Under the Shadow of Precedent: Justifying Recognition of Statehood

• In Event: State and Region Formation

Abstract

What determines the justification strategy used in the recognition decisions by third-party states? While legal scholars have often grappled with this phenomenon on a case by case basis, Political Scientists have only just started to theorize about international recognition and the political consequences of setting a precedent. For both recognition and non-recognition decisions, the variation in the rhetoric of recognition can be either cost-benefit rhetoric or rights-based rhetoric. I argue that the rhetoric will vary if the recognizing state is vulnerable to domestic secession and based on its relations to the host state of the seceding entity. If they face domestic secession, they are more likely to avoid precedent setting rhetoric associated with rights-based considerations. Similarly, if the host state is an ally they will aim to avoid using rights-based rhetoric. By understanding the variation in the rhetoric of recognition we can observe how states consider the consequences of their actions and how these set precedents that ultimately alter or erode international norms of recognition and the status quo of the international system. I use a mixed methods approach to test my theory. Utilizing an original dataset of recognition statements from major powers, from 1945 to the present, I observe variation in their rhetorical strategies, as well as conduct two case studies of a single recognizer over time (France) and of a single case with multiple recognizers (Kosovo).

Author

• Elsy Gonzalez, University of Chicago