STATE FORMATION & RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW State has to establish and maintain the legal (rule of law)

maintain the legal (rule of law) and political order

(democracy) on an internal level, while in the international community it can
In reality, some states decide to act in a way dictated by geopolitical dynamics exercise rights and fulfill duties
i.e. power or influence held and through which their interests could be enforced
at regional or global level Badinter Committee: state is commonly defined as a community which
consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority,
State recognition in IL: being a unilateral act through which the existence of a that such a state is characterized by sovereignty
state and its status as a subject of IL are acknowledged. Only states as primary
subjects of IL are subject to this procedure TYPES OF RECOGNITION IN IL
● Without recognition, a state’s capability to enter relations with another
state is limited due to its isolation from the international community From a strictly legal point of view, recognition could be either legal (de jure) or
factual (de facto). At the same time, recognition can be express or tacit.
Two opposing theories explain and order the admission of states into the Nonetheless, states practice limited types of recognition as well, such as
international community. government or diplomatic recognition, respectively.
1. Constitutive theory: any state completes its formation through
recognition by other states. Recognition is a requirement for statehood, De jure and de facto recognition: there have been cases where a great
but no state can be forced to recognize another number of states refused to de jure recognise a particular country on ideological
2. Declarative theory: ruling out the necessity of international recognition grounds. Nonetheless, such a state gained de facto recognition and thus
as a condition for statehood, and introducing unbiased standards established relations with other states.
codified as the Montevideo Criteria
● Examples: Soviet Union, de facto recognized by the UK govt but not
STATEHOOD & SOVEREIGNTY formally recognized until 1927 and Taiwan that enjoyed worldwide
recognition and held a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security
Montevideo criteria stated that a state must consist of Council until 1971, when UN member states ceased to de jure
a. Defined territory recognise the Republic of China and recognised the People’s Republic
b. Permanent population of China (only de facto recognised until then) instead.
c. Government
d. Capacity to enter into relations with other states Express and tacit recognition: existing state can recognize a new state either
explicitly, through an official declaration or tacitly by any means from which a
Latter two are correspondingly internal and external sovereignty. new state would be treated as any other international legal person
● Tacit recognition can be a diplomatic mission or signing a bilateral
Internal Ability of state to treaty. Not all bilateral treaties or multilateral imply recognition
exercise its power
over its territory Government recognition: state recognition can be independent or full-fledged
diplomatic relations which usually refers exclusively to the bilateral ties between
External Ability of the state to two countries. If a state cant be granted full recognition by the int. community, its
act independently relations with individual states can be either interrupted or resumed due to
and autonomously in diverse reasons.
the face of external
forces.
 ● Example: Taiwan enjoys de facto recognition but People's Republic of
China wields greater economic influence on the world stage and has
thus conditioned its diplomatic relations with other states by the
immediate termination of any formal recognition or diplomatic mission of
these states in the case of Taiwan.
Withdrawal of recognition: in the circumstance of de jure recognition, an
exceptional event that can occur whenever a state considers such an action as
appropriate
TWO THEORIES OF STATEHOOD
Constitutive theory of statehood
● Can be traced back to Peace Congress of Vienna which recognized 39
sovereign European states and established that any future state could
be recognized as such only through acceptance of existing states
● A state is considered to be a legal international person only if it is
recognized as sovereign by other states
● Eurocentrism was perceived to be a key feature of such recognitions
as early diplomatic and trade contacts w/ Asian countries involved a de
facto acknowledgement of their sovereignty but full-fledged relations
and recognition were only granted upon meeting a certain standard of
civilization
Hegel: every state is sovereign and autonomous against its neighbors, being
entitled in the first place and w/o qualification to be sovereign from their point of
view while alsop admitting that recognition is conditional on the neighboring
state’s judgment and will
Lauterpacht
● It is possible that a state will refuse to recognize another even if it does
fulfill the criteria for statehood.
● With this, Lauterpacht proposed that states have a legal duty to
recognize one another when the conditions of statehood exist
● He considered the constitutive theory deduces the legal existence of
new states from the will of those already established. In the absence of
a body responsible for observing declaring that a certain state meets the
conditions for statehood
Declarative theory of statehood
● Speech by US president Woodrow Wilsoon propagated the concept of
self-determination which direct consequences for the international order
● Wilson: lack of self-determination has been the center of Europe’s
turbulent history. His doctrine has marked the end of Pax Britannica
(period of relative peace between the great powers during which the
British Empire became the global hegemonic power and adopted the
role of a "global policeman) and paved the way for greater US influence
on the world stage
● Declaratory model: a state does not obtain international legal
personality through the consent of others. Thus, recognition of state
signifies nothing more than the admission of a factual situation
● Declarative conception is much closer to the current model
followed by the international community as it is also enshrined in the
rules contained in the Montevideo Convention and reiterated by the
Badinter Commision
Oppenheim: recognition depends more on the foreign policy of states rather
than the rules of international law. Nonetheless, as international law traces its
sources to the treaties signed by states with the intention of protecting their
interests, this is sufficient reason to assert that national interests are definitely at
the foundation of such legal rules.
International rules could be solely applied if an international and
independent organ is invested with the power to declare which state meets
the requirements for statehood and which does not. Such a body should be
in no circumstances bound by the will of another international authority.
One solution to overcome this problem would be to provide a legal mechanism
for the selection of its members.
UNCLE SAM SAID VERY CLEARLY YOU ARE NOT A COUNTRY: INDEPENDENCE
ACTIVISTS AND THE MAPPING OF IMPERIAL COSMOLOGIES IN TAIWAN
PREMISE: American imperialism in East Asia cannot be historically disentangled from
Asian imperialisms, and Asian imperialisms in turn cannot be historically disentangled
from the Western imperialisms to which many of them responded. Taiwan, where one’s
positionality within entangled and/or competing imperial projects can overdetermine one’s
political affinities and antago- nisms vis-à-vis multiple empires.
2006: demonstration outside the American Institute of Taiwan demanded the United
States to “explain clearly” Taiwan’s legal status and to provide them U.S. passports.
Although the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals would decline to decide their case, Lin and
his supporters established a Taiwan Civil Government (TCG) in 2008.
Some activists said that Roger Lin deceived supporters into believing there was official
U.S. backing, one former supporter told me that even if Lin was deceptive, the TCG could
“still help” the larger independence movement because it “made something out of nothing
Chen Kuan-Hsing’s study on Club 51
● Club 51: a movement that advocated American statehood for Taiwan.
● Chen emphasized the radical significance of a proposal that abandons
aspirations to nationhood and instead seeks annexation into empire.
● “To become independent, Taiwan must depend on the United States militarily,
diplomatically, and economically, but to openly admit this fact is contrary to the
very idea of independence”
According to the author: empire is an imagined community, not only in terms of cultural
identification but also in terms of the pragmatics through which nationalist activists map
their aspired communities into a global order
- In this case, one defined by American power vis-à-vis a Chinese nationalist
project considered itself to be imperial.
Recent scholarship on both empire and nationalism has challenged the implicit
dichotomy of national self-determination and imperialism.
● Kelly (2003): on a broader scale, anti-imperial critiques of American power fail
to question the assumptions of the nation-state system as an institutional
arrangement that limited political self-determination to the project of the
nation-state and limited liabilities for the major powers on whom the new
nation-states were still dependent.
National order of things: a powerful regime of order and knowledge that is at once
politico-economic, historical, cultural, aesthetic, and cosmological.”
Taiwan has historically been integrated into multiple imperial formations, creating
the conditions of possibility for different people to imagine many different “empires” into
which the island might be mapped. These possible belongings are more complex than a
simple dichotomy between “Chinese” and “Taiwanese” identities
● Although political movements under Japanese colonialism did emerge among
Taiwan’s elite who sought independence from Japan or eventual reunification
with mainland China, the home-rule movement largely accepted the
irreversibility of remaining part of the Japanese Empire.
Dissatisfaction with the rampant misadministration of the incoming Chinese Nationalist
(KMT) government, culminated in a 1947 uprising that was suppressed in a massacre
that effectively eliminated, exiled, or silenced the Taiwanese elite
1949: the Chinese Communist Party defeated the KMT, which then, accompanied by two
million mainland Chinese, retreated to the island. Taiwan was reimagined as a
temporary base and “model province” within a larger mission to “recover the
mainland.”
● Taiwan is formally spoken of in public contexts as an internal province, the ROC
formally maintains that it still remains sovereignty over all of china but effective
jurisdiction over the Taiwan Area
Democratization in the 1990s precipitated the popular convergence of the “Republic of
China” imaginary with Taiwan, but efforts to remap Taiwan as a sovereign state within
the international system have failed largely due to opposition from the PRC, which
regards eventual unification as the only acceptable outcome
● Taiwan is also being integrated economically through extensive cross-strait
circulations of capital and people
After 2008, President Ma Ying-Jeou opened negotiations on trade liberalization with
“China” under the premise of One, China Different interpretations wherein the ROC
formally maintains itself to be China and the other side to be the “mainland authorities.”
● Opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) maintains that Taiwan is a
separate sovereign state with the name of the “Republic of China”
Some grassroots activists associated with the Taiwan independence movement
attempt to “make things legible” by formalizing the terms of informal American empire in
Taiwan in ways that seem to promise spaces for political agency
● Many of the groups to whom they belong emerged in response to the DPP
moving from active support of Taiwan independence to preservation of the
status quo.
● They debated approaches to pursuing independence, with some focusing on
how to mobilize other Taiwanese and others focusing on how to realize
independence through foreign intervention or international law.
The Entanglement of American and Chinese Empires
Many Taiwanese activists frequently imagined the United States as the ideal
realization of the institutions and political practices they saw to be limited in
Taiwan.
Meanwhile, the project of modern Chinese nationalism is itself experienced as a
form of imperialism. This includes not only the equivalence of “unification” with
“annexation” but also memories and legacies of KMT authoritarian rule in Taiwan.
● The project’s methods uncannily resembled the methods of the prior Japanese
colonialist project
● Some activists claimed that China wanted to invade and annex Taiwan because
of claims to shared “blood”
Wen, through a series of shifts, identifies imperial affinities between China and the United
States that are quickly qualified by significant contrasts
ROC government in Taiwan, represented two governments: China and the United
States
● Independence activists: The United States had “responsibility” (zérèn) for
Taiwan’s future.
Americans “imperialist” by virtue of the fact that they had not been imperialist
enough and had not done what Chinese nationalists had long accused the United States
of plotting to do: establishing the permanent separation of Taiwan from China.
● Bush (2004), the former head of the AIT, characterized U.S. policy toward
Taiwan as having deterred three outcomes: (1) a Chinese invasion of Taiwan,
(2) Chiang Kai-Shek attacking the mainland, and (3) Taiwan declaring
independence.
● American leaders maintained deliberate “strategic ambiguity” about
Taiwan’s status as a tool in managing its relationship with China
The Social Life of Imperial Cosmologies
Activists consistently attributed greater veracity and efficacy to the statements of
U.S. officials than to the statements of Taiwanese officials.
● This reflects the historical fact that U.S. declarations and statements regarding
Taiwan have exemplified “words that do things”
● There is also the interpretive logic that U.S. non recognition of Taiwan vetoes
the existence of a government that otherwise reproduces itself through everyday
bureaucratic practices.
● ROC was “not a country” was occasionally accompanied by the statement that
“America said very clearly!” it was not.
Anderson (1991): “administrative pilgrimages” have been crucial in the creation of
“imagined [national] communities”
● The legacy of a U.S. military presence in Taiwan and the transpacific
pilgrimages that tied generations of Taiwanese to the United States are the
conditions of possibility for imagining oneself in a U.S. imperial community.
Johnny Huang framed statehood as the generalization of security
Statehood was argued both to guarantee U.S. protection and to resolve its unequal
application to people in Taiwan by building on relationships that were already analogous
to being a U.S. dependency.
The TCG is often popularly associated with him, the claims, logics, and methods of the
two groups are very different.
● TCG claimed that Taiwan is already part of the United States and that its
supporters should act in accordance with this reality
● Hartzel (2004): when Japan surrendered in 1945, its colony of Taiwan also fell
under the legal authority of the United States, the “principal occupying power.”
● Order was never rescinded and because the final status of Taiwan was never
formally determined, Taiwan remains an unacknowledged overseas
possession of the United States
Roger Lin's strategy of suing the U.S. government to have it recognize its jurisdiction
over Taiwan and to provide the passports due to a people living in an American territory.
● In 2009, the United States Court of Appeals declined the case on the grounds
that a judicial decision would infringe on a “question the Executive Branch
intentionally left unanswered for over sixty years: who exercises sovereignty
over Taiwan”
Lin’s mistake according to Taiwanese activists/citizens was to only discuss the San
Francisco Peace Treaty and not the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
 ● An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and
to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the continuation
of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United
States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes.
● The act gave Taiwan independence:
● Article 2 that what the United States used to refer to as the Republic of China
was now to be referred to as the “governing authorities in Taiwan
Wang: three-tiered structure where, historically, “the UN gave [occupation authority] to
the United States, and the United States gave it to Chiang Kai-Shek.” The ROC
constitution was not really a Chinese constitution, he said, but a “civil affairs document
PERFORMING THE EMPIRE
I found banners and fliers placed by the boss advertising a campaign to formally establish
Taiwan as a “neutral country.”
Stages of Taiwan’s neutralization
● First stage: “internationalization” of the Taiwan Strait (by virtue of Taiwan’s
transfer to Japan) as the “First Stage”
● Second stage: Truman’s 1950 order to neutralize the Chinese Civil War in the
Taiwan Strait
● Third stage: establishing Taiwan as a neutral country was the “Third Stage.
● Their very existence, and the extent to which groups like the TCG went to
realize them, demonstrates the agentive appeal of imagining an empire.
Resisting placement within China, but unable to achieve recognition within an
international community of states, activists imagine a place within an American
empire. Because this empire is ambiguous and disavowed, however, activists attempt to
formalize its terms themselves.
● Wu (2004) argues that an anti-imperial strategy of appealing to Western
universalism was also found in the Japanese period, when Japan’s anti-imperial
“oriental colonialism” justified itself in part as resistance to Western imperialism.
A common U.S. colonial legal discourse about the nature of these entities and about
their mutability
● Part of this discourse on political entities entails an assumption of the mutability
of these units or of the capacity of one kind of unit to become another kind.”
● In both cases, activists are “strategically using law to both preserve and
create the kind of political entities that will help them maintain and further the
social identities they value”
The Debate: larger debate within the pro-independence community about whether the
movement depended more on the mobilization of a pro-independence “voice” in Taiwan
or the support of powerful foreign actors.
Rutherford (2012) argues, “in a world where diplomatic acknowledgement is the sine
qua non of legitimate statehood, nationalists are particularly dogged by the specter of
iterability.” In this case, however, what is being iterated is the assumed responsibility of
an empire that has deliberately extricated itself from the imperial relationship.
Former supporter of Lin described the TCG. “Lin lied to us,” he said, but then he added
that even if the U.S. Military Mapping of American empire by Taiwanese independence
activists and the emergence of projects like the Formosan Statehood Movement or the
Civil
CEMENTING A STATE OF BELLIGERENCY: THE 1949 ARMISTICE NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA
PREMISE: After the Arab states' devastating defeat in the 1948 war with Israel, Syria
refused to give in without a fight. Syria held on to several bridgeheads inside the former
Palestine. Proving as skillful as their Israeli opponents at the game of contradictory
arguments, the Syrians steadfastly refused to concede to Israel 's demands. The
negotiations in 1949 eventually resulted in a demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli
border, and with it a state of belligerency was cemented.
A number of Syrian bridgeheads had been established north and south of the Sea of
Galilee, inside the borders of Mandatory Palestine. The Syrians refused to leave, and the
Israelis were unable to force them out. Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) put in
place a peace settlement between Israel and Arab states but in vain
● Ralph Bunche was tasked with getting the victorious Israel and the defeated
Arab to negotiate armistice agreements
● The armistice negotiations were conducted bilaterally between Israel and
individual Arab states: an arrangement that for Israel was preferable to having
to deal w/ demands from a full bloc of Arab states.
● Unlike the Arab states, Israel had already obtained independence and built up a
professionalized and broadly engaged foreign ministry, making them better
equipped and prepared in the negotiations than the Arabs. Arab states military
weakness made them conceded to the Israelis on many points. Thus, one after
another, they signed armistice agreements with Israel and only Syria remained.
● The US had a particular interest in these negotiations because alongside
being a strong support for the newly born state of Israel through the activities of
its recently created CIA, the US had also helped foment a coup and install a
pro-Western government in Syria before the Syrian-Israeli negotiations
commenced
● Rather than solving the conflict, the armistice agreements cemented an
unresolved state of tension that would contribute to decades of confrontation
and war and a absence of peace between the two states
THE WAR OF 1948 & ITS RESULTS
When Syria gained independence, its population had experienced war, economic
stagnation, and political repression. Nowhere in the Middle East were the protests
against the UN Partition Plan more extensive than Syria.
● Syrians wanted Palestine to be Arab and urged their government to go to war to
ensure that it remained so. The fact that Plaestine was seen as part of Greater
Syria added fuel to the fire
● UN Partition Plan: United Nations Resolution 181, resolution passed by the
United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of
Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus
separatum to be governed by a special international regime. The
resolution—which was considered by the Jewish community in Palestine to be a
legal basis for the establishment of Israel, and which was rejected by the Arab
community—was succeeded almost immediately by violence.
Between the partition vote of 1947 and the end of the Palestine Mandate in 1948, the
Arab Liberation Army commanded by Syrian army officers, began attacking the
Jewish population in Palestine to hinder the UN Partition Plan and eventually a full
scale invasion was launched. However, when fighting began their claim of Arab unity was
replaced by national self interest and individual Arab armies followed their own paths
The Syrian army played a marginal role in this war but managed to seize south of Sea of
Galilee, hill of Tall al-Qasr and Mishmar ha-Yarden, fending off several Israeli counter
attacks against their new positions. Syria then had gained a foothold of Palestine and
also a bargaining chip
1949: first war between israel and Arab states was over and israel was the strongest
force in the region and gained 22% mre of the territory of former Palestine than had
initially been allocated to the Jewish state under the UNPP
● Egypt being in a miserable situation decided to state armistice negotiations with
Israel immediately. These negotiations moved quickly and the Egyptians being
the weaker party made a number of concessions to the Israelis
● The village of al-Awja which was in the border between Egypt and Israel was
designated as a demilitarized zone (DMZ) by Bunche
Israel and Lebanon negotiations: Israelis tried to make their withdrawal from 14
Lebanese villages they had seized upon Syria’s withdrawal to the 1923 international
border between Paletine and Syria, claiming that the Syrian-held positions on the east
bank of the sea of Galilee were inside claimed Israeli territory
Syria accepted the UN invitation to begin negotiations
● To draw attention away from domestic issues and in order to bolster his position,
the new president, Shukri al-Quwwatli, was using high-flying rhetoric, often
declaring that Syria would save Palestine and destroy Zionism.
● The civilian government headed by President Quwwatli was overthrown in a
bloodless coup led by the chief of staff of the Syrian army, Colonel Husni al-Za
● The US wanted to install Za'im in power and to facilitate an army- supported
dictatorship, viewing the colonel as strongly anti-Soviet, willing to negotiate with
the Israelis for peace, and desirous for US military assistance
POLITICAL OR MILITARY DISCUSSIONS? INTERNATIONAL BORDER OR EXISTING
TRUCE LINES?
The only stumbling block for the Syrian-Israeli negotiations was the Syrian
bridgehead inside the border of Mandatory Palestine, north and south of the sea of
Galilee.
● Israelies argued the old international border was the only permanent line to exist
between Palestine and syria. Also, according to the UNPP, the contested area
designated as belonging to the new Jewsibh state
● Israel refused to accept that Syria should have any troops in what they regarded
as Israeli territory and sought international support for using the old border
between Palestine and Syria as the basis for further discussions
● Syria wanted military talks between two armies jot political discussions between
two governments and refused Israeli demands
On the first day of armistice talks, Israeli troops took up new positions across the
existing truce line, displaying that they wanted to strengthen their position in the
negotiations and wanted to use small scale military operations as means of leverage to
obtain political concessions
● A few days later under pressure from Bunche, Israel withdrew from the territory
but not before lodging tis own complaint tat by occupying Hill 223, Syria had
also violated the truce and Bunche agreed and requested Syria withdraw from
Hill 223
The ever-recurring problem was the conflict between Israeli demands to use the
former international border and Syrian insistence on using the existing truce fine
as the starting point for negotiation
● Bunche claimed that the armistice agreement should if possible be conflicted
prior to Lausanne but that Israel’s argument w/o validity based on understanding
that the syrian line in Israel was established before truce, whereas Israel’s line in
Lebanon was established after the truce. Past armistice agreements were
concluded without the prejudice of political settlements
By the end of April, Syria had withdrawn both from Hill 223 and from tor north of Lake
Hula to show their goodwill to the Israelis. Israel returned without delay by reoccupying
Hill 223 on April 29, while the northern secto militarized.
 ● PresidenT Za’im: I ordered my troops out of Hill 223 when General Riley asked occupation of western Galilee was a real violation of the truce. If the armistice
it . . . but I've seen no similar gesture on the Israeli side; I would like to settle the negotiations broke down permanently, the Israelites were to blame for the collapse
whole Palestine problem in one package - boundar- ies, refugees, everythin
● Za'im told Keeley that he was willing to meet Prime Minister Ben-Gurion on the
On May 17, 1949, both delegations accepted Bunche's May 10 as the basis for
border for talks, and to absorb 250,000 Palestinian refugees in return fo But
further discussions. For the first time, the subject of a demilitarized zone was discussed
Ben-Gurion was not interested in having any meetings with Za'im. He continued
to insist on a complete Syrian withdrawal

Za’im was under strong pressure from the public because of his conciliatory
If Israel were to make peace, it would have to yield to the Arabs some points, such
approach to the Israelis. home. A high-level Ben-Gurion-Za'im peace meeting be seen
as border concessions or absorption of Palestinian refugees, and was not in Israel's
as a de facto Syrian recognition of Israel, which most Arabs oppose members of the
interests . Accordingly, the Israelis continued to try to present selves as reasonable and
Syrian cabinet were against such a meeting
cooperative during negotiations, while actua

The Israelis and Syrians met on May 5, again to fail.
● According to Vigier, "Shioah and Yadin [had] simply tried to persuade them to
withdraw from the frontier without quid pro quo and [were] very disappointed in
not meeting highest [authority] to try it on him."
● Ben-Gurion was the only one with equal rank to Za'im. As Bunche pointed out,
Za'im would lose face by meeting Israeli officials of a lower rank than himself.
BUNCHE TO THE RESCUE
While Bunche's proposal for a demilitarized zone was being considered, Israel
suddenly launched a new military operation. On June 6, 1949, the Israelis tried to
enforce the division of the Governme compound in Jerusalem by marching troops into the
neutral area under UN supervision
● The Syrians were unwilling to proceed with the armistice talks unless Israel wit
from Government House, but the Israelis dug in and refused to leave
● The US saw Middle East peace as "extremely important," they were "perturbed
by the delay" and "would be deeply disappointed" if the IDF renewed hostilities.
● Israel did not want to risk damaging their relationship with the US and withdrew

Israel: "peace is 'within sight' if [the] US will urge on Zaim to withdraw from Israeli
territory, comparable to that exerted by Israel to withdraw from Lebanon" in the THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEMILITARIZED ZONE
Israeli-Lebanese armistice negotiations in which Bunche suggested creating a
demilitarized zone under UN supervision.
Bunche had proposed a new compromise agreement: Where the existing Truce Lines .
. . run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice
● Syrian forces would withdraw to their side of the international border, as would Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary lin Elsewhere, the Armistice
the Israelis. Demarcation Line shall follow a line midway between the Truce Lines for the Israeli and
● By accepting Bunche's compromise the Israelis would achieve their most Syrian forces
important goal: the removal of Syrian forces from the area that had been
Mandatory Palestine
● Where the Armistice Demarcation Line does not respond to the international
boundary ... the area between [the existing truce line the boundary should be
Bunche it crystal clear to Syria that demilitarized zone ... is one from which all troops totally demilitarized
are excluded but civilia ity fully resumed." Israel would not accept anything less than
complete with Syrian forces from its claimed territory.
However, the question of sovereignty over the DMZ had not been addressed

Elath's memo raised nine points

● (1) Em inter alia that Israel had legal rights to areas that were assigned to the
Jewish by the UN Partition Plan (2) that Israel had not violated the truce (3) and
that, in an compromise, it was willing to consider not replacing the withdrawing
Syrian force
● Syria: did not believe it would be possible for them to claim sovereignty over the
DMZ and thus the UN should supervise the area
● Israel: claimed that the area to be demilitarized was and would remain Israeli
territory
● Area is not just politically but also nomically important. It contained one of the
main water sources for Israel, sou Syria, and Transjordan: the Sea of Galilee

Bunche: basis for all armistice negotiations has always been truce lines. The only
Syrian violation was taking Hill 223 from which they have withdrawn. The Israeli
Syrian support for the proposal was dependent upon "UN responsibility over to them, had insisted that the Jewish state should keep the territory
territory in [the] proposed demilitarized and a "guarantee [of] Israeli respect for . . . UN
authority.
The Israelis maintained that Israel had sovereignty because the disputed lands were
Mixed Armistice Commissions (MACs) had been created to ensure proper execution within its territory.
of each of the four armistice agreements that followed the war of 1948
For its part, Syria held that UN supervision of the DMZ was until a final peace agreement
● Claims or complaints presented by any of the parties were to be referred settled the question of sovereignty
mediately to the appropriate MAC through its chairman
● The four MACs provided the only meeting places in which the Israelis and their
● Most of the UN agreed with Syria
Arab counterparts could discuss day-to-day matters
● Almost immediately after signing the armistice agreement, Israel launched a
small-scale war of attrition inside the demilitarized areas.

The Israelis demanded control of civil administration in the DMZ. They wanted to
Ben-Gurion's strategy for changing the situation was three-pronged:
minimize UN authority and to increase their influence over the area.

1. To gain full control over the DMZ

● According to the Israelis, Israeli law would be applied to the a as long as it was
2. To restrain Syrian influence
part of Israel, and Palestinian civilians who returned to the would become Israeli
3. To undermine the authority of the UN. Israeli acti focused on purchasing Arab
citizens
villagers' land, developing Jewish settlements, and refusing to recognize the
● When it came to power of administration over the population, the Israeli
jurisdiction of the UN
delegation held that this would not form part of the chairman's jurisdiction.

1951: Israeli development project, draining of Lake Hula

June 26, Bunche sent a brief note to and Syria explaining that:

● Syrians did not react to this work as long as it was conducted in undisputed
Where Israeli civilians return to or remain in an Israeli village or settlement, the civil
territory. But when Israel disregarded the rules of the DMZ and began to work in
administration and policing . . . will be by Israelis. Similarly, where Arab civilians return to
Syria-controlled villages, Chairman Riley ordered that the project be suspended
or remain in an Arab village, a local Arab administration and police unit will be authorized.
but Israel continued the project along with its assertions of Israeli sovereignty
over the area.
● Israeli commander Moshe Dayan revealed that most of the conflict has been
The Israeli delegation accepted Bundle's explanatory note and agreed to use its initiated from the israeli side
contents as the governing explanation for the interpretation of the proposal. They
agreed on withdrawal of Syrian troops from the bridgeheads inside Palestine. The
1949: US and UN made it clear to the Israelis that it was impossible to give them
conduction for this was that the area would be established as a demilitarized zone. if the
their full support and israel decided to settle for a compromise: the creation of the
peace conference in Lausanne failed, civilian life in the DMZ would proceed
DMZ

CEMENTING A STATE OF BELLIGERENCY

Egypt-Syria

Although the Palestine Commission was not disbanded, the collapse of the Lausanne
process signaled United Nations had failed to reach a solution to the Palestine conflict
The armistice had left the most crucial territorial issue, the question of sovereignty
over the demilitarized zone, undecided
● Israel had argued the UN Partition Plan, and not the lines of truce drawn up
after the 1948 war, should be the point of departure for the negotiations.
● Syrians had no legal or other rights to the contested area and, during the war,
the Israelis occupied 22% more of Palestine than had originally been allocated
Important village of al-'Awja, situated on the Israeli side had been the international
border between Mandatory Palestine and Egypt, in DMZ. Egypt had agreed to this
concession, while Israel had initially refuse pressure on both Egypt and Israel, the
temporary solution of demilitarization found.
● By 1955 l-'Awja had become everything but demilitarized and the Israel Defense
fortified the area massively
● While the purpose of creating DMZs on the Egyptian-Israeli and Syria borders
had been to find compromises to the most protracted problems in the armistice
 negotiations, the result had been cementing a state of belligerency
UNRECOGNIZED DE FACTO STATES IN WORLD POLITICS
PREMISE: The solution to the Kurdish problem and chances for some type of Kurdish
statehood will vary in each state in which Kurds live. The KRG in Iraq has already
become a virtually independent de facto state
● Turkey: there will be no separate Kurdish state. Rater, the solution will most
likely be a more democratic turkey that largely satisfies the Kurdish demands
● Kurds in Syria might also achieve de facto independence or at least some type
of local autonomy. Only in Iran has there been no movement toward a solution
to the Kurdish problem
The newly empowered Kurds have suddenly become a major factor in the Middle East
equation
● The single most important reason for this significant development was the US
destruction of Saddam Hussein in 2003 that allowed the Iraqi Kurds to become
virtually independent as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
● There is now a virtual Turkish-KRG alliance field by Turkey’s need for Kurdish oil
and facilitated by a common Sunni bond between turkey and the Kurds opposed
to now Shia-dominated Iraq, iran and Syria as long as Assad remains in power
THE RELATIVE NATURE OF STATE
INTERNATIONAL LAW: For an entity to be officially recognized as a state ist must
possess a permanent population, a defined territory and a capacity to enter into
diplomatic relations w/ other states.
Weber: state is an entity that possesses a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical
force within a given territory.
An independent, sovereign state proves to be a relative concept because even the most
powerful state is dependent on others
Unrepresented Nations and People’s Organization
● An international nonviolent democratic membership organization
● The UN stated that its implementation should be based on its broader
understanding: including autonomy, devolution, and power sharing, federalism in
its all forms, rejecting thereby a narrow focus and changes of secessionism.
● Membership in organization is open to all Nations and Peoples who are not
adequately represented at the UN including indigenous people, minorities, and
unrecognized or occupied territories
THE KURDS
In the mountainous borders of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria converge the middle East live
approximately 30 million Kurds
The desire of many Kurds for statehood at at least cultural autonomy has led to a
continuous series of Kurdish revolts since the series of Kurdish revolt since the
creation of the modern middle east system following WW1
● Kurds themselves are divided geographically linguistically and tribally
Yavuz: the failure to create a Kurdish state after WW1 stem from the current lack of
sense of a nationalism the major reason for the politicization of Kurdish cultural identity is
the shift from multi-ethnic multicultural realities of the ottoman empire to the nation-state
model
The major difference between Turkish and Kurdish nationalism is the presence of
the state since Kurdish nationalism in Turkey, Iraq and Iran involved in response to
modernizing nation-state it can constantly stresses it's ethnic difference sometimes even
revoking racism to historicize itself
In Iraq Kurdish nationalism only began to develop after WW1 and in response to
the attempts to build a modern Arab state that would permit no more than a
minimal amount of Kurdish autonomy. the revolts of Sheikh Mahmud Barzinji in the
1920s and Mulla Mustafa Barzani beginning in the 1930s were mainly tribal affairs at
times opposed by more Kurdish josh
● This division into four separate states has complicated any attempt at
pan-Kurdish statehood—a unified state would have to achieve the almost
impossible task of partitioning each of those existing states.
● Many Kurds have either assimilated into the larger surrounding Arab,
Iranian, and Turkish populations or are satisfied with their current to the
extent that they do not actively seek independence
MAHABAD REPUBLIC OF KURDISTAN
Mahaban Republic of Kyrgyzstan in Northwestern Iran with a ramp kurdish datebook
claimed on 22 january 1946 that received considerable a from the Soviet Union but
collapse
● Printing press, schools, monthly journal, limited amounts of Soviet military aid
● The Mahaban Republic collapse due to Iran’s vigorous response the Soviet
Unions and willingness to offer more support and division within the kurdish
community subsequently the iranian chords of failed to achieve any further
advances toward statehood
THE KURDISTAN REGIONAL GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ
KRG: Kurdish self government that has administered the Kurdish region in northern Iraq
since 1922. It has gained constitutional legitimacy as a constituent state and a
democratic federal iraq
● In 2014 iraqi kurds not only possess the most powerful regional government
since the creation of iraq following WW1 but also play a prominent role in the
Iraqi government in Bagdhdad Kurds of also occupied the post of president and
foreign minister
● Problems of contested powers include the ownership of natural resources and
the control of the revenues they garner the role of the KRG and the final status
of disputed territory such as Sinjar, Khanaqin and oil rich Kirkurk
Many Arabs resent Kurdish claims to autonomy as a challenge to arab patrimony
and consider a federal state for the iraqi kurds within Iraq as a prelude to secession
unofficial referenda almost unanimously called for independence
● Despite the opposition of main Kurdish leaders who argue that independence
will not be practical given the strong regional opposition when the Kurdish
parliament unilaterally approved a constitution for the KRG in 2009 Baghdad
denounce the move as tantamount to secession
UN Security Council Resolution 688 gave the fledgling KRD support by condemning
the repression of Iraqi civilian population in Kurdish populated areas and demanding that
the Iraq immediately end this repression
KDP and PUK decided not pursue the selection of a president at the share power
equally and parliament in 1992
● At its inception the KRG was handicapped by the refusal of the surrounding
states to countenance the concept of any type of Kurdish administration
or state
● In 1993 fighting broke out between the PUK and the KDP which led to the
creation of two rump governments – (1) The KDP in Irbil and (2) the Jalal
Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan PUK in Sulaymaniyah
United states managed to book ceasefire in 1998
2006 – the two administrations finally unified their president Masoud Barzani and
nephew Nerchirvan Idris Barzani as prime minister.
● It was agreed that PUK would hold the latter position in the future. Kurds were
frustrated at lack of services, transparency, institutionalization, corruption and
nepotism.
● Nawshirwan Mustafa set up his own political party to contest the 2009
elections and charged that both the KDP and PUK received 35 million per
month as part of the funds transferred to the KRG by the central government in
Baghdad but did not have to account for it
● There were still economic problems of no banking, racing, insurance or postal
system. The public payroll gobbles up three quarters of the budget
Over the years, KRG has improved: the region has been spared from the war that
engulfed Arab Irq to the south after the fall of Saddamn Hussein in 2003. Kurds now
receive 17% of the Iraqi national budget. Kurds are now better off than Iraqis under
Baghdad’s administration.
● Trade, new roads, refugees being resettled, adequate food supplies, available
water and electricity.
● People have freedom of speech, press, association among other civil liberties
● In addition to KDP and PUK, there are other small political parties and criticism
of two administrations are tolerated
When US troops were withdrawn in Iraq in 2011 but the KRG has continued to gain
increased significance by providing strategic depth for Turkey against Baghdad and
Tehran and a safe haven for US operation in the regions.
Demonstrators against administration were protesting against corruption,
nepotism, and lack of effective services such as jobs and electricity.
● All displeased demographics there was deep anger Talabani's PUK family
domination over society and
● Kurdish independence that would be seen as destroying Iraq would be opposed
by the US and KRG’s regional neighbors. KRG continued to enjoy in federal Iraq
all the advantages of indepence without its disadvantages.
● Despite the rule limiting the KRG president to only two four year terms, Barzani
had already had his term extended a month earlier for another two years while
his nephew remained prime minister
THE KURDISTAN COMMUNITIES UNION AND KURDISTAN WORKERS PARTY IN
TURKEY
Koma Civaken Kurdistan
● KCK is organized in the form of assemblies from the bottom up, as an
alternative to the traditional nation state. It is the umbrella organization
composed of economic and ecological communities, democratic compatriots,
and open cultural identities.
● KCK model is a democratic confederalism; it is a parallel and complementary
union of civil society created because of pressing social needs.
● Socially, the KCK will have a symbiotic relationship with the state as well as
competition. KCK proposes a system that resolves problems w/o differentiating
between ethnicities and nations but that takes the denominational, ethnic and
national differences into account
Democratic Society Congress (DTK)
● Established in Turkey as a structured assembly of local councils to implement
what the Ocalan has called democracy without the state
● Democratic Society Party was banned on 2009
● DTK declared democratic autonomy within Turkey

KURDISH AUTONOMY IN SYRIA
Although Turkey finally forced Addard to expel the PKK its remnant created in 2003 the
Democratic Union Party or PYD, PYD quickly became the largest, best armed and most
disciplined Syrian Kurdish party
Decree 49 granted citizenship to the Ajnabi, those Syrian Kurds who had been classified
as foreigners who could not vote, own property, or work in government jobs
PYD formed local, self-organized civilian structures under the label of the Tevgera Civaka
Demokratik
THE CONTINUITY AND SUCCESSION OF STATES IN REFERENCE TO THE
FORMER USSR AND YUGOSLAVIA
The two conventions on state succession contain more clauses pertaining to the
progressive development of existing customary international law into its
codification
● Both convention concentrated too much on the succession of states born as a
result of decolonization
The succession of states which both conventions defined as a replacement of one
state by another in the responsibility for international relations of territory always
occurs in politically highly sensitive context
● Conflicting interest influence decision making in the process of state succession
Interests are in general terms reflected into extreme doctrines of the succession of
states
1. Theory of universal succession: the ensemble of rights and obligations
devolves ipso jure from the one sovereign to the other without exception and
without modification
2. The extinguished state’s rights and obligations no longer have a subject,
its creditors have lost their debtor
Because cases of states succession occur very infrequently and always and different
political context norms governing these issues cannot be precise as rules concerning
diplomatic privileges and immunities
SCARCITY OF INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY NORMS
● Law of state succession is a very special part of international law because even
if codified and international treaties it can govern many cases of succession of
states only as a set of generally recognised norms of customary international
law
● Only those norms of the conventions which had become part of customary
international law would be obligatory for newly born states – obligations can be
based solely on customary international law
CONTINUITY AND SUCCESSION
How new are these states?
● Clean slate doctrine: State sovereignty as a reason for a new state not be
bound by the obligations of its predecessor
● State succession is different from succession in civil law in cases of
succession in civil law predecessor and taste of duster exist at one and
the same time de facto and de jure, i.e. physically and legally as two different
subject
● At a certain movement one subject (predecessor) ceases to exist and its
rights and obligations devolved to the other (successor)
In IL: when new states emerge they always conserve some elements of their
predecessors
● Of the three elements of statehood, population, territory remain a large part the
same where new States have emerged as the recession from or dissolution of
existing ones
● A new state defacto succeeds predecessor and this de facto succession is the
basis for the succession to certain rights and duties of that predecessor state
RUSSIA – SUCCESSOR STATE TO THE SOVIET UNION OR ITS CONTINUATION
In the case of the dissolution of the Soviet Union one of the important legal
questions is whether the dissolution was a dismemberment of the former state or
whether there were two sessions from it while it continued to exist
● Crawford: There is a fundamental distinction between state continuity and state
succession – between cases for the same state can be said to continue to exist
despite changes of government territory or population and cases where one
stating be said to have your place to another with respect to certain territory
● Even deep social changes are a relevant in determining whether or not a state
continues to exist
Factors that indicate that an analysis of the international legal personality of states
existing and place of the former Soviet Union supports the separation of part of its
territory while at its core – Russia – continue to exist as a continuation of the union
1. Even after the dissolution of the union Russia remains much bigger than
the other states the former Soviet republics when taken all together
2. Soviet Russia after 1917 and the Soviet Union after 1922 were treated as
continuing the same state as existed under the Russian empire – although
the socialist revolution change the nature of Czarist Russia in many respects, it
did not abolish it's imperial character
3. In cases of substantial changes in the state concerned when there are
doubt as to its continuous existence the states behavior on recognition by
third states are relevant
● Membership of the union of the soviet socialist republics and united
nations is being continued by the Russian federation with the support
of the commonwealth of independent states
● No state or organization objected to discontinuance by Russia
consequently Russia as a continuing state of the Soviet Union was not
obliged to apply for membership of these organizations
If a state pertains membership of international organizations despite substantial
changes it has not succeeded to the membership of a predecessor state but has
instead continued existing membership of that state
 ● Russia continues the existence of the Soviet Union of the with less extensive
boundaries and a diminished population
● Russia assumed all the treaty and other international obligations as well as the
rights of the Soviet Union
Substantial territorial and demographic changes require the use of rebus sic stantibus
doctrine
Russia's continuation of the Soviet Union does not mean that other formal republic
have nothing to do with the Soviet Unions rights and obligation
● CIS countries have signed a series of agreement and taking decisions at the
level of heads of state and government on issues of state succession
● Treaty on succession to the Soviet Union state debt and assets – head of the
CIS countries agreed that each of them has the right to an appropriate, fair,
and ascertained share of the property of the former Soviet Union abroad
● A decision of the council of heads of states of the CIS members was adopted in
Kiev – heads of state decided to recognize that all CIS member state are
successors to the rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union
1992 – CIS Head of state sign a memorandum of understanding on issues of
succession two treaties of the former Soviet Union
● Memorandum establishes that were bilateral treaties of the former Soviet Union
concerned two or more member states decisions and actions on there should be
taken only by be interested states
● The memorandum refers specifically to treaty establishing borders which should
in any event remain in force
An understanding was reached between Russia and the other CIS member states apart
from Ukraine that Russia will take over international liabilities as well as assets of
the Soviet Union
THE SPECIAL CASE OF BALTIC STATES
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania Occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940 and their
incorporation into the union was not de jure recognized by most western countries
● Their struggle for independence was not sought under the banner of
self-determination but rather on the basis of necessity to end illegal occupation
In 1991 western countries which recognize the Baltic states before WW2 and
established diplomatic relations with them attached recognize the restoration of
independence and restored diplomatic relations this action supports the proposition that
in international load to put the country's reverted to sovereignty
● The interpretation of rights and obligations connected with such that when it
would therefore be in a figure of diverting states – identity without continuity
In 1991 the Baltic countries restored their independence and did not consider
themselves a successor states to the Soviet Union states to the Soviet Union:
Soviet rights and obligations do not extend to them
● Some rights and obligations of the priest second world war Baltic states are
inherited by them
Treaty Practice
Although the Baltic states did not consider themselves to be successors to Soviet Union
in practice it was very difficult to neglect legal norms and judicial fact that had occurred
since 1940
Baltic countries refused to participate in the payment and servicing of the Soviet
Union's external depth and did not claim any of its property or assets in foreign
countries
● To pretend that everything in a legally occupy territory or under a puppet
government is nonexistent is to create a situation never to be disentangled in
the future it would hardly be in the interests of the restored state itself to plunge
the liberated country into chaos and anarchy
Municipal Laws
● 1992: Supreme council of estonia resort the estonian 1938 citizenship law
● This law provided that only citizens of 1940 estonia and their direct descendants
to father's line may become estonian citizens in 1992
● All other residents regardless of the length of their residence and whether or not
they were born there must go through the process of naturalization and common
with foreigners and order to become estonian citizens
Not only have all the Baltic countries change such that their demographic situation
is completely different from before the war but the world community of states and
the norms of international law including international standards on human rights
are different from what existed before
● The desire to obtain oral is the approximate ethnic purity that led to such an
approach toward citizenship questions in estonia
Territorial Treaties
● The problem of boundaries and territories
● After the second world war estonia and latvia lots tom territories to the Russian
federation now they claim this back
● Article 122 of the new constitution of estonia provides that the land border of
dystonia shall be determined by Tartu peace treaty and other international
boundary treaties
One of the few clear non controversial norms governing issues of state succession is a
customary rule enshrined in article 11 of the vienna convention on succession of states
and respect of treaties which provides that a succession of states does not affect the
boundary established by a treaty
PRINCIPLE OF UTI POSSIDETIS
● Rule that governs the issue of establishment of boundaries between new states
or with the predecessor state is a rule which establishes succession to
boundaries which were of an administrative nature
● Uti possidetis has become an obligatory norm of international law by no means
give a definite answer to the question of the boundaries of Baltic states
Two confronting principles
1. Uti possidetis requires boundaries do you left as they were at the moment and
dependence was restored
 2. The need to remedy the result of illegal occupation and annexation means that
those frontiers that existed before the loss of independence should be restored

In the process of peaceful resolution of such conflicts different extra legal factors become
very important one such factor is a length of time that has elapsed since the illegal
occupation the longer the time the more weighty the arguments in favor of the recognition
of the current state of affairs

ISSUES OF STATE SUCCESSION CONCERNING OTHER REPUBLICS

Article 34 of the Vienna Convention of Succession of states in Respect of Treaties

When a part or parts of the territory of a state separate to form one or more states
whether or not the predecessor state continues to exist
a. Any treaty and force at the date of the succession of states in respect of the
entire territory of the predecessor state continuous and forth and respect of each
successor states so formed
b. Any treaty and force of the date of the succession of states and respect only of
that part of the territory of the predecessor state which has become a successor
states continues and force in respect of that successor state alone

Article 17: Newly independent state may by a notification of succession established itself
as a party to any multilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of states was
enforced in respect of the territory to which the succession of states relates