State & Government Recognition in National Law
 

Hey senior and peers,
In the syllabus, it's mentioned "Recognition of State and Government in National Law." I study S.K. Kapoor's book and he has not covered it. I do not find any online material too. Kindly tell me what does it mean? If you have something about it, kindly share.

I have the same question. I am using Agarwal's book and I can't find the topic there. Any help?

Still waiting for the answer.

I haven't found the answer yet. I do not know if it's important or not but hold on! It's CSS, they, sometimes ask the least important things in papers.

Even Google doens't help much which is strange.

Maybe we can try to make sense of it ourselves.

Govt Recognition in national law? We know that Aus, UK and US have abandoned the policies of recognizing new governments. Instead, they continue their relations with the State in a manner deemed necessary. Does that mean that in their national law, they do not recognize governments anymore? But if that's correct, then what is their approach with respect to international law?

This is really confusing :D

Government and State are two different things. The State is an abstract concept and Government has a physical appearance. A State has four elements government, population, territory, and sovereignty. The State never acts itself, it is the Government which acts physically to run the political administration of the state. Government is actually an element of the state and so on and so forth.

[url]http://www.preservearticles.com/201012241588/what-is-the-difference-between-state-and-government.html[/url]

State is to be recognized by other states in the international world. On the event of the creation of a nation-state, other nation-states of the world recognize it as a diplomatic act depending upon their national interests. For example, Pakistan does not recognize Isreal as a nation-state. Recognition is of two types de-jure and de-facto. However, why a state needs recognition of itself from national law i.e. constitution which is made by nation-states themselves. In my personal opinion, a state doesn't need recognition from the national law because a state has the authority to make its own laws and statutes which make the constitutional law.

Recognition of Government can be done by nationals of that state or by other nation-states. For example, if a new government is formed in a nation-state through martial law or through illegal means and other nation states have the option of not recognizing it as a legal government. People of a nation state can revolt against a government and deny to recognize it if it is not a famous government.

This concept has got to do with the availability (or unavailability) of rights of a recognized (or unrecognized state) under the municipal/domestic laws of the recognizing (or unrecognizing) state.
The unrecognized state or government cannot claim immunity from the jurisdiction, obtain recognition for purposes of conflict of laws of its legislative and judicial acts, or sue in the local courts.
It is normally the executive of a state involved in recognition of another state and judiciary follows the verdict (be it de facto or de jure recognition).
Thereafter, you can quote the procedures of the local courts of UK and USA etc.

This topic is covered in the books by Malcolm Shaw and Brownlie.

I hope it helps.

[QUOTE=sahh;1047392]Hey senior and peers,
In the syllabus, it's mentioned "Recognition of State and Government in National Law." I study S.K. Kapoor's book and he has not covered it. I do not find any online material too. Kindly tell me what does it mean? If you have something about it, kindly share.[/QUOTE]

Bro, the difference is given in S.K. Kapoor Book on Page 193