{"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":"64 16","pages":""},"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.
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.