Veluwse Israel Vrijstaat

Must a free state be acknowledged by other states?


 


The simple answer is no. As such, the recognition by other states is not needed but it does help in cases such as international trade. Taiwan and Israel are not recognized by all states. In the case of our free state we are trying to gain recognition from some states.

 

Wikipedia says the following;

“..., the "declarative" theory 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.”

 

In a White-Paper by Laura Jacobs of the University of Ghent, Belgium, we find:

3.1 In General

(State) Recognition is a legality whereby one state recognizes another state’s existence, and in so doing from then on they can operate on same legal footing. It is an international law that there is no obligation to give recognition. In the case that there is no recognition, other states are nevertheless bound to respect the unrecognized state according to guidelines along international law. None more so than with respect to the conduct of other states and means of conflict resolution.  

 

A new state is legitimate when it meets the criteria and as to international law, and international relations, and so a state is a political entity when it is in control of its sovereignty. As stated in other headings on this site, a state is a sovereign state when it has its own ‘land’ or territory, its own fixed befolking or population, has its own governing body and head of state, its own law system, and the means to carry out its duties of its law system, and lastly, to be able to function as an independent state towards other states.

 

The lawful criteria to qualify for statehood are, on the whole, accepted when these line up with the benchmarks as set out in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the “Convention on the rights and duties of States’ of 26th of December 1933. Although the convention honed in to the needs of the South American states, the principles set out there within, set the benchmarks of statehood rights and laws on an international level of recognition.   

 

Artikel 1 stelt dat: “The 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.

Artikel 3 zegt dat: “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

Artikel 6 bepaalt: “The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.”

A further analysis of the Convention articles, 1,2, and 3,  make it clear that as long as a newly founded state meets the criteria as set out in Article 1, that there can be no doubt of the political existence of the independence of said state.

 

Article 3 and 6 back the declarative theories of the recognition of states. These lay down the guidelines for that recognition based on the state having, territory, befolking, authorities, and means to carry out international relations. The state’s existence is independent from the recognition of other states, the recognition being but a formality to establish an already existing fact of statehood.

The Constitutive Theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them....(this is further delved into in other segments on this site).

Ref:
http://www.ethesis.net/somalieland/somalieland.htm

 

In the book, Handbook for International Rights by Marc Cogan we read that the international right (of statehood) does not hinge upon the recognition of other states. (Marc Cogan, Handboek Internationaal recht, door prof. Marc Cogen uit Gent. Uitgave Kluwer 2003)

 

Cogan’s assertions mirror nearly word for word those in the above stated  White-Paper by Laura Jacobs and when translated read the same...(State Recognition is a legality whereby one state recognizes another state’s existence, and in so doing from then on they can operate on same legal footing. It is an international law that there is no obligation to give recognition. In the case that there is no recognition, other states are nevertheless bound to respect the unrecognized state according to guidelines along international law. None more so than with respect to the conduct of other states and means of conflict resolution.    A new state is legitimate when it meets the criteria and as to international rights, and international relations, a state is a political entity when it is in control of its sovereignty. As stated in other headings on this site, a state is a sovereign state when it has its own ‘land’ or territory, its own fixed befolking or population, has its own governing body and head of state, its own law system, and the means to carry out its duties of its law system, and lastly, to be able to function as an independent state towards other states.

But Cogan adds that a new state can at last be legally recognized when it meets all the benchmarks set out in the Constitutive Theory of statehood of territory, its own fixed befolking, and its own system of law and order. If a state does not meet all the benchmarks then one can have tentative recognition, however this can be taken to be an international ‘legal wrong’ in relation towards other states. Ref: http://books.google.nl/books?id=jTvVt33oGw4C&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=geen+erkenningsplicht+marc+cogen&source=bl&ots=-gsTX64kEq&sig=VnnNZNgvm7HzpmSvW2MWJ6o7MVk&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=8RDcUv-PCK2b0wXEhIHIBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=geen%20erkenningsplicht%20marc%20cogen&f=false

 

  The book, Internationaal Recht (International Rights/Law) by M. Noortman and Mr. N. Noortmann gives the same insights as does Prof. Marc Cogan. On page 23 of his book we read, “A state does not need to have judicial recognition from other states in order to qualify as a fully fledged legal state unit.”

For more info:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_niet-erkende_staten

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkenning_(internationaal_recht)