Advertisement

Neomedievalism and International Recognition: Explaining the Level of Recognition Via Networking

  • Bohumil DobošEmail author
  • Martin Riegl
Chapter
  • 5 Downloads
Part of the Frontiers in International Relations book series (FIR)

Abstract

The chapter presents an analysis of the impact of the nature of the patron state on the outcome of the secession in terms of international recognition. The text applies division of the global geopolitical landscape into three types of environment and argues that the networking nature of the Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific part of the world allows for a larger level of bandwagoning compared to the strictly territorial authoritative states of Eurasia and elsewhere.

References

  1. Baev, P. K. (1998). Russia’s policies in secessionist conflicts in Europe in the 1990s. Oslo: Norwegian Atlantic Committee, Security Policy Library no. 11.Google Scholar
  2. Brewery, E. M. (2012). To break free from tyranny and oppression: Proposing a model for a remedial right to secession in the wake of the Kosovo advisory opinion. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 45(1), 246–292.Google Scholar
  3. Bull, H. (2002). The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Buzard, K., Graham, B. A. T., & Horne, B. (2015). Unrecognized states: A theory of self-determination and foreign influence. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id52491944.
  5. Buzard, K., Graham, B. A. T., & Horne, B. (2017). Unrecognized states: A theory of self-determination and foreign influence. The Journal of Law, Economics & Organizations, 33(3), 578–611.Google Scholar
  6. Byman, D., & King, C. (2012). The mystery of phantom states. The Washington Quarterly, 35(3), 43–57.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, R. (1998). International diplomacy and the crisis in Kosovo. International Affairs, 74(4), 745–761.Google Scholar
  8. Caspersen, N. (2012). Unrecognized states: The struggle for sovereignty in the modern international system. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cerny, P. (1998). Neomedievalism, civil war and the new security dilemma: Globalisation as durable disorder. Civil Wars, 1(1), 36–64.Google Scholar
  10. Chirikba, V. (2004). Geopolitical aspects of the Abkhazian statehood: Some results and perspectives. Iran and the Caucasus, 8(2), 341–349.Google Scholar
  11. Coggins, B. (2011). Friends in high places: international politics and the emergence of states from secessionism. International Organizations, 65(3), 433–467.Google Scholar
  12. Coggins, B. (2014). Power politics and state formation in the twentieth century: The dynamics of recognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooley, A., & Mitchell, L. A. (2010). Engagement without recognition: A new strategy toward Abkhazia and Eurasia’s unrecognized states. The Washington Quarterly, 33(4), 59–73.Google Scholar
  14. Doboš, B. (2018). New middle ages – geopolitics of post-Westphalian world. Ph.D. diss.: Charles University.Google Scholar
  15. Fabry, M. (2012). The contemporary practice of state recognition: Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and their aftermath. Nationalities Papers, 40(5), 661–676.Google Scholar
  16. Friedrichs, J. (2001). The meaning of new medievalism. European Journal of International Relations, 7(4), 475–501.Google Scholar
  17. Geldenhuys, D. (2009). Contested states in world politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Glassner, M. I., & de Blij, H. J. (1989). Systemic political geography. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Heraclides, A. (1990). Secessionist minorities and external involvement. International Organizations, 44(3), 341–378.Google Scholar
  20. Hercalides, A. (1991). The self-determination of minorities in international politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hoch, T., Kopeček, V., & Baar, V. (2017). Civil society and conflict transformation in de facto states. Problems of Post-Communism, 64(6), 329–341.Google Scholar
  22. Isachenko, D. (2012). The making of informal states: Statebuilding in Northern Cyprus and Transdniestria. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Ishiyama, J., & Batta, A. (2012). The emergence of dominant political party systems in unrecognized states. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 45(1–2), 123–130.Google Scholar
  24. Ker-Lindsay, J. (2018). The stigmatisation of de facto states: Disapproval and ‘engagement without recognition’. Ethnopolitics, 17(4), 362–372.Google Scholar
  25. King, C. (2001). The benefits of ethnic war: Understanding Eurasia’s unrecognized states. World Politics, 53(4), 524–552.Google Scholar
  26. Kolosov, V., & O ́Loughlin, J. (1998). Pseudo-states as harbingers of a new geopolitics: The example of the Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic (TMR). Geopolitics, 3(1), 151–176.Google Scholar
  27. Kolstø, P. (2006). The sustainability and future of unrecognized quasi-states. Journal of Peace Research, 43(6), 723–740.Google Scholar
  28. Lynch, D. (2004). Engaging Eurasia’s separatist states: unresolved conflicts and de facto states. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  29. Maleševic, S., & Ó Dochartaigh, N. (2011). Secession and political violence. In A. Pavkovic & P. Radan (Eds.), Research companion on secession. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Markedonov, S. (2012). The unrecognized states of Eurasia as a phenomenon of the USSR ́s dissolution. Demokratizatsiya. The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 20(2), 189–195.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, E., & Visoka, G. (2018). The foreign policy of state recognition: Kosovo’s diplomatic strategy to join international society. Foreign Policy Analysis, 14(3), 367–387.Google Scholar
  32. O’Loughlin, J., Kolossov, V., & Toal, G. (2011). Inside Abkhazia: Survey of attitudes in a de facto state. Post-Soviet Affairs, 27(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
  33. O’Loughlin, J., Kolossov, V., & Toal, G. (2014). Inside the post-soviet de facto states: A comparison of attitudes in Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(5), 423–456.Google Scholar
  34. Pelczynska-Nalecz, K., Strachota, K., & Falkowski, M. (2008). Para-States in the Post-Soviet Area from 1991 to 2007. In B. H. Stanislawski (Ed.), Para states, quasi-states, and black spots: Perhaps not states, but not “ungoverned territories”, either. International Studies Review, 10(2), 366–396.Google Scholar
  35. Protsyk, O. (2012). Secession and hybrid regime politics in Transnistria. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 45(1–2), 175–182.Google Scholar
  36. Rich, R. (1993). Recognition of states: The collapse of Yugoslavia and the soviet union. European Journal of International Law, 4(2), 36–65.Google Scholar
  37. Riegl, M. (2010). Terminologie kvazistátů. Acta Politologica, 2(1), 57–71.Google Scholar
  38. Riegl, M., & Doboš, B. (2018a). Power and recognition: How (super)powers decide the international recognition process. Politics and Policy, 46(3), 442–471.Google Scholar
  39. Riegl, M., & Doboš, B. (2018b). Geopolitics of secession: Post-soviet de facto states and russian geopolitical strategy. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 12(1), 59–89.Google Scholar
  40. Rosůlek, P. (2014). Politický secesionismus & etické teorie. Allen Buchanan a jeho kritici. Brno: Barrister & Principal.Google Scholar
  41. Rywkin, M. (2006). The phenomenon of quasi-states. Diogenes, 53(2), 23–29.Google Scholar
  42. Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). the chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stanislawski, B. H. (2008). Para states, quasi-states, and black spots: Perhaps not states, but not “ungoverned territories”. Either. International Studies Review, 10(2), 366–396.Google Scholar
  44. Sterio, M. (2013). On the right to external self-determination: “Selfistans”, secession, and the great powers’ rule. Minnesota Journal of International Law, 19(1), 137–176.Google Scholar
  45. Tilly, C. (1975). Reflections on the history of European state-making. In C. Tilly (Ed.), The formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tir, J. (2005). Keeping the peace after secession: Territorial conflicts between rump and secessionist states. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(5), 713–741.Google Scholar
  47. Toal, G. (2017). Near abroad: Putin, the west and the contest over Ukraine and the Caucasus. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Toomla, R. (2016). Charting informal engagement between de facto states: A quantitative analysis. Space and Polity, 20(3), 330–345.Google Scholar
  49. Veney, C. R., & Payne, R. J. (2001). Taiwan and Africa: Taipei’s continuing search for international recognition. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 36(4), 437–450.Google Scholar
  50. Webber, M. (2009). The Kosovo war: A recapitulation. International Affairs, 85(3), 447–459.Google Scholar
  51. Wood, G. (2009). Limbo World. Foreign Policy. Retrieved April 24, 2018, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/12/18/limbo-world/.

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political StudiesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations