An existing state, an old state that has vanished and reappears, or the division of an existing state into two States are all ways that new states are created. It is crucial to obtain recognition as a state if a new state possesses specific rights, privileges, and obligations. But before a State is regarded as a State, there are a few minimal requirements. For a State to be regarded as a sovereign State, it must first obtain De Jure recognition (when a state is acknowledged legally). Whether to award recognition or not depends in large part on political philosophy. It must establish relations with the other States in existence in order to be recognized as a State.

The word “Recognition” refers to the ratification, confirmation, or acknowledgement that something done in one’s name by another person was legitimate.Recognizing an entity does not only mean that it has met the necessary criteria; it also means that the state doing the recognizing will interact with the entity being recognized and grant it the privileges and immunities that are typically associated with recognition under domestic law. Therefore, it is asserted that political viewpoints rather than legal justifications typically determine whether something is recognized or not. It is appropriate because it serves the interests of the State to establish relations with a foreign State and grant her some privileges. As a result, when States decide whether to recognize something, they will undoubtedly assess its benefits and drawbacks.

Definition:

“In recognizing a state as a member of international community, the existing states declare that in their opinion the new state fulfills the conditions off statehood as required by International law” (Oppenheim)

Is there a duty to acknowledge? According to Lauterpacht and Guggenheim, acknowledgment is not only required but also constitutive. This point of view has drawn criticism for being inconsistent and having no connection to state practice. In the words of Browlie, “recognition is an optional and political act and there is no duty in this regard.”

Essentials for recognition as a state under Public International Law

Under the International Law, Article 1 of the Montevideo Conference, 1933 defines the state as a person and lays down following essentials that an entity should possess in order to acquire recognition as a state:

• Population;
• Territory;
• Government;
• Sovereignty;
• Control should tend towards permanency.

If these conditions are fulfilled, then the State can be recognized

Theories of recognition

The recognition of a new entity as a sovereign state is based on two main theories:

1. Consecutive Theory

According to the sequential theory of state recognition in international law, a state must be acknowledged as a sovereign by all other states in order for it to be regarded as an international person. According to the subsequent conception of state recognition in international law, a State only acquires the status of an international person and becomes subject to international law after being recognized. Therefore, unless an entity is recognized by the existing States, even though it exhibits all the qualities of a state, it does not acquire the status of an international person.

Criticism of the consecutive theory of state recognition in International Law

This theory has been criticised by several jurists. Few of the criticisms of this theory are:

• This theory is criticised because unless a state is recognised by other existing states, rights, duties and obligations of statehood community under International Law is not applicable to it.
• This theory also leads to confusion when a new state is acknowledged and recognised by some of the existing states and not recognised by other states.

2. Declaratory Theory

In support of the Declaratory Theory of Statehood, Wigner, Hall, Fisher, and Brierly are the leading figures. This theory holds that any new state can form without the approval of any current states. According to Article 3 of the Montevideo Conference from 1933, this hypothesis has been established. According to this theory, a new state’s existence is independent of whether or not it is acknowledged by an older one. Under international law, a new state has the right to preserve its integrity and independence even before being acknowledged by other governments.

Criticism of the declaratory theory of state recognition in International Law

The declaratory theory of statehood has also been criticised. This declaratory theory of state recognition in International Law has been criticised on the ground that this theory alone cannot be applicable for recognition of a state. When a state having essential characteristics comes into existence as a state, it can exercise international rights and obligations and here comes the application of declaratory theory, but when other states acknowledge its existence and the state gets the legal rights of recognition, the consecutive theory comes into play.

Modes of Recognition of State in International Law

1. De facto Recognition.
2. De jure Recognition.

These are the two modes of recognition of State in International Law.

 De facto Recognition of States under International Law

It is the process of acknowledging a new state by a non-committal act.

• De facto recognition is a provisionally grant.
• It is the first step to the next mode of recognition.
• It is a temporary and factual recognition as a state
• It can either be conditional or without any condition.
• A test of control for newly formed states.

When the other existing countries have an opinion that the new state does not have enough capacity but the new state holds a sufficient territory and control over a particular territory.

Example: The Soviet Union was de facto recognized by the government of the UK in 1921

De jure recognition of States under International Law

When the other existing countries have an opinion that the new state has all the eligible capacity then such state will be recognized by the de jure recognition. To grant recognition under the de jure method there is no need for the fulfillment of the first mode.

• It is granted when the newly formed state acquires permanent stability and statehood.
• It grants the permanent status of a newborn state as a sovereign state.

Example: The Soviet Union was given de jure recognition Soviet Union was in 1924.

In conclusion, there is no distinction between de facto and de jure as it is for the states to give effect to the internal acts of the recognized authority. This was held in the case Luther v. Sagar . [(1921)3 KB 532]

The distinction between De Facto and De Jure Recognition of State in International Law

S.No.	De facto Recognition of State	De jure Recognition of State
1.	De facto recognition is a provisional and factual recognition.	De jure recognition is legal recognition.
2.	De facto recognition is granted when there is the fulfilment of the essential conditions of statehood.	De jure recognition is granted when the state fulfils all the essential condition of states along with sufficient control and permanency.
3.	De facto recognition is a primary step towards grant of de jure recognition.	De jure recognition can be granted either with or without grant of de facto recognition.
4.	De facto recognition can either be conditional or non-conditional.	De jure recognition is a final and non-conditional recognition
5.	De facto recognition is revocable in nature.	De jure recognition is non-revocable.
6.	The states recognised under this mode have only a few rights and obligations against other states.	The state recognised under this mode have the absolute right and obligations against other states.
7.	The state with de facto cannot undergo state succession.	The state with de jure recognition can under state succession.
8.	The state with de facto recognition cannot enjoy full diplomatic immunities.	The state with de jure recognition enjoys full diplomatic immunities.

Conclusion

A necessary step for a state to take use of all the rights associated with statehood under international law is state recognition. Different jurists have argued for and against the Consecutive Theory and Declaratory Theory of Recognition, but we can infer that the theory used for recognition is somewhere between the two.

De jure or de facto, the recognition confers rights, privileges, and obligations. De jure recognition confers absolute rights, liabilities, and privileges on a state; de facto recognition confers only limited rights, privileges, and duties. There are too many political influences coming from the state’s recognition on the global stage.

There are numerous examples of powerful states putting up barriers to a newly constituted state being recognized. When the recognizing state believes the new state does not meet the requirements to be a sovereign state, withdrawal may even be an option. The modes of recognition, i.e., de facto and de jure recognition, vary from situation to case and can be done in either an express form or an implicit form.