State recognition and dynamic sovereignty
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/13540661221077441 |
| Author | George Kyris |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221077441
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(2) 287 –311
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221077441
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
State recognition and dynamic
sovereignty
George Kyris
University of Birmingham, UK
Abstract
This study reflects on sovereignty as dynamic, whereby associated conditions, like
recognition, fluctuate in quality and quantity within a unit and over time, and adds to
existing discussions that concentrate on changes in the meaning of (rather than associated
conditions with) sovereignty or more static approaches to partial sovereignty relative
to other actors in international relations (e.g. in the context of hierarchical relations).
I do so by reflecting on different degrees of recognition, as associated with external
sovereignty, such as extensive but not general recognition (e.g. Kosovo); different
types of recognition, such as recognition of a right to (as opposed to the presence
of) statehood (e.g. Palestine); as well as change in recognition over time, such as with
those witnessing significant fluctuations in their recognition (e.g. Taiwan, Sahrawi Arab
Democratic Republic). Towards explaining these changes and theory development,
I argue for historicising sovereignty, and by doing so, I contribute to a literature
that has focused more on changes in the meaning of sovereignty across time rather
than changes in its within-unit practical manifestations. I also offer some preliminary
theoretical assumptions on how internal and external dimensions of sovereignty might
interplay over time in processes of state emergence and on issues of agency, particularly
on how recognisers define what we understand as sovereignty but also how some
statehood claimants navigate or even embrace their lack of recognition to advance their
sovereignty. With this range of conceptual and theoretical propositions presented, the
study seeks to facilitate the development of further analysis of statehood, recognition
and sovereignty.
Keywords
State sovereignty, recognition, International Relations, intergovernmental organisation,
state, international history
Corresponding author:
George Kyris, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Email: g.kyris@bham.ac.uk
1077441EJT0010.1177/13540661221077441European Journal of International RelationsKyris
research-article2022
Article
288 European Journal of International Relations 28(2)
Introduction
Posed with the question of whether the World Health Organization (WHO) would consider
Taiwan’s membership following the COVID-19 outbreak, an official from the organisation
appeared to hang up (or been cut off from) the video interview. The incident served to
highlight the fact that Taiwan is not welcome in many international organisations because
it is not recognised as a state by most, who, instead, recognise China’s sovereignty over the
island. The incident was widely reported in the media, prompting the response of the WHO
and of the foreign minister of Taiwan, who called the organisation to put politics aside and
offer membership. And yet, Taiwan’s status has not always been so controversial. The gov-
ernment of Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (RoC), was, in fact, one of the original
signatories of the United Nations (UN) charter in 1945. However, by the end of the Chinese
civil war, the communists established People’s Republic of China in the mainland, and the
RoC was self-exiled in the island of Taiwan, with both governments claiming sovereignty
over both the island and the mainland. The Cold war climate did not permit a fast and uni-
versal welcome of communist China by other states, but by the 1960s more or less half of
the UN members recognised Mao’s government and, consequently, de-recognised the one
in Taiwan. De-recognition intensified after the effective expulsion of Taiwan from the UN
in 19711 and has continued ever since.
Taiwan is not alone in being somehow but not fully recognised or experiencing
changes in the extent of its recognition over the years. Kosovo is recognised by around
half of the UN members, while some have recently de-recognised following successful
lobbying by Serbia, to which Kosovo used to belong and which continues to contest its
secession. Morocco has also managed to secure some de-recognition of the Sahrawi
Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) in Western Sahara. Palestine is recognised by most
but not all UN members and is only an observer to the UN, although a member to other
organisations. Palestine is also an interesting example of what looks like a different type
of recognition sitting somewhere in between recognition and non-recognition, that is, the
recognition of a right to (as opposed to the presence of) statehood: many might not rec-
ognise a Palestinian state today, but they still recognise the right of Palestinians to even-
tually have a state. A similar recognition was enjoyed by former colonies that were
eventually recognised as states.
Such a complex picture of recognition has important and relatively unexplored conse-
quences for how we understand sovereignty as the condition of recognised state author-
ity. Sovereignty is often implicitly or explicitly treated as a binary (see Malmvig, 2006,
for a discussion), while approaches to sovereignty as not absolute tend to focus on vari-
ations of sovereignty across different units (e.g. how some states are seen as more sover-
eign than others in the context of hierarchical relationships) or the sharing of sovereignty
between different actors (e.g. between state governments and external actors, such as a
UN transitional administration), rather than degrees of sovereignty in the same unit as
partial sovereignty, which seems to be the case with Kosovo, Palestine or the SADR.
What is more, changes in recognition, such as the journey of the RoC from general rec-
ognition through UN membership to partial recognition, raise questions that require a
new way of historicising and contextualising sovereignty, which will focus on changes
within a unit and over time.
To continue reading
Request your trial