Recognition is one of the most decisive yet contentious acts in international law. It determines who participates in the international system as a legitimate sovereign state. In theory, the criteria for statehood are well-defined under the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which lists a permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and capacity to enter relations with other states as the key elements of statehood[i]. However, the practical operation of recognition reveals that international law alone rarely decides who qualifies as a state. Political interests, power dynamics, and strategic alignments often dominate the process. The contrasting cases of Kosovo and Palestine expose how recognition functions less as a neutral legal principle and more as a geopolitical instrument.

The Legal Framework of Recognition

Under international law, two main theories explain the concept of recognition, the declaratory and constitutive theories. The declaratory theory holds that a state exists once it fulfills the Montevideo criteria, regardless of whether other states recognize it[ii]. Recognition, in this sense, merely acknowledges an existing reality. By contrast, the constitutive theory argues that an entity becomes a state only when recognized by others[iii]. Recognition, therefore, does not simply reflect sovereignty; it creates it in legal terms.

In practice, international recognition functions as a blend of both theories. Legal existence may begin through factual control and governance, but without recognition, a state cannot exercise rights such as treaty-making or UN membership. Recognition thus acts as a gatekeeper between political reality and legal personality.

Kosovo: The Path of Partial Legitimacy

Kosovo declared independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008, following years of ethnic conflict and international administration under the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Within months, the United States and most members of the European Union recognized Kosovo. Yet, Serbia, Russia, China, and several other states rejected its independence, arguing that it violated Serbia’s territorial integrity[iv].

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo in 2010. The Court concluded that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law, since international law contains no prohibition on such declarations[v]. However, the ICJ stopped short of declaring Kosovo a sovereign state, leaving recognition to the discretion of other nations.

Today, more than 100 UN member states recognize Kosovo[vi], but its status remains unresolved. It is not a UN member due to opposition from permanent Security Council members Russia and China, both of whom use their veto power to block membership. This situation demonstrates how international law alone cannot secure statehood without political approval from powerful actors.

For many Western states, supporting Kosovo’s independence represented an endorsement of self-determination after widespread human rights violations in the late 1990s[vii]. For others, including Russia and China, recognition threatened to set a precedent for separatist movements within their own borders. Thus, Kosovo’s partial recognition reflects not a legal consensus, but a political compromise shaped by strategic calculations.

Palestine: Recognition Without Full Sovereignty

The Palestinian case represents an inverse dilemma. Palestine enjoys wide diplomatic recognition, 157 of the 193 UN member states recognize it as a state[viii]. In 2012, the UN General Assembly granted Palestine “non-member observer state” status, marking a milestone in its pursuit of international legitimacy[ix]. Unlike Kosovo, however, Palestine does not have effective control over its entire claimed territory. Its borders, airspace, and key resources remain under Israeli illegal authority or heavy restriction.

Despite limited sovereignty, recognition has enabled Palestine to join several international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). These memberships allow it to pursue legal claims on the global stage, most notably regarding alleged violations of international humanitarian law in the occupied territories[x].

Yet, Palestine’s recognition remains contested. The United States and most Western allies have avoided formal recognition, arguing that Palestinian statehood should arise only through negotiated settlement with Israel[xi]. In contrast, states from the Global South, along with many in Asia and Africa, support recognition as an expression of the right to self-determination. This divide underscores that recognition is not applied through consistent legal standards but through geopolitical interests and alliances.

Recognition as a Political Instrument

Kosovo and Palestine illustrate how recognition serves as a tool of political influence rather than a mere declaration of legal status. When Western powers recognized Kosovo, they invoked humanitarian intervention and the moral duty to support a people oppressed under Serbian rule[xii]. In contrast, many of those same states refrain from recognizing Palestine, citing security concerns and the need for bilateral negotiation. Similarly, Russia, China, and several other states support Palestinian statehood while opposing Kosovo’s independence, invoking respect for sovereignty and opposition to unilateral secession[xiii].

This pattern reveals the double standard that dominates the politics of recognition. Rather than applying uniform principles of international law, states selectively endorse or reject new entities based on strategic interests, alliances, and ideological leanings. Recognition thus becomes a diplomatic signal, an act of political alignment disguised in legal language.

Recognition also operates as a form of international legitimacy. Entities such as Kosovo and Palestine demonstrate that recognition determines not only who is a state but also who has the authority to speak and act on behalf of a people. Without recognition, governments lack access to international forums, aid mechanisms, and collective defense treaties. With it, they gain both symbolic and practical power.

The Role of International Institutions

The role of international institutions in recognition further complicates the picture. The United Nations does not formally “recognize” states, it admits members upon the recommendation of the Security Council and approval of the General Assembly. As a result, entities like Kosovo remain outside the UN despite wide recognition, while Palestine, though not a full member, has achieved a form of international acknowledgment through observer status[xiv].

Regional organizations also play a role. The European Union’s divided stance on Kosovo, where five member states still withhold recognition, illustrates how collective recognition can fracture even among allies[xv]. The Arab League’s consistent support for Palestinian statehood reflects a different form of collective recognition rooted in political solidarity.

These institutional patterns show that recognition operates at multiple levels: bilateral, regional, and global. Each level carries different implications for legitimacy, participation, and international law.

Selective Recognition and Its Consequences

Selective recognition poses deep challenges for the coherence of international law. It weakens the universality of legal norms by allowing political convenience to determine which entities receive statehood. This inconsistency undermines the principle of equality among nations and the right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter[xvi].

For Kosovo, selective recognition has created a semi-sovereign status, recognized by many but not all, integrated into certain global structures yet excluded from others. For Palestine, recognition provides symbolic legitimacy but limited practical sovereignty. Both remain in political limbo: not fully accepted, yet not entirely rejected.

Such uncertainty has tangible effects. It affects economic development, access to aid, and the ability to participate in peace negotiations. Most importantly, it reflects the continuing tension between legal principle and political reality. International law provides a framework for statehood, but politics decides its application.

Conclusion: Law, Legitimacy, and Power

From Kosovo to Palestine, the geopolitics of selective recognition expose the fragility of international law when confronted with political power. Recognition, in principle, should affirm sovereignty based on objective legal criteria. In practice, it functions as a diplomatic instrument used to reward allies, contain rivals, or balance regional interests.

Both Kosovo and Palestine meet many of the traditional criteria for statehood, yet their international status remains uncertain because global consensus depends on political will. Their experiences remind us that recognition is not a neutral act, it is a negotiation between law and legitimacy. Until the international community develops a more consistent approach to recognition, the politics of statehood will continue to overshadow its legal foundations.

Recognition, therefore, remains not just a legal category but a reflection of the world’s shifting balance of power. The cases of Kosovo and Palestine illustrate that in international law, sovereignty is rarely born purely of principle, it is often the child of politics.

Endnotes

[i] Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Dec. 26, 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19 https://share.google/il3Sq6RnLkeS2tehg.

[ii] Crawford, J. (2019). The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press.

[iii] Lauterpacht, H. (1947). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press.

[iv] Weller, M. (2009). “Contested Statehood: Kosovo’s Struggle for Independence.” Cambridge University Press.

[v] ICJ Advisory Opinion, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (2010) I.C.J. Rep. 403 https://share.google/Qczy9aLwTD85Lu7sp.

[vi] United Nations, “List of States Recognizing Kosovo,” UN Treaty Office, updated 2024.

[vii] Ker-Lindsay, J. (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press.

[viii] Marium Ali, “Which are the 150+ countries that have recognised Palestine as of 2025?,” Al Jazeera, accessed on 25 November 2025 https://share.google/MUPaCQEC0GzQ5GitZ.

[ix] United Nations, “Recognition of the State of Palestine,” UN General Assembly Records, A/RES/67/19 (2012).

[x] Schabas, W. (2015). “Palestine and the International Criminal Court.” Journal of International Criminal Justice, 13(3), 605–611.

[xi] U.S. Department of State, “Position on Palestinian Statehood,” Policy Brief (2023).

[xii] Murphy, S. (2009). “Kosovo and the Law of Secession.” AJIL, 102(4), 566–571.

[xiii] Charountaki, M. (2020). “Selective Recognition and Global Power Politics.” International Politics, 57(3), 402–419.

[xiv] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 67/19, Nov. 29, 2012 https://share.google/XvmIAN9307EQuNH5C.

[xv] European External Action Service, “Kosovo Recognition Map,” Brussels, 2024.

[xvi] Charter of the United Nations, Art. 1(2) https://share.google/8sjUtfek4ojQMtVbh.