Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:12:43.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symposium ‘The politics of international recognition’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2013

Hans Agné ,
Jens Bartelson ,
Eva Erman ,
Thomas Lindemann ,
Benjamin Herborth ,
Oliver Kessler ,
Christine Chwaszcza ,
Mikulas Fabry  and
Stephen D. Krasner
Hans Agné
Affiliation:
Departement of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Jens Bartelson
Affiliation:
Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Eva Erman
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Thomas Lindemann
Affiliation:
University of Lille, Lille, France
Benjamin Herborth
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Oliver Kessler
Affiliation:
Staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany and Kyung Hee University, Korea
Christine Chwaszcza
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Mikulas Fabry
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America
Stephen D. Krasner
Affiliation:
Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recognition plays a multifaceted role in international theory. In rarely communicating literatures, the term is invoked to explain creation of new states and international structures; policy choices by state and non-state actors; and normative justifiability, or lack thereof, of foreign and international politics. The purpose of this symposium is to open new possibilities for imagining and studying recognition in international politics by drawing together different strands of research in this area. More specifically, the forum brings new attention to controversies on the creation of states, which has traditionally been a preserve for discussion in International Law, by invoking social theories of recognition that have developed as part of International Relations more recently. It is suggested that broadening imagination across legal and social approaches to recognition provides the resources needed for theories with this object to be of maximal relevance to political practice.

Keywords

recognitionstatehoodinternational lawconstructivism
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 94 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agné, Hans. 2010. “Why Democracy Must be Global: Self-Founding and Foreign Intervention.” International Theory 2(3):381–409.Google Scholar
Bartelson, Jens. 2008. “Globalizing the Democratic Community.” Ethics & Global Politics 1(4):159–173.Google Scholar
Brown, Philip Marshall. 1942. “The Effects of Recognition.” The American Journal of International Law 36(1):106–108.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. 2004. Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-determination: Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caspersen, NinaStansfield, Gareth. eds. 2011. Unrecognized States in the International System. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. 2006. The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1984. Ulysses and the Sirens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fabry, Mikulas. 2010. Recognizing States. International Society and the Establishment of New States Since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Brain. 2008. “Recognition and Collective Identity Formation in International Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 14(2):343–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Thomas D. 1999. The Recognition of States, Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution. Westport and London: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Translated by Joel Anderson. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1941. “Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations.” American Journal of International Law 35:605–617.Google Scholar
Kessler, OliverHerborth, Benjamin. 2013. “Recognition and constitution of social order.” The Politics of International Recognition, Symposium in International Theory 5(1):62–67.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1944. “Recognition of States in International Law.” Yale Law Journal 53(3):385–458.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2008. Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned 2010. Why Nations Fight: Past and Future Motives for War. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindemann, Thomas. 2010. Causes of War. The Struggle for Recognition. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Lindemann, Thomas 2011. “Peace Through Recognition: An Interactionist Interpretation of International Crises.” International Political Sociology 5(1):68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, ThomasRingmar, Erik. 2011. The Struggle for Recognition in International Relations. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Loughlin, MartinWalker, Neil. 2008. The Paradox of Constitutionalism. Constituent Power and Constitutional Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Michelle. 2010. “Identity, Insecurity, and Great Power Politics: The Tragedy of German Naval Ambition Before the First World War.” Security Studies 19(4):656–688.Google Scholar
Naticchia, Chris. 2005. “Recognizing States and Governments.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35(1):27–82.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2007. “The Legitimacy of the People.” Political Theory 35(5):624–658.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Lassa. 1905. International Law. A Treatise, Vol. 1, Peace. New York and Bombay: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 1995. “The Relevance of International Law: A Hegelian Interpretation of a Peculiar Seventeenth-Century Preoccupation.” Review of International Studies 21(1):87–103.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik 1996. Identity, Interest and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden's Intervention in the Thirty Years War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sayigh, Yezid 2012. The Syrian National Council Wins Recognition Abroad, But May Lose Out at Home. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Commentary, April 5, 2012. Available at http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/04/05/syrian-national-council-wins-recognition-abroad-but-may-lose-out-at-home/a6n7.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. [1922] 1985. Political Theology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2003. “Why a World State is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9(4):491–542.Google Scholar
Whelan, Frederick G. 1983. “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem.” In Liberal Democracy, edited by Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W. New York: New York University Press, 13–47.Google Scholar
Wolf, Reinhard. 2008. “Respekt ein unterschötzter Faktor in den Internationalen Beziehungen.” Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1:5–42.Google Scholar
Wolf, Reinhard 2011. “Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition.” International Theory 3(1):105–142.Google Scholar