There is no binding definition of criteria for statehood for all members of the international community. In practice, the criteria are mainly political and not legal. [20] S.C. The declaration of fulfilling certain essential conditions for statehood, as required by international law. International law contains two theories of recognition. The constitutive theory of recognition states that a State does not exist until it is recognized. In contrast, the declaratory theory of recognition asserts that a State exists without recognition, which is merely a recognition of an existing situation. Declaratory theory has become the dominant point of view. However, an entity is likely to have a stronger claim to statehood if it has been recognized by many other states. This is particularly true when it comes to the ability to meet the criteria of the Montevideo Convention. The final confirmation of a State`s status shall be recognised as a Member State of the United Nations. According to Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, “all other peace-loving States which assume the obligations set forth in the present Charter and which, at the discretion of the Organization, are able and willing to fulfil those obligations”. Sovereignty took on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition of the threat or use of force as norms of ius cogens of modern international law.
The Charter of the United Nations, the draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States and the Statutes of regional international organizations express the view that all States are legally equal and enjoy the same rights and obligations merely because they exist as persons under international law. [10] [11] The right of nations to determine their own political status and to exercise permanent sovereignty within their territorial jurisdiction is widely recognized. [12] [13] [14] A “territory” in the context of international law includes a land area, internal waters, the territorial sea and the airspace above the territory. It is not necessary to establish strictly demarcated boundaries or to set a minimum area of land, but artificial settlements and uninhabitable areas cannot be considered sufficient territories to become a State. The term “permanent population” defines the community that intends to inhabit the area permanently and is able to support the superstructure of the state, although there is no minimum population. The government must be able to exercise effective control over territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as the “test of effective control”) and ensure the protection of fundamental human rights through legal methods and policies. The “ability to establish relations with other states” reflects the degree of independence of the company. [27] Current threats to the homogeneity of the “nation” and its role as a fundamental social cement for the political unity of the state emanate from both external and internal pressures. Until relatively recently, international movements of persons were very modest, but the current ease of international travel, combined with human rights restrictions on the return of immigrants to the countries from which they came, has led to an influx of people into some countries to such an extent that the “national” characteristics of the existing population have been diluted to such an extent.
And at such a rate that, whatever the economic, cultural and other benefits of these population movements, the sense of nation of the population is more difficult to maintain. This difficulty, in turn, makes it difficult in many cases to identify the nature of the State. The notion of the state has not only been complicated by such influxes of people that dilute the general homogeneity of the “people” under the authority of a ruler and undermine the common loyalty that a “people” owes to its ruler—the two foundations of the concepts of the nation that underpin the modern state—but there are people in many states. who live in the state but generally have homogeneous races. Own cultural and historical characteristics that differ from those of the sovereign and the majority of the population. In short, they live under a leader they consider alien to their own roots. Such a departure from the normal homogeneity of leaders and governed, which reflects a single nation, is likely sooner or later to lead to political instability and, in particular, to demands for self-determination. For now, however, these communities, despite any sense of alienation, continue to be part of the state that generally and for the most part represents that nation.
The ontological status of the state has been debated,[61] particularly whether or not the state actually exists as an object that no one can see, taste, touch, or otherwise recognize,[62] .