imiМеждународная аналитикаJournal of International Analytics2587-84762541-9633MGIMO University10.46272/2587-8476-2020-11-3-22-34imi-293Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЕ СТАТЬИRESEARCH ARTICLESДвойные стандарты международного признания: право против мощи?Double Standards of International Recognition: Right vs. Might?ИсаченкоД. В.IsachenkoD. V.

Дарья Васильевна Исаченко, доктор философии, научный сотрудник

Людвигкирхплац 3-4, 10719 Берлин

Daria V. Isachenko, Dr. Phil., Researcher

Ludwigkirchplatz 3-4, 10719 Berlin

daria.isachenko@swp-berlin.orgЦентр прикладных исследований Турции (CATS) немецкого Института международных отношений и безопасности (SWP)ГерманияCentre for Applied Turkey Studies (CATS) of the German Institute for International and Security Aff airs (SWP)Germany2020301220201132234Copyright © Исаченко Д.В., 20202020Исаченко Д.В.Isachenko D.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.interanalytics.org/jour/article/view/293

Почему одни государства получают признание, а другим отказывают в этой привилегии? В данной статье рассматривается логика, лежащая в основе непоследовательности и противоречивости применения стандартов государственности к непризнанным де-факто государствам. Когда речь идет о практике государственного признания, как подчеркивается в статье, это становится не только предметом политики великих держав. Вопрос даже не в том, заслужило ли государство суверенитет и, следовательно, имеет ли оно законное право на международное признание. Вместо этого нормы признания государства лучше понимать как отражение баланса сил в международном порядке, а не как руководящий принцип оценки притязаний на государственность. Центральное место в этом балансе занимает понимание, соответствует ли право силе, и наоборот. Если такой баланс отсутствует, то мы наблюдаем то, что считается двойными стандартами в практике международного признания. Теоретическая основа статьи связана с идеей Баруха Спинозы о том, что право сосуществует с властью. Исходя из этого тезиса в статье показано, что проблема заключается не в несогласованности норм, регулирующих международное признание, а в отсутствии необходимого равновесия между силой и правом для обеспечения универсальной применимости этих норм. Этот аргумент иллюстрируется рядом примеров реализации права на самоопределение, которое было предоставлено народам бывших колоний в период холодной войны, а также признанием Косова под руководством США, за которым последовало признание Россией Южной Осетии и Абхазии в 2008 г. В статье показано, что практика международного признания обусловлена глобальным контекстом и зависит от степени согласия держав относительно того, как решать локальные проблемы. Ключевой тезис, выдвинутый в статье, заключается в том, что в конечном счете нет существенной концептуальной разницы между декларацией о предоставлении независимости колониальным странам и народам, которая ознаменовала переход от достижения эффективной государственности к окончательной независимости, и волной признания неколониальных случаев 2008 г. В обоих случаях очевидно, что нормы и их применение зависят от одной и той же логики взаимозависимости права и мощи.

Why do some states get recognized, while others are denied the privilege? This article examines the underlying logic behind the contingency and inconsistency in the application of statehood standards to unrecognized, de facto states. When it comes to the practice of state recognition, the article argues, it is not merely a question of Great Power politics. Nor is it a question of whether a state has earned sovereignty and thus has a legally rightful claim to international recognition. Instead, the norms of state recognition can be better understood as a reflection of the balance of powers in the international order, rather than being a guiding principle for assessing claims to statehood. Central to this balance is the question of whether right corresponds with might and vice versa. If such a balance is absent, we observe what are considered to be double standards in the practice of international recognition. The theoretical framework draws on Baruch Spinoza’s idea of right being coextensive with power. Based on this assumption, the article demonstrates that the problem is not the incoherence of norms regulating international recognition, but rather the absence of a necessary equilibrium between might and right to ensure the universal applicability of those norms. The argument is illustrated through a comparison of the right to self-determination that was granted to peoples in former colonies during the Cold War period and the US-led recognition of Kosovo, followed by Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008. The article shows that the practice of international recognition is conditional on global responses to particular concerns and circumstances. It is thus contingent on the degree to which powers agree as to how to address these concerns. The key suggestion put forward in the article is that, ultimately, there is no significant conceptual difference between the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples that marked the shift from the achievement of eff ective statehood to eventual independence and the 2008 wave of recognitions for non-colonial cases. Both show that norms and their enforcement depend on the same logic of right and power being mutually constitutive.

Признание государствдвойные стандартымеждународный порядокде-факто государстванепризнанные государстваState recognitiondouble standardsinternational orderde facto statesunrecognized statesState recognitiondouble standardsinternational orderde facto statesunrecognized statesReferencesBerg, Eiki. “Re-Examining Sovereignty Claims in Changing Territorialities: Reflections from ‘Kosovo Syndrome’.” Geopolitics 14, no. 2 (2009): 219–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040802693473.Berg, Eiki. “Re-Examining Sovereignty Claims in Changing Territorialities: Reflections from ‘Kosovo Syndrome’.” Geopolitics 14, no. 2 (2009): 219–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650040802693473.Broers, Laurence. “Recognising Politics in Unrecognised States: 20 Years of Enquiry into the De Facto States of the South Caucasus.” Caucasus Survey 1, no. 1 (2013): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2013.11417283.Broers, Laurence. “Recognising Politics in Unrecognised States: 20 Years of Enquiry into the De Facto States of the South Caucasus.” Caucasus Survey 1, no. 1 (2013): 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761199.2013.11417283.Buchanan, Allen. “Theories of Secession.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26, no. 1 (1997): 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00049.x.Buchanan, Allen. “Theories of Secession.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26, no. 1 (1997): 31–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00049.x.Caspersen, Nina. Unrecognized States: The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Modern International System. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.Caspersen, Nina. Unrecognized States: The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Modern International System. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.Coggins, Bridget. Power Politics and State Formation in the Twentieth Century: The Dynamics of Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107239050.Coggins, Bridget. Power Politics and State Formation in the Twentieth Century: The Dynamics of Recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107239050.Curley, Edwin. “Kissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis Khan.” In The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, Edited by Don Garrett. Reprint, 315–42. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.Curley, Edwin. “Kissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis Khan.” In The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, Edited by Don Garrett. Reprint, 315–42. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.Dembinska, Magdalena, and Aurélie Campana. “Frozen Conflicts and Internal Dynamics of De Facto States: Perspectives and Directions for Research.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 254–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix010.Dembinska, Magdalena, and Aurélie Campana. “Frozen Conflicts and Internal Dynamics of De Facto States: Perspectives and Directions for Research.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 254–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix010.Evans, Graham, and Jeffrey Newnham. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. Penguin Books, 1998.Evans, Graham, and Jeffrey Newnham. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. Penguin Books, 1998.Fabry, Mikulas. “The Evolution of State Recognition.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 37–47. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Fabry, Mikulas. “The Evolution of State Recognition.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 37–47. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Fabry, Mikulas. Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States Since 1776. 1. publ. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564446.001.0001.Fabry, Mikulas. Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States Since 1776. 1. publ. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564446.001.0001.Garrett, Don, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.Garrett, Don, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.Geldenhuys, Deon. Contested States in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.Geldenhuys, Deon. Contested States in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.Gunter, Michael. “Self-Determination in the Recent Practice of the United Nations.” World Affairs 137, no. 2 (1974): 150–65.Gunter, Michael. “Self-Determination in the Recent Practice of the United Nations.” World Affairs 137, no. 2 (1974): 150–65.Gunter, Michael. “Self-Determination or Territorial Integrity: The United Nations in Confusion.” World Affairs 141, no. 3 (1979): 203–16.Gunter, Michael. “Self-Determination or Territorial Integrity: The United Nations in Confusion.” World Affairs 141, no. 3 (1979): 203–16.Isachenko, Daria. “Transdniestria and Northern Cyprus.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 446–57. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Isachenko, Daria. “Transdniestria and Northern Cyprus.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 446–57. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Isachenko, Daria. The Making of Informal States: Statebuilding in Northern Cyprus and Transdniestria. Rethinking Peace and Confl ict Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; Imprint; Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.Isachenko, Daria. The Making of Informal States: Statebuilding in Northern Cyprus and Transdniestria. Rethinking Peace and Confl ict Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; Imprint; Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Jackson, Robert H. Quasi-States Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Kurtulus, Ersun N. State Sovereignty: Concept Phenomenon and Ramifications. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=308155.Kurtulus, Ersun N. State Sovereignty: Concept Phenomenon and Ramifications. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kxp/detail.action?docID=308155.Navaro-Yashin, Yael. “Legal/illegal Counterpoints: Subjecthood and Subjectivity in an Unrecognized State.” In Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements, edited by Richard Ashby Wilson, Jon P. Mitchell, 71–92. London / New York: Routledge, 2003.Navaro-Yashin, Yael. “Legal/illegal Counterpoints: Subjecthood and Subjectivity in an Unrecognized State.” In Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements, edited by Richard Ashby Wilson, Jon P. Mitchell, 71–92. London / New York: Routledge, 2003.Newman, Edward, and Gëzim Visoka. “The European Union’s Practice of State Recognition: Between Norms and Interests.” Review of International Studies 44, no. 4 (2018): 760–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000104.Newman, Edward, and Gëzim Visoka. “The European Union’s Practice of State Recognition: Between Norms and Interests.” Review of International Studies 44, no. 4 (2018): 760–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000104.Newman, Edward. “State Recognition in a Transitional International Order.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 109–122. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Newman, Edward. “State Recognition in a Transitional International Order.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 109–122. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Ó Beacháin, Donnacha. “Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Ó Beacháin, Donnacha. “Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020., Österud, Öyvind. “The Narrow Gate: Entry to the Club of Sovereign States.” Review of International Studies 23, no. 2 (1997): 167–84., Österud, Öyvind. “The Narrow Gate: Entry to the Club of Sovereign States.” Review of International Studies 23, no. 2 (1997): 167–84.Pegg, Scott. International Society and the De Facto States. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.Pegg, Scott. International Society and the De Facto States. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.Ryngaert, Cedric, and Sven Sobrie. “Recognition of States: International Law or Realpolitik? The Practice of Recognition in the Wake of Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.” Leiden Journal of International Law 24, no. 2 (2011): 467–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000100.Ryngaert, Cedric, and Sven Sobrie. “Recognition of States: International Law or Realpolitik? The Practice of Recognition in the Wake of Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.” Leiden Journal of International Law 24, no. 2 (2011): 467–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000100.Spinoza, Benedict de, and R. H. M. Elwes. A Theologico-Political Treatise and a Political Treatise. New edition. Dover Philosophical Classics. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover, 1951.Spinoza, Benedict de, and R. H. M. Elwes. A Theologico-Political Treatise and a Political Treatise. New edition. Dover Philosophical Classics. Mineola, N.Y.: Dover, 1951.van der Wal, G. A. “Spinoza and the Idea of Reason of State.” Studia Spinozana: An International and Interdisciplinary Series 1, no. 303 (1985): 275–304.van der Wal, G. A. “Spinoza and the Idea of Reason of State.” Studia Spinozana: An International and Interdisciplinary Series 1, no. 303 (1985): 275–304.Visoka, Gëzim, John Doyle, and Edward Newman, eds. Routledge Handbook of State Recognition. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Visoka, Gëzim, John Doyle, and Edward Newman, eds. Routledge Handbook of State Recognition. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Visoka, Gëzim. “Kosovo.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 402–16. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Visoka, Gëzim. “Kosovo.” In Routledge Handbook of State Recognition, edited by Gëzim Visoka, John Doyle and Edward Newman, 402–16. London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020.Visoka, Gëzim. Acting Like a State: Kosovo and the Everyday Making of Statehood. Interventions. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.Visoka, Gëzim. Acting Like a State: Kosovo and the Everyday Making of Statehood. Interventions. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.