University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law
Publication Date
Fall 2025
First Page
823
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Who is the government of a sovereign state in the eyes of the world? Recent crises across multiple continents have violently demonstrated that the answer to this question is sometimes contested. In these situations, one state may recognize (or not recognize) a particular individual or group as the government of another. But recognition does not have a single agreed- upon meaning. Scholars and states have described it in various ways. The result of this conceptual confusion is that when one state recognizes the government of another, it is not always clear what consequences may follow. Decision-makers—in the United States, the President—need guidance about what they can and cannot legitimately accomplish with recognition if they wish to provide a satisfactory response to disputes about who governs.
In this Article, I articulate a novel conceptual framework for understanding how recognition can legitimately operate in the international system of law and power. I argue that recognition exhibits a conceptual symmetry between its inputs and its effects that implies limits on what the act may accomplish. I then argue that the recognition practice of the United States, as illustrated by its approach to crises in Libya, Venezuela, and Afghanistan, is distinctly asymmetrical. For reasons with roots in constitutional authority and domestic legislation, the United States tends to make discretionary decisions on recognition whose consequences violate international law.
However, the decision-maker’s task is not ended by a verdict of unlawfulness. The United States’ approach to recognition must account for the national interest as well as international law’s interest in promoting public order and human dignity. I argue that these interests would generally be better served by recognizing symmetrically. As evidenced by the United States’ actual practice, refraining from the sorts of interventions that asymmetrical recognition entails may be politically difficult in the short term. In a complicated world of imperfect options, however, it will often be the wiser choice over the long term.
Repository Citation
Michael Beechert,
The Law and Politics of International Recognition,
46
U. Pa. J. Int’l L.
823
(2025).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol46/iss4/1