The Stigmatisation of de facto States: Disapproval and ‘Engagement without Recognition’

Abstract

Traditionally, the international community has rejected unilateral declarations of independence. As a result, de facto statesterritories that have declared independence but are not members of the United Nationshave been stigmatised. However, not all secessionist de facto states are treated equally. Whereas some are wholly shunned, others enjoy a high degree of international interaction with the UN members that do not recognise them. This study explores why this is so and shows how levels of disapproval shapes processes of engagement with non-recognising states. It notes that responses to cases of unilateral secession by states, and thus the stigma attached to de facto states, are shaped by three broad factors: systemic factors, contextual factors and national factors. Crucially, it is shown that the stigmatisation of individual de facto states can change over time and circumstance, and with it the degree of engagement without recognition enjoyed by that de facto state can vary.

Sovereignty in Drag: On Fakes, Foreclosure, and Unbecoming States

“…We see the official sign of such prohibition and disavowal in the ways that de facto states are most commonly described as “pirates,” and therefore outlaws, or “puppets” of another state, making them not “real” ones themselves. “They are stigmatised,” and “by their very nature, sit apart from the established international order” (Ker‐Lindsay 2018, 362) 7…”

Declarations of Independence after the Cold War: Abandoning grievance and avoiding rupture

“…Furthermore, there is a vast literature on when a state comes into existence from both international relations and international law perspectives (e.g., Crawford, 2006; Dugard & Raič, 2006; Grzybowski, 2019; Vidmar, 2012b). There has also been an emerging literature on “engagement without recognition” examining how contested states navigate the lack of recognition in their foreign policy (Bouris & Fernández‐Molina, 2018; Ker‐Lindsay, 2018; Ker‐Lindsay & Armakolas, 2020).…”

Continuous recognition: A latent variable approach to measuring international sovereignty of self-determination movements

“…However, a substantial problem has been that an aspiring state's 'official' international status often does not reflect how politics operates on the ground. The field's response has been to develop a taxonomy of partial states (Berg & Vits, 2018;Caspersen, 2018;Ker-Lindsay, 2018;Closson, 2011;Harvey & Stansfield, 2011). Here it has been common to distinguish degrees by focusing on diplomatic recognition as the primary indicator of international sovereignty.…”

“…A broad range of other activities may come beforehand. While a healthy literature discussing states' 'engagement without recognition' with aspiring states has recently developed (Cooley & Mitchell, 2010;Ker-Lindsay, 2018;Kyris, 2018;Caspersen, 2018;Kaplan, 2019), there have been no attempts to systematically measure, estimate, and compare this engagement.…”