 |
The Three-Element Theory
The Three-Element Theory is a definition developed by Georg Jellinek to determine the existence of a state.
According to this theory, a state is defined by the following criteria:
- its state people
- its state territory
- and a state authority
All these elements must be effectively present for a subject to be classified as a state. Under international law, the principle of continuity also applies. This means that a state continues to be regarded as a state for a considerable period of time if, although it fulfilled all three criteria in the past, it no longer meets all of them at present. This is particularly the case with failed states.
The criteria of the three-element doctrine, for example, formed the basis of the Montevideo Convention, which was signed by 20 American states. This convention declared the rejection of armed intervention in internal American affairs and formed part of the US Good Neighbour Policy between 1933 and 1938. It also defined the characteristics of a state. However, the Montevideo Convention also introduced a fourth criterion for assessing statehood. According to this, a state must also be capable of entering into international relations with other states. Many, however, also regard this criterion as part of the requirement for functioning state authority.
The three-element doctrine is often used to assess the existence of a state under international law. However, fulfilment of these three criteria is often insufficient for recognition as a state. As new states usually arise through secession from existing states, successful, lasting secession is also necessary. A secession is the separation of parts of a country to establish an independent, sovereign state. To this end, a seceding state must demonstrate that the state of origin is unwilling or unable to reintegrate and control the seceding state.
The most important criterion for an area to be treated as a state is recognition by all other states at the international level. This generally takes the form of a declaration, i.e. an official statement of recognition. However, most states only grant such recognition if all the objective criteria for statehood are met, including at least the three criteria of the three-element theory.
Examples of states and non-state entities
The following assessments are controversial in many respects. Often, no clear assessment can be given for individual criteria, as there are always points in favour and against. The list should therefore be viewed only as a rough assessment, without going into detail.
Sealand
The Principality of Sealand was proclaimed as an independent state in 1967. Sealand is a sea fortress situated approximately 10 km (6 miles) off the coast of Great Britain. As Sealand has neither a population nor a territory, it is not recognised internationally.
Palestine
Although Palestine has de facto territory, it does not have recognised state borders. Neither the current borders nor the much-discussed 1967 borders are recognised. There is no recognised legal document defining the borders. Although Palestine has a government in the form of the Palestinian Authority, this is challenged by Hamas. The Palestinian Authority also has no control over the entire potential territory, meaning that state power does not exist. Nevertheless, over 80% of all states worldwide have recognised Palestine as a state. Here, however, a comparison can also be drawn with failed states, which do not possess functioning state power but are usually still recognised as states on the basis of the continuity of a previous state.
Kosovo
The Republic of Kosovo is a de facto state, but it is recognised by only around 60% of the world’s states. Kosovo has a territory, a population and a government that exercises control over the state. However, when it comes to recognising Kosovo, the non-recognising states mostly either fear that other states might recognise their own territories with separatist aspirations, or they support the state of origin, Serbia, and its backer, Russia, both of which also reject the recognition of Kosovo.
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is not a state. This territory has no defined national territory. It shares only a border with its country of origin, Morocco, which is constantly shifting and not recognised. Large parts of the territory are occupied by Morocco, meaning that the potential government has no control over the entire territory and, consequently, no state authority exists.
Taiwan
Taiwan is not an independent state. The territory fulfils only two of the criteria of the three-element doctrine. There is a nation and a state authority capable of acting internationally. However, both Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China regard themselves as successors to the Chinese Empire and as representatives of the entire Chinese state. Taiwan’s official name, the Republic of China, underscores this. Consequently, there are no separate territories of the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, and thus no separate states.
Kurdistan
The Kurdish regions do not constitute a separate state. Whilst there may be a nation comprising the Kurdish people, there is no defined national territory. In the Iranian part of the region, there is no clearly recognised border, even though the boundary is defined by the province of Kurdistan. In the Iraqi part of the region, there is a clear border through the Kurdistan Region. In Syria, there is also a clear border through the autonomous region of Rojava, but this too is not recognised as an official border and there are repeated military and political disputes over the border. In Turkey, on the other hand, there is no clearly defined border with the Kurdish regions. In Syria and Iraq, a state authority is discernible, whereas in Iran and Turkey it is not. However, parts of the Kurdish territory in Syria are under Turkish control, which would again argue against the existence of a state authority.
