Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century

De facto states have proved to be much more durable than initially expected, and the literature on these entities has also come a long way. The internal dynamics of de facto states are now better understood, and previous simplifications have been replaced by much more sophisticated and nuanced analysis. This contribution looks at three remaining, and interlinked, challenges for the literature: the concept itself, the effects of non-recognition and the impact of our improved understanding of de facto states on the prospect for conflict resolution: how do we make peace with de facto states? The contribution calls for a widened understanding of de facto states that views them as the end point of a spectrum of rebel governance, and emphasizes their significant variation when it comes to territorial control, institution-building, political reforms and external linkages. These differences matter when it comes to conflict resolution.

What is the effect of being an unrecognized state on the national identity of its population? And how does it compare to the identity effect of having been accorded state recognition? This contribution argues that contrary to socio-psychological theories that make identity dependent on outside recognition, refusals of state recognition have, in general, a far stronger affirmative impact on national identity than extensions of it. Recognition may be the central external goal of claimants of statehood, but non-recognition fosters national identity to a much greater degree than recognition. While foreign recognition of statehood may fulfil a deep psychological need, it is its denial that makes a people’s collective sense of who they are more robust. Obtaining recognition as a state may, in fact, reveal the fragility of national identity within that state.

The contribution introduces the concept of ontological security to the study of de Facto states and forwards the claim that the field would greatly benefit from putting more emphasis on identity of these entities by drawing on a growing body of scholarship about state identity and ontological security. The starting premise is that, while non-recognition illegalizes the de Facto states and threatens their physical security, non-engagement presents no physical threat, but de-legitimizes the de Facto states and threatens their ontological security. The main argument developed on this basis is that de Facto states act to fulfil their self-identity needs and preserve their ontological security, sometimes going as far as compromising their physical security, even their existence. The author goes on to provide arguments for the relevance of ontological security perspective for the study of de Facto states—and in particular–the post-Soviet de Facto states). In the second part of the contribution state identity and ontological security in the Caucasus are discussed in order to shed light on the relations between honour, identity, and foreign policy. Finally, the ontological security perspective is applied to analyse the case of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (CRI) between 1996 and 1999, its eventual defeat and re-incorporation into its parent state—the Russian Federation.

The contribution investigates the evolution of wording of the referendum questions (RQs) for ballot designed to referendum on independence (RI) in the period of 1980–2014. The set of criteria of intelligible RQ formulated by the Electoral Commission in the UK is considered as the reference point here. There are four groups of secessionist units surveyed in the text—emerging democracies seceding from post-communist federations; internationally supervised RI in the post-Cold War period; micro-states in the Pacific and in the Caribbean; and independence referendums in liberal democratic world. The thorough analysis revealed rather surprising findings. First, there is almost no or very limited impact of principles and norms of intelligible RQ evaluated in the examined period on constructing concrete RQs. Findings revealed mixed results but no epistemological improvement in timeline under scrutiny. Second, RQs proved that in groups examined were both similarities and sharp differences. Post-communists relied on notion on “sovereignty” while decolonized entities substituted voting on “independence” for notion on a “free association”. The formulas of the RQ varied most significantly in liberal democratic entities where, however, they were not reached most intelligible RQ. The clearest RQs were achieved if they were fairly negotiated and agreed by the centre.

The contribution presents a modified (super)power rule based on the theoretical model originally established by Milena Sterio. After setting up the theoretical model, its validity is tested on the cases of—to a significant degree—successful secessions. In these cases, the position and role of the parent states are presented in order to establish the role of (super)powers in these different conflicts.

The contribution focuses on the political institutions in two post-Soviet de facto states—Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh—which are treated as competitive authoritarian regimes. In this type of political regime, formal political institutions face deliberate interventions from the ruling elite, whereas informal political institutions rise in importance. The chapter thus focuses not only on political parties, elections, self-government and general constitutional settings, but deals also with informal politics—clientelist networks, informal practices in electoral behaviour and influence of the patron states, i.e. Armenia and Russia.

Iran is perceived by many analysts as a serious threat to the region, but, at the same time, it must not be forgotten that the Iranian politicians and military decision makers are also anxious about several threats and challenges to its national security. This applies not only to external aggression but also to several internal separatist dynamics, including Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Iranian Azerbaijan, as well as separatism in Sistan and Balochistan. This paper focuses on one particular internal security issue in Iran, which is an ongoing armed struggle between Iranian security forces and local insurgents fighting for more political and religious rights in Sistan and Balochistan.

The contribution tackles the possibilities of the international recognition of the Kurdistan state from the theoretical perspective of the modified (super)power rule. It is argued that different powers have different impact on either de facto or de iure independence of the region. Also the issue of diverse interactions and goals is being presented in order to evaluate the chances for Kurdish sovereign statehood.

Bougainville is one of the cases of secession present in the Pacific region. Its uniqueness lies not only in the complexity of the case but mainly in the fact that the region has agreed on an independence referendum with its parent state—Papua New Guinea. The contribution presents local, regional, and other impacts of the case development and factors regarding its process of recognition.

The contribution deals with the topic of the African Union’s approach to South Sudan and Somaliland as examples of the secessionist movements in the Horn of Africa. The main scope of the contribution is to answer the question of why South Sudan has been supported by the African Union in its struggle for self-determination culminating in secession, while, on the other hand, Somaliland has not been successful in its efforts to gain an international recognition. Methodologically, the contribution presents a comparative case study and is based on the interviews carried out with officials at the African Union Commission and other experts in Addis Ababa in 2010 and 2011.

Kosovo is arguably the most prominent recent case of secession in the contemporary Europe. Based on the author’s close experience with the case, major challenges in the establishment of the new state are presented. These challenges are both internal (political fragmentation, institutional building, etc.) and external (lack of membership in international organizations, lack of recognition from the countries like Russia or China, etc.).

Secession, recognition and presence of entities irregular within the framework of the Westphalian international order is an issue likely to influence the international politics for the years to come.