Q:

What are the elements of a State?

A:

1. People an aggregate of individuals of both sexes, who live together

as a community despite racial or cultural differences.
2. Territory fixed portion of the earths surface which the inhabitants
occupy.
3. Government the agency through which the will of the state is
formulated, expressed and realized.
4. Independence/sovereignty the power of a state to manage its
external affairs without direction or interference from another state.
Q:

Is Recognition an Element of a State?

A:

As a general rule, newly-created states are recognised as such by other

states provided their creation is considered legitimate and irreversible.
According to the prevailing doctrine of three elements of statehood,
recognition requires state territory, a state people and a public
authority. However, there is no obligation under international
law for one state to recognise another, even where these
criteria are met. Conditions for recognition may also vary from state
to state.1

Q:What are the theories on recognition of a State?

A:

The theories of recognition of a State are:

1. Constitutive theory recognition is the last indispensable element
that converts the state being recognized into an international person.
2. Declaratory theory recognition is merely an acknowledgment of
the pre-existing fact that the state being recognized is an international
person.

Q:

Distinguish the following doctrines: Tobar/Wilson, Stimson, and Estrada.

A:

Tobar/Wilson Doctrine
It precludes recognition to any government coming into existence by
revolutionary means so long as the freely elected representatives of
the people thereof have not constitutionally reorganized the country.
Stimson

1 https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/foreign-policy/international-law/respectpromotion/the-recognition-of-states-and-governments.html

The Stimson Doctrine is a policy of the United States federal

government, enunciated in a note of January 7, 1932, to Japan and
China, of non-recognition of international territorial changes that were
executed by force. The doctrine was an application of the principle of
ex injuria jus non oritur. While some analysts have applied the doctrine
in opposition to governments established by revolution, this usage is
not widespread, and its invocation usually involves treaty violations.2
Estrada Doctrine
It involves a policy of never issuing any declaration giving recognition
to governments and of accepting whatever government is in effective
control without raising the issue of recognition. An inquiry into
legitimacy would be an intervention in the internal affairs of another
State.
Q:Distinguish de jure from de facto recognition.
RECOGNITION DE JURE
Relatively permanent
Vests title to properties of
government abroad
Brings about full diplomatic
relations
Q:

RECOGNITION DE FACTO
Provisional (e.g.: duration of
armed struggle)
Does not vest title to properties
of government abroad
Limited to certain juridical
relations

A:

Because the Holy See exists to govern the Roman Catholic Church
worldwide, beyond the limits of the Vatican City, its legitimacy as a
state is questionable. The Holy See has itself stated that its mission at
the UN is of a religious and moral character. In addition, the Holy See
does not meet international legal definitions of statehood. According to
the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, [t]he
State as a person of international law should possess the following
qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c)
government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other
states. These four factual criteria for determining statehood are
founded on principles agreed upon by a host of international law

2 Bin Cheng, Georg (FRW) Schwarzenberger (2006). General principles of law as

applied by international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521-03000-5.

scholars and are consistent with the foreign relations laws of some
nations.
The Holy See does not meet all four of the criteria in the Montevideo
definition. Other than the nominal population of the Vatican City, the
Holy See does not have a permanent population. Rather, it governs a
large group of voluntary religious followers who reside as citizens in
other states. Similarly, the Holy See does not possess a defined
territory other than the Vatican City, which serves only to host a small
collection of religious and administrative buildings. As to the
government criterion, the Holy See is itself the government of the
Roman Catholic Church and, by definition, of the Vatican City. It cannot
therefore be regarded as an entity that possesses a government. The
only characteristic of a modern state that is attributable to the Holy
See is its capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Holy
See is party to international treaties, and it receives foreign envoys.
In 1984, the United States Department of State under the Reagan
administration announced that the U.S. and the Holy See had agreed
to establish formal diplomatic relations for the first time. Several
members of Congress vocally opposed the establishment of formal ties
with the Holy See. In 1993 even the ultra-conservative U.S. Senator
Jesse Helms called into question the Holy Sees status as a State,
arguing that the U.S. should have no Ambassador to the Vatican City. I
remain persuaded that the United States has no business sending an
ambassador to any religious entity. Helms submitted a statement for
the record asserting that [m]aintaining diplomatic relations with the
Vatican is clearly a violation of the First Amendments guarantee of
separation between the institutions of church and state. He later
urged President Clinton to revoke diplomatic relations with the Holy
See. Though such revocation is unlikely, the Justice Department has
clarified that the Holy See need not be recognized as a state in order
for the United States to conduct diplomatic relations with it.3
Q:What are sui generis entities?
A:

In local government, a sui generis entity is one which does not fit with
the general scheme of local governance of a country. For example in
England, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly are the two sui
generis localities, as their forms of local government are both (for
historical or geographical reasons) very different from those of

3 http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/08/the-holy-see-at-the-un/

elsewhere in the country. Therefore The City of London and the Isles of
Scilly are said to be sui generis authorities, pre-dating recent reforms
of local government. The Joint Council of Municipalities of Croatia is a
sui generis council of municipalities to Croatians because it formed
after international agreement and therefore has no similar example in
the rest of the country. The legal status of the Holy See has been
described as a sui generis entity possessing an international
personality.
Q:

What is the principle of succession of states/government?

A:

In succession of government, the integrity of the original State is not

affected as what takes place is only a change in one of its elements,
the government.

Q:

What is belligerency? Distinguish it from a state of insurgency.

A:

Belligerency exists when the inhabitants of a State rise up in arms for

the purpose of overthrowing the legitimate government or when there
is a state of war between two states.

INSURGENCY
BELLIGERENCY
A mere initial stage of war. It More serious and widespread and
involves a rebel movement, and is presupposes the existence of war
usually not recognized.
between 2 or more states (1st
sense) or actual civil war within a
single state (2nd sense).

Sanctions to insurgency are Belligerency is governed by the

governed by municipal law rules on international law as the
Revised Penal Code, i.e. rebellion. belligerents
may
be
given
international personality.

Q:

What is Uti Possidetis?

A:

The principle of Uti Possidetis allows retention of property or territory in

the belligerents actual possession at the time of the cessation of
hostilities.

Q:

What is the doctrine of sovereign immunity?

A:

Generally, the idea that the sovereign or government is immune from

lawsuits or other legal actions except when it consents to them.
Historically, this was an absolute doctrinal position that held Federal,
state, and local governments immune from tort liability arising from
the activities of government. These days, the application of sovereign
immunity is much less clear-cut, as different governments have waived
liability in differing degrees under differing circumstances.4

Q:What is the act of state doctrine?

A:

This doctrine says that a nation is sovereign within its own borders,
and its domestic actions may not be questioned in the courts of
another nation. Each sovereign state has complete control over the
laws within its own borders and that its acts cannot be questioned in
the courts of another state.5

4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Sovereign_immunity
5 http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/act-of-state-doctrine/