ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යය

විකිපීඩියා, නිදහස් විශ්වකෝෂය වෙතින්
වෙත පනින්න: සංචලනය, සොයන්න

ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යයක් යනු ස්ථිර ජනතාවක්, නිශ්චිත ‍දේශසීමාවක් සහිත සහ වෙනත් ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යය සමග ජාත්‍යන්තර සබඳතා පවත්වාගතහැකි ආණ්ඩුවක් සහිත රජයකි. [1] It is also normally understood to be a state which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state.[2] While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

ඉතිහාසය[සංස්කරණය]

වත්මන් තත්‍වය[සංස්කරණය]

වර්ථමානයේ ලොවේ ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යය 200කට වඩා ඇති අතර ඉන් අති බහුතරය එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ සාමාජිකත්වය දරයි.. These states form what international relations theorists call a system, where each state takes into account the behavior of other states when making their own calculations. From this point of view, states embedded in an international system face internal and external security and legitimation dilemmas. Recently the notion of an international community has been developed to refer to a group of states who have established rules, procedures, and institutions for the conduct of their relations. In this way the foundation has been laid for international law, diplomacy, formal regimes, and organizations.

අර්ථ දැක්වීම් සහ ආසන්න වදන්[සංස්කරණය]

ස්වෛරීය යන වදන නිතර අපභාවිතයට ලක්වේ.[3] Lassa Oppenheim said "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon."[4] In the opinion of Justice Evatt of the High Court of Australia "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question that does not arise at all." [5]

ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යය හැඳින්වීමට සමහරවි‍ට "රට", "ජාතිකත්වය සහ රජය වැනි වදන් යොදාගන්නා නමුදු සැබැවින්ම මේ වදන් සියල්ලටම නිශ්චිත වෙනස් අර්ථ ඇත.

  • ජාතිකභාවය ජාතිකභාවය වදන නිතර නොයෙදෙන නමුත් එහි නාම විශේෂනය වන ජාතික යන්න සුලබව යෙදේ. එය සාමාන්‍යයෙන් යෙදෙන්නේ ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යයකට අදාල කරුණු වලදීය.
නිදසුන් - ජාතික කොඩිය, ජාතික ගීය
  • ජාතිය සමාන චාරිත්‍ර මෙන්ම එකම මූලාරම්භයක් සහ ඉතිහාසයක් ඇතැයි විශ්වස කරන ජනතාව ජාතියක් ලෙස හැඳින්වේ.

ස්වෛරීය රාජ්‍යයක් ලෙස පිලිගැනීම[සංස්කරණය]

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state.[6] Recognition can be either express or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It doesn't necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.

There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[7] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the unborn Polish and Czech states in World War I and explained that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."[8]

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign.[9]

Constitutive theory[සංස්කරණය]

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition, was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[10] In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act only recognised 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of the great powers.[11]

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognize a new entity, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognize another state if it is to their advantage.[10]

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:

...International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.[12]

Declarative theory[සංස්කරණය]

By contrast, the "declarative" theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.

A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.

State practice[සංස්කරණය]

State practice relating the recognition states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches.[13] International law does not require a state to recognise other states.[14]

Recognition is often withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus are good examples of this. In the former case, recognition was widely withheld when the White minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa. A move which the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime".[15] In the latter case recognition was wildly withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land which was illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.[16]

De facto and de jure states[සංස්කරණය]

Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which is a United Nations observer, has bi-lateral diplomatic relations with 104 states, while having no territory and possessing only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates).[17] Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition, these are de facto states only. Somaliland is commonly considered to be such a state.[18][19][20][21] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognized as sovereign states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.

The sovereign state in modern political thought[සංස්කරණය]

The rise of the modern state system was closely related to changes in political thought, especially concerning the changing understanding of legitimate state power. Early modern defenders of absolutism such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin undermined the doctrine of the divine right of kings by arguing that the power of kings should be justified by reference to the people. Hobbes in particular went further and argued that political power should be justified with reference to the individual, not just to the people understood collectively. Both Hobbes and Bodin thought they were defending the power of kings, not advocating democracy, but their arguments about the nature of sovereignty were fiercely resisted by more traditional defenders of the power of kings, like Sir Robert Filmer in England, who thought that such defenses ultimately opened the way to more democratic claims.[තහවුරු කරන්න]


Some contemporary thinkers, such as Michel Foucault, have argued that political theory needs to get away from the notion of the state: "We need to cut off the king's head. In political theory that has still to be done."[22] By this he meant that power in the modern world is much more decentralized and uses different instruments than power in the early modern era, so that the notion of a sovereign, centralized state is increasingly out of date.

ආශ්‍රිත ලිපි[සංස්කරණය]

වැඩිදුර කියවීම්[සංස්කරණය]

  • Chen, Ti-chiang. The International Law of Recognition, with Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States. London, 1951.
  • Crawford, James. The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-825402-4, pp. 15–24.
  • Lauterpacht, Sir Hersch. Recognition in International Law. Cambridge, U.K., 1947.
  • Raič, D. Statehood and the Law of Self-determination. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2002. ISBN 978-90-411-1890-5. p 29 (with reference to Oppenheim in International Law Vol. 1 1905 p110)

External links[සංස්කරණය]

References[සංස්කරණය]

  1. Shaw, Malcolm Natෟhan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 178. "Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933 lays down the most widely accepted formulation of the criteria of statehood in international law. It note that the state as an international person should possess the following qualifications: '(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states'" 
    Jasentuliyana, Nandasiri, ed (1995). Perspectives on international law. Kluwer Law International. p. 20. "So far as States are concerned, the traditional definitions provided for in the Montevideo Convention remain generally accepted." 
  2. Wheaton, Henry (1836). Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science. Carey, Lea & Blanchard. p. 51. "A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers." 
    සැකිල්ල:Cite
    සැකිල්ල:Cite
  3. See "Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy, Stephen D. Krasner, Princeton University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-691-00711-X
  4. 1 Lassa Oppenheim, International Law 66 (Sir Arnold D. McNair ed., 4th ed. 1928)
  5. See Sovereignty in cases of Mandated Territories, in "International law and the protection of Namibia's territorial integrity", By S. Akweenda, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997, ISBN 90-411-0412-7, page 40
  6. "Recognition", Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy.
  7. See B. Broms, "IV Recognition of States", pp 47-48 in International law: achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui(ed), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991, ISBN 92-3-102716-6 [1]
  8. See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 [2]
  9. Thomas D. Grant, The recognition of states: law and practice in debate and evolution (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1999), chapter 1.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Hillier, Tim (1998). Sourcebook on Public International Law. Routledge. pp. 201–2. ISBN 1859410502. http://books.google.com/books?id=Kr0sOuIx8q8C. 
  11. Kalevi Jaakko Holsti Taming the Sovereigns p. 128
  12. Lassa Oppenheim, Ronald Roxburgh (2005). International Law: A Treatise. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.. pp. 135. ISBN 1584776099, 9781584776093. http://books.google.com/books?id=vxJ1Jwmyw0EC&pg=PA135. 
  13. Shaw, Malcolm Nathan (2003). International law. Cambridge University Press. p. 369. 
  14. Opinion No. 10. of the Yugoslav Arbitration Commission.
  15. s:United Nations Security Council Resolution 216
  16. s:United Nations Security Council Resolution 541
  17. Bilateral relations with countries, Retrieved 2009-12-22 [dead link]
  18. Arieff, Alexis (November 2008). "De facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland". Yale Journal of International Affairs. සම්ප්‍රවේශය 2010-01-04.  [dead link]
  19. "The List: Six Reasons You May Need A New Atlas Soon". Foreign Policy Magazine. July 2007. සම්ප්‍රවේශය 2010-01-04. 
  20. "Overview of De-facto States". Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. July 2008. සම්ප්‍රවේශය 2010-01-04. 
  21. Wiren, Robert (April 2008). "France recognizes de facto Somaliland". Les Nouvelles d'Addis Magazine. සම්ප්‍රවේශය 2010-01-04. 
  22. Foucault, Michel. 2000 [1976]. Truth and Power. In Power, edited by J. D. Fearon. New York: The New Press, p. 123. ISBN 1-56584-709-1
"http://si.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ස්වෛරීය_රාජ්‍යය&oldid=314661" වෙතින් සම්ප්‍රවේශනය කෙරිණි