Recognition and politics (Belgium, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia)

This dissertation describes and explains the concept of statehood and recognition of new states from the perspective of international law and politics. It examines the intellectual history of recognition of states and evaluates how the concept has changed over the years depending on the interests of the great powers. It poses the question of why certain entities are recognized and others are not. It further analyzes the factors that play a role in decision-making to extend recognition to nascent states. By comparing a historical case of recognition of Belgium and the most recent recognition of the former Yugoslav republics, this dissertation explains the choice of criteria of recognition and determines how it has evolved over the years.; By analyzing state formation and the process of recognition, this study illustrates that there is a divide between statehood and recognition. Statehood does not guarantee recognition and recognition does not create viable, legitimate states. This dissertation further illustrates that "premature" recognition, which means recognition of a state whose territory and legitimacy are still contested by its population and the 'mother state' can have bad consequences on peace and security of the international system. As this dissertation proves, recognition should not be used for resolving conflicts or any purposes other than accepting a legitimate state into the community of nations. It is the responsibility of the recognizing state or states to ensure that the recognition of a nascent state does not jeopardize the security of the new state and of the region as a whole. The thesis Montevideo Convention as a guideline for when states should be recognized and demonstrates that Montevideo was not about recognition but rather about non-intervention. It further shows that international security stands as the deciding component in the decision-making regarding whether to extend recognition to an entity.