does the main body cover?
It develops a theoretical framework, traces the three cases’ histories and examines statements by countries that have not recognized Palestine or Kosovo.
Which keywords characterize the study?
Key terms include state recognition, statehood, Palestine, Kosovo, Timor-Leste, realism, the Montevideo criteria and United Nations membership.
Why is Timor-Leste included?
Timor-Leste provides a comparative case that achieved United Nations membership and allows the author to consider the role of its relationship with Indonesia.
How are states’ positions organized?
The author groups non-recognizers according to their votes on Palestine’s 2012 United Nations status bid or Kosovo’s 2015 UNESCO membership bid.
What theories of recognition are discussed?
The thesis compares declaratory and constitutive theories and considers a middle-ground approach that attributes both declaratory and constitutive aspects to recognition.
- Quote paper
- Tahir Lushi (Author), 2016, State Creation and the International Recognition of New States. The Examples of Palestine, Kosovo and Timor-Leste, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1025369
