One of the most lasting European exports during and after the age of colonialism was and is the territorial state. The very definition of “state” as authority over limited territory has led to countless conflicts and clashes. This is, to no small degree, related to the incipient expectation that a state equals a nation-state. All inhabitants of the state’s territory are supposed to adopt this state as an important part of their identity.
Scholarship is divided when it comes to the question when a state comes into being. On the one hand, there is the “declaratory theory”: as soon as a state is proclaimed to exist by a group, it comes into being. Opposing scholars argue that such self-declared statehood lacks both effectiveness and legitimacy: only if other states (in the ideal case all other states on the planet) recognise its existence, “true” statehood is achieved.
Factual reality deviates considerably from the above-mentioned ideals. Most states on the planet do not contain homogenous populations in terms of ethnicity, religion or language (and often not even a clear majority of one such group). This constitues an inherent problem of the acceptance of the state. Other problems come up when, for example, looking at the tensions between self-declaration and universal international recognition, or postcolonial states, where borders have often been fixed in regards to the interests of colonial powers.
This reading list was compiled by ABI staff member Tilman Lüdke. It aims to shed light on the different areas of conflict when it comes to the (non-)recognition of states. It reflects the views that there are common denominators that are valid for all non- or partly recognized states, and focuses on the general principles in that regard.