The issues of borders and sovereignty seem pretty cut and dry in the 21st century. In fact, this is not the case. There are a number of anomalies in the international system. An interesting example is the Knights of Malta. They are a sovereign religious order that has no territory, except for their embassies. The most visible example is probably the case of failed states. States like Somalia and Sudan are examples. These states exercise external sovereignty, but are unable to control their internal territory. Failed states allow parts of their territory to be ruled by warlords and often they become engulfed in chaos. Similar to the failed state is the unrecognized state, or de facto state. These states have little or no external sovereignty, but do enjoy control over their territory. They are de facto states, but not de jure states. Lack of recognition makes it very difficult for these states to function in the international community both politically and economically.

Since they are not connected to the international community these de facto states have to find ways to sustain their statehood. They usually have a strong military relative to their size. They cultivate nationalism among their population. They also focus on building state institutions to show their legitimacy. Many unrecognized states also have an external patron to help sustain them. Another external factor that helps many unrecognized states is a weak parent. These factors help sustain unrecognized states in the face of international exclusion. According to Nina Caspersen there is a set criteria for being considered an unrecognized state. It must have de facto independence and control at least two thirds of its claimed territory. This prevents rebel and separatist movements that control some territory from being considered unrecognized states. The state leadership must be actively seeking to build state institutions and demonstrate legitimacy. The state must either declare independence or demonstrate aspirations for independence. It must of course be unrecognized by the international community. It can be recognized by a patron state and a few others. It also must have existed for more than 2 years (Caspersen 2012). Meeting this definition gives unrecognized states no legal standing, but it displays the ability to function as a sovereign state.

Under this definition only two unrecognized states from before the fall of the Soviet Union still exist today, Taiwan (People’s Republic of China) and Northern Cyprus (Cyprus). Since the fall of the Soviet Union, thirteen new de facto states have sprung up. Of these only two have become ‘full’ states, Eritrea (Ethiopia) and Montenegro (Serbia-Montenegro). Another, Kosovo (Serbia), is currently recognized by 108 UN member states. Five more of the thirteen have been absorbed by their parent state: Chechnya (Russia), Gagauzia (Moldova), Kurdish Autonomous Region (Iraq), Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Republika Srpska Krajina (Croatia). Abkhazia (Georgia), Nagorno Karabakh (Azerbaijan), Somaliland (Somalia), South Ossetia (Georgia), and Transnistria (Moldova) still exist today; they were all created in the first few years after the fall of the Soviet Union (Caspersen 2012). The states that have been absorbed often become semi-autonomous regions within their greater state. This is often not what they want, but they generally do not get much choice. State creation has always been tricky. De jure sovereignty for a state requires international recognition, which has become increasingly difficult to gain. There was a time when sovereignty was defined only internally, external recognition meant nothing; if a state could control its territory then it was a state, but that is no longer the case. Modern state creation is hampered by the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination. On its face self-determination seems like a policy that would be in favor of recognition for de facto states, but its strict interpretation along with territorial integrity makes it very difficult for these states to gain recognition. Self-determination was created as a way for former colonies to achieve statehood without unnecessary violence. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples states, “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”(United Nations 1961). Here the definition of peoples is very vague and open to interpretation. After the fall of the Soviet Union all the republics were given independence, but many of these republics also had autonomous regions within them that also wanted independence. These regions were denied the right to self-determination and have become unrecognized states, examples of this are Nagorno Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Chechnya, and Kosovo (Caspersen 2012). Others share similar roots; Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina were both territories with Serb majorities. However, under the interpretation of “peoples” used by the international community these areas were the same as the republic they were a part of regardless of ethnicity. Because of territorial integrity these secessionist governments are the problem of the parent state and should not have contact with the international community unless the parent allows it. This means that unless there is a humanitarian intervention, as there was in Kosovo, these states are going to have to reach agreements with their parent to find de jure sovereignty and international recognition.

The position of an unrecognized state in the international community differs depending on the state and their level of recognition, but for almost all these states it means an exclusion from economic institutions. Many of these states are unable to get insurance or take out loans. Because of this they often rely on a patron to help sustain them economically (Kolstø 2006). There are two notable cases that go against this completely, Taiwan and Bougainville. Taiwan is a major financial center and economic powerhouse that is recognized by over 20 countries, and only remains unrecognized because of China’s power. It is however helped by the United States and other countries, but does not rely on them for economic aid. Bougainville on the other hand was had almost no external contact or support. It had to find ways to provide for the people. It used the rivers to create power and coconut oil for fuel, but without resources like medical supplies huge amounts of people died (Caspersen 2012). In 1997 the conflict in Bougainville ended and by 2000 they had reached an agreement (Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) with Papa New Guinea after almost 25 years of isolation (Caspersen 2012). Threats to the economy are not the only threats these states face.

Non-recognition almost always brings with it a threat to a state’s security. These states generally arise from civil wars with the parent state and then sit back. They have no interest in in more violence, but it’s a constant specter over their existence. The parent state is usually unhappy about the loss of territory, whether it was a blow to national pride or resources. The parent state can often rely on non-recognition to weaken the unrecognized state, while building up their own army. This is what Croatia did to Republika Srpska Krajina, Russia to Chechnya, and Sri Lanka to Tamil Eelam (Caspersen 2012). However, in some cases it is the unrecognized state that is the aggressor.

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991 and is recognized by no state. Somalia is one of the best examples of a failed state in the world; it has no functioning central government and is unable to control its territory. This is one of the few cases where the unrecognized state is stronger and more organized than the parent state. Here it is Somaliland who is the aggressor. In 2007 they captured the city of Las Anod, the capital of the Sool region, from the autonomous region of Puntland after multiple attempts. Puntland is autonomous, but still part of Somalia and wants to see a united Somalia in the future (Kaplan 2008). The violence has continued on a smaller scale since (Caspersen 2012). Another outlier is the case of Transnistria where there has been no reported fighting since 1992. Although these outliers do exist, for most unrecognized states (even these two to some extent) violence from the parent state is a constant fear the people have to live with. Mostly violence is limited to border skirmishes, but sometimes it gets more serious, like in the case of the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.