Recognition is a discretionary unilateral act exercised by the government of a State officially acknowledging the existence of another State or government or belligerency. It is one of the most difficult subjects of International Law. It is a complicating mixture of politics and laws both national and international. It is difficult mainly for the following three reasons.
(1) Recognition is, as the practice of States shows, much more a question of politics than of law. The act of the recognizing State is conditioned principally by the necessity of protecting its own national interests, which lie in maintaining proper relations with the new State or the new government. However, there is an irresistible tendency of the recognizing State to use legal principles as a convenient camouflage for political decisions. For this reason, recognition is considered to be a political act with legal consequences.
(2) In form and in substance, recognition remains primarily a unilateral diplomatic act on the part of the recognizing State. No collective procedure for granting recognition based on established legal principles has yet been evolved by the international community.
(3) There are several distinct categories of recognition. There are the recognition of a new State, a new government and belligerency. In addition there are de jure, de facto, conditional, implied and express recognition. Although the same principles may be applicable to some of these types, it is still that each of them is subject to different legal principles and entails different legal consequences.

Basically, there are two theories as to the nature, functions and effects of recognition, the constitutive theory and the declaratory theory. The constitutive theory considers that the act of recognition by other States creates a new State and grants it the international legal personality. This implies that the new State is established as an international person by virtue of the will and consent of already existing States. In case of a new government, it is the recognition that grants it the status at the international level.
The Constitutive theory is opposed by the declaratory theory. According to the declaratory theory, recognition has no legal effects; statehood or the status of a new government exists as such prior to and independently of recognition. The existence of a State or a new government is a question of pure fact. The act of recognition is merely a formal acknowledgement of established facts. When an entity satisfies the requirements of a State objectively, it is a State with all international rights and duties, and other States must treat it as such.
Historically, the constitutive theory has its merits. During the Nineteenth Century, International Law was regarded as applying mainly between States with European civilization. Other countries were admitted as States to this community only if they were recognized by those member States. Even today, recognition can sometimes have a constitutive effect, although State practice is not always consistent. When the establishment of a new State or government is in violation of International Law, this State or government is often regarded as having no legal existence until it is recognized.
However, the prevailing view today is that recognition is declaratory and does not create a State. This view was laid down in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933. Article 3 of this Convention provides that “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence”.
Actually, the two theories are of little assistance in explaining recognition or determining the status of non-recognized entities in practice. In addition, the practical differences between these two theories are not significant. Under the declaratory theory, the decision whether an entity satisfies the criteria of statehood is left to other States, and the granting formal recognition to another State, which is a unilateral act, is left to the political discretion of States. On the other hand, the significance of the constitutive theory has diminished because of the obligation imposed on States to treat an entity that satisfies the criteria of statehood as a state. Moreover, the States practice regarding recognition shows that States follow a middle position between these two theories.

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.

Although recognition is essentially a political act, it is one that entails important legal consequences. Recognition involves legal effects both in the international level and in the domestic level. If an entity is recognized as a State, it will be entitled to rights and subjected to duties that would not be relevant otherwise, and it will enjoy privileges and immunities of a foreign State before the national courts of other States, which would not be allowed to other entities.
What are the effects of recognition? Are there effects for non-recognition? The Answers to these two questions are dealt with in the following sub-sections.

(A) International effects of recognition

Apart of all the theoretical arguments involving the constitutive and declaratory theories, it is accepted that recognition of a State or government is a legal acknowledgement of factual situations. Recognition entails the recognized State the enjoyment of rights and the subjecting to duties prescribed in International Law for States (these rights and duties are discussed in the previous chapter).
Recognition of a State by another State does not lead to any obligation to establish diplomatic relations or any other specific links between them. Nor does the termination of diplomatic relations automatically lead to withdrawal of recognition. These remain a matter of political discretion.
It should not be assumed that non-recognition of a State or government would deprive that entity rights and duties under International law. It is well established in International Law that the political existence of a State is independent of recognition by other States, and thus an unrecognized State must be deemed subject to the rules of International Law. Unrecognized State is entitled to enjoy certain rights and be subject to many duties. It has the rights to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit. The exercise of these rights by unrecognized State has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other States according to International Law. Moreover, unrecognized State is subject to most of the rules of International Law, such as those related to the law of wars, and is bound by its agreements.
Non-recognition, with its consequent absence of diplomatic relations, may affect the unrecognized State in asserting its rights against unrecognizing States, or before their national courts. However, non-recognition will not affect the existence of such rights, nor its duties, under International Law.

(B) Internal Effects of Recognition

Recognition entails the recognized State the rights to enjoy privileges and immunities of a foreign State before the national courts, which would not be allowed to other entities. However, because recognition is essentially a political act reserved to the executive branch of government, the judiciary branch must accept the discretion of the executive branch and give effect to its decisions. The national courts can only accept and enforce the legal consequences that flow from the act of recognition. They can accept the rights of a foreign government to sue, to be granted immunities or to claim other rights of a governmental nature. They can give effect to the legislative and executive acts of the recognized State. In the case of non-recognition, national courts will not accept such rights. In this context, recognition is constitutive, because the act of recognition itself creates the legal effects within the domestic jurisdiction of a State.