The International Recognition of Governments in Practice(s): Creatures, Mirages, and Dilemmas in Post-2011 Libya

IF 3.1 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Studies Review Pub Date : 2023-11-07 DOI:10.1093/isr/viad050
Irene Fernández-Molina
{"title":"The International Recognition of Governments in Practice(s): Creatures, Mirages, and Dilemmas in Post-2011 Libya","authors":"Irene Fernández-Molina","doi":"10.1093/isr/viad050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The international (non)recognition of governments is a composite macro practice that has grown in visibility in recent years in response to contentious domestic political processes such as coups d’état, revolutions, and civil wars, yet it remains understudied in international relations. Doctrinal debates in international law and foreign policy reveal the normative vacuum and normative competition that have long surrounded this phenomenon, but say little about its specific operation and effects. This article brings together insights from recognition theory and international practice theory, and uses post-2011 Libya as an in-depth case study, drawing on elite interviews with diplomats, international officials, and other practitioners. The aim is to sketch a new research agenda by building a generalizable typology of smaller-scale government recognition micro practices (declaratory, diplomatic, informal engagement, intergovernmental cooperation, and support practices), and uncovering their guiding logics and consequences. I argue that, first, the international (non)recognition of governments is endowed with a distinct generative power, as it produces its own creatures through a range of micro practices that have identity formation and change, material empowerment, political legitimation, and sovereignty line-drawing effects. Secondly, it is geopolitically inevitable, as external actors involved in a country cannot ultimately avoid engaging with territorially grounded domestic political actors. Thirdly, it is not a black-and-white situation, as it involves a broad variety of practices guided by different, often contradictory logics. Finally, international government recognition practices are likely to run into three dilemmas stemming from three tensions: international versus domestic recognition, legitimacy versus effectiveness, and coherence versus inclusivity in conflict mediation.","PeriodicalId":54206,"journal":{"name":"International Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viad050","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The international (non)recognition of governments is a composite macro practice that has grown in visibility in recent years in response to contentious domestic political processes such as coups d’état, revolutions, and civil wars, yet it remains understudied in international relations. Doctrinal debates in international law and foreign policy reveal the normative vacuum and normative competition that have long surrounded this phenomenon, but say little about its specific operation and effects. This article brings together insights from recognition theory and international practice theory, and uses post-2011 Libya as an in-depth case study, drawing on elite interviews with diplomats, international officials, and other practitioners. The aim is to sketch a new research agenda by building a generalizable typology of smaller-scale government recognition micro practices (declaratory, diplomatic, informal engagement, intergovernmental cooperation, and support practices), and uncovering their guiding logics and consequences. I argue that, first, the international (non)recognition of governments is endowed with a distinct generative power, as it produces its own creatures through a range of micro practices that have identity formation and change, material empowerment, political legitimation, and sovereignty line-drawing effects. Secondly, it is geopolitically inevitable, as external actors involved in a country cannot ultimately avoid engaging with territorially grounded domestic political actors. Thirdly, it is not a black-and-white situation, as it involves a broad variety of practices guided by different, often contradictory logics. Finally, international government recognition practices are likely to run into three dilemmas stemming from three tensions: international versus domestic recognition, legitimacy versus effectiveness, and coherence versus inclusivity in conflict mediation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政府在实践中的国际承认:2011年后利比亚的生物、幻影和困境
对政府的国际(不)承认是一种综合的宏观做法,近年来,随着政变、革命和内战等有争议的国内政治进程,这种做法的知名度越来越高,但在国际关系中,这种做法仍然研究不足。国际法和外交政策中的理论辩论揭示了长期以来围绕这一现象的规范真空和规范竞争,但很少提及其具体运作和影响。本文汇集了承认理论和国际实践理论的见解,并以2011年后的利比亚为深入案例研究,借鉴了对外交官、国际官员和其他从业者的精英采访。其目的是通过建立小规模政府承认微观实践(声明性、外交性、非正式参与、政府间合作和支持性实践)的可推广类型,并揭示其指导逻辑和后果,勾勒出一个新的研究议程。我认为,首先,国际(不)承认政府被赋予了独特的生成力,因为它通过一系列微观实践产生了自己的生物,这些微观实践具有身份形成和改变、物质赋权、政治合法化和主权划线效应。其次,这在地缘政治上是不可避免的,因为参与一个国家的外部行为者最终无法避免与基于领土的国内政治行为者接触。第三,这不是一个非黑即白的情况,因为它涉及到由不同的、往往是矛盾的逻辑指导的各种各样的实践。最后,国际政府承认做法可能会因三种紧张关系而陷入三个困境:国际承认与国内承认、合法性与有效性以及冲突调解的一致性与包容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The International Studies Review (ISR) provides a window on current trends and research in international studies worldwide. Published four times a year, ISR is intended to help: (a) scholars engage in the kind of dialogue and debate that will shape the field of international studies in the future, (b) graduate and undergraduate students understand major issues in international studies and identify promising opportunities for research, and (c) educators keep up with new ideas and research. To achieve these objectives, ISR includes analytical essays, reviews of new books, and a forum in each issue. Essays integrate scholarship, clarify debates, provide new perspectives on research, identify new directions for the field, and present insights into scholarship in various parts of the world.
期刊最新文献
More Women, Fewer Nukes? Why States Arm and Why, Sometimes, They Do So Together Introduction to the Presidential Special Issue Correction to: Review of Transnational Lawmaking Coalitions for Human Rights Toward IR’s “Fifth Debate”: Racial Justice and the National Interest in Classical Realism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1