Shalzed’s home planet is united (click here to learn more about Shalzed. . .) On his planet there are committees to deal with local and regional issues, but nothing like our patchwork of nearly 200 constantly bickering states, each different in size and resources, often with different culture, language, and religion as well.
Dividing Earth into countries may seem normal to us, but how do we decide what’s a country? Is it simply a matter of facts? Does it depend on politics? Or should there be other criteria? This is especially pressing in light of the current move to recognize a state of Palestine. This week Shalzed asks a question to help us discuss what it means to recognize a new country.
Recently Britain, France, and Canada announced their intention to recognize Palestine as a State. A group of prominent British lawyers argue not only that this shouldn’t be done, but that recognition of Palestine would even violate international law.
The exact definition of a state is the subject of tremendous scholarly debate. The fundamentals come from the 1933 Montevideo Convention, which sets out four criteria. A state must have:
- A permanent population
- Defined territory
- A government
- Capacity to conduct international relations
Those objecting to recognition of Palestine claim that it currently does not have defined borders. They also say that since Fatah (in the West Bank) and Hamas (in Gaza) are enemies, it does not have a functioning government. These matters are the subject of much debate- for example, see these links to The Guardian and EJL Talk.
But most striking from the Montevideo criteria is that statehood is simply a matter of fact. A fanatic band of extremists could capture a capital in a bloody, illegal siege, hang the democratically elected leaders, install themselves as a military dictatorship and meet the criteria just fine. Recognition of statehood does not depend on the prospective government’s democratic legitimacy, human rights record, or policies it plans to implement. Montevideo does not ask about good or bad, right or wrong- only these four facts.
Is whether a prospective state fulfills the four Montevideo criteria the question we need to ask?
When considering recognition of a new state, and in this case a Palestinian state in particular, should the question be whether Palestine currently has a government and recognized borders, the way the debate over British recognition is being framed? Or should it be about whether a Palestinian state would be the best way to safeguard the human rights of Palestinians (and Israelis) going forward, as opposed to some other political arrangement that might be easier to implement or be more likely to lead to peace?
In general, should recognition of statehood depend on whether the prospective state’s government has been democratically elected and whether it is committed to peace and human rights? Or is that naïve and unrealistic, injecting a level of subjectivity and discretion that is prone to prejudice and abuse? Does realpolitik mean that like it or not any group meeting the Montevideo criteria has to be dealt with as a state, whereas otherwise they don’t.
I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.