Types and Forms of Recognition
There are several distinct categories of recognition. There are recognition of a new State, recognition of a new government and recognition of belligerency. In addition there are different entities to be recognized. Recognition itself may take different forms. Recognition may be de jure or de facto. Recognition may be express or implied. It may be conditional.

(A) Recognition of a State and of a Government
When a new State comes into existence, other States are confronted with the question whether or not to recognize it. Recognition implies a willingness of the recognizing State to deal with the new state as a member of the international community. To grant recognition to a new entity, the entity must satisfy the basic requirements of statehood, which have been discussed in the previous chapter. The first example of State recognition in the history of nations was the recognition in 1648 by Spain of the United Netherlands.
Recognition of a State defines its membership in the world community, and consequently supports its claim as an international person. It allows the recognized State to exercise the rights and duties of a State under International Law. Recognition of a new State automatically involves recognition of its government, although the latter may be recognized only de facto.
Recognition of a new government is quite different from the recognition of a new State, although in principle most of the considerations whether legal or political apply equally to both types of recognition. As far as a State is concerned, the satisfaction of basic requirements of statehood is examined by the recognizing State before granting its recognition to the new State. Recognition of a new government requires its satisfaction of certain conditions such as effectiveness and independence. Notably, the existence of an effective and independent government is the essence of statehood. By recognizing a government, the recognizing State accepts to deal with this government as the governing authority of the State and grant it the legal consequences of such status in terms of privileges and immunities within its domestic legal system. In both these types of recognition, we should not forget the great role played by political considerations in the decision whether or not to grant recognition.
The granting or refusal of recognition of a government has no effect on the recognition of a State itself. Recognition of a State affects its legal personality, whether creating or acknowledging it, while recognition of a government affects its status as the governing authority, not the State. A subsequent government may not be recognized, even though the recognition of a State is permanent as regard to its existence and its status as a legal person under International Law. If the government of a State is changed in accordance to constitutional processes, no problem of recognition arises as long as the new government is firmly in power and secures stability in the country. In this case, recognition by other States is purely a matter of formality. The problem of recognition of a new government arises in cases when changes occur as a result of an unconstitutional practice or a revolution. The recognition of the revolutionary government is a serious problem and the decision thereon is made with great care. On this matter, no definite legal principles are established and the practice of States is inconsistent and confused. However, certain rules have been recognized to cover recognition of illegal changes in government. Such rules imply the acceptance of the realities of the transfer of power and suggest that once a new government effectively controls the country and that this seemed likely to continue, recognition should not be withheld.

(B) Recognition of Belligerency

Belligerency exists when a portion of the State’s territory and population is under the de facto control of insurgents seeking either to establish a separate State or to overthrow the existing government. To be recognized as belligerents, the insurgents must have a political organization able to exercise such control and maintain some degree of popular support, and conduct themselves according to the laws of war. Accordingly, recognition of belligerency is a formal acknowledgement by third-party States of the existence of a state of war between the State’s central government and a portion of that State. This implies that the recognizing State recognizes that a revolt within another State has attained such a magnitude as to constitute in fact a state of war, entitling the revolutionists or insurgents to the benefit, and imposing upon them the obligations, of the laws of war. Two conditions should exist before a third-party State grant belligerent recognition, the insurgency has progressed to a state of general war and the effects of this war have gone beyond the borders of the State to affect other States. By this recognition, the insurrectionary movement is elevated to the status of a quasi-international person having certain rights and duties under International Law. This sort of international personality is both nonpermanent and particular. It is nonpermanent, because the insurrection may fail. It is particular, because it exists only for the recognizing States.
Recognition of belligerency was accorded during most of civil wars of the Nineteenth Century, such as the revolts of the Spanish-American colonies and the American Civil War, and during most of the wars of independence of the Twentieth Century.
To grant recognition of belligerency, the recognizing State is always dictated by the primary motive, which is to protect and promote its national interests. The recognizing State may intend either to get the status of neutrality between the belligerent parties or to support the legitimacy of the insurrection.

(C) De Jure and De Facto Recognition

The practice of States draws a distinction between de jure and de facto recognition. This distinction usually arises in the case of governments since States can normally be recognized only de jure, although there have been few cases of recognizing States de facto. For example, Indonesia was recognized de facto by several States while it was fighting for independence against Netherlands during 1945-1949.
De jure recognition means that according to the recognizing State the recognized State or government fulfils the requirements laid down by International Law. De facto recognition means that in the opinion of the recognizing State, with all due reservations for the future, the recognized State or government provisionally and temporarily fulfils the above requirements in fact. As such, de facto recognition is provisional and temporary and could be withdrawn at any future date, although it is usually followed by de jure recognition. Notably, the terms de jure and de facto describe the government, not the act of recognition. Choosing the type of recognition to be granted, the recognizing State is always occupied by political realities and considerations as well as its national interests.
De facto recognition of a government implies that there is a doubt as to the permanence and viability of the concerned government. De facto recognition involves a hesitant position by the recognizing State, an attitude of wait and see, which is usually followed by de jure recognition when the recognizing State accepts that the effective control exerted by the government in question is permanent and firmly established and there is no legal basis for withholding the de jure recognition.
De facto recognition may be a preface stage to the de jure recognition, particularly in cases of governments coming into power by unconstitutional processes. In such a case, de facto recognition is a non-committal act whereby the recognizing State acknowledges that there is a de facto government possessing in fact the powers of sovereignty, but such possession may be illegal, unstable or nonpermanent. At a later stage when the need for reservations no longer exists because the permanence of the de facto government is completely assured, de jure recognition is formally granted. For example, United Kingdom recognized the Soviet government first de facto in 1921 and later de jure in 1924. During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), United Kingdom granted recognition to the two rival parties, de jure recognition to the Republican government and de facto recognition to General Franco’s government that gradually took over the country and its recognition turned into de jure. During 1988-1991, most States recognized the two rival governments in Lebanon de facto until the ending of the insurrection led by General Aoun, and then the government of Salim Al Huss was accorded de jure recognition.
When recognition is granted by an express statement, it should always be regarded as de jure recognition, unless the recognizing State provides otherwise. When recognition is implied, there will often be uncertainty as to the intention of the recognizing State whether granting de jure or de facto recognition.
Choosing the type of recognition to be granted, the recognizing State is occupied mostly with political realities and considerations as well as own national interests, and to a lesser degree with legal considerations. A statement that a government is recognized as de facto may, on one hand, involve a purely political judgment, involving either a reluctant or cautious acceptance of an effective government, lawfully established according to International Law, or an unwarranted acceptance of it as a de jure government. It may, on the other hand, be intended to be or to include a legal determination of the existence of an effective government, but with reservations as to its viability and permanence. It may, of course, happen that the legal and political considerations for caution coincide. The distinction between these two types of recognition is insubstantial, since it is a question of intention, not of a legal matter. However, it is considered that de jure recognition is irrevocable while de facto recognition can be withdrawn. Actually, in the political sense recognition of either type can always be withdrawn, while in the legal sense it cannot be unless a change of circumstances warrants such withdrawal.
Whatever the basis for the distinction between de jure and de facto recognition, the effects of the two types are mostly the same. Nevertheless, there are certain important differences between these two types, which are:

(a) Only the de jure recognized State or government can claim to receive property locally situated in the territory of the recognizing State.
(b) Only the de jure recognized State or government can represent the old State for the purposes of State succession or with regard of espousing any claim of its national for injury done by the recognizing State in breach of International Law.
(c) The representatives of the de facto recognized state or government may not be entitled to full diplomatic immunities and privileges.

Whatever the type of recognition, once given may in certain circumstances be withdrawn. Actually, this is more easily done with regard to de facto recognition than to de jure recognition, because of the nature of the former one, which is temporary. De facto recognition is intended to be a preliminary acceptance of political realities and may be withdrawn in accordance with a change in political conditions. When a de facto government loses its effective control over the country, the reason for recognition disappears and it may be withdrawn. De jure recognition, on the other hand, because it is intended to be generally a definitive act, it is more difficult to be withdrawn. When a government recognized de jure is overthrown, a new situation arises and the question of recognizing a new government will have to be faced. In such instance, the withdrawal of recognition of the overthrown government is assumed; it does not have to be expressed. Withdrawal of recognition of one government without recognizing a successor is a possibility. This approach, for example, was adopted by the United Kingdom and France with regard to Colombia in 1979.
Withdrawal of recognition remains possible in other circumstances. The loss of one of the required criteria of statehood will result in the withdrawal of recognition of a State. Recognition of belligerency will naturally terminate with the end of the state of belligerency.
Because recognition is essentially a political act, no matter how circumscribed or conditioned by the law, a State has a discretionary power to determine whether a particular situation justifies a withdrawal of recognition and to take such action if it serves its national interests.
Notably, we must not confuse the withdrawal of recognition with the rupture in the diplomatic relations. In the practice of States, the usual method of expressing disapproval with the actions of other governments is to break diplomatic relations, since this method does not entail the legal consequences and the problems that the withdrawal of recognition would produce.

(D) Express and Implied Recognition

Recognition is essentially a matter of intention. It is founded upon the will and intention of a State. It may be express or implied. The mode by which recognition is accomplished is of no special significance. It is essential, however, that the act constituting recognition must give a clear indication of the intention either to deal with the new State as such, or to accept the new government as the effective government of the State and to maintain relation with it, or to recognize in case of insurgents that they are entitled to belligerent rights.
Express recognition indicates the acknowledgment of the recognized State by a formal declaration. In the practice of States, this formal declaration may happen by either a formal announcement of recognition, a personal message from the head of a State or the minister of foreign affairs, a diplomatic note, or a treaty of recognition.
Recognition needs not to be express. It may be implied in certain circumstances. There are circumstances in which it may be possible to declare that in acting in a certain manner, one State does by implication recognize another State or government. However, because of this possibility, States may make an express declaration to the effect that a particular action involving another State is by no means to be regarded as inferring any recognition. This position, for example, was maintained by Arab States with regard to Israel.
Implied recognition is recognition of a State or a government through actions other than official declarations or actions intended to grant recognition. The required actions for implied recognition must be unequivocal, leaving no doubt of the intention of the State performing them to recognize the State or government and to deal with it as such. There is a variety of actions undertaken by a State in regard to an unrecognized State or government. Some actions are conclusively regarded implying recognition, while others are not. Included in the first category are the official congratulatory statements upon independence, the formal establishment of diplomatic relations and the conclusion of a bilateral treaty. The actions that do not conclusively imply recognition are the participation in multilateral treaty, the membership in international institutions, the common participation in international conference, the maintenance of informal and unofficial contacts, the initiation of negotiations with an unrecognized state, and the making of claims against an unrecognized State.

(E) Conditional Recognition

The political character of recognition is manifested in what is termed conditional recognition. Sometimes States are recognized subject to certain conditions, generally the fulfillment of certain obligations. Examples of such conditions are: the respect and the guarantee of the rights of ethnics, national groups and minorities; the respect of religious freedoms; and the respect of the rule of law, democracy and human rights.
The failure to fulfill the obligations does not annul the recognition, as once given it cannot be withdrawn. The status obtained by the recognized State from the act of recognition cannot be withdrawn. The recognized State will be guilty of a breach of International Law, and this will allow the recognizing State to severe diplomatic relations as a form of sanction. However, the conditional recognition of a State or government in process of emerging is probably revocable.