Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:25:20.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why declare independence? Observing, believing, and performing the ritual

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2020

Lucas Knotter Open the ORCID record for Lucas Knotter [Opens in a new window]
Lucas Knotter*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations and International Organization, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Declarations of independence continue to be commonplace in international affairs, yet their efficacy as means towards statehood remains disputed in traditional international legal and political thinking and conduct. Consequently, recent scholarship on state recognition and emerging statehood suggests that the international persistence of such declarations should be understood in the context of broader international processes, narratives, and assemblages of state creation. Such suggestions, however, risk reifying declarations’ effectiveness more in relation to international structure(s) than to independence movement's own agency. This article, therefore, calls for a reframing of declarations of independence as a ritual in international relations. It argues that participating in the international ritual of independence declaration forms an attempt to ‘fuse’ the movement's political practice with international recognition, serves to express an internal belief in ‘redemption’ through the ‘ascension’ into the ‘celestial’ existence of recognised statehood, and offers an opportunity to internally bolster political community through political performance. Ritual theory, thus, uncovers how the global persistence of independence declarations cannot be explained merely through discrete oppositions of non-recognition versus recognition, belief versus reality, and/or non-state versus state community, and instead opens up new space for understanding the contradictions characterising the international political (in)significance and persistence of statehood declarations.

Keywords

Declarations of IndependenceRitual TheoryState EmergenceState Recognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 252 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British International Studies Association

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

1 Although, notably, not all secessionist groups declare independence. See Fazal, Tanisha, Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018)Google Scholar, p. 165.

2 For an attempt at delineating the different types of communities within the larger universe of non-state political actors that may declare independence, see Florea, Adrian, ‘De facto states in international politics (1945–2011): A new data set’, International Interactions, 40:5 (2014), pp. 788–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Additionally, a raft of social groups, families, and individuals have ‘declared independence’ without being taken seriously internationally. See Ryan, John, Dunford, George, and Sellars, Simon, Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Homemade Nations (London, UK: Lonely Planet Publications, 2006)Google Scholar. This article concerns itself primarily with declarations made by relatively established independence movements, with some degree of territorial control, governing structures, and permanent populations, but refrains from elaborate debates about whether these movements qualify as (unrecognised) ‘states’.

3 Kartsonaki, Argyro, Breaking Away: Kosovo's Unilateral Secession (London, UK: Lexington Books, 2018), p. xvGoogle Scholar.

4 Caspersen, Nina, Unrecognized States: The Struggle for Sovereignty in the Modern International System (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coggins, Bridget, Power Politics and State Formation in the Twentieth Century: The Dynamics of Recognition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Crawford, James, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd edn, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Griffiths, Ryan, Age of Secession: The International and Domestic Determinants of State Birth (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ker-Lindsay, James, The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lynch, Dov, Engaging Eurasia's Separatist States: Unresolved Conflicts and De Facto States (Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Pegg, Scott, International Society and the De Facto State (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998)Google Scholar; Sterio, Milena, The Right to Self-Determination under International Law: ‘Selfistans’, Secession, and the Rule of the Great Powers (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar.

5 Bouris, Dimitris and Fernández-Molina, Irene, ‘Contested states, hybrid diplomatic practices, and the everyday quest for recognition’, International Political Sociology, 12:3 (2018), pp. 306–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fernández-Molina, Irene, ‘Bottom-up change in frozen conflicts: Transnational struggles and mechanisms of recognition in Western Sahara’, Review of International Studies, 45:3 (2019), pp. 407–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newman, Edward and Visoka, Gëzim, ‘The foreign policy of state recognition: Kosovo's diplomatic strategy to join international society’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 14:3 (2018), pp. 367–87Google Scholar; Visoka, Gëzim, Acting Like a State: Kosovo and the Everyday Making of Statehood (Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Visoka, Gëzim, ‘Metis diplomacy: The everyday politics of becoming a sovereign state’, Cooperation and Conflict, 54:2 (2019), pp. 167–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Visoka, Gëzim, Doyle, John, and Newman, Edward (eds), Routledge Handbook of State Recognition (London, UK: Routledge, 2020)Google Scholar.

6 Bouris, Dimitris, ‘Kosovo and its everyday quest for statehood’, The International Spectator, 54:4 (2019), pp. 150–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 151).

7 Grzybowksi, Janis, ‘The paradox of state identification: De facto states, recognition, and the (re)-production of the international’, International Theory, 11:3 (2019), pp. 241–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Reno, William, ‘How sovereignty matters: International markets and the political economy of local politics in weak states’, in Callaghy, Thomas, Kassimir, Ronald, and Latham, Robert (eds), Intervention and Transnationalism in Africa: Global-Local Networks of Power (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 197–215 (p. 203)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Fazal, Tanisha and Griffiths, Ryan, ‘Membership has its privileges: The changing benefits of statehood’, International Studies Review, 16:1 (2014), pp. 79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Aleksandar Pavković, ‘In search of international recognition: Declarations of independence and unilateral secession’, in Ryan Griffiths and Diego Muro (eds), Strategies of Secession and Counter-Secession (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2020), pp. 15–30 (p. 15).

11 Argyro Kartsonaki, ‘Remedial decession: Theory, law and reality’, in Griffiths and Muro (eds), Strategies of Secession and Counter-Secession, pp. 31–51.

12 David Armitage, The Declaration of Independence: A Global History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).

13 For an indication of the success rate of declarations of independence since 1946, see Griffiths, Ryan and Wasser, Louis M., ‘Does violent secessionism work?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63:5 (2019), pp. 1310–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Sterio, The Right to Self-Determination under International Law, p. 82.

15 Kohen, Marcelo and Mar, Katherine Del, ‘The Kosovo Advisory Opinion and UNSCR 1244 (1999): A declaration of “independence from international law”?’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 24:1 (2011), pp. 109–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 109).

16 Derrida, Jacques, ‘Declarations of independence’, New Political Science, 7:1 (1986), pp. 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 9).

17 Pavković, ‘In search of international recognition’, p. 15.

18 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo: Summary of the Advisory Opinion (The Hague: International Court of Justice, 2010), p. 8, emphasis added.

19 Peters, Anne, ‘Does Kosovo lie in the Lotus-land of freedom?’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 24:1 (2011), pp. 95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 108).

20 Ryan Griffiths, ‘Secessionist strategy and tactical variation in the pursuit of independence’, Journal of Global Security Studies, pp. 1–19 (p. 4) (2020), available at: {https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz082}.

21 James Crawford, as cited in James Ker-Lindsay, The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 1.

22 Visoka, Acting Like a State, p. 6.

23 Grzybowki, ‘The paradox of state identification’, p. 250.

24 Janis Grzybowski and Marti Koskenniemi, ‘International law and statehood: A performative view’, in Robert Schuett and Peter Stirk (eds), The Concept of the State in International Relations: Philosophy, Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2015), pp. 23–44 (p. 29).

25 Fiona McConnell, Rehearsing the State: The Political Practices of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile (Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2016).

26 Philip Abrams, ‘Notes on the difficulty of studying the state (1977)’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 1:1 (1988), pp. 58–89 (p. 79).

27 Timothy Mitchell, ‘The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics’, American Political Science Review, 85:1 (1991), pp. 77–96 (p. 94), emphasis added.

28 Thomas de Waal, Uncertain Ground: Engaging With Europe's De Facto States and Breakaway Territories (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2018), p. 72, emphasis added.

29 Roy Bhaskar, Plato, etc.: The Problems of Philosophy and their Resolution (London, UK: Verso, 1994), p. 100.

30 Eiki Berg and Kristel Vits, ‘Exploring de facto state agency: Negotiation power, international engagement and patronage’, in Godfrey Baldacchino and Anders Wivel (eds), Handbook on the Politics of Small States (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2020), pp. 379–94 (p. 380).

31 Chris Bickerton, Philip Cunliffe, and Alexander Gourevich, ‘Politics without sovereignty?’, in Chris Bickerton, Philip Cunliffe, and Alexander Gourevich (eds), Politics without Sovereignty: A Critique of Contemporary International Relations (London, UK: University College London Press, 2007), pp. 20–38 (pp. 26–31).

32 Mikulas Fabry, Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States Since 1776 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 2–3.

33 Vincent Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality: A theory of practice of security communities’, International Organization, 62:2 (2008), pp. 257–88 (p. 257).

34 Didier Bigo, ‘Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of practices, practices of power’, International Political Sociology, 5:3 (2011), pp. 225–58 (pp. 234–5).

35 Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, Réponses: Pour une Anthropologie Réflexive (Paris: Le Seuil, 1992), p. 20.

36 Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot (eds), International Practices (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

37 Pouliot, ‘The logic of practicality’, pp. 257–8.

38 Silviya Lechner and Mervyn Frost, ‘Practice theory and International Relations: A reply to our critics’, Global Constitutionalism, 9:1 (2020), pp. 220–39 (p. 220).

39 Pavković, ‘In search of international recognition’, pp. 15–16.

40 Lechner and Frost, ‘Practice theory and International Relations’, pp. 220–1.

41 Fazal, Wars of Law.

42 Tanja Aalberts, Xymena Kurowska, Anna Leander, Maria Mälksoo, Charlotte Heath-Kelly, Luisa Lobato, and Ted Svensson, ‘Rituals of world politics: On (visual) practices disordering things’, Critical Studies on Security, pp. 1–25 (p. 1) (2020), available at: {https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2020.1792734}.

43 Silviya Lechner and Mervyn Frost, Practice Theory and International Relations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 9, 103.

44 Jorg Kustermans, ‘On the ethical significance of social practices’, Global Constitutionalism, 9:1 (2020), pp. 199–211 (p. 207).

45 Jeffrey Alexander, ‘Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy’, Sociological Theory, 22:4 (2004), pp. 527–73 (p. 547).

46 Major Ziaur Rahman (27 March 1971), as cited in Meghna Guhathakurta and Willem van Schendel (eds), The Bangladesh Reader: History, Culture, Politics (London, UK: Duke University Press, 2013), p. 226.

47 Snezana Trifunovska (ed.), Former Yugoslavia through Documents: From Its Dissolution to the Peace Settlement (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1999), pp. 767–9.

48 Pavković, ‘In search of international recognition’, p. 25.

49 Damien Kingsbury, East Timor: The Price of Liberty (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2009), p. 49.

50 This would, notably, be the second Palestinian declaration of independence, after the one uttered by Yasser Arafat on 15 November 1988. See Oliver Holmes, ‘Palestine says it will declare statehood if Israel annexes West Bank’, The Guardian (9 June 2020), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/09/palestine-says-it-will-declare-statehood-if-israel-annexes-west-bank}.

51 Alexander, ‘Cultural pragmatics’, pp. 529–33.

52 Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009).

53 Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 136.

54 Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols (New York, NY: Random House, 1973), as cited in Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, p. 73.

55 Armitage, The Declaration of Independence, p. 65.

56 Kingsbury, East Timor, p. 50.

57 James Ker-Lindsay, ‘Great powers, counter secession, and non-recognition: Britain and the 1983 unilateral declaration of independence of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 28:3 (2017), pp. 431–53.

58 Alexander, ‘Cultural pragmatics’, p. 532.

59 Jeffrey Alexander and Jason Mast, ‘Introduction: Symbolic action in theory and practice: The cultural pragmatics of symbolic action’, in Jeffrey Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, and Jason Mast (eds), Social Performance Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 1–28 (p. 17).

60 Christopher Daase, Anna Geis, Caroline Fehl, and Georgios Kolliarakis (eds), Recognition in International Relations: Rethinking a Political Concept in a Global Context (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).

61 James Ker-Lindsay, ‘Engagement without recognition: The limits of diplomatic interaction with contested states’, International Affairs, 91:2 (2015), pp. 267–85 (p. 284).

62 Alexander and Mast, ‘Introduction: Symbolic action in theory and practice’, p. 17.

63 Jens Bartelson, ‘Three concepts of recognition’, International Theory, 5:1 (2013), pp. 107–29; Oliver Kessler, and Benjamin Herborth, ‘Recognition and the constitution of social order’, International Theory, 5:1, pp. 155–60.

64 Independence movements engage in a plethora of activities to enhance their international legitimacy. These activities range from adopting the usual symbols of statehood (for example, currency, flag, anthem) to striving to showcase their political stability, popular support, economic performance, and ‘good behaviour’. These activities may perhaps each be considered as adhering to some form of international ritualism, this article views these legitimation performances primarily as facilitators of statehood (to be) declared. See also Catherine E. Arthur, Political Symbols and National Identity in Timor-Leste (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2019); Alex Jeffrey, Fiona McConnell, and Alice Wilson, ‘Understanding legitimacy: Perspectives from anomalous geopolitical spaces’, Geoforum, 66:1 (2015), pp. 177–83; Zachariah Mampilly, ‘Performing the nation-state: Rebel governance and symbolic processes’, in Ana Arjona, Nelson Kasfir, and Zachariah Mampilly (eds), Rebel Governance in Civil War (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 74–97.

65 Alice Wilson and Fiona McConnell, ‘Constructing legitimacy without legality in long term exile: Comparing Western Sahara and Tibet’, Geoforum, 66:1 (2015), pp. 203–14 (p. 212).

66 Although in some prominent cases (Taiwan), the deliberate non-participation in the ritual of declaring statehood has served to bolster external legitimacy. See Nina Caspersen, ‘Degrees of legitimacy: Ensuring internal and external support in the absence of recognition’, Geoforum, 66:1 (2015), pp. 184–92 (p. 189).

67 Charlotte Epstein, Thomas Lindemann, and Ole Jacob Sending, ‘Frustrated sovereigns: The agency that makes the world go around’, Review of International Studies, 44:5 (2018), pp. 787–804 (pp. 794–5).

68 Anna Geis, ‘The ethics of recognition in international political theory’, in Chris Brown and Robyn Eckersley (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 613–26 (p. 622).

69 Grzybowski, ‘The paradox of state identification’, p. 248.

70 Yael Navaro-Yashin, ‘“Life is dead here”: Sensing the political in “no man's land”’, Anthropological Theory, 3:1 (2003), pp. 107–25 (p. 121).

71 Laurence Broers, ‘Recognising politics in unrecognised states: 20 years of enquiry into the de facto states of the South Caucasus’, Caucasus Survey, 1:1 (2013), pp. 59–74 (p. 59).

72 Fiona McConnell, ‘Liminal geopolitics: The subjectivity and spatiality of diplomacy at the margins’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 42:1 (2017), pp. 139–52 (p. 150).

73 Gëzim Krasniqi, Contested Territories, Liminal Polities, Performative Citizenship: A Comparative Analysis (Florence, IT: European University Institute, 2018), p. 1. See also Dylan M. H. Loh and Jaakko Heiskanen, ‘Liminal sovereignty practices: Rethinking the inside/outside dichotomy’, Cooperation and Conflict, 55:3 (2020), pp. 284–304.

74 Victor Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974), p. 237.

75 Victor Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), p. 95.

76 Maria Mälksoo, ‘The challenge of liminality for International Relations theory’, Review of International Studies, 38:2 (2012), pp. 481–94.

77 McConnell, ‘Liminal geopolitics’, p. 142.

78 Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 96–7.

79 Rebecca Richards and Robert Smith, ‘Statebuilding and the politics of non-recognition’, in Daase et al. (eds), Recognition in International Relations, pp. 162–77 (pp. 163–5).

80 McConnell, Rehearsing the State, p. 33.

81 J. K. Gibson-Graham, The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy (Oxford, UK: Blackwell 1996), p. 259.

82 Krasniqi, Contested Territories, Liminal Polities, Performative Citizenship, p. 5.

83 McConnell, ‘Liminal geopolitics’, p. 150.

84 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, p. 20.

85 Argyro Kartsonaki mentions, for example, Bougainville's stated frustrations about its lack of self-determination over the past century, and Azawad's proclamation that ‘in 1960 … France attached Azawad without its consent to the Malian state that France had just created’, as cited in Kartsonaki, ‘Remedial decession’, pp. 38–42.

86 Victor Turner and Richard Schechner, The Anthropology of Performance (New York, NY: PAJ Books, 1988), p. 94.

87 Alexander and Mast, ‘Introduction: Symbolic action in theory and practice’, p. 10.

88 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, pp. 103–10.

89 Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors, p. 127.

90 Tanja Aalberts, ‘Misrecognition in legal practice: The aporia of the Family of Nations’, Review of International Studies, 44:5 (2018), pp. 863–81 (p. 863). In fact, this international legal void was itself revealed by the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Kosovo's 2008 Declaration, which reasoned that this declaration ‘manifested itself beyond any existing international or local juridical order.

91 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, p. 81.

92 Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 6.

93 Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 91.

94 Jan Koster, ‘Ritual performance and the politics of identity: On the functions and uses of ritual’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 4:2 (2003), pp. 211–48 (p. 219).

95 Bernhard Giesen, ‘Performing the sacred: A Durkheimian perspective on the performative turn in the social sciences’, in Alexander, Giesen, and Mast (eds), Social Performance Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual, pp. 325–67 (p. 342).

96 Turner, The Ritual Process, p. vii.

97 Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York NY: Basic Books, 1973), p. 112.

98 See, for instance, Bahar Rumelili (ed.), Conflict Resolution and Ontological Security: Peace Anxieties (New York, NY: Routledge, 2015); Brent Steele, Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State (London: Routledge, 2008).

99 Jack N. Rakove (ed.), The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press 2009), p. 79.

100 Karlo Basta, ‘“Time's up!”: Framing collective impatience for radical political change’, Political Psychology, 41:4 (2020), pp. 755–70 (pp. 762–3).

101 Kartsonaki, ‘Remedial decession’, pp. 42–4. The 2008 Kosovo declaration is a notable exception here, as it makes only tangential reference to its historical oppression or war of independence against Serbia. This may perhaps be explained as an attempt to circumvent the fact that the 1999 NATO intervention, which settled the war in Kosovo's favour, had already been branded illegal (even if legitimate).

102 Basta, ‘“Time's up!”’, p. 755.

103 Kartsonaki, ‘Remedial decession’, pp. 43–4.

104 Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors, pp. 76–83.

105 Turner, The Ritual Process, pp. 128, 96.

106 Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Karen E. Fields (New York, NY: Free Press, 1995).

107 Cynthia Weber, ‘Performative states’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 27:1 (1998), pp. 77–95.

108 McConnell, Rehearsing the State, pp. 36–8.

109 Alexander, ‘Cultural pragmatics’, p. 537.

110 McConnell, Rehearsing the State, p. 33.

111 Ronald Grimes, The Craft of Ritual Studies (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 196.

112 Yael Navaro-Yashin, The Make-Believe Space: Affective Geography in a Post-War Polity (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012).

113 Annika Björkdahl, ‘Republika Srpska: Imaginary, performance and spatialization’, Political Geography, 66:1 (2018), pp. 34–43 (p. 36).

114 Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (25 March 1971), as cited in Guhathakurta and van Schendel (eds), The Bangladesh Reader, p. 225.

115 Turner, The Ritual Process, p. 96.

116 Navaro-Yashin, The Make-Believe Space.

117 Mampilly, ‘Performing the nation-state’.

118 Richards and Smith, ‘Statebuilding and the politics of non-recognition’, pp. 167, 163.

119 Ana Arjona, Nelson Kasfir, and Zachariah Mampilly, ‘Introduction’, in Arjona, Kasfir, and Zachariah Mampilly (eds), Rebel Governance in Civil War, pp. 1–21 (p. 8).

120 Ker-Lindsay, ‘Great powers, counter secession, and non-recognition’, p. 446.

121 Arthur, Catherine, ‘From Fretilin to freedom: The evolution of the symbolism of Timor-Leste's national flag’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 49:2 (2018), pp. 227–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 239).

122 Turner, The Ritual Process, p. 96.

123 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, pp. 8, 170, 20, emphasis added.

124 Pace, Michelle and Sen, Somdeep, The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank: The Theatrics of Woeful Statecraft (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), p. 8Google Scholar.

125 Caspersen, ‘Degrees of legitimacy’, pp. 190–1.

126 Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulation (Michigan, MI: Michigan University Press, 1994), p. 1Google Scholar.

127 Yasser Arafat, as cited in Abdullah Sallah, Letter dated 18 November 1988 from the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly Forty-third Session, 18 November 2018), p. 15, emphasis added.

128 Hehir, Aidan, ‘Hyper-reality and statebuilding: Baudrillard and the unwillingness of international administrations to cede control’, Third World Quarterly, 32:6 (2011), pp. 1073–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 1077).

129 Pace and Sen, The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, pp. 7–8.

130 Hermkens, Anna-Karina, ‘Like Moses who led his people to the promised land: Nation- and state-building in Bougainville’, Oceania, 83:3 (2013), pp. 192–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallis, Joanne, ‘Nation-building, autonomy arrangements, and deferred referendums: Unresolved questions from Bougainville, Papua New Guinea’, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 19:3 (2013), pp. 310–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

131 Jose Trindade, ‘Reconciling conflicting paradigms: An East Timorese vision of the ideal state’, in David Mearns and Steven Farram (eds), Democratic Governance in Timor-Leste: Reconciling the Local and the National (Darwin, NT: Charles Darwin University Press, 2008), pp. 160–85 (p. 169).

132 Armitage, The Declaration of Independence, p. 85.

133 Krenar Gashi, ‘The hyperreality of EU enlargement: A Baudrillardian critique of the European Union in Kosovo’, in Gëzim Visoka and Vjosa Musliu (eds), Unravelling Liberal Interventionism: Local Critiques of Statebuilding in Kosovo (New York, NY: Routledge, 2019), pp. 54–68 (pp. 55–8).

134 Björkdahl, ‘Republika Srpska’, pp. 34–6.

135 Jeffrey, Alex, The Improvised State: Sovereignty, Performance and Agency in Dayton Bosnia (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013)Google Scholar.

136 Jolle Demmers and Mikel Venhovens, ‘Bluffing the state: Spatialities of contested statehood in the Abkhazian-Georgian conflict’, in Annika Björkdahl and Susanne Buckley-Zistel (eds), Spatialising Peace and Conflict: Mapping the Production of Places, Sites and Scales of Violence (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 159–77.

137 Annika Björkdahl, ‘Imagined states and clashing state-building processes in the Bosnian space’, in Jens Bartelson, Martin Hall, and Jan Teorell (eds), De-Centering State Making: Comparative and International Perspectives (Northampton, MA: Edgar Elgar, 2018), pp. 131–52 (p. 133).

138 Weber, ‘Performative states’, p. 83.

139 Weber, Cynthia, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exhange (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar, p. 3.

140 See, for instance, Middleton, Nick, An Atlas of Countries that don't Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States (London: Pan Macmillan, 2015)Google Scholar; Reeve, Simon, Holidays in the Danger Zone: Places That Don't Exist (London: BBC Four, 2005)Google Scholar.

141 Mälksoo, Maria, ‘A ritual approach to deterrence: I am, therefore I deter’, European Journal of International Relations, pp. 1–26 (p. 14) (2020)Google Scholar, available at: {https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120966039}.

142 Hutchison, Emma, Affective Communities in World Politics: Collective Emotions after Trauma (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018)Google Scholar; Jeffery, Renée, Reason and Emotion in International Ethics (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Hom, Andrew, International Relations and the Problem of Time (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hutchings, Kimberley, Time and World Politics: Thinking the Present (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 Visoka, Acting Like a State, p. 6.

145 Fabry, Mikulas, ‘Theorizing state recognition’, International Theory, 5:1 (2013), pp. 165–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 165).

146 Armitage, The Declaration of Independence, pp. 142–4.

147 Thomas Jefferson, as cited in Armitage, The Declaration of Independence, p. 1.