Sovereign state

Last updated

Member states of the United Nations (UN), as defined by the UN. All members of the UN are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members. United Nations Members.svg
Member states of the United Nations (UN), as defined by the UN. All members of the UN are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members.

In international law, a sovereign state, sovereign country, or simply state, is a political entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. [1] It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent or non subjected to any other power or state. [2]

International law Regulations governing international relations

International law, also known as public international law and law of nations, is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally accepted in relations between nations. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states to follow across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, trade, and human rights. International law thus provides a mean for states to practice more stable, consistent, and organized international relations.

A centralized government is one in which power or legal authority is exerted or coordinated by a de facto political executive to which federal states, local authorities, and smaller units are considered subject. In a national context, centralization occurs in the transfer of power to a typically sovereign nation state. Menes, an ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the early dynastic period, is credited by classical tradition with having united Upper and Lower Egypt, and as the founder of the first dynasty, became the first ruler to institute a centralized government.

Sovereignty concept that a state or governing body has the right and power to govern itself without outside interference

Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity. In international law, the important concept of sovereignty refers to the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty the ability in fact to do so

Contents

While according to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognized states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Diplomatic recognition in international law is a unilateral political act with domestic and international legal consequences whereby a state acknowledges an act or status of another state or government in control of a state. Recognition can be reaccorded either de facto or de jure. Recognition can be a declaration to that effect by the recognizing government, or an act of recognition such as entering into a treaty with the other state. A vote by a country in the United Nations in favour of the membership of another country is an implicit recognition of that country by the country so voting, as only states may be members of the UN.

Diplomacy art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states. It usually refers to the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to a full range of topical issues. Diplomacy entails influencing the decisions and conduct of foreign governments and officials through dialogue, negotiation, and other nonviolent means.

Westphalian sovereignty

Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Nation state Political term for a state that is based around a nation

A nation state is a state in which the great majority shares the same culture and is conscious of it. The nation state is an ideal in which cultural boundaries match up with political ones. According to one definition, "a nation state is a sovereign state of which most of its subjects are united also by factors which defined a nation such as language or common descent." It is a more precise concept than "country", since a country does not need to have a predominant ethnic group.

Multinational corporation Corporation operating in multiple countries

A multinational corporation (MNC) or worldwide enterprise is a corporate organization that owns or controls production of goods or services in at least one country other than its home country. Black's Law Dictionary suggests that a company or group should be considered a multinational corporation if it derives 25% or more of its revenue from out-of-home-country operations. A multinational corporation can also be referred to as a multinational enterprise (MNE), a transnational enterprise (TNE), a transnational corporation (TNC), an international corporation, or a stateless corporation. There are subtle but real differences between these three labels, as well as multinational corporation and worldwide enterprise.

Peace of Westphalia Peace treaty ending the European Thirty and Eighty Years Wars

The Peace of Westphalia was a series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabrück and Münster, largely ending the European wars of religion, including the Thirty Years' War. The treaties of Westphalia brought to an end a calamitous period of European history which caused the deaths of approximately eight million people. Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, though this interpretation has been challenged.

Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused. [3] [4] Up until the 19th century, the radicalized concept of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain people in the world were "uncivilized", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of the "civilized" people." [5] Lassa Oppenheim said, "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon." [6] In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all." [7]

H. V. Evatt Australian judge and politician

Herbert Vere Evatt,, usually known as H. V. Evatt or Bert Evatt, and often as "Doc" Evatt on account of his Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree, was an Australian judge, lawyer, parliamentarian and writer.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. [8] [9] The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized. [10] [11] [12]

The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and independence in the foreign one. [13]

Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, which according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognized the right of princes 'to confessionalize' the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio eius religio [ whose realm, his religion ]." [14]

Before 1900 sovereign states enjoyed an absolute immunity from the judicial process, derived from the concepts of sovereignty and the Westphalian equality of states. First articulated by Jean Bodin, the powers of the state are considered to be suprema potestas within territorial boundaries. Based on this, the jurisprudence has developed along the lines of affording immunity from prosecution to foreign states in domestic courts. In The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon , Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States Supreme Court wrote that the "perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns" has created a class of cases where "every sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation". [15] [16]

Absolute sovereign immunity is no longer as widely accepted as it has been in the past, and some countries including the United States, Canada, Singapore, Australia, Pakistan and South Africa have introduced restrictive immunity by statute, which explicitly limits jurisdictional immunity to public acts, but not private or commercial ones, though there is no precise definition by which public acts can easily be distinguished from private ones. [16]

Recognition

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state. [17] Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal. [18] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government." [19]

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognised as sovereign. [20]

Constitutive theory

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by at least one other state. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them. [21] In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act recognised only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in the future new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers. [22]

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage. [21]

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim said the following, regarding constitutive theory:

International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law. [23]

Declarative theory

By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. [24]

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself. [25] In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. An important part of the convention was Article 11 that prohibits using military force to gain sovereignty.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee , which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. [26]

State recognition

State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches. [27] International law does not require a state to recognise other states. [28] Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime". [29] In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus. [30] International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence, [31] and the recognition of a country is a political issue. [32] As a result, Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus; [33] and Northern Cyprus became an observer member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization.

De facto and de jure states

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both in law and in reality). However, a state may be recognised only as a de jure state, in that it is recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which it has no actual control.[ citation needed ] For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of a number of continental European states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation.[ citation needed ] The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a sovereign state, a claim which has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de facto control of Israel. [34] [48] Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state. [49] [50] [51] [52] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.

Relationship between state and government

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably, [53] international law distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of "government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction. [54] States are non-physical juridical entities, and not organisations of any kind. [55] However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate or bind the state, for example by treaty. [54]

State extinction

Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though it is possible for them to become extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. Violent state abolition has virtually ceased since the end of World War II. [56] Because states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued their extinction cannot be due to physical force alone. [57] Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the correct social or judiciary actions in order to abolish a state.

Ontological status of the state

The ontological status of the state has been the subject of debate, [58] specially, whether or not the state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect, [59] actually exists.

The state as "quasi-abstract"

It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete and the abstract. [60] Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have position in time and space, which states do not have (though their territories have spatial position, but states are distinct from their territories), and abstract objects have position in neither time nor space, which does not fit the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have temporal position (they can be created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, especially in the area of documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty or surrendering them as the result of a war. [60]

Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing against many other actors. [61]

The state as "spiritual entity"

Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual, [62] or "mystical entity" [62] with its own being, distinct from the members of the state. [62] The German Idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770–1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory. [62] The Hegelian definition of the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth". [63]

Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has surged. [64] Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organisations, the greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of states in the international system. [65] [66] Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico Spolaore argue in their book, Size of Nations, that the increase in the number of states can partly be credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration, democratisation, and the presence of international organisations that co-ordinate economic and political policies. [67]

See also

Related Research Articles

History of the State of Palestine

The history of the State of Palestine describes the creation and evolution of the State of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Palestinian territories The territories captured and occupied by Israel in 1967 that were part of the British Mandate for Palestine

Palestinian territories has been used for many years to describe the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. More recently, the official United Nations terminology has been used, occupied Palestinian territory increasingly replacing other terms since 1999. The European Union also has adopted this usage The International Court of Justice refers to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" and this term is used as the legal definition by the International Court of Justice in the ruling in July 2004. The term occupied Palestinian territories is also still in common use.

State of Palestine De jure state in the Middle East

Palestine, officially the State of Palestine, is a de jure sovereign state in Western Asia claiming the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as the designated capital, although its administrative center is currently located in Ramallah. The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War in 1967. Palestine has a population of 4,816,503 as of 2016, ranked 123rd in the world.

A constituent state is a state entity that constitutes a part of a sovereign state. A constituent state holds regional jurisdiction over a defined administrative territory, within a sovereign state. Government of a constituent state is a form of regional government. Throughout history, and also in modern political practice, most constituent states are part of complex states, like federations or confederations. Constituent states can have republican or monarchical forms of government. Those of republican form are usually called states or autonomous states, republics or autonomous republics, or cantons. Those that have a monarchical form of government are often defined by traditional hierarchical rank of their ruler.

The status of territories captured by Israel refers to the status of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula, captured by Israel on the course of the 1967 Six-Day War.

Status of Jerusalem legal and diplomatic status

The status of Jerusalem is disputed in both international law and diplomatic practice, with both the Israelis and Palestinians claiming Jerusalem as their capital city. The dispute has been described as "one of the most intractable issues in the Israel–Palestine conflict", with conflicting claims to sovereignty over the city or parts of it, and access to its holy sites. The main dispute revolves around the legal status of East Jerusalem and especially the Old City of Jerusalem, while broader agreement exists regarding future Israeli presence in West Jerusalem in accordance with Israel's internationally recognised borders. The majority of United Nations (UN) member states hold the view that the final status of Jerusalem should be resolved through negotiation, and have therefore favored locating their embassies in Tel Aviv prior to a final status agreement. However, in recent years the international consensus to abstain from expressing a viewpoint on the city's final status has shown signs of fragility, with Russia, the United States and Australia adopting new policy positions. Furthermore, the proposal that Jerusalem should be the future capital of both Israel and Palestine has also gained international support, with endorsements coming from both the United Nations and the European Union.

The United Kingdom maintains a consulate in Jerusalem which "provides public services and promotes British interests in Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories". The Foreign and Commonwealth Office states the "Consular district covers Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. As well as work on the Middle East Peace Process and other political issues, the Consulate also promotes trade between the UK and the Palestinian territories and manages a programme of aid and development work. The latter is undertaken primarily by the DFID office in Jerusalem.".

Legitimacy of Israel

The legitimacy of the State of Israel has been questioned by nation states and others, specifically, whether Israel's political authority over the area it claims should be accepted as legitimate political authority. The argument as to the legitimacy of the State of Israel is also couched in terms of Israel's right to exist.

Iceland–Israel relations Diplomatic relations between the Republic of Iceland and the State of Israel

Iceland–Israel relations refers to the diplomatic relations between Iceland and Israel. Both nations are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Trade Organization.

Political status of the Cook Islands and Niue

The political status of the Cook Islands and Niue is formally defined as being states in free association within the Realm of New Zealand, which is made up of the Cook Islands; Niue; and New Zealand and its territories, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency.

There are a wide variety of views regarding the legal status of the State of Palestine, both among the states of the international community and among legal scholars, but there is a general consensus that the State of Palestine is de jure sovereign. As of 2018, Palestine is recognized by most states but is only an observer of the UN instead of a full member and roughly a third of the world's countries don't recognize it.

References

  1. See the following:
    • Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 178. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'
    • Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995). Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law International. p. 20. So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.
  2. See the following:
    • Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. p. 51. A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.
    • "sovereign", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.), Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, retrieved 21 February 2010, adj. 1. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state.
    • "sovereign", The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN   978-0-19-517077-1, adjective ... [ attrib. ] (of a nation or state) fully independent and determining its own affairs.
  3. Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-00711-3.
  4. Núñez, Jorge Emilio (2013). "About the Impossibility of Absolute State Sovereignty". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 27 (4): 645–664. doi:10.1007/s11196-013-9333-x.
  5. Wilde, Ralph (2009). "From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers". Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 31: 85–142 [p. 94].
  6. Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)
  7. Akweenda, Sackey (1997). "Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories". International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 40. ISBN   978-90-411-0412-0.
  8. "Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States". Charter of the Organization of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
  9. "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" (PDF). UN Treaty Organization. 1949. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
  10. "General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources"". United Nations. Archived from the original on 18 February 2011. Retrieved 21 November 2010.Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  11. Schwebel, Stephen M., The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 49 A.B.A. J. 463 (1963)
  12. "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".
  13. Grinin L. E. Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives? Age of Globalization. Number 1 / 2008
  14. Turner, Bryan (July 2007). "Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign State". Muslim World. 97 (3): 405–418.
  15. Simpson, Gerry (2004). Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order. Cambridge University Press.
  16. 1 2 Bankas, Ernest K (2005). The State Immunity Controversy in International Law: Private Suits Against Sovereign States in Domestic Courts. Springer.
  17. "Recognition", Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.
  18. See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47-48 in International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN   92-3-102716-6
  19. See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN   0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136
  20. Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.
  21. 1 2 Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law. Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN   978-1-85941-050-9.
  22. Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128.
  23. Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 135. ISBN   978-1-58477-609-3.
  24. Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 419. ISBN   9781107609433.
  25. "CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES". www.oas.org.
  26. Castellino, Joshua (2000). International Law and Self-Determination: The Interplay of the Politics of Territorial Possession With Formulations of Post-Colonial National Identity. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p.  77. ISBN   978-90-411-1409-9.
  27. Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 369. ISBN   978-0-521-53183-2.
  28. Opinion No. 10. of the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia.
  29. United Nations Security Council Resolution 216
  30. United Nations Security Council Resolution 541
  31. BBC The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."
  32. Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016 p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was a political.
  33. James Ker-Lindsay (UN SG's Former Special Representative for Cyprus) The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States, p.149
  34. 1 2 Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 22 January 2011.:"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence".
  35. 1 2 B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: Israel's control of the airspace and the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip, Retrieved 24 March 2012.
  36. "Map of Gaza fishing limits, "security zones"".
  37. Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process Archived 2 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine : "Israel will guard the perimeter of the Gaza Strip, continue to control Gaza air space, and continue to patrol the sea off the Gaza coast. ... Israel will continue to maintain its essential military presence to prevent arms smuggling along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route), until the security situation and cooperation with Egypt permit an alternative security arrangement."
  38. Gold, Dore; Institute for Contemporary Affairs (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  39. Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  40. "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Archived from the original on 26 October 2011. Retrieved 16 July 2010.Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  41. Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 16 July 2010.Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)
  42. "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  43. Gold, Dore; Institute for Contemporary Affairs (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  44. Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  45. "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Archived from the original on 26 October 2011. Retrieved 16 July 2010.Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  46. Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 16 July 2010.Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)
  47. "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  48. Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification. Israel maintains minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air, [35] sea beyond internal waters, [35] [36] land [37] ) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C". [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] See also Israeli-occupied territories.
    [34] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]
  49. Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs. 3: 60–79. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  50. "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon". Foreign Policy Magazine. July 2007. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  51. "Overview of De-facto States". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. July 2008. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  52. Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognises de facto Somaliland". Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  53. Robinson, E. H. (2013). "The Distinction Between State and Government" (PDF). The Geography Compass. 7 (8): 556–566.
  54. 1 2 Crawford, J. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN   978-0-19-826002-8.
  55. Robinson, Edward Heath (2010). "An Ontological Analysis of States: Organizations vs. Legal Persons" (PDF). Applied Ontology. 5: 109–125.
  56. Fazal, Tanisha M. (1 April 2004). "State Death in the International System". International Organization. 58 (2): 311–344. doi:10.1017/S0020818304582048. ISSN   1531-5088.
  57. Robinson, Edward Heath (2011). "The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since the Second World War" (PDF). The Journal of Military Geography. 1: 17–29.
  58. Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the ontological status of the state". European Journal of International Relations. 2 (4): 439–466. doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002. (full text)
  59. A. James (1986). Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society (London: Allen & Unwin)
  60. 1 2 Robinson, Edward H. (2014). "A documentary theory of states and their existence as quasi-abstract entities" (PDF). Geopolitics. 19 (3): 461–489. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 16 September 2014.Cite uses deprecated parameter |deadurl= (help)
  61. Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the Ontological Status of the State". European Journal of International Relations. 10 (2).
  62. 1 2 3 4 Schmandt & Steinbicker 1954 , p. 71
  63. Schmandt & Steinbicker 1954 , p. 71 (citing Hegel's Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree [New York: Wiley Book Co., 1934]); see also Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (2012) [1899]. The Philosophy of History. Courier Corporation. p.  39. ISBN   978-0-486-11900-7.
  64. "The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy". SAGE Publications. pp. 294–295. Retrieved 17 November 2016.
  65. Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (1 March 2014). "Membership Has Its Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79–106. doi:10.1111/misr.12099. ISSN   1468-2486.
  66. "The State of Secession in International Politics". E-International Relations. Retrieved 16 November 2016.
  67. "The Size of Nations". MIT Press. Retrieved 16 November 2016.

Bibliography

Further reading