Sovereign state

A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by
one centralised government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines
sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the
capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a
sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.[2]
The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative
theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states,
unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage
in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
Contents

1Emergence of states

2Westphalian sovereignty

3Recognition
o

3.1Constitutive theory

3.2Declarative theory

3.3State practice

3.4De facto and de jure states

4Relationship between state and government

5State extinction

6Ontological status of the state

o

6.1The state as "quasi-abstract"

6.2The state as "spiritual entity"

7Trends in the number of states

8See also

9References
o

9.1Bibliography

10Further reading

11External links

Emergence of states[edit]
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual
sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state". [4]States are
but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe, others being city
states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.[5]

Westphalian sovereignty[edit]
Main article: Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the
absence of a role for external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of
states, multinational corporations, and organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in
1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[6][7] Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept
of a "standard of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world
were "uncivilised", and lacking organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the
notion that their "sovereignty" was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when
compared to that of "civilised" people."[8] Lassa Oppenheim said "There exists perhaps no conception
the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this
conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has
never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon." [9] In the opinion of H. V. Evatt of the High
Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that
does not arise at all."[10]
Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of selfdetermination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of
modern international law. The United Nations Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of
States, and the charters of regional international organizations express the view that all states are
juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as
persons under international law.[11][12] The right of nations to determine their own political status and
exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised. [13]
[14][15]

In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the
form of its complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the
domestic policy and independence in the foreign one. [16]
Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, which
according to Bryan Turner is "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and
recognised the right of princes 'to confessionalise' the state, that is, to determine the religious
affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle of cuius regio eius religio."[17]

The Westphalian model of state sovereignty has increasingly come under fire from the "non-west" as
a system imposed solely by Western Colonialism. What this model did was make religion a
subordinate to politics,[17] a problem that has caused some issues in the Islamic world. This system
does not fit in the Islamic world because concepts such as "separation of church and state" and
"individual conscience" are not recognised in the Islamic religion as social systems.
In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they
were synonymous; but in stricter usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]

Country denotes a region of land defined by geographical features or political boundaries.

Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion,
language, origins, ancestry or history. However, the adjectives national and international are
frequently used to refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national
capital, international law.

State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a
definite territory and population. Sovereign states are legal persons.

Recognition[edit]
State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a
sovereign state.[18] Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its
effects. It does not necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.
There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria
for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal. [19] L.C. Green cited the
recognition of the unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that "since
recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state
any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or of an established government." [20]
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognised as
sovereign.[21]

Constitutive theory[edit]
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if,
it is recognised as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 14th
century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of
this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by
international law, and recognised nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings
with them.[22] In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Actrecognised only 39 sovereign states in
the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in the future new
states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or
more of the great powers.[23]
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new
entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested
that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any

criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria.
Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their advantage. [22]
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, but it
takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State
becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[24]

Declarative theory[edit]
By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it
meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4)
a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's
statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most
famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.[25]
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition
by other states, and the state is not prohibited from defending itself. [26] In contrast, recognition is
considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.
A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by
the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found
that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.[citation needed]

State practice[edit]
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory
and constitutive approaches.[27] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.[28]
Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach
of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community
of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this. In the former case, recognition was
widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines
of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation
of an "illegal racist minority rgime".[29] In the latter case, recognition was widely withheld from a state
created in Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974. [30]

De facto and de jure states[edit]

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both in law and in reality).
However, a state may be recognised only as a de jure state, in that it is recognised as being the
legitimate government of a territory over which it has no actual control. For example, during
the Second World War, governments-in-exile of a number of continental European states continued
to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi
occupation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a sovereign state,
a claim which has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de
facto control of Israel.[31][45] Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack
international recognition; these may be considered by the international community to be only de
facto states. They are considered de jure states only according to their own law and by states that
recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.[46][47][48][49] For a

list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as sovereign states, but do not have complete
worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.

Relationship between state and government[edit]

Although the terms "state" and "government" are often used interchangeably,[50] international law
distinguishes between a non-physical state and its government; and in fact, the concept of
"government-in-exile" is predicated upon that distinction.[51] States are non-physical juridical entities,
and not organisations of any kind.[52] However, ordinarily, only the government of a state can obligate
or bind the state, for example by treaty.[51]

State extinction[edit]
Generally speaking, states are durable entities, though it is possible for them to be become
extinguished, either through voluntary means or outside forces, such as military conquest. According
to a 2004 study, violent state death has virtually ceased since the end of World War II. [53] Because
states are non-physical juridical entities, it has been argued their extinction cannot be due to
physical force alone.[54] Instead, the physical actions of the military must be associated with the
correct social or judiciary actions in order to abolish a state.

Ontological status of the state[edit]

The ontological status of the state has been the subject of debate, [55] specially, whether or not the
state, being an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise detect, [56] actually exists.

The state as "quasi-abstract"[edit]

It has been argued that one potential reason as to why the existence of states has been
controversial is because states do not have a place in the traditional Platonist duality of the concrete
and the abstract.[57] Characteristically, concrete objects are those that have position in time and
space, which states do not have (though their territories have spatial position, but states are distinct
from their territories), and abstract objects have position in neither time nor space, which does not fit
the supposed characteristics of states either, since states do have temporal position (they can be
created at certain times and then become extinct at a future time). Also, abstract objects are
characteristically completely non-causal, which is also not a characteristics of states, since states
can act in the world and can cause certain events (though only by actions taken on their behalf
through a representative).[58] Therefore, it has been argued that states belong to a third category, the
quasi-abstract, that has recently begun to garner philosophical attention, specially in the area
of documentality, an ontological theory that seeks to understand the role of documents in
understanding all of social reality. Quasi-abstract objects, such as states, can be brought into being
through document acts, and can also be used to manipulate them, such as by binding them by treaty
or surrendering them as the result of a war.[57]
Scholars in international relations can be broken up into two different practices, realists and
pluralists, of what they believe the ontological state of the state is. Realists believe that the world is
one of only states and interstate relations and the identity of the state is defined before any
international relations with other states. On the other hand, pluralists believe that the state is not the

only actor in international relations and interactions between states and the state is competing
against many other actors.[59]

The state as "spiritual entity" [edit]

Another theory of the ontology of the state is that the state is a spiritual[60] or "mystical entity"[60] with its
own being, distinct from the members of the state.[60] The German Idealistphilosopher Georg
Hegel (1770-1831) was perhaps the greatest proponent of this theory.[60] The Hegelian definition of
the state is "the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth."[61]

Trends in the number of states[edit]

Since the end of World War II, the number of sovereign states in the international system has
surged.[62] Some research suggests that the existence of international and regional organizations, the
greater availability of economic aid, and greater acceptance of the norm of self-determination have
increased the desire of political units to secede and can be credited for the increase in the number of
states in the international system.[63][64] Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and Tufts economist Enrico
Spolaore argue in their book, Size of Nations, that the increase in the number of states can partly be
credited to a more peaceful world, greater free trade and international economic integration,
democratization, and the presence of international organizations that coordinate economic and
political policies.[65]

References[edit]
1.

Jump up^ See the following:

Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press.

p. 178. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1 lays down the
most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the
state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent
population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with
other states'

Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed. (1995). Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law

International. p. 20. So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the
Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted.

2.

Jump up^ See the following:

Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of
the science. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. p. 51. A sovereign state is generally defined to be any
nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself
independently of foreign powers.

"sovereign", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.),
Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, retrieved 21 February 2010, adj. 1. Self-governing;
independent: a sovereign state.

"sovereign", The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd ed.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-517077-6, adjective ... [ attrib. ] (of a nation or state) fully
independent and determining its own affairs.

3.

Jump up^ Lalonde, Suzanne (2002). "Notes to pages". Determining boundaries in a

conflicted world: the role of uti possidetis. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-77352424-8.

4.

Jump up^ Glassner, Martin Ira; Fahrer, Chuck (2004). Political Geography (3rd ed.).
Hoboken: Wiley. p. 14. ISBN 0-471-35266-7.

5.

Jump up^ Spruyt, H. (1994). The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of
Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03356-0.

6.

Jump up^ Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton

University Press. ISBN 0-691-00711-X.

7.

Jump up^ Nez, Jorge Emilio. "About the Impossibility of Absolute State
Sovereignty". International Journal for the Semiotics of Law.

8.

Jump up^ Wilde, Ralph (2009). "From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again:
The Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework
of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers". Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 31: 85142 [p. 94].

9.

Jump up^ Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)

10.

Jump up^ Akweenda, Sackey (1997). "Sovereignty in cases of Mandated

Territories". International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity. Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers. p. 40. ISBN 90-411-0412-7.

11.

Jump up^ "Chapter IV Fundamental Rights and Duties of States". Charter of the
Organization of American States. Secretariat of The Organization of American States. Retrieved 21
November2010.

12.

Jump up^ "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" (PDF). UN Treaty Organization.
1949. Retrieved 21 November 2010.

13.

Jump up^ "General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, "Permanent
sovereignty over natural resources"". United Nations. Retrieved 21 November 2010.

14.

Jump up^ Schwebel, Stephen M., The Story of the U.N.'s Declaration on Permanent
Sovereignty over Natural Resources, 49 A.B.A. J. 463 (1963)

15.

Jump up^ "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".

16.

Jump up^ Grinin L. E. Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their
Sovereign Prerogatives? Age of Globalization. Number 1 / 2008 [1]

17.

^ Jump up to:a b Turner, Bryan (July 2007). "Islam, Religious Revival and the Sovereign
State". Muslim World. 97 (3): 405418.

18.

Jump up^ "Recognition", Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.

19.

Jump up^ See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47-48 in International law:
achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,
1991, ISBN 92-3-102716-6 [2]

20.

Jump up^ See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds.,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 [3]

21.

Jump up^ Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and
evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.

22.

^ Jump up to:a b Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law. Routledge.
pp. 2012. ISBN 1-85941-050-2.

23.

Jump up^ Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128.

24.

Jump up^ Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise. The
Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 135. ISBN 1-58477-609-9.

25.

Jump up^ Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge

University Press. p. 419.

26.

Jump up^ http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html

27.

Jump up^ Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law (5th ed.). Cambridge University
Press. p. 369. ISBN 0-521-53183-7.

28.

Jump up^ Opinion No. 10. of the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia.

29.

Jump up^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 216

30.

Jump up^ United Nations Security Council Resolution 541

31.

^ Jump up to:a b Staff writers (20 February 2008). "Palestinians 'may declare state'". BBC
News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2011-01-22.:"Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that
the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real
independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not
Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence".

32.

^ Jump up to:a b B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied
Territories: Israel's control of the airspace and the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip, Retrieved 201203-24.

33.

Jump up^ Map of Gaza fishing limits, "security zones"

34.

Jump up^ Israel's Disengagement Plan: Renewing the Peace Process: "Israel will guard the
perimeter of the Gaza Strip, continue to control Gaza air space, and continue to patrol the sea off the
Gaza coast. ... Israel will continue to maintain its essential military presence to prevent arms
smuggling along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (Philadelphi Route), until the security
situation and cooperation with Egypt permit an alternative security arrangement."

35.

Jump up^ Gold, Dore; Institute for Contemporary Affairs (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics:
The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue
Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

36.

Jump up^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on
Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

37.

Jump up^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press
release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

38.

Jump up^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation
Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

39.

Jump up^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29
October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

40.

Jump up^ Gold, Dore; Institute for Contemporary Affairs (26 August 2005). "Legal Acrobatics:
The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws". Jerusalem Issue
Brief, Vol. 5, No. 3. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

41.

Jump up^ Bell, Abraham (28 January 2008). "International Law and Gaza: The Assault on
Israel's Right to Self-Defense". Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29. Jerusalem Center for Public
Affairs. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

42.

Jump up^ "Address by Foreign Minister Livni to the 8th Herzliya Conference" (Press
release). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

43.

Jump up^ Salih, Zak M. (17 November 2005). "Panelists Disagree Over Gaza's Occupation
Status". University of Virginia School of Law. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

44.

Jump up^ "Israel: 'Disengagement' Will Not End Gaza Occupation". Human Rights Watch. 29
October 2004. Retrieved 2010-07-16.

45.

Jump up^ Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories,
depending on special area classification. Israel maintains minimal interference (retaining control of
borders: air,[32] sea beyond internal waters,[32][33]land[34]) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C".[35][36][37]
[38][39]
See also Israeli-occupied territories.
[31][40][41][42][43][44]

46.

Jump up^ Arieff, Alexis (2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of
Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs. 3: 6079. Retrieved 2010-01-04.

47.

Jump up^ "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon". Foreign Policy
Magazine. July 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.

48.

Jump up^ "Overview of De-facto States". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.
July 2008. Retrieved 2010-01-04.

49.

Jump up^ Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognises de facto Somaliland". Les
Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. Retrieved 2010-01-04.

50.

Jump up^ Robinson, E. H. (2013). "The Distinction Between State and

Government" (PDF). The Geography Compass. 7 (8): 556566.

51.

^ Jump up to:a b Crawford, J. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-826002-4.

52.

Jump up^ Robinson, Edward Heath (2010). "An Ontological Analysis of States:
Organizations vs. Legal Persons" (PDF). Applied Ontology. 5: 109125.

53.

Jump up^ Fazal, Tanisha M. (2004-04-01). "State Death in the International

System". International Organization. 58 (2): 311344. doi:10.1017/S0020818304582048. ISSN 15315088.

54.

Jump up^ Robinson, Edward Heath (2011). "The Involuntary Extinction of States: An
Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers
since the Second World War" (PDF). The Journal of Military Geography. 1: 1729.

55.

Jump up^ Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the ontological status of the state". European Journal of
International Relations. 2 (4). doi:10.1177/1354066196002004002.

56.

Jump up^ A. James (1986). Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International

Society (London: Allen & Unwin)

57.

^ Jump up to:a b Robinson, Edward H. (2014). "A documentary theory of states and their
existence as quasi-abstract entities" (PDF). Geopolitics. 19 (3): 1
29. doi:10.1080/14650045.2014.913027. Retrieved 16 September 2014.

58.

Jump up^ Robinson, Edward H. (2011). "A theory of social agentivity and its integration into
the descriptive ontology for linguistic and cognitive engineering" (PDF). International Journal on
Semantic Web and Information Systems. 7 (4): 6286. doi:10.4018/jswis.2011100103. Retrieved 16
September2014.

59.

Jump up^ Ringmar, Erik (1996). "On the Ontological Status of the State". European Journal
of International Relations. 10 (2).

60.

^ Jump up to:a b c d Fundamentals of Government, pg. 71,

61.

Jump up^ Fundamentals of Government, pg. 71 (citing Hegel's Philosophy of History, trans.
J. Sibree [New York: Wiley Book Co., 1944]).

62.

Jump up^ "The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy". SAGE Publications. pp. 294295.
Retrieved 2016-11-17.

63.

Jump up^ Fazal, Tanisha M.; Griffiths, Ryan D. (2014-03-01). "Membership Has Its
Privileges: The Changing Benefits of Statehood". International Studies Review. 16 (1): 79
106. doi:10.1111/misr.12099. ISSN 1468-2486.

64.

Jump up^ "The State of Secession in International Politics". E-International Relations.

Retrieved 2016-11-16.

65.

Jump up^ "The Size of Nations". MIT Press. Retrieved 2016-11-16.