Recognition of Governments in International Law

Abstract

This book studies the recognition of governments in international law. It is based on an analysis of the diplomatic practice of states as well as decisions by national and international courts. It explores the two central questions of the recognition of governments: what are the meanings of the term ‘recognition’ and its variants in international law such as de facto, de jure, and diplomatic recognition?; and what is the effect of such recognition on the legal status of foreign authorities, and in particular, of governments in exile? Along the lines of these questions the study is organized in a general introduction and two main parts which are followed by three appendices: replies received from various states in response to a questionnaire on the recognition of governments, short profiles of authorities in exile claiming to be ‘governments’, and a list of treaties concluded by authorities in exile recognized as governments. The book is comprehensive in its analysis of the issues, and covers material of historical interest, as well as recent developments in Angola, Kuwait, and Haiti.

Libya's Assets and the Question of Sovereignty

“…The first was the treaties and commitments entered into by the previous regime, while also violating democratic principles in denying its people self-determination. 13 The European Union followed the same approach when, in 1991, it adopted the 'Official Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union'. It stated that recognition would be made conditional on certain minimum standards being met, including the rule of law, democratic government, guarantees for minority rights and respect for existing borders.…”

The Recognition of the Chinese Government and the Convention on International Civil Aviation

“…121 This is evidenced by the fact that foreign courts have regularly applied the laws of de facto authorities with respect to matters under their effective control. 122 The courts of some States have-for domestic, not international law reasons-required that the de facto authority has (at least implicitly) been recognized de facto by the government of the forum. 123 This, however, does not affect the legislative authority of a de facto authority under international law.…”

Facing the Colonels: How the British Government Dealt with the Military Coup in Greece in April 1967

“…44 According to Stefan Talmon, Britain claimed to be maintaining a consistent and principled policy on the question of recognizing governments: since 1924, Britain had decided that it was in her interest 'to have official (but not necessarily diplomatic) relations with all new regimes that fulfilled the criteria of international law for government status'. 45 In other words, Britain normally granted recognition when a government could fairly be held to enjoy with a reasonable prospect of permanency the obedience of the mass of the population, and maintain effective control of the national territory or much of the greater part of it. On the present occasion, as the Greek king was still functioning as head of state, no formal act of recognition was required; the British ambassador would have only to reply to the foreign minister's letter.…”

“…46 For example, Britain did not recognize for nearly eight years the Republican government in the Yemen (1962-70), even though it was firmly in control of the country. 47 In another example, Britain thought it necessary to recognize formally the government that came to power after the 1951 Thai coup, although it had not disturbed the king's position. 48 At first, Brown decided to temporize despite his knowledge that the Greek colonels had full military support and had left the king in place.…”