On the Change in British and American Recognition Policy

Abstract

The recognition of a new government within a State normally arises in international practice only when a government has been changed by revolution or a coup d'etat. In such unconstitutional change of government, foreign governments are necessarily confronted with the problem whether they shall recognize the new government, or whether they shall only have partial relations with it. On these subjects both the United Kingdom and the United States have made notable contributions both of ideas and precedents in the law of recognition. British practice has closely followed the Lauterpacht doctrine that the recognition of both States and governments was a duty for States to recognize entities which satisfied the international requirements of States or governments, and it usually recognized all governments which are able to exercixe effective control of the territory of the State concerned. By contrast, the United States' practice has emphasized the distinction between factual existence of a government and its recognition, and essentially the United States' recognition implied its approval of such a government. The United Kingdom and the United States have not only follwed different policies in relation to recognition, but also they have taken a different view of recognition. As non-recognition has often been used as a mark of disapproval, English recognition has sometimes been misinterpreted as implying approval. This is especially so even in the recognition afforded to new regimes committing massive violations of human rights. On the other hand, in the United States nonrecognition was"a political weapon wielded to force the new government to make concessions to the demands of the recognizing State."It is, however, generally considered in the United States that the effectiveness of nonrecognition in achieving changes in the attitudes of the unrecognized government has been substantially reduced in recent years. Thus both governments have concluded that there are practical advantages in following the policy of not according recognition to governments. Therefore, they at last have decided that they would no longer recognize governments, although they continue to recognize State in accordance with common international doctrine. This policy originated in Mexico is generally known as the Estrada doctrine and it has been applied in recent years by several other states including France, Spain and Belgium. It is true that the Estrada doctrine has been adopted by a few states before, but they have not always applied it consistently. It will be controversial whether both the United Kingdom and the United Stated will be able to continue their new recognition policy with their consistent attitude in the future. In any way, even though express recognition is abolished, the entire system of recognition of governments will never be abolished and implied recognition will be continued through diplomatic relations or other dealings with a foreign government.