Burn after leaving? Recognition denial as strategy in the post-Brexit security relationship

Prominent examples of withdrawal from IOs raise the question of how actors seek to validate their role after exit. IOs may seek legitimation either through the exclusion of the departing state or continued engagement in their activities, while departing states may validate withdrawal through continued engagement or the denial of recognition. This article claims legitimation strategies are shaped by the policy domain, with external differentiation, institutional overlap and contingent actorness making IOs more susceptible to recognition denial and thus more likely to seek continued engagement. The article demonstrates this empirically through the UKEU security relationship post-Brexit, drawing on interviews with both sides. We show how Britain’s potential contribution to EU security underscored a desire to keep Britain involved, but that politicisation in the UK brought led the Johnson government to pursue a deliberate strategy of recognition denial. Our findings help explain why actors seek different legitimation strategies after withdrawal.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Security
Published
2025-11-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2025.2589783
Primary Topic
Global Security and Public Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Burn after leaving? Recognition denial as strategy in the post-Brexit security relationship

Benjamin Martill, Alexander Mesarovich
European Security
Global Security and Public Health
article

Burn after leaving? Recognition denial as strategy in the post-Brexit security relationship

Benjamin Martill, Alexander Mesarovich
article en

Abstract

Prominent examples of withdrawal from IOs raise the question of how actors seek to validate their role after exit. IOs may seek legitimation either through the exclusion of the departing state or continued engagement in their activities, while departing states may validate withdrawal through continued engagement or the denial of recognition. This article claims legitimation strategies are shaped by the policy domain, with external differentiation, institutional overlap and contingent actorness making IOs more susceptible to recognition denial and thus more likely to seek continued engagement. The article demonstrates this empirically through the UKEU security relationship post-Brexit, drawing on interviews with both sides. We show how Britain’s potential contribution to EU security underscored a desire to keep Britain involved, but that politicisation in the UK brought led the Johnson government to pursue a deliberate strategy of recognition denial. Our findings help explain why actors seek different legitimation strategies after withdrawal.

European Security
European University Institute (IT), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Global Security and Public Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.