scholarly journals The Struggle for Recognition or Enhancement of Satus: Conditions for the Stability and Development of Unrecognized States Using the Example of Eurasia

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-219
Author(s):  
Maxim Bratersky ◽  
◽  
Andrei Skriba ◽  
Arina Sapogova ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
International Recognition ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Struggle For Recognition

In this article, the prospects or changing the status of unrecognized states in Greater Eurasia are analyzed. Status and recognition are close but distinct categories in international relations (IR) theory and international law. Status defines a state’s rank in the hierarchical international system. Recognition is a different category; legally, it defines whether other states recognize a particular state as fully established and sovereign. Sovereignty is a third category related to the issue of recognition but not equal to it since it includes internal and external (international) sovereignty. There are examples of sovereign states that effectively control their territories and collect taxes, but which are not recognized as sovereign by other states. The analysis in this article focuses on whether an unrecognized state can strengthen its status and improve its position in the international system. It is argued that this is possible, and that the absence of international recognition should not be regarded as an unsurpassable impediment to the economic development of the country.

scholarly journals Law status of “unrecognized states” and international-law doctrine of international recognition

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-99
Author(s):  
Татьяна Матвеева ◽  
Tatyana Matveeva
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
International Recognition ◽  
The Status ◽  
New States

The article explores phenomenon so called “unrecognized states” that have achieved “de facto” in-dependence and real act in international relations, but not have the status of sovereign states. The author analyses the main conceptions of international recognition and the problems of their real implications, reveals UN procedures as effective mechanisms of widespread international recognition of new states as “real subjects” of the international law system.

2. International law and international relations theory

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-47
Author(s):  
Nicole Scicluna
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter discusses international law (IL) and international relations (IR) theory. It studies legal theory in order to better understand what law is, and how IL compares with domestic law. The chapter then introduces the major schools of IR theory, with a focus on how they conceptualize IL and its role in enabling and constraining the conduct of international politics. The disciplinary estrangement between IR and IL began to ease at the end of the 1980s. By that time there were already important strands within IR, including the English School, that were seeking to explain the prevalence of cooperation in an anarchical international system. New generations of IR scholars began theorizing the role of IL in structuring international politics, particularly from the perspectives of liberalism and constructivism, as well as from a range of critical approaches.

The position of the State in the international system from the perspective of major schools of thought in international relations

2019 ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Salah Hassan Mohammed ◽  
Mahaa Ahmed Al-Mawla
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Status ◽  
Future Vision

The Study is based on the state as one of the main pillars in international politics. In additions, it tackles its position in the international order from the major schools perspectives in international relations, Especially, these schools differ in the status and priorities of the state according to its priorities, also, each scholar has a different point of view. The research is dedicated to providing a future vision of the state's position in the international order in which based on the vision of the major schools in international relations.

scholarly journals International Recognition and the International Law Status of Poland in the 20th Century

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-48
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Dynia
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Law ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
World War ◽  
The Third ◽  
International Recognition ◽  
The Status

The article concerns international recognition of the Polish state established after World War I in the year 1918, the Polish state and the status of Poland in terms of international law during World War II and after its conclusion until the birth of the Third Polish Republic in the year 1989. A study of related issues confirmed the thesis of the identity and continuity of the Polish state by international law since the year 1918, as solidified in Polish international law teachings, and showed that the Third Polish Republic is, under international law, not a new state, but a continuation of both the Second Polish Republic as well as the People’s Republic of Poland.

Rationalizing Politics: The Emerging Synthesis of International, American, and Comparative Politics

1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen V. Milner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International System ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Strategic Interactions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cross Fertilization ◽  
Separate Discipline

International relations has often been treated as a separate discipline distinct from the other major fields in political science, namely American and comparative politics. A main reason for this distinction has been the claim that politics in the international system is radically different from politics domestically. The degree of divergence between international relations (IR) and the rest of political science has waxed and waned over the years; however, in the past decade it seems to have lessened. This process has occurred mainly in the “rationalist research paradigm,” and there it has both substantive and methodological components. Scholars in this paradigm have increasingly appreciated that politics in the international realm is not so different from that internal to states, and vice versa. This rationalist institutionalist research agenda thus challenges two of the main assumptions in IR theory. Moreover, scholars across the three fields now tend to employ the same methods. The last decade has seen increasing cross-fertilization of the fields around the importance of institutional analysis. Such analysis implies a particular concern with the mechanisms of collective choice in situations of strategic interaction. Some of the new tools in American and comparative politics allow the complex, strategic interactions among domestic and international agents to be understood in a more systematic and cumulative way.

Foregrounding ontology: dualism, monism, and IR theory

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICK THADDEUS JACKSON
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Philosophical Problem ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Philosophical Discussion ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Knowledge Claims

AbstractWhile the recent proliferation in philosophical discussions in International Relations indicates a welcome increase in the discipline’s conceptual sophistication, a central issue has gone relatively unremarked: the question of how to understand the relationship between scholarly observers and their observed objects. This classical philosophical problem has a number of implications for the conduct of inquiry in the discipline, and raises particular challenges for the status of knowledge-claims advanced by constructivists. I clarify these issues and challenges by distinguishing between ‘dualist’ and ‘monist’ ontological standpoints, in the hope of provoking a more focused philosophical discussion.

Islam and international law

2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (858) ◽  
pp. 269-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheikh Wahbeh al-Zuhili
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The World ◽  
The Status ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis article by an Islamic scholar describes the principles governing international law and international relations from an Islamic viewpoint. After presenting the rules and principles governing international relations in the Islamic system, the author emphasizes the principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and the aspiration of Islam to peace and harmony. He goes on to explain the relationship between Muslims and others in peacetime or in the event of war and the classical jurisprudential division of the world into the abode of Islam (dar al-islam) and that of war (dar al-harb). Lastly he outlines the restrictions imposed upon warfare by Islamic Shari'a law which have attained the status of legal rules.

International Relations as a Prismatic System

1961 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred W. Riggs
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
Well Being ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
State System ◽  
American Society ◽  
State 1 ◽  
Executive Body ◽  
Inter State

Conventional theories of international relations assume, implicitly, the model of an “inter-state system.” According to this model, individually states possess a set of characteristics which differ fundamentally from the characteristics of a system of those states interacting with each other. On this basis we can construct theories about the behavior of component states in the system, and more general propositions about the nature of the inter-state system viewed as a whole. Some of the difficulties of this model will be noted here, and an alternative model proposed.Before pointing to these difficulties, however, we need a clear image of the inter-state model. A classic formulation is contained in a speech given by former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles at a meeting of the American Society for International Law. In it Mr. Dulles identified six characteristics of the nation-state: (1) laws which “reflect the moral judgment of the community”; (2) political machinery to revise these laws as needed; (3) an executive body able to administer the laws; (4) judicial machinery to settle disputes in accord with the laws; (5) superior force to deter violence by enforcing the law upon those who defy it; and (6) sufficient well-being so that people are not driven by desperation to ways of violence. The international system, Mr. Dulles pointed out, in large part lacks these characteristics. He went on to assess the limited success of attempts, ranging from the League of Nations and Kellogg-Briand Pact through the United Nations, to create such a “state system” or “order” at the international level. Mr. Dulles sadly reported that, despite notable progress in the development of international law and judicial machinery, the desired international order does not, as yet, exist.

The Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations: Implications for International Law and Relations

1977 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanford R. Silverburg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
World Order ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
New Era ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Political Units

The end of the Second World War seemed to signal to many observers the onset of a new era of international relations and international law. The appearance of former colonial entities as independent and sovereign political units led both diplomats and academicians to divine a new world order for international relations. At the same time the consequent significant increase in the number of political actors in the international system changed not only its complexion but also its manner of interaction. It appears that there are still further developments in the offing whose full significance cannot as yet be fully documented. One aspect, however, which we can examine is the increasing importance of the transnational actor in international forums. Our intention in this paper is to examine several features of this development in international relations, law and organization as evidenced by the continually increasing participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the chambers of the United Nations.

International Relations Theory, International Law, and the Regime Governing Atrocities in Internal Conflicts

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Cross Fertilization

Over the last ten years, international relations (IR) theory, a branch of political science, has animated some of the most exciting scholarship in international law.1 If a true joint discipline has not yet emerged,2 scholars in both fields have clearly established the value of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. Yet IR—like international law—comprises several distinct theoretical approaches or “methods.” While this complexity makes interactions between the disciplines especially rich, it also makes them difficult to explore concisely. This essay thus constitutes something of a minisymposium in itself: it summarizes the four principal schools of IR theory—conventionally identified as “realist,” “institutionalist,” “liberal” and “constructivist”—and then applies them to the norms and institutions governing serious violations of human dignity during internal conflicts (the “atrocities regime”).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document