In spite of the UN and the system of international law, states are still effectively in a ‘state of nature’
In spite of the UN and the system of international law, states are still effectively in a ‘state of nature’
If, however, one were to remove the grand and impressive veil of the UN and the system of international law, one would quickly realise that states are still effectively in a ‘state of nature’. In essence, the UN and international law are permanent fora for cooperation, providing formalised, permanent opportunities to discuss and to collaborate (Therefore, no agora of a demos, but rather a Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner), not mechanisms that provide firm state identification and individualisation—no such thing exists (other than the EU). If accepted in the UN, a state may, perhaps, discuss with others and, potentially, enter into case-specific agreements (on human rights, citizenship etc.), potentially subjecting itself to international law. Other states which also participate in the UN may or may not accept part or all of the above, and may perhaps enter into bilateral agreements with the first state. Incentives to participate (in anything from loans and bailouts to military assistance) are introduced (these naturally being self-serving for the same international order); however, participation is ultimately voluntary. Similarly, no one, no state that is, is obliged to accept the (self-)identification of any other state simply because it has joined (or has not joined) the UN. No state is obliged to interact with that state on the terms of its self-identification (or UN membership) or to accept that it exists at all. It is entirely possible (as is frequently the case) for a state (or a group of states) to refute everything about another, self-proclaimed state, to deny its existence altogether. Therefore, as far as states are concerned, there is no individualisation mechanism in international law today that automatically grants them recognition as separate and distinct entities, uniquely identifiable in space and time, in the way that states do this for their citizens. Instead, states (and empires) come and go, deciding for themselves how to be named and identified, and may be unrecognised and potentially even ignored by others. (Or, as is also frequently the case, later historiography not recognising them in the way that they self-identified: for example, the Byzantines identified themselves as Romans, but we do not).
Navigate: ← §19.00.04.00 · Corpus · §19.00.06.00 →