List of states with limited recognition

Not to be confused with Micronations.
"Disputed states" redirects here. For a list of territorial disputes including these, see List of territorial disputes.

  UN member states that at least one other UN member state does not recognise
  Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member state
  Non-UN member states recognised only by other non-UN member states or not recognized by any other state

A number of polities have declared independence and sought diplomatic recognition from the international community as sovereign states, but have not been universally recognised as such. These entities often have de facto control of their territory. A number of such entities have existed in the past.

There are two traditional theories used to indicate how a sovereign state comes into being. The declarative theory (codified in the 1933 Montevideo Convention) 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 the declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. By contrast, the constitutive theory defines a state as a person of international law only if it is recognised as such by other states that are already a member of the international community.[1][2]

Quasi-states often reference either or both doctrines in order to legitimise their claims to statehood. There are, for example, entities which meet the declarative criteria (with de facto partial or complete control over their claimed territory, a government and a permanent population), but whose statehood is not recognised by any other states. Non-recognition is often a result of conflicts with other countries that claim those entities as integral parts of their territory.[3] In other cases, two or more partially recognised states may claim the same territorial area, with each of them de facto in control of a portion of it (for example, North Korea and South Korea, or the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China). Entities that are recognised by only a minority of the world's states usually reference the declarative doctrine to legitimise their claims.[4]

In many situations, international non-recognition is influenced by the presence of a foreign military force in the territory of the contested entity, making the description of the country's de facto status problematic. The international community can judge this military presence too intrusive, reducing the entity to a puppet state where effective sovereignty is retained by the foreign power.[5] Historical cases in this sense can be seen in Japanese-led Manchukuo[6] or the German-created Slovak Republic and Independent State of Croatia before and during World War II. In the 1996 case Loizidou v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights judged Turkey for having exercised authority in the territory of Northern Cyprus.[7]

There are also entities that do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been recognised to exist as sovereign entities by at least one other state. Historically, this has happened in the case of the Holy See (1870–1929); Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (during Soviet annexation);[8] and Palestine at the time of its declaration of independence in 1988.[9] The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is currently in this position. See list of governments in exile for unrecognised governments without control over the territory claimed.

  1. ^ Grant, Thomas D., The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.
  2. ^ Lauterpacht, Hersch (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 64. ISBN 9781107609433. Archived from the original on 15 January 2023. Retrieved 19 January 2018.
  3. ^ "Introduction: The Strange Endurance of De Facto States". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 3 December 2018. Retrieved 12 October 2023.
  4. ^ Grzybowski, Janis (2017). "To Be or Not to Be: The Ontological Predicament of State Creation in International Law". European Journal of International Law. 28 (2). Oxford University Press (OUP): 409–432. doi:10.1093/ejil/chx031. ISSN 0938-5428.
  5. ^ Lemkin, Raphaël (2008) [1944]. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-58477-901-8. Retrieved 30 June 2019. The creation of puppet states or of puppet governments does not give them any special status under international law in the occupied territory. Therefore the puppet governments and puppet states have no greater rights in the occupied territory than the occupant himself. Their actions should be considered as actions of the occupant and hence subject to the limitations of the Hague Regulations.
  6. ^ Middlebush, Frederick A. (1934). "The Effect of the Non-Recognition of Manchukuo". American Political Science Review. 28 (4). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 677–683. doi:10.2307/1947199. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1947199. S2CID 147030868.
  7. ^ Rudolf, Beate (1997). "Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits)". American Journal of International Law. 91 (3). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 532–537. doi:10.2307/2954189. ISSN 0002-9300. JSTOR 2954189. S2CID 228739345.
  8. ^ Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal annexation and state continuity: the case of the incorporation of the Baltic states by the USSR. M. Nijhoff Publishers. p. 76. ISBN 978-90-411-2177-6. Archived from the original on 17 January 2023. Retrieved 12 October 2023. incorporation into the Soviet Union in 1940 took place against the will of the population, and was never recognised de jure by most countries
  9. ^ Daraghmeh, Mohammed (21 May 2018). "Palestinian official suggests a Kosovo-like declaration of independence". Statesboro Herald. Retrieved 29 September 2024.