If I were to ask you to name the world's de facto states, which would you list?
Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan, Somaliland, Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh?
What about Kurdistan, Scotland or the Donetsk People's Republic?
Perhaps you'd say all of them.
More probably, you'd just says some of them.
And what about the ones I didn't list?
In this video, I'm going to take a look at how we understand the term 'de-facto state'
and explain why it's so difficult to say exactly which territory should,
and shouldn't be thought of as de-facto states.
[MUSIC]
Hello. My name is James Ker-Lindsay.
Welcome to 'Independent Thinking'.
A channel dedicated to international relations, secession, independence and the origins of countries.
De facto States - otherwise known as 'contested states', 'unrecognized states' or 'partially recognized states' -
have become a source of fascination for those interested in international politics.
They exist on the very fringes of the international community;
territories that want to be seen as countries, and in some cases have a very strong claim to statehood,
but haven't yet gained full international acceptance.
However, while the concept of de facto states is easy enough to grasp,
producing a definitive list of the world's de facto States is in fact remarkably difficult.
The problem is that while it might seem a relatively easy idea to grasp,
it's extremely difficult to pinpoint which territories can and should be properly regarded as de facto states.
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the term covers entities that have a certain state like quality,
but aren't yet members of the United Nations.
Beyond that, as we'll see, there's actually precious little agreement on which territories qualify.
On the face of it, the simplest way to define a de facto state would be to take the Montevideo Criteria
as a starting point and then consider any territory that meets that threshold,
but is not yet a member of the United Nations, as a de facto state.
However, while this might seem the obvious way of approaching things,
in reality all sorts of other considerations come into the picture.
For a start, although a defined territory, settled population, government and the ability to enter
into international relations are the absolute requirements of statehood, some seem to believe
that these can, or should, be treated in a slightly different way when it comes to de facto states.
For example, the question of territory and territorial control can be extremely contentious.
Most observers would argue that Western Sahara and Palestine should be regarded as de facto states.
Both enjoy a high degree of international recognition: Western Sahara as a member of the African Union
and Palestine as a non-member observer state at the United Nations.
However, others have argued that while both certainly exist as ideas,
and have a defined territory and settled population,
their governments don't exercise effective control throughout the greater proportion
of their claimed territory, and so they don't really qualify as de facto states.
And what about the question of independent governance?
As I've noted, the conception of government under the Montevideo convention
has tended to be more precisely understood in recent years as government free from direct and
overarching external control.
While some de facto states can be understood to be effectively independent of foreign control,
more usually this isn't strictly the case.
For example, do South Ossetia and Abkhazia really exercise fully independent governments,
or are they essentially subject to Russian control
- even though Moscow formally recognizes them as independent states?
The same applies to Northern Cyprus.
Can it be regarded as wholly independent from Turkey?
Many would argue that while Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus certainly do rely on an external power
for their security, and even their very existence, they in fact exercise far more independent day-to-day
government over their territory than many realize - or are willing to acknowledge.
In this sense, many argue that given their aspiration to formal independence,
they should be considered de facto states.
This debate becomes all the more heated when it comes to the emergence of the breakaway territories in Ukraine.
Some say that the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics,
which declared independence from Ukraine in 2014,
are de facto states, or at least as de facto states in the making.
However, to others, these are merely Russian proxy entities under the direct control of Moscow.
They aren't really states and therefore they have no genuine claim to de facto statehood
- at least as things stand.
I hope to return to this fascinating question of the relationship between de facto States
and their patrons in a future video.
Likewise, the ability to enter into international relations, also comes into the equation.
While some would see a degree of international recognition,
and thus the ability to forge formal ties with recognizing states, as an element to consider,
this often ignores the underlying factors behind the recognition of these territories.
Recognition is fundamentally a political act.
Although it can be driven by an objective appraisal of a territory's ability
to meet the terms of the Montevideo Criteria,
it can equally be extended simply because the political leaders of a state felt like doing it!
For instance, South Ossetia has the ability to enter into relations with other states
because of its recognition by a handful of countries acting under Russian pressure.
Conversely, although Somaliland has no international recognition,
it clearly has the ability to enter into relations with other states.
And as I've noted, it has contacts with a number of countries,
including at the highest levels of the British government.
Comparing the two, is South Ossetia's claim to de facto statehood on the base of formal recognition
really greater than Somaliland's?
Meanwhile, some territories that are widely considered to be de facto states,
such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria, have no formal recognition, even from their patron states,
and appear to have minimal formal diplomatic contacts with the outside world.
All this makes deciding the process of defining which territories qualify as de facto states very difficult indeed.
However, trying to work out which territories constitute de facto states, and which don't,
doesn't quite end there.
It gets a little harder.
On top of the formal Montevideo criteria, there are a couple of other factors
that tend to confuse the picture even more.
For example, do we include territories that clearly aspire to statehood,
but haven't formally declared independence?
For example, there are many who consider the Kurdish region of Iraq as a de facto state.
By all accounts, it does meet the necessary criteria for statehood.
However, it hasn't as yet declared independence.
It is still formally a part of Iraq.
And while it might make sense to think of it as a de facto state,
should we then consider other territories in a similar position as de facto states?
Couldn't Scotland be considered a de facto state according to this criteria?
And then there's Taiwan.
Although this is often included in an list of de facto states, it hasn't declared independence
- nor does it officially aspire to independent statehood.
Instead, as I explained in another video, it's a wholly different type of dispute
based on competing claims to government, rather than a case of secession.
However, despite this, Taiwan is nevertheless often counted as a de facto state
- not because it claims to want statehood, but simply because it effectively seems to exist as one.
The subject of de facto states is fascinating.
However, it's also mired in confusion and disagreement.
Just as there are deep divisions over terminology, there are also fundamental differences over which territories
ought to be understood as de facto States and which shouldn't.
Some observers take a very broad approach and include any territory that openly or tacitly aspires
to independence and has a degree of control, however small, over a piece of territory.
Others take a far more restrictive view, arguing that it should only be applied to those territories that have
formally declared independence and can meet the terms of the Montevideo convention
- including the existence of truly independent statehood.
Ultimately, the term de facto state is highly subjective.
There isn't universal agreement on which territories qualify.
Nor is there ever likely to be.
While some territories, such as Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Northern Cyprus,
Taiwan, Abkhazia and Kosovo, to name just a few, will tend to make most lists,
there's far from a consensus on this.
Instead, almost everyone will have their own views on what territory should be considered as de facto States
- and which shouldn't.
So, which territories would you include in the list of de facto States?
Let me know in the comments below.
If you found that interesting, here are some suggestions for some other videos you might enjoy.
And do consider giving this video a 'Like' or sharing as it all helps the channel to grow.
Thanks so much for watching and see you again soon.