Recognition of Governments and the Prohibition of Intervention

Recent cases of government recognition, such as those concerning Libya (2011), Venezuela (2019), Afghanistan (2021), or Niger (2023), have proved controversial. The controversy partly stems from the argument that recognition of an entity that does not exercise effective control over the territory and population of a state as its government, or non-recognition of an entity that does, violates the prohibition of intervention in the internal or external affairs of other states. 1 At first sight, this argument appears categorical in that it implies that an expression of recognition or non-recognition per se can violate the prohibition of intervention. However, as the recent scholarship indicates, determining the circumstances under which a recognition decision violates the prohibition is a more complicated question, requiring attention to the effects of the particular decision. 2 This essay attempts to shed further light on the matter by examining it against the backdrop of recent illustrative cases. It ultimately argues that recognition should be viewed as a potential tool for intervention—dependent on the objectives a state seeks to achieve with it—rather than in and of itself being capable of amounting to impermissible intervention.