The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized Quasi-States
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343306068102 |
| Author | Pål Kolstø |
| Published date | 01 November 2006 |
| Date | 01 November 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
723
Introduction
Scattered around the world are a number of
states and statelets that have declared
independence but are not recognized by
other states. These political entities are
referred to by various names: ‘de facto states’,
‘unrecognized states’, ‘para-states’, ‘pseudo-
states’, and ‘quasi-states’. Since their exist-
ence is not supported by international
recognition, they must be sustained by some-
thing else. In contrast to researchers who
maintain that the majority of these quasi-
states are quite strong, this article argues that
their modal tendency is weak economy and
weak state structures. The main reasons why
these states nevertheless have not collapsed
seem to be that they have managed to build
up internal support from the local popu-
lation through propaganda and identity-
building; channel a disproportionately large
part of their meager resources into military
defense; and enjoy the support of a strong
patron.
None of these circumstances, however, is
likely to secure the unrecognized quasi-states
lasting life. Unless they achieve international
recognition or are united with their patron
state – both of which in most cases are
unlikely outcomes – they will eventually be
reabsorbed into the parent state or agree to
an autonomous status within the parent state
in a federal arrangement. This last outcome
is the preferred option of the international
community.
© 2006 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 43, no. 6, 2006, pp. 723–740
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi) http://jpr.sagepub.com
DOI 10.1177/0022343306068102
The Sustainability and Future of Unrecognized
Quasi-States*
PÅL KOLSTØ
Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo
The study of quasi-states has been marred by an unfortunate terminological confusion. Sometimes,
this term is taken to mean recognized states that fail to develop the necessary state structures to func-
tion as fully fledged, ‘real’ states. At other times, ‘quasi-states’ is a designation given to regions that
secede from another state, gain de facto control over the territory they lay claim to, but fail to achieve
international recognition. The author proposes that, in order to clear up this confusion, recognized
but ineffectual states ought to be referred as ‘failed states’, while the term ‘quasi-states’ ought to be
reserved for unrecognized, de facto states. Since quasi-states are not supported by international recog-
nition, they must be sustained by something else. In contrast to researchers who maintain that the
majority of these quasi-states are quite strong, this article argues that their modal tendency is weak
economy and weak state structures. The main reasons why these states nevertheless have not collapsed
seem to be that they have managed to build up internal support from the local population through
propaganda and identity-building; channel a disproportionately large part of their meager resources
into military defense; enjoy the support of a strong patron; and, in most cases, have seceded from a
state that is itself very weak.
* Correspondence: pal.kolsto@ilos.uio.no.
There Are Quasi-States and
Quasi-States
The international system is made up of
(nation-)states. Territorial-political entities
such as colonies, protectorates, mandates,
and other kinds of overseas territories that
covered so much of the earth in earlier cen-
turies have, for all practical purposes, dis-
appeared. Contemporary nation-states enjoy
double sovereignty: internally, vis-à-vis their
own citizens, and externally, vis-à-vis other
states. Internally, state authorities have a
monopoly on collecting taxes from the
inhabitants of the country and, in return,
provide basic services to the population, such
as welfare and security; externally, they are
recognized as the sole representative of the
nation in international fora.
However, two types of territorial-political
entities do not fit this basic description of the
nation-state in today’s world. Some would-
be states lack internal sovereignty: in these
cases, the state authorities, while interna-
tionally recognized as the sole representative
of the state, nevertheless fail to fulfill the
basic tasks required of them with regard to
provision of services to and protection of
their citizens. In other cases, the state as such
is not accepted by the international com-
munity as legitimate. This denial is not based
on any assessment of their internal sover-
eignty, which may or may not be deficient.
The reason, instead, is that the would-be
state has seceded from a recognized state that
does not accept this loss of territory. Such
secessionist states can be said to lack external
sovereignty.
It is immediately clear that in important
respects these two deviations from the normal
nation-state model are very different. Even
so, these two phenomena are often described
with the same appellation: quasi-states. Such
terminological confusion is clearly undesir-
able and ought to be eliminated. In this
article, however, I will make use of this ter-
minological coincidence to highlight the par-
ticularity of unrecognized quasi-states by
pointing out the similarities and differences
with the other type of quasi-states.
Quasi-States as States with External
Sovereignty Only
In his seminal book Quasi-States: Sovereignty,
International Relations and the Third World,
Jackson (1993) pointed out that most
European colonies in Africa that achieved
independence in the 1950s and 1960s were
ill prepared for sovereign statehood. They
had been ruled like British counties or
French départements and lacked even the
most basic infrastructure of government.
They had no elites with sufficient pro-
fessional training and social responsibility to
take over the reins of the state.
In the past, states were created through
war and diplomacy, and states that could not
fend for themselves disintegrated and dis-
appeared from the map. The post-colonial
states, however, continue to exist even in the
absence of the basic qualities that in the past
were deemed indispensable for statehood.
The post-World War II state system extends
recognition to states on a purely formal basis.
The result has been the emergence of a qual-
itatively new type of state, the quasi-state,
Jackson claimed. Quasi-states are kept from
collapsing by leaning on an external scaf-
folding of international recognition, rather
than by any internal structure of institutions
and laws. Being protected by international
law against external intrusions, quasi-states
possess only external or negative sovereignty.
State leaders of such quasi-states often
receive the bulk of their revenues not from
the taxation of their own population but
from international donors and through the
exploitation of the country’s exportable
natural resources. Most of the money finds its
way into the pockets of the power-holders and
is not invested in projects to strengthen the
journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume 43 / number 6 / november 2006
724
To continue reading
Request your trial