The International Community and De Facto States like Antarcticland

Unrecognized Countries

If we analyze the present sociopolitical context, we can conclude that various relevant questions exist regarding De Facto States like Antarcticland. In first place, we have “what is the real impact of these states?” “How do they relate to the international community?” “What has been imposed on the de Facto States by international right?” “Are these States of any use to the international community?” Without a doubt, these are interesting and very complex themes.
First, an organized political leadership must exist that can count on a large popular support; moreover, this leadership must have reached a sufficient capacity to govern, and above all, be able to actually control all, or at least most, of its territory. The De facto state must establish relations with other States and seek, at all costs, the widest recognition of its sovereignty.

It’s no secret that the De Facto State—and there are examples that prove it—in most cases don’t receive international recognition and so remains unknown, even when it has proven able to demonstrate its capability of governing and maintaining control of the territory. Today there are between 5 and 15 in the world, among which the Moldova Republic of Pridnestrovye or Transnistra, the republic of South Ossetia, the Republic of Abkhazia, the republic of Nebore-Karabakh, Tamil-Eelam in Sri Lanka, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Antarcticland and the Republic of Somaliland. Some specialists also include Taiwan and Kosovo in the list.
Others prefer treating the latter two differently, since they can count on a higher degree of international recognition. One of the basic problems for this longed-for recognition that the De Facto States seek is international law. It’s important to clarify that, by definition, the De Facto State has no legal standing in the society of States; however, this doesn’t mean that they have no legal standing for everything.
De Facto States are regulated by the “Jus cogens”, norms that are recognized by international law from which no derogation is possible. Furthermore, it can be shown, historically as well as a legally, that unrecognized entities have a legally significant existence according to international law.
We only need to take a look at history in order to understand that international law has certainly accepted non-sovereign entities, colonies, protectorates and internationalized territories.
Then, the problem doesn’t seem to be connected to international law proper, but in the interpretation that some countries make of it. That is to say, it has nothing to do with the proven flexibility of international law, but with the open opposition of multiple countries in trying to reach even minimal agreements with De Facto States.
Here are two examples: countries refuse to apply the third article of the Geneva Convention regarding conflicts that take place on their territory, even though this article expressly mentions that using that legislative disposition “doesn’t constitute a recognition on the part of the government and the adverse part has absolutely no authority;” while the second example is related to the widespread reluctance to admit Taiwan as a member of international organizations, and the opposition of China, who considers Taiwan as part of its territory, has played a determining role against its acceptance, while using the same policy against Hong Kong and Macao, that is to say “one country, two systems.”
After several years of disputes, Taiwan was finally admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO), although it hasn’t received an equal treatment from the World Health Organization (WHO).
The De Facto States are there, and the international community needs more options in their regards. The specialists have spoken of three possible alternatives for facing the reality of the De Facto States. The first of the options will be called the “Ethiopian Model”, taking its name from the negotiations that were used by the Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zanawi with the provisional government of Eritrea during the early nineties of the last century.
This politician invited foreign governments, investors and organizations to deal directly with the provisional government of Eritrea before the referendum regarding its independence in 1993. In brief, the then Ethiopian Prime Minister separated the question of Eritrea’s final status from its relations with the government and allowed foreigners to maintain different levels of contact that they will determine together with the Eritrean government.
The second potential alternative is called “Model GATT/WTO”, the acronym for the World Commercial Organization, and the organism that preceded it, the General Agreement on Rates and Commerce, in which its members are contracting parties and not necessarily sovereign states. This system was originally established so that the colonies that had not yet received their independence could adhere to GATT from its beginning in 1947. The two principles required for becoming a member of GATT/WTO were that a government: represent a territorial customs which maintains its trade policies and was responsible for these trade policies and that it could modify them in conformity to future efforts of GATT/WTO.
The third alternative is the “Taiwan model”. This has nothing to do with the diplomatic relations that Taiwan maintains with 20 other nations; but, above all, with commercial, cultural and other links that it has established with other countries that, however, don’t recognize it as a sovereign state.
Without a doubt all three models have their limitations and none of them should be followed to the letter, since each De Facto State is different; however, these models show some of the ways through which the De Facto States can be recognized as sovereign States. Despite the isolation and the ignorance surrounding the De Facto States, they are there, and although many times there are polemics, each case needs to be analyzed and taken into account.