Unrecognised State Entities Evaluation of Emerging States in the 21St Century

Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis – Geographica, Vol. 48, No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 61

UNRECOGNISED STATE ENTITIES EVALUATION OF EMERGING STATES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Štěpán Podhrázský

Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, 611 37 Brno, Czech Republic, [email protected]

Abstract Since the end of World War II, the international community has observed the principle of territorial integrity. Beyond the context of decolonization, it categorically refuses to grant the sovereignty to any entity created by the secession process without the approval of the central government of the parental state. Doubting the principle of territorial integrity would call into question the legitimacy of the global political system as we know it. Legitimately, an inﬁ nite number of entities would be created to join or divide according to the current situation and needs. From the point of view of the established international order, it would be an unpredic- table chaotic state. The negative approach of the international community to any changes and secessionist efforts, in particular, is a natural consequence. Yet the emergence of new entities striving to gain state status cannot be avoided. Although these so-called “unrecognized state entities” often show greater functionality than the original sovereign, they cannot gain the support of the international community and thus they are getting into a political vacuum. The aim of this paper is to qualitatively analyze and terminologically integrate unrecognized state entities and thereby provide basis for solving their unsatisfactory status in politico-geo- graphic space.

Key words: political geography, unrecognized states entities, quasi-states, evaluation criteria

INTRODUCTION a new geopolitical cycle, which started after World War II, they have existed since the emergence of The amount of terms denoting territorial units with modern state systems. What differentiates the con- attributes without international recognition is large temporary unrecognized states from their historical and persistently increasing. Existence of terms like predecessors is the unwillingness of the interna- unrecognized states, de facto states, pseudo-states, tional community of states to accept new mem- state like entities, states within states, contested bers, as McGarry et al. (2004: ix–xi) state: ‘The states, and even wannabe states (Anderson 2012: bias against political divorce, that is, secession, is 183), only supports that statement. The only thing just about as strong as the nineteenth-century bias that the enumerated terms refl ect is the end of against marital divorce‘. simple perception of the world. The world is no He highlighted the endeavour of the world com- longer seen as divided into recognized and terri- munity to keep the status quo after World War II. tory-defi ned nation states, which in reality has never Apart from new states created by the process of been the case, and previously unidentifi ed enti- decolonization and recognized successor states col- ties existing in political space. Although it is often lapsed communist federations (the Union of Soviet assumed that unrecognized states are products of Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia)

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 62 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century only fi ve states succeeded in gaining independence with each other, providing relevant materials, and from their former sovereign fully acknowledged by contributing to discussion about granting the sover- the international community – Bangladesh, East eignty status at least to some of these entities. The Timor, Eritrea, Montenegro and South Sudan. article is focused on entities of interest occurring in Geldenhuys (2009) links this phenomenon with the the political space after 2000 only, although a num- general assumption that secession of territory is a ber of them gained signifi cance in 90’s. The reason negative one. And this is what puts contemporary for this timeframe is the gradual change in percep- unrecognized state entities into complicated politi- tion of deviant states and eventually unrecognized cal situation. Most of them are products of efforts state entities by global and regional powers at the of secession from internationally recognized states turn of the millennium. Different perception was which doesn’t improve their chances to be accepted caused by a change of geopolitical cycle in the name to the exclusive ‘club’ of recognized states. It is nec- of war on terror and deviant states, on whose ter- essary to ask the question whether there is an alter- ritory unrecognized state entities can be found the native. Many unrecognized states were created due most frequently, have become the potential source to repression (physical and/or perceived) by their of terrorism, hence becoming the core of world former sovereigns. Reunifi cation is, if not outright events. impossible, at least immensely diffi cult. Without the possibility of independence and reunifi cation the PRESENT DAY TEMINOLOGY unrecognized states get into insoluble situation. The work of Scott Pegg International Society and Functioning but formally unaccepted territorial the De facto state on the topic of unrecognized units are for the purpose of this article labelled as states became classics in 1998. Pegg (1998) labelled ‘unrecognized state entities’. On the contrary non- the unrecognized states by the term de facto states functioning but formally recognized territorial units and discerned them from other dependent entities are labelled ‘deviant states’. The reasons for this located in the political space on the basis of fulfi ll- labelling are introduced later in this work, following ing the defi ned criteria and used traits to differenti- the sections on contemporary literature and evaluate them from each other. Although the work itself ation of leading approaches of individual authors, is 20 years old, it contains important knowledge that are ‘de facto state’ (Pegg 1998; Lynch 2004; many authors of today build upon. For that reason Bartmann 2004; Caspersen 2009; Berg and Toomla it is a foundation for this article as well. 2009), ‘pseudo-state’ (Kolossov and O’Loughlin 1999; Kolossov 2001), ‘statelike entity‘ (King 2001), De facto states are, according to Pegg, characteris- ‘states within states’ (Kingston 2004; Spears 2004; tic by having a certain level of organized political Stanislawski 2008), ‘quasi-state’ (Kolstø 2006) and leadership by the local population and by providing ‘unrecognized states’ (Caspersen 2012). the population with basic state services (Pegg 1998). However, Pegg didn’t specify the extent of their ful- In present-day works the case studies approach is fi lment, which has left it impossible to evaluate. The used most frequently when dealing with unrecog- third characteristics of de facto states should have nized state entities. This article takes a different been their ability to establish relations with another approach. Firstly it points out the complicated termi- state. This ability is more of a theoretical one as nology and introduces an alternative term grasping they remain unrecognized by the international com- the nature of functional but formally unrecognized munity, which Pegg was pointing out. The last cri- territorial units. Secondly the article deals with crite- teria became the minimal duration of existence of ria that enable quantitative methods to be used with at least 2 years and an ability to achieve none or the help of key attributes created on the basis of minimal international recognition, which was also analysis of contemporary literature with practical- worked on by plethora of authors, noted below. ity and functionality taken into account. The results In 2004 Lynch in his work continued where Pegg are: a possibility of comparing entities of interest (1998) had left and divided the concept of de facto

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 63 states into juridical and empirical notions. According Kolossov (2001) as well as Kolossov and O’Loughlin to his work de facto states lack the juridical notions, (1999) contributed to the fi eld, who introduced new which make their territory claims groundless, but term pseudostates. The key features in their con- they possess the empirical notions. Using the same cept are the declaration of independence, fulfi lling logic Lynch (2004) has divided the sovereignty to the empirical statehood while lacking international internal and external. Putting Pegg‘s work into this recognition, and a confl ict that had led to the crea- analytical framework leads us to a conclusion that tion of pseudostates and remains unresolved so de facto states fully possess the internal sovereignty far. Kolossov and O’Loughlin (1999) also used the but lack the external one. De facto states also pur- term quasi-state in their work, but they understand sue their independence, which is typical for them, it completely differently from both Jackson (1993) Lynch notes. and Kolstø (2006), whose approaches are presented below. Their defi nition of quasi-states is uncom- In 2004 Barry Bartmann, on the matter of unrec- mon and is focused on areas with no central con- ognized state entities and deviant states quite accu- trol not trying to gain independence. Most often rately stated: ‘In some cases, recognition (…of is a result of coordinated criminal activities which the states…) is granted readily or, more typically, can be present even on urban areas of the Western persistently maintained in spite of conditions on world. the ground which are tantamount to legal fi ction. In other cases, recognition is stubbornly withheld In his analysis of de facto states in Eurasian region even though the realities on the ground themselves King (2001) came to a remarkable fi nding. The expose the legal fi ctions which the international separatist entities of early 90’s have transformed community supports in the defence of the principle into state-forming entities in just a decade, even of territorial integrity‘ (Bartmann 2004: 12). In his though the confl icts that led to their emergence idea of de facto states he differentiated the juridical remain unresolved. In his work King did not try to and empirical statehood similarly to Lynch (2004). conceptualize this phenomenon, he focused on par- According to Bartmann (2004) the unrecognized ticular state-forming entities in post-Soviet region states are illegal in the eyes of international com- – Nagorno-Karabakh, Pridnestrovian Moldavian munity and organizations, even though they have Republic (Transnistria), South Ossetia, Abkhazia, the support of local population and are able to per- Chechnya and Tajikistan. To evade the criticism of form acts reserved only for states. The perception lack of defi ning his selection of entities of inter- of empirical and juridical dichotomy has become est he provided vague defi nition in footnotes (King common when defi ning unrecognized states, as 2001: 525). To defi ne so-called state like entities he works of Caspersen (2009) and Berg and Toomla used the standard dichotomy of empirical and jurid- (2009) and many others show. ical statehood. According to King (2001: 525) state like entities possess the population and functioning On the other hand, Geldenhuys (2009) was critical government over the claimed territory but lack the about the idea of de facto states. He criticised it international recognition. Even though King used mainly because of its inability to refl ect the extent mostly the term state like entities, he didn’t evade of de jure recognition and its assumption that de using others like unrecognized state, de facto coun- facto states obtain no recognition, which does not try (King 2001: 525) and even quasi-state (King have to be true. An example of this is the Turk- 2001: 528). His work is benefi cial especially because ish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which has not he points out the diffi culty of any conceptualization gained any notable international recognition, but it of unrecognized states and necessary caution when has support of the Republic of Turkey. On the con- setting the empirical criteria of unrecognized states. trary Geldenhuys acknowledges the UN member- State-within-state, as Kingston (2004) and Spears ship as the highest achievable affi rmation of state (2004) use it, is a term that denotes wider range recognition, and no de facto state is a UN member. of entities then previously presented term de facto

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 64 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century state. Majority of states-within-states introduced independence, entities acknowledging the central by Kingston (2004: 7) ‘exhibit severe imbalances government don’t seek independence. The last dif- in their institutional development’. The overall ference is the external sovereignty. According to emphasis is laid rather on non-functioning states Stanislawski (2008) unrecognized states possess and entities present in their territory that on entities external sovereignty in the form of the sovereignty trying to gain independence. Most entities consid- of the central government. ered don’t possess the characteristics of a state as Weber defi nes it, namely the monopoly of legiti- Kolstø (2006) used the term quasi-state for unrec- mate violence. It is clear then that just a portion of ognized states, even though the term was being entities falling into Kingston’s category of states- used in reverse before – for deviant states (Jackson within-states can be included in the category of 1993). Yet Kolstø (2006) used the term quasi-state, unrecognized state entities. because similarly to Jackson (1993) he doesn’t pre- suppose a high level of functionality, although it can Spears (2004) who disagrees with Kingston (2004) appear as functioning in relation to the original sov- in some aspects, commented on the topic in the ereign. In case of recognition as a sovereign state same work. In his point of view states-within-states nothing changes as far as internal functionality is are able to exert power over claimed territory and concerned. As international community sees it only fulfi l Weber’s criteria of statehood. The way Spears a new non-functioning state is formed, Jackson’s (2004: 16) uses the traditional juridical and empirical quasi-state. dichotomy to differentiate states-within-states and quasi-states is important. He sees quasi-states in a So as to avoid complete confusion of terms, Kol- similar way as Jackson (1993) only as empty shells stø suggested terms failed states for non-function- with low functionality or none at all. States-within- ing states and quasi-state remained to be used for states are the exact opposite – ‘have imposed effec- unrecognized states (Kolstø 2006). tive control over a territory within a larger state’, as Spears (2004: 16) states. This functionality is exhib- Unrecognized state is probably the most commonly ited by the ability to collect taxes and to provide the used term denoting an entity internally function- population with basic services. Nonetheless they ing but unrecognized by international community. are still seen as political sub-entities by the prism of It was used by Caspersen (2012), whose defi nition juridical statehood (Spears 2004) without interna- was similar to Pegg’s. That demonstrates the time- tional recognition. lessness of his work. Caspersen presupposes the creation of own leadership, factual independence of The duration of existence is important for Spears, unrecognized states, at least two years of existence but he sees is completely differently from Pegg and an ability to exert power over 2/3 of claimed (1998) and he uses a principle of temporariness territory. Main Caspersen’s contribution to the topic instead of minimal duration of existence. States- of unrecognized state entities is her approach to within-states are considered to be just a temporary international recognition. It is clear that these entities phenomenon (Spears 2004) in political space. would lack international recognition as their nature dictates, however on the other hand, a guarantee of Stanislawski (2008: 371) tackled the states-within- their existence by the regional or global power, or states idea completely in a different way defi ning support from several ‘insignifi cant’ states also cannot them as ‘regions that formally recognize the cen- be completely ruled out (Caspersen 2012). Unfortu- tral government but in fact maintain a very high nately, she does not defi ne the term ‘insignifi cant’. degree of independence’. This approach is an outright opposite of Spears and Pegg’s, who assume Caspersen (2012) does not tackle unrecognized the confl ict with the central government. This is states on a case by case basis, as it is common, but connected to the unrecognized states’ aims. While tries to understand the basic factors necessary for Pegg and Spears assume one of the aims is to gain their existence. The linking of internal development

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 65 of unrecognized states and external parties’ infl u- of entities is greatly infl uenced by the absence of ence is an example. Unrecognized states usually international recognition. Thusly formed entities undergo the creation and development of own are considered illegitimate by international com- political structures. Those are, however, forced to munity, so they face constant pressure of existential interact with international community which limits threat. States which contain one-sidedly declared them, infl uences them and obliges them to conform entities have a legal right to restore its territorial to international rules. Entities used in Caspersen’s integrity, the international community declares. research are qualitatively variable as their mere enu- Such restoration resolves in termination of unrec- meration shows, as it involves Abkhazia, Chechnya, ognized state entities. That leads to prioritizing of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Turkish Republic of internal political development of these entities. A Northern Cyprus, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, priority of developing military capabilities, which Somaliland, South Ossetia, Tamil Eelam and the enables effective territory control of the sovereign Republic of China (Taiwan). frequently appears.

The most fi tting term designating unrecognized In earlier defi nitions unrecognized state entities states was introduced by Dent (2004) – sovereign were, despite inconsistent terminology, marked as land in a larger independent country. Although this entities possessing independent government that term can be seen as the most adequate and accu- effectively controls basic geographical attributes – rate to cover the nature of unrecognized state enti- the territory and the populace – but haven’t gained ties, it cannot be used with practicality due to its international recognition. They managed to meet length and lack of simplicity. This work therefore the foundational characteristics of a sovereign state. uses the term unrecognized state entities which best In some cases, those are ephemeral entities that describes their essence and retains the practical use. exist for only a couple of months. It seems natural to establish a temporal limit to identify unrecog- UNRECOGNIZED STATE ENTITIES nized state entities and to support the internal functionality. Five years of existence limit established Unrecognized state entities represent a wide spec- by Herbst (2000) is an example. After achieving it trum of entities which is diffi cult to contain in a Herbst assumed a legitimization of secession the single defi nition. Pegg’s defi nition can be consid- international community would not agree, however. ered a good one as it refl ects the notions included On the other hand a two year limit was established in this work, even though it succumbs to terminol- by Pegg (1998), Kolstø (2006), Caspersen (2012) and ogy confusion, as it is pointed out above: ‘a de facto others. In the course of these two years the estab- state exists where there is an organized political lishment of the entity and verifi cation of internal leadership which has risen to power through some functionality would take place. The establishment degree of indigenous capability; receives popular of a temporal limit is arbitrary and problematic support; and has achieved suffi cient capacity to methodology-wise. But without its demarcation a provide governmental services to a given popula- formation of entities without any real chance to tion in a defi ned territorial area, over which effec- evolve and last in the competing international com- tive control is maintained for an extended period of munity. Due to these reasons no temporal limit for time. The de facto state views itself as capable of inclusion of an entity in unrecognized state entities entering into relations with other states and it seeks is considered in this work. But the duration of exist- full constitutional independence and widespread ence is used as a qualitative property to gauge the international recognition as a sovereign state. It is, deviations between single entities. however, ‘unable to achieve any degree of substan- tive recognition and therefore remains illegitimate Two types of entities are considered unrecognized in the eyes of international society’ (Pegg 1998: 1). state entities in this article. Entities that do not ful- Although Pegg’s idea is based on declaratory theory fi l the geographical attributes but have been recog- of statehood, the internal political development nized by the international community comprise the

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 66 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century

fi rst group. These consist mostly of relicts of his- External Evaluation Criteria tory as it cannot be supposed new states with no territory nor population would be recognized. External evaluation criteria are based on work by Hence, the second type of entities is considered in Riegl (2010, 2013) and they consider the infl uence this article. These entities are internally functional of external parties on the development of indi- but not recognized by the international community. vidual unrecognized state entities. Three elemen- Entities of interest include only those meeting fol- tary groups of external parties (states) that affect lowing criteria based on empiric and juridical dichot- the unrecognized state entities’ development can be omy and works introduced in previous chapter: discerned in political space. These groups are used unrecognized state entity is a political-geographical in this work. They are: entity which effectively controls its claimed terri- • International community; tory including the local population, which does not • Regional/global power; revolt openly and is viable reproduction-wise. The • Central government of the original sovereign. claimed territory must include urban areas used as centres of power by the entity for the duration of Every party has an opportunity to directly impact its existence. The unrecognized state entity repre- the development of an unrecognized state entity by sents a functional entity controlling the territory support and by elimination. The stance of external of at least one recognized State. It confi rmed this parties can be put on a closed interval scale. Elim- functionality by declaring its own independence ination by the use of force is a negative extreme or other similar expression. An unrecognized state while support and recognition by international entity has received no or minimal international rec- community is a positive one. Those extremes are ognition. Table 3 lists unrecognized state entities used only rarely so distinguishing discrete grades of meeting the defi nition described above and existing partial acceptance or opposition is in order. in political-geographical space since 2001. Seeing the relations between the unrecognized state EVALUATION CRITERIA entity and external parties a hypothesis of connection to geographical distance can be set. States in It is necessary to introduce the individual evalua- immediate neighbourhood often have a different tion criteria, before constructing a classifi cation view of the unrecognized state entity, which can be of unrecognized state entities, on which it is based sensed as a threat, in opposition to states on the upon. The evaluation criteria have been established other side of the world. The history plays a major after deliberation of works by authors from the part as well. It can be assumed that states that faced fi elds of sociology, political science and geography, secession themselves usually have a negative atti- as the topic transcends them all. Works by Sørensen tude to newly formed entities. For example, African (2005), Cooper (2000), Rotberg (2004), Zartmann states refuse any secession attempts due to their fear (1995), Jackson (1993), Anderson (2012), Riegl of disintegration (Herbst 2000). Another example (2013), and Glassner and de Blij (1988) were con- is the Republic of Kosovo – the closed and most sidered, too. The analysis of works by the authors involved party is the former sovereign, the Repub- mentioned made it clear that two distinct catego- lic of Serbia, which unequivocally denounced the ries of evaluation criteria have to be used. Exter- secession and labelled it as illegitimate (The Guard- nal criteria dealing with outer parties relations with ian 2008a). For regional scale states, in these cases the unrecognized state entity and internal criteria states of Europe that are spatially and culturally handling the internal functionality. Combination of close, its own experience with threat to territorial both led to creating a classifi cation introduced in integrity plays a major role. Secession of Kosovo the next chapter, and which takes into account the was therefore condemned not only by the Republic qualitative differences between individual unrecog- of Moldova and by the Kingdom of Spain (Inde- nized state entities. pendent 2008). Table 1 summarizes the external

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 67

Figure 1 Examples of a ‘deviant state’ (the Federal Republic of Somalia) and unrecognized state entities within its territory. Source: own processing.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 68 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century

Table 1 Summary of all external evaluation criteria and the predicted entity status.

Type of the Sovereignty Supported by: Predicted entity entity Central International Regional status government community (global) power Internationally Inner NO NO NO YES Unrecognized state unrecognized and entity, internally non-functioning ineffi cient entities NO Elimination Outer NO YES NO YES Unrecognized state entity, internally ineffi cient NO Elimination or unrecognized state entity, internally ineffi cient* Non-functioning Inner NO – YES YES Internationally entities NO recognized sovereign Outer YES – YES YES state, internally NO ineffi cient Internationally Inner YES YES NO YES Unrecognized state unrecognized entity, internally entities effi cient NO Elimination or unrecognized state entity, internally effi cient* Outer NO NO NO YES Unrecognized state entity, internally effi cient NO elimination Internationally Inner YES - YES YES Soveregin state, recognized and Outer YES - YES NO internally effi cient functioning entities Note: * depending on the power of central government Source: Riegl (2013), Podhrázský (2018); own processing parties’ infl uence on state entities located in the and relevant internal-functionality-wise have been political-geographical space and describes the pre- selected. Internal evaluation criteria take into dicted entity status. account the ability of unrecognized state entities to secure the safety, governance and basic ser- Internal Evaluation Criteria vices within the claimed territory. Basic geographical characteristics such as population or territorial Standard evaluation used to assess states cannot be extent are not included among the criteria as they employed for internal evaluation, as these are sel- are a part of the defi nition of unrecognized state dom established territory units that are described entities. Every internal criterion can attain values of with statistics. Therefore, criteria that are verifi able 0/1/2 according to the level of satisfaction, which

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 69 are presented below. The result of combination of Duration of existence. The duration of existence can- internal criteria is a percentage of satisfaction said not be used for the defi nition of unrecognized state criteria, which is a factor in classifi cation of unrec- entities itself, for it would function too selectively. ognized state entities. However it is an important trait which speaks vol- • Governance; umes about the ability of unrecognized state enti- • Duration of existence; ties to succeed in the space of international affairs, • History; which was already noted by Kolstø (2006). It is with- • Core areas; out a question that this ability strongly refl ects also • Unifying element; the non-functionality of the former sovereign, who • Monetary policy; can be assumed to strive to eliminate the unrecog- • Armed forces; nized state entity. The criterion of existence does • Nationality and ethnicity; not cover neither the functionality of the entity, • Area of infl uence; effectivity of territory control nor any support of • Infrastructure and populated places distribution. the populace. It is purely a time indicator of the existence of unrecognized state entity in political Governance. Creation of functioning governance is space. Within this work one threshold of 2 years an evidence of an attempt to control a territory established by Kolstø (2006) in his work is used, and its administration. That is why governance is which can be considered as a period long enough included in internal evaluation criteria of unrecog- for the unrecognized state entity to establish itself. nized state entities. Functioning governance is not The second threshold is set at 5 years, which pre- just an effective organization structure that claims a supposes establishment not only in the theatre of territory, it involves legal system, taxes etc. imposed its former sovereign but also in an international on the claimed territory, whose population com- theatre. plies with it. Values for the application of the duration of exist- The objective is for the unrecognized state entity ence are as follows: to succeed in creating an effective administra- • 0 – duration of existence less than 2 years; tion which controls and governs affairs within the • 1 – duration of existence between 2 and 5 years; claimed territory. In case of creation of governance • 2 – duration of existence more than 5 years. under control of other (external) party the criterion is fulfi lled but the value of the entity in question History. History criterion presumes the formation would be reduced. Upholding the democratic prin- of unrecognized state entity in the territory of a ciples is not crucial for fulfi lling this criterion. The former administrative unit, form which the entity extent of the controlled territory or its change is derives its existence. It does not necessitate direct not important. succession in the form of secession, formation of an entity within borders of a former kingdom The thresholds for governance values are described is also permitted. It is important for this aspect to below: be considered and employed during the formation • 0 – functioning governance not created; of the entity in question. In case of utilization of • 1 – functioning governance created but under a former administrative unit the entity may retain factual control of other, usually external, party its existing functionality. Concurrently the senti- with frequent interventions in internal affairs; ment about the population, which is different from • 2 – functioning governance created and no the remainder of the territory history-wise can be direct intervention in internal affairs by external utilized, which increases the support of the new party. entity. The criterion does not take into account the

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 70 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century territory that poses as a unifi er for, for example, an • 2 – unrecognized state entity controls either ethnic group but which was not a self-contained one area of signifi cance of its former sovereign administrative unit. accounting for at least 2 % of the sovereign’s population or at least two areas of signifi cance Deriving origins from previously existing entity may of its former sovereign accounting for 1 % of serve as an argument for establishing in the interna- its population each. tional space, especially in connection with right to self-determination, which is based on UN General Unifying Element. The unifying element criterion eval- Assembly resolution no. 1514 (A/RES/15/1514 uates the specifi c differences between the emerg- 1960). According to this resolution all nations posing unrecognized state entity and the parental state. sess right to self-determination a names political, These specifi cs in the form of different language, economic, social and other reasons which cannot religion, cultural development or economic per- be suffi cient for delaying of granting independence. formance (natural resources) can serve as a propa- ganda material and thus signifi cantly contribute Application of values according to history criterion: to the support of secessionist efforts by the local • 0 – unrecognized state entity formed with no population. In an extreme case, even a very simpli- bond to previously existing entity; fi ed perception of the issue may occur to “us and • 1 – unrecognized state entity is mostly formed them”. At the same time, these specifi c differences within borders of previously existing adminis- create a homogeneous environment, contributing trative units; to the stability of the unrecognized state entities. • 2 – unrecognized state entity mostly observes of the previously existing independent entity Values for the unifying element: from which it derives its origins. • 0 – the structure of the unrecognized state entity does not differ in language, religion, cul- Core Areas. It is of great importance for the unrec- tural development or economic performance ognized state entity not to control only rural or (the unrecognized state was a homogeneous peripheral areas for its development. By control- part of the parental state); ling densely populated (core) areas the entity gains • 1 – the structure of unrecognized state entity importance not only with population which it rep- differs in one element – language, religion, cul- resents but its economic capabilities grow as well. tural development, or economic performance; Absolute population in specifi c core areas does • 2 – the structure of unrecognized state entity not matter. The aim is to take into consideration differs in at least two elements – language, reli- the importance of seceded areas in relation to the gion, cultural development, and/or economic former sovereign regardless of population, that can performance. be misleading. The population of seceded areas to entire population ratio is what matters, which in Monetary Policy. The monetary policy criterion is turn identifi es the degree of weakening the sover- partly linked to the governance criterion. Establish- eign. Threshold for this criterion is set at 1% and ment of own currency in the unrecognized state 2%, respectively, minimum of former sovereign’s entity is assumed which is nearly not achievable population. The criterion does not take into account without functioning governance. By having its own the degree of control. currency, the unrecognized state entity severs the bonds with the former sovereign and creates a new Core areas control values are set thusly: unifying element for the population inhabiting the • 0 – unrecognized state entity does not control claimed territory. The criterion does not mark the any areas of signifi cance of its former sovereign; extent of using the entity’s won currency which is • 1 – unrecognized state entity controls one area hard to verifi able. But it refl ects using other cur- of signifi cance of its former sovereign account- rencies and their types. What matters is whether it ing for 1–2 % of the sovereign‘s population; is the currency of the former sovereign or other

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 71 entity. The spread of own currency partly repre- would be a great mistake not to consider national- sents the effective control of the territory, whose ity and ethnicity among the evaluation criteria. The population is compelled to use the currency. basis for this criterion is the difference between ethnic/national composition of the unrecognized state Monetary policy values are provided below: entity and its former sovereign. The reasons why • 0 – unrecognized state entity has not created its the composition is so important can be summarized own currency and uses its former sovereign’s; in several points: • 1 – unrecognized state entity has created its own • emotion-based aversion towards rival ethnicity/ currency but uses currency of a third party/ nation; unrecognized state entity has not created its own • protection from ethnic/national cleansings; currency and uses currency of a third party; • resistance to the oppressor; • 2 – unrecognized state entity offi cially uses only • economic and political dominance of a group its own currency. not in power and/or lacking privileges; • effort to end economic exploitation of a group. Armed Forces. The armed forces ensure primary existence of the unrecognized state entity and as such it All the mentioned points can incite discontent of is considered a logical criterion for evaluation. The a part of the population and lead to secession or foundational presupposition for evaluation is the other displays of dissatisfaction or to support of a ability of the armed forces of the unrecognized newly formed unrecognized state entity. Apart from state entity to secure territory control despite the these points it is possible to mention also a protec- activities of the former sovereign. Guerrilla warfare tion of a different culture, language or religion, but is not considered as a form of controlling the terri- these criteria are taken into account in the Unifying tory. The criterion considers the creation of armed element category. forces with support of an external party at the cost of point reduction. Creating enough armed forces Evaluation of national and ethnic composition of able to deter the international community cannot population of unrecognized state entities can be: be considered, so this criterion is only related to the • 0 – dominant nation/ethnic group is the same former sovereign. as the sovereign’s/percentage is lower than 50 %; Unrecognized state entities armed forces criterion • 1 – dominant nation/ethnic group is different can attain these values: of the sovereign’s and the percentage ranges • 0 – unrecognized state entity does not pos- 50–75 %; sess armed forces able to oppose the former • 2 – dominant nation/ethnic group is different sovereign, the territory is not effectively under that the sovereign’s and the percentage is above control; 75 %. • 1 – unrecognized state entity possesses armed forces, but it cannot oppose its former sov- Area of Infl uence. Territory control at the expense ereign on its own and is supported by a third of the former sovereign is an elementary premise party; for the formation of unrecognized state entity. The • 2 – unrecognized state entity possesses armed degree of territory control is different, however, forces able to secure hold of the territory and and this criterion is applied to measure it. By apply- to oppose its former sovereign. ing earlier theoretical approaches of Zaidi (1966) the area of infl uence has been defi ned as a zone Nationality and Ethnicity. National and ethnic com- surrounding the core areas and main thorough- position of population of many states is not fares. These include the railway and paved roads. homogenous. Perhaps due to this the right to self- The zone of control reaches up to 50 km away for determination of nations is one of the most used core areas and 25 km for thoroughfares. Areas not arguments for establishing new political entities. It interfering with these areas of infl uence are referred

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 72 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century to as areas without control. Although areas with- non-existent contact. This criterion evaluates also out control were supposed to serve as centres of the uniformity of populated places distribution opposition to the sovereign, the recurring scenario with regard to their size and the infrastructure is (opposition) or utilization by the former sover- related to their connection. eign cannot be excluded. Therefore, the existence of these areas without control is seen as a nega- Values for this criterion of populated places and tive phenomenon posing a threat. Evaluation-wise infrastructure are: the unrecognized state entity would be penalized if • 0 – populated places are not distributed uni- small uncontrolled areas are present within its ter- formly, with low or none infrastructure; ritory with cumulative size exceeding 5 %, whose • 1 – populated places are distributed uniformly, impact could be considered insignifi cant. Visuali- with low or none infrastructure/populated zation of this evaluation criterion can be seen on places are not distributed uniformly, but infra- fi gure 2. structure linking them exists; • 2 – populated places are distributed uniformly Values for Area of Infl uence criterion: and infrastructure linking them exists, main • 0 – large and contiguous areas without control populated places are interconnected, no single constituting at least 25 % of the territory are backbone route. present; • 1 – single large area without control exists/ UNRECOGNIZED STATE ENTITIES several small areas without control exist with CLASSIFICATION cumulative extent of smaller than 25 %; • 0 – none or small areas without control exist On the basis of combination of internal and exter- with cumulative extent of maximum of 5 %. nal evaluation criteria described above a uniform classifi cation is created. The classifi cation enables to Infrastructure and Populated Places Distribution. The evaluate unrecognized state entities to predict their quality and quantity of infrastructure is crucial probable advance as well as to assess their chance to for control end effective utilization of a territory. be recognized as a state, seen at the table 2. That is why infrastructure is included among the evaluation criteria of unrecognized state entities. In effort to cover this subject matter in its entirety In contrast with Area of infl uence criterion the unrecognized state entities existing in political space entire road network will be considered. The aim is since 1945 are included. The reason is to take into to identify populated places with limited degree or account all possible variants of these entities. As

Table 2 Classiﬁ cation of unrecognized state entities depending on their status in political-geographical space and on degree of fulﬁ lling the internal evaluation criteria.

Internal evaluation criteria 0–50 % 51–100 % External evaluation criteria Without external support Ephemeral unrecognized state entity Unrecognized state entity without external support With the support of a regional/ Puppet unrecognized state entity Guaranteed unrecognized state entity global power With the (partial) support of an Unrecognized state entity with Unrecognized state entity with the international community of the territorial dispute right to self-determination states

Source: own processing.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 73

Figure 2 Area of inﬂ uence applied on unrecognized state entities within Somalia borders. Source: own processing.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 74 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century mentioned before, the work is focused on unrecog- to occur the external inﬂ uence would have to alter. nized state entities existing since 2001 only. In case of strengthening of the central government or reinforcing the efforts to eliminate it by the Ephemeral Unrecognized State Entities international community the entity faces destruc- tion accompanied by putting it onto the category of Ephemeral unrecognized state entities represent the ephemeral unrecognized state entities. On the other least stable form of unrecognized state entity exist- hand in case of gaining the support of an external ing in political-geographical space. Its characteristic party a gradual reinforcement of the status of the traits are the absence of support of external parties unrecognized state entity might ensue along with and the inability to meet most of the internal crite- gaining the status of a sovereign state. ria. They are entities which have declared independence but have never been able to create functioning Pu ppet Unrecognized State Entities internal structure. They often are regions of insur- gency that rebelled because of the weakened central Puppet unrecognized state entities represent not government. Due to this a gradual ending of the completely functioning entities with support of an majority of the entities, especially if the central gov- external party in the form of a regional or global ernment strengthens can be expected. In case of power. The typical feature is the inability to create long-term weakening of the central government a functioning internal structure, whose functionality functioning internal structure might be formed and is supplanted by the external party. Concurrently establishment of the entity in the next category of the external party guarantees the existence of the unrecognized state entities without external support unrecognized state entity and in most cases militar- may occur. ily and/or economically contributes to its stability. International recognition these entities gained Unrecognized State Entities comes generally only from the sponsor. Other without External Support states usually refuse to recognize the entity.

Unrecognized state entities without external sup- Stability-wise they are entities stable only as long as port are internally functioning entities without the the support of the external party lasts. In case of support of an external party. They form most often termination of such support the entity falls into the by secession out of context of decolonization, category of ephemeral unrecognized state entities. which leads directly to negative or neutral stance of the international community on their existence. Guaranteed Unrecognized State Entities This type of unrecognized state entities can exist in political space both short-term, that is for couple Guaranteed unrecognized state entities, similarly to of months, and long-term, that is decades. Com- previous category, represent entities supported by mon cause of ending of unrecognized state enti- external parties – regional or global powers. The ties without signifi cant international recognition is a main difference is their relative self-suffi ciency in military intervention of the central government or internal affairs, which are not necessarily dependent the international community. That is also the reason on the sponsor. The most common form of sup- why this type is found mostly in non-functioning or port is guaranteeing of their existence by military otherwise weakened states which don’t possess suf- force at the expense of the former sovereign, which fi cient military capabilities to eliminate them. would be otherwise able to restore its own territorial integrity. From the point of future development, it can be assumed that these unrecognized state entities with- Guaranteed unrecognized state entities are sta- out external support will remain at their present ble entities existing in political-geographical space state in political-geographical space. For the change where they are able to uphold their existence even

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 75 it case of losing their sponsor, which would classify APPLICATION them as unrecognized state entities without external OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN support. THE CASE OF SOMALILAND

Unrecognized state entity With the help of external and internal evaluation with territorial dispute criteria described above single entities of interest can be put into categories and a basis for qualita- Those are entities whose independence is in con- tive dealing with their statuses can be provided. The cordance with the right to self-determination and resulting evaluation is summarized in the table 3. are supported by a signifi cant amount of interna- As the defi nition introduced in the chapter on the tional community. Still they cannot achieve inter- defi nition of the unrecognized state entities leads to national recognition and sovereignty because they acknowledge 25 different unrecognized state enti- usually do not maintain the internal functionality. ties existing in political-geographical space since Most often it is because of a territorial dispute or 2001, it is not possible to tackle each one thor- an occupation of the territory by an external (not oughly. As such this chapter introduces the applica- formerly colonial) power. Entities are able to form tion of the criteria using the case of Somaliland and functioning governance but are unable to apply it highlights the most important outcomes resulting to claimed territory. The inability to create enough from the table 3 afterwards. military capability to control the entirety of the territory is also typical. Unrecognized state entity of the Republic of Somaliland, used as a model in this work, is located Territorially disputed unrecognized state entities in the northern part of the Horn of Africa and is exist in the political space for a long time and rapid offi cially a part of the Federal Republic of Soma- resolution of their status cannot be expected in the lia, from which it declared independence in 1991. future. First possible solution is higher degree of The Republic of Somaliland exists today and not involvement of the international community as a even after 30 years of its existence has the inter- sponsor of the creation of a new state. The second national community grated it the sovereignty status one is a gradual elimination of the entity and its (The Guardian 2018b). Thanks to this long-lasting integration into occupying entity. existence the Republic of Somaliland gets 2 points in the Duration of Existence criterion. It claims Unrecognized State Entities its independence based on two facts. First one is with the Right to Self-determination a colonial history different from the rest of the Federal Republic of Somalia, the second one is Unrecognized state entities with the right to self- the short existence of an independent state in the determination are internally functional entities 60’s (Somaliland Law 2017), which was later inte- which are supported by a signifi cant portion of grated into present-day Federal Republic of Soma- international community. One of the reasons of lia (Somaliland Law 2017). The claimed territory is the non-recognition of the status of an independ- nearly identical to the territory extent of the for- ent state can be an unresolved relationship with the mer independent state and respects also the internal former sovereign. The second reason might be an administrative division of the Federal Republic of insuffi cient support of the international commu- Somalia. The only exception is the territory dis- nity, especially by the global powers. However, it can pute with another unrecognized state entity called be assumed that, as the entity effectively controls the Puntland State of Somalia over two provinces, the claimed territory and has support of the inter- achieving 2 full points for history criterion. As far as national community, the status of the unrecognized governance is concerned, the Republic of Somali- state entity with the right to self-determination is land is considered to be one of the most stable only a temporary one and that it will be concluded entities in the region. Even though its existence by recognition of full sovereignty. is not recognized by the international community,

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 76 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century the Republic of Somaliland has managed to secure extent of main thorough fares can be seen, which bilateral treaties with both international organiza- is crucial for evaluating this criterion. After creat- tions and independent, sovereign states. One of ing the area of infl uence covers only 29.71 % of the many proofs of stability is the opening of UN the claimed territory, which falls short for even 1 representative offi ces in the capital city of Hargeisa point. Next criterion is the populated placed distri- (UNSOM 2018). On the other hand an effort by an bution and their interconnection. Populated places external parties to alter internal affairs is noticeable, distribution is uneven, especially the northern areas for example the use of the Republic of Somali- lack populated places. The most important area is land sea port Berbera by the Federal Democratic the port of Berbera. Lawyacado, Zeila and Lughaya Republic of Ethiopia as it lost its access to sea after are less important settlements. The easternmost set- secession of the State of Eritrea in 1993 (The Con- tlement is Heis. The settlements are relatively well versation 2018). But it can be said that it cannot be connected, but the quality of the roads is highly considered a direct interference with internal affairs debatable. The backbone route is the road between of the Republic of Somaliland as it is the case with Hargeisa and Garoowe. For distribution of settle- Russia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That is ments and the quality of connection only 1 point why the internal evaluation criterion of governance can be granted. The last criterion covers the armed is also set at value of 2. Since 1994 the Republic forces. The Republic of Somaliland has managed of Somaliland has been issuing its own currency to form its own armed forces securing the safety of Somaliland shilling. In the year 1995 it became of the claimed territory. Question is whether they the only legal tender, while the Somali shilling lost would be able to oppose the Somali army if the this status (Central Bank of Somaliland 2018). The Federal Republic of Somalia wasn’t a deviant state independence the Republic of Somaliland on the and hadn’t the worst results of functionality evalua- former sovereign is evident also in monetary policy, tion. The analysis of the ‘fragile state index’, created and so it achieved the full amount of points in this every year by the Fund for Peace, can corroborate criterion according to the methodology. The Uni- this statement. Despite the fact that Somalia doesn’t fying Element criterion shows a different situation recognize existence of the Republic of Somaliland, for the clan-based feature of the territory, signifi - it is unable to eliminate it by force. The last evidence cant as it may seem, is not regarded as important can be found in the database of the University of as the Republic of Somaliland strives to promote Uppsala ‘Confl ict Data Program’ which registers democracy, declaring a ban on discrimination on minimum of incidents between the Federal Repub- the basis of clan/tribe kinship. Not even other lic of Somalia and the Republic of Somaliland since traits can be considered unifying as both the lan- 2001. It is safe to conclude that the Republic of guage and religion is the same on both entities. The Somaliland is able to secure its own territory at the main grounds are the stability of the territory and expense of the former sovereign, gaining 2 points different history, but these are already considered for this criterion. in previous evaluation criteria. Points cannot be granted for ethnicity either. The composition of The last part deals with fi ndings gained from the the population is nearly identical to the population table 3 and the fi gure 3, for the closer analysis of the of the former sovereign. Unifying element criterion internal and external criteria allows for observation therefore rests at 0 points. The data from the World of several interesting facts. Population Review were used for the evaluation of core areas. According to the data available only Firstly, the lowest level of fulfi lling the criteria is one core area exists near the capital Hargeisa, but it achieved by Azawad by just a 35 %. Azawad was has population over 500,000, which is over 3 % of a short-lasting entity in desert regions of Mali and Somali population (fi gure 2). With the methodology which existence was suppressed with help of the selected full two points are granted for core areas. international community, notably France. It wasn’t The visual representation of the area of infl uence able neither to create governance nor to establish criteria can be seen on the fi gure 2, too. Only minor itself in the political-geographical space in the

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 77

Table 3 List and classifi cation of unrecognized state entities including the application of internal and external evaluation criteria. Source: own processing. uence fl Governance Duration of existence History Core areas Unifying element Monetary Policy Armed forces Nationality and ethnicity Area of in Infrastructure, populated places distribution Internal criteria evaluation (%) External evaluation criteria ** ofType unrecognized state entity *** Abkhazia 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 65 R/G G Aceh 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 55 NO W Anjouan 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 50 NO E Azawad 002010220035NOE Cabinda 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 50 NO E Casamance 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 45 NO W Democratic Federation 200210122260NOW of Northern Syria Donetsk People’s Republic 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 50 R/G P Iraqi Kurdistan (Bashur) 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 60 NO W Islamic Emirate of 222212200170NOW Afghanistan Islamic State of Iraq 200222200155NOW and the Levant Jubaland (Azavia) * 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 65 NO W Luhansk People’s Republic 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 45 R/G P Maakhir state of Somalia 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 40 NO E Nagorno-Karabakh 120120022155R/GP (Artsakh) Pridnestrovian Moldavian 120211002150R/GP Republic Puntland state of Somalia * 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 45 NO E Republic of China 222212022285R/GG (Taiwan) Republic of Kosovo 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 80 I S Republic of Somaliland 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 65 NO W Sahrawi Arab Democratic 120200020140IT Republic South Ossetia 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 55 R/G P State of Palestine 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 60 I T Tamil Eelam 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 55 NO E Turkish Republic of 222020022270R/GG Northern Cyprus * Possible re-affi liation to the parental state. ** Regional/global power (R/G), international community (I). *** Ephemeral unrecognized state entities (E), unrecognized state entities without external support (W), puppet unrecognized state entities (P), guaranteed unrecognized state entities (G), unrecognized state entities with territorial dispute (T), unrecognized state entities with the right to self-determination (S).

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 78 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century

21st century. Still it gained points for the ability to can be supposed in concordance with the table 2. At oppose the army of the former sovereign, which the same time, it can be stated that, based on facts wasn’t able to suppress it on its own, for secession above, the borderline of the fulfi lment degree of of historical regions and a different ethnicity and internal evaluation criteria is very thin indeed. language of the population. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which operated Secondly, nearly even number of unrecognized on the territory of the former state and used its states fulfi lling the criteria up to 50 % (10) and over resources, the Republic of Kosovo, which is sup- 50 % (15). As can be seen on the fi gure 3 mostly the ported for a long time by a great portion of the unrecognized state entities with a score of 55 % (5) international community despite unresolved rela- contributed to that. Mainly these are newly formed tions with its former sovereign, Turkish Republic entities in an emptied political space of the Syr- of Northern Cyprus whose is supported by Turk- ian Arab Republic, which was caused by the civil ish republic, and the Republic of China – Taiwan war. Kurdish areas exploited the situation as they whose existence is guaranteed by the United States declared their independence, which they pondered of America but is also slowly losing its status in the for a long time, simultaneously. political space in favour of the People’s Republic of China, showed to be internally most stable entities, Thirdly, it is important to say that a large number of having between 70 %, and 85 %. 60 % of unrecognized state entities are at the edge of internally functional and non-functioning. The After analysis of external evaluation criteria similar interval between 45–60 % can be considered a tran- results are obtained as with the internal ones. There sitional one considering its proximity to the border are 14 entities of interest without any support and of 50 %. For all the entities of interest falling into 11 entities of interest get the support from various this interval a possible shift to either category of external parties. After closer examination of entities

No external support 4

3 Support by regional/global 2 power Number ofentities

1 Support by international community of 0 states 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Internal criteria [%]

Figure 3 Number of entities based on internal and external evaluation criteria. Source: own processing.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 79 with external support a substantial disproportion the decline of the ephemeral unrecognized state can be noted between entities with support of the entities between 2009 and 2010. On the other hand, international community (3) and entities with sup- a rise in numbers of puppet unrecognized state enti- port of a regional or a global power (8). One of the ties occurred between 2013 and 2014. At present main supporters of unrecognized state entities is the political-geographical space contains only one the Russian Federation supporting 5 of these. ephemeral unrecognized state entity – the Puntland State of Somalia, but which does not reject the pos- On the basis of the facts it may seem that ephemeral sibility of rejoining the Federal Republic of Somalia entities or entities without external support would in the future. In 2018 the Islamic State of Iraq and be prevalent in the political-geographical space. Syria fall into the category of ephemeral unrecog- In fact, it is the opposite, as the ﬁ gure 4 showing nized state entities, too, as it lost nearly all of its unrecognized state entities in given categories in the territory. This article, however, operates with maxi- political-geographical space since 2001 to present mum internal functionality attained, so it is consid- demonstrates. The high variability of the number ered as unrecognized state entity without external of entities is signiﬁ cant. This is caused mainly by support.

Number of Unrecognized state entities by type 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year

Unrecognized state entities with the right to self-determination Unrecognized state entities with territorial dispute Guaranteed unrecognized state entities Puppet unrecognized state entities Unrecognized state entities without external support Ephemeral unrecognized state entities

Figure 4 Number of unrecognized state entities by types since 2001 Source: own processing.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 80 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century

CONCLUSION Acknowledgement

Unrecognized state entities exist in the political- The research was supported by the specifi c geographical space for decades. But the interna- research project of the Masaryk University tional community ignores them most of the time, MUNI/A/1576/2018 Komplexní výzkum geogra- leaving no way to deal with their situation. The aim fi ckého prostředí planety Země. of this article is to introduce internal and external evaluation criteria which could be used as a basis for References uniform typology of such entities by doing it to lay foundations for scholarly discussion with a goal to A/RES/15/1514 1960: Declaration on the granting of resolve their status. independence to colonial countries and peoples (https:// www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514. Since 2001 as much as 25 unrecognized state enti- pdf), accessed: 2018-11-24. ties emerged within the political-geographical Anderson, L. 2012: Reintegrating unrecognized space, which the table 3 shows along with the ful- states: internationalizing frozen confl icts. In fi lment of the evaluation criteria. Based on those Caspersen, N., Stansfi eld, G. eds. Unrecognized the unrecognized state entities were divided into States in the International System. Routledge, Lon- created categories. With the internal functionality in don, 183–206. mind a borderline of meeting all the internal evalu- Bartmann, B. 2004: Political realities and legal ation criteria was set at 50 %. This borderline was anomalies. Revisiting the politics of interna- achieved by 15 entities of interest, and it is these tional recognition. In Bahcheli, T., Bartmann, entities that should be the focus of the international B., Srebrnik, H. eds. De Facto States: The quest for community to constructively deal with the question sovereignty. Routledge, London, 12–31. of their possible independence. Berg, E., Toomla, R. 2009: Forms of Normalisa- tion in the Quest for De Facto Statehood. The From the angle of external evaluation criteria an International Spectator 44 (4), 27–45. attention should be payed especially to entities Caspersen, N. 2009: Playing the Recognition already supported by the international community. Game: External Actors and De Facto States. In some cases, an offi cial support was stated but in International Spectator 44 (4), 47–60. reality the entities haven’t received any or just a lit- Caspersen, N. 2012: Unrecognized states: the struggle tle tangible support. From the angle of support by for sovereignty in the modern international system. Pol- regional or global powers the situation is nebulous. ity Press, Cambridge. On one hand thanks to external support unrecog- Central Bank of Somaliland 2018: Our ser- nized stated entities can prevail in space, but with vices (http://bankofsomaliland.net/services/), the conclusion of this work sovereignty and inde- accessed 2018–12–17. pendence should be granted to said entities as it was Cooper, R. 2000: The post modern state and the word mostly one-sidedly declared and the entities cre- order. Demos, London. ated arbitrarily. The unrecognized state entities with Dent, M. J. 2004: Identity Politics: Filling the Gap internal functionality but without external support Between Federalism and Independence. Routledge, should enter a dialogue with their former sovereign London. under the supervision of the international commu- Geldenhuys, D. 2009: Contested States in World Poli- nity as the entity in question has proved its viability tics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. to survive in space and to create functional internal Glassner, M. I., De Blij, H. J. 1988: Systematic structure. political geography. Wiley, New York. Herbst, J. 2000: States and power in Africa: compara- tive lessons in authority and control. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 81

Independent 2008: The Big Question: Why are so Riegl, M. 2010: Quasi-states terminology. Acta many countries opposed to Kosovo gainingitsindepend- Politologica 2 (1), 57–71. ence? (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ Riegl, M. 2013: Proměny politické mapy po roce 1945. world/europe/the-big-question-why-are-so- Grada, Praha. many-countries-opposed-to-kosovo-gain- Rotberg, R. I. 2004: Weak and Failinig States: Criti- ing-its-independence-783977.html), accessed cal New Security Issues. Turkish Policy Quarterly 2018-06-15. 4 (3), 1–12. Jackson, R. H. 1993: Quasi-states: sovereignty, inter- Somaliland law 2017: The State of Somaliland An national relations, and the Third World. Cambridge Independent State and its Laws -June 1960 (http:// University Press, Cambridge. www.somalilandlaw.com/state_of_somali- King, C. 2001: The Benefi ts of Ethnic War: Under- land_1960.html), accessed: 2018-12-16. standing Eurasia’s Unrecognized States. World Sørensen, G. 2005: Stát a mezinárodní vztahy. Portál, Politics 53 (4), 524–552. Praha. Kingston, P. 2004: States-Within-States: Histori- Spears, I. S. 2004: States-Within-States: An Intro- cal and Theoretical Perspectives. In Kingston, duction to Their Empirical Attributes. In King- P., Spears, I. S. eds. States Within States: Incipient ston, P., Spears, I. S. eds. States Within States: Political Entities in the Post-Cold War Era. Palgrave Incipient Political Entities in the Post-Cold War Era. Macmillan, New York, 1–14. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 15–34. Kolossov, V. 2001: A Small State vs a Self-pro- Stanislawski, B. 2008: Para-States, Quasi States, claimed Republic: Nation-Building, Territorial and Black Spots: Perhaps Not States, But Not Identities and Perspectives of Confl ict Resolu- “Ungoverned Territories,” Either. International tion (the Case of Moldova Transdniestria). In Studies Review 10 (2), 366–396. Bianchini, S. ed. From the Adriatic to the Cauca- The Conversation 2018: How an Ethiopia- sus: The Dynamics of (De)stabilization. Longo Edi- backed port is changing power dynamics in the tore, Ravenna, 87–114. Horn of Africa (http://theconversation.com/ Kolossov, V., O’Loughlin, J. 1999: Pseudo-States how-an-ethiopia-backed-port-is-changing- as Harbingers of a New Geopolitics: The power-dynamics-in-the-horn-of-africa-93308), Example of the Transdniestr Moldovan Repub- accessed: 2018-11-26. lic (TMR). In Newman, D. ed. Boundaries, Ter- The Guardian 2008a: Serbia refuses to accept Koso- ritory and Post-modernity. Frank Cass, London, vo’s imminent secession (https://www.theguard- 151–176. ian.com/world/2008/feb/14/kosovo.russia), Kolstø, P. 2006: The Sustainability and Future accessed 2018-05-22. of Unrecognized Quasi-States. Journal of peace The Guardian 2018b: When is a nation not a nation? research 43 (6), 723–740. Somaliland’s dream of independence (https://www. Lynch, D. 2004: Engaging Eurasia’s separatist states: theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/20/when-is- unresolved confl icts and de facto states. United States a-nation-not-a-nation-somalilands-dream-of- Institute of Peace, Washington D.C. independence), accessed 2018-11-26. McGarry, J. et al. 2004: Foreword: De facto states UNSOM 2018: United Nations Assistance Mission and the international order. In Bahcheli, T., in Somalia (https://unsom.unmissions.org/ Bartmann, B., Srebrnik, H. De Facto States: offi ce-locations), accessed: 2018-11-15. The quest for sovereignty. Routledge, London ix–xi. Zartman, W. 1995: Collapsed States: The Disintegra- Pegg, S. 1998: International Society and the De Facto tion and Restoration of Legitimace Autority. Rienner State. Routledge, London. Publishers, Colorado. Podhrázský, Š. 2018: Unrecognized state entities Zaidi, I. H. 1966: Towards a Measure of the Func- in the (geo)political space of the 21st century, tional Effectiveness of a State: The Case of Useful Geography: Transfer from Research to Practice. West Pakistan. Annals of the Association of Ameri- Muni PRESS, Brno, 506–514. can Geographers 56 (1), 24–40.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 82 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century

Résumé společenství od konce druhé světové války princip teritoriální integrity, jež prakticky zamezuje vzniku Neuznané státní útvary – hodnocení nových států bez souhlasu původního suveréna, vznikajících států ve 21. století avšak tento souhlas je udělován jen velmi zřídka. Výsledkem je existence neuznaných státních útvarů Svět nikdy nebyl rozdělen mezi unifi kované státy, v politickém vakuu bez možnosti konstruktivního jak by se mohlo z politických map zdát. Jednotlivé řešení jejich statusu. Článek poskytuje podklad pro státy se vždy potýkaly s vnitřními i vnějšími pro- odbornou diskuzi nad budoucím stavem neuznaných blémy a řada z nich nebyla schopna zabezpečit státních útvarů s možností udělení statusu suverén- základní služby, které jsou pro stát charakteristické. ních států, založenou na kvalitativních datech. Zejména v období studené války byla existence řady států přímo závislá na podpoře jedné ze supervel- Základem vytvořené terminologie prezentované mocí. Na úkor těchto „dysfunkčních“ států vzni- v článku je kombinace vnitřních a vnějších hodno- kaly v politicko-geografi ckém prostoru nové entity, tících kritérií. Cílem vnitřních hodnotících kritérií je které nejenže usilovaly o nabytí statusu státu, ale co nejlépe vystihnout funkčnost útvarů. Ačkoliv se v mnoha případech dokázaly být funkčnější než obdobnou problematikou na úrovni států poměrně původní suverén, který si území nárokoval. Těmto úspěšně věnuje organizace The Fund for Peace, která tzv. „neuznaným státním útvarům“ nebyla až na využívá souboru ekonomických, sociálních a poli- výjimky věnována přílišná pozornost, a to až do tických kritérií, je třeba pro neuznané státní útvary rozpadu bipolárního světa. Na konci 20. století se vytvořit soubor kritérií vlastních. Nově vzniklé zájem akademické obce pomalu přesunul k „dys- entity málokdy respektují hranice administrativních funkčním“ státům a spolu s nimi i k neuznaným jednotek a statistické databáze lze tedy využít jen státním útvarům. Především na počátku 21. sto- v omezené míře. Zároveň se často jedná o nestabilní letí vznikla řada kvalitních prací na téma neuzna- a měnící se regiony, kde běžně sledované statistiky ných státních útvarů, o něž se zasloužili výzkumníci rychle zastarávají. Výsledkem je vytvoření vlastního z řad sociologů, politologů a politických geografů. ověřitelného souboru kritérií s vypovídající schop- Problematika však byla uchopena nekoncepčně ností o vnitřní funkčnosti. Naopak vnější hodnotící a terminologie se postupně stala nesystematickou, kritéria refl ektují vztah neuznaných státních útvarů nepřehlednou, ba přímo zmatenou. vůči vnějším aktérům, zejména vůči regionálním/ globálním mocnostem a mezinárodnímu společen- Neuznané státní útvary představují entity vyskytující ství států. Uvedení vnější aktéři se mohou přímo se v politicko-geografi ckém prostoru vzniklé proce- podílet a ovlivňovat vznik, vývoj a popřípadě zapří- sem secese, tedy vydělením z již existujících států bez činit zánik jednotlivých neuznaných státních útvarů. jejich souhlasu a usilující o vlastní nezávislost. Nej- Kombinace vnitřních a vnějších hodnotících kritérií častěji se objevují v prostoru dysfunkčních států, jež dala vzniknout jednotné terminologii, jež refl ektuje mají problémy s vlastní existencí a nejsou schopny specifi ka jednotlivých neuznaných státních útvarů. potlačit rebelující regiony. Není však výjimkou vznik takovéto entity v rámci relativně funkčního a stabil- Ačkoliv některé ze zkoumaných entit vykazují velmi ního státu za přispění vnějších aktérů, kteří mohou vysoké hodnoty naplnění vnitřních hodnotících kri- sledovat vlastní geopolitické zájmy. V současnosti térií a disponují z tohoto pohledu potenciálem pro nepanuje jednotný názor, jak k takto vzniklým enti- transformování v suverénní státy, je nutné přistupo- tám přistupovat. Na jednu stranu jsou mnohé útvary vat k jednotlivým útvarům individuálně. Výsledkem funkčnější než jejich původní suverén. Příkladem tohoto článku je možnost srovnat neuznané státní budiž Somaliland, který představuje v prostoru dys- útvary napříč politickým prostorem a přispět tak funkčního Somálska ostrov relativní stability a bez- dalším argumentem do probíhající diskuze o jejich pečnosti. Na stranu druhou dodržuje mezinárodní budoucím statusu.

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83 Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century 83

Article received July 29, 2018 Accepted for publication December 10, 2018

Please cite this article as: Podhrázský, Š. 2019: Unrecognised state entities – evaluation of emerging states in the 21st century. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, Facultas Rerum Naturalium, Geographica 48 (1–2), 61–83.

Article available on-line at http://geography.upol.cz/xxx

AUPO Geographica Vol. 48 No. 1–2, 2019, pp. 61–83