|
Diplomatic recognition in international law is a unilateral political act with domestic and international legal consequences, whereby a state acknowledges an act or status of another state or government in control of a state (may be also a recognized state). Recognition can be accorded either ''de facto'' or ''de jure'', usually by a statement of the recognizing government. ==Recognition of states and governments== Diplomatic recognition must be distinguished from formal recognition of states or their governments.〔See Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) pages 1-4〕 The fact that states do not maintain bilateral diplomatic relations does not mean that they do not recognize or treat one another as states. A state is not required to accord formal bilateral recognition to any other state, and some have a general policy of not doing so, considering that a vote for its membership of an international organisation restricted to states, such as the United Nations, is proof of recognition. Some consider that a state has a responsibility not to recognize as a state any entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood by a violation of basic principles of the UN Charter: the UN Security Council has in several instances (Resolution 216 (1965) and Resolution 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia; Resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska) issued Chapter VII resolutions (binding in international law) that denied their statehood and precluded recognition. In the 2010 Kosovo decision, the International Court of Justice decided that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".〔"Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo", ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, para. 84, available from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=21&case=141&code=kos&p3=4 or http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15987〕 The Court carefully noted "that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo, the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council."〔ICJ Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, para. 81.〕 States can exercise their recognition powers either explicitly or implicitly.〔See for example "The Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-314-30138-0, §202 Recognition or Acceptance of States; and §203 Recognition or Acceptance of Governments; and §204 Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations〕 The recognition of a government implies recognition of the state it governs, but even countries which have a policy of formally recognising states may not have a policy of doing the same regarding governments. De facto recognition of states, rather than de jure, is rare. De jure recognition is stronger, while de facto recognition is more tentative and recognizes only that a government exercises control over a territory. An example of the difference is when the United Kingdom recognized the Soviet state de facto in 1921, but de jure only in 1924. Another example is the state of Israel in 1948, whose government was immediately recognized de facto by the United States and three days later by Soviet de jure recognition. Also, the Republic of China, commonly known as "Taiwan", is generally recognized as de facto independent and sovereign, but is not universally recognized as de jure independent due to the complex political status of Taiwan related to the United Nation's de-recognization of it in favor of the People's Republic of China in 1971. Renewing recognition of a government is not necessary when it changes in a normal, constitutional way (such as an election or referendum), but is necessary in the case of a coup d'etat or revolution. Recognition of a new government by other states can be important for its long-term survival. For instance, the Taliban government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, which lasted from 1996 to 2001, was recognized by only Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, while far more had recognized the government of ousted President Burhanuddin Rabbani. The disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir of the Republic of India is not recognized by either Pakistan or the People's Republic of China. Recognition can be implied by other acts, like the visit of the head of state, or the signing of a bilateral treaty. If implicit recognition is possible, a state may feel the need to explicitly proclaim that its acts do not constitute diplomatic recognition, like when the United States commenced its dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1988. The doctrine of non-recognition of illegal or immoral situations, like territorial gains achieved by force, is called the Stimson Doctrine, and has become more important since the Second World War, especially in the United Nations where it is a method of ensuring compliance with international law - for instance, in the case of Rhodesia in 1965. Withdrawal of recognition of a government is a more severe act of disapproval than the breaking of diplomatic relations. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「diplomatic recognition」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|