What are the steps to become an independent country once independence has been declared?

Question

In How to Become a Country in 3 Easy Steps they mention:

• Step 1 Declare independence
• Step 2 Gain recognition
• Step 3 Join the United Nations

Foreign Policy has a similar article How to Start Your Own Country in Four Easy Steps which lists:

• Step 1: Make sure you are eligible
• Step 2: Declare independence
• Step 3: Get recognized
• Step 4: Join the club

Assuming a territory has already gone through the step of declaring the independence, what would be the next bureaucratic steps in order to reach the status of a sovereign, independent country?

In the second article they mention:

Since its founding in 1945, membership in the United Nations has become the gold standard of international legitimacy. When you are admitted to the U.N, that's a form of approval.

And reading the article they show some cases like Nagorno Karabakh, Palestine (or Ossetia, I would add) that are somehow frozen in between the "declare independence" and "get recognized" steps.

For this, what would be the formal steps to take in case the international community agree on a territory becoming independent?

Answer 1

Adding an important caveat to what Ryathal said:

The only thing that really matters is sovereignty over the land you claim as your country. International recognition is just something that helps maintain sovereignty...they might help you defend your claim. Declaring independence is somewhat of a formality, as it really only matters if you have the means to enforce it.

There's also the somewhat unspoken rule in getting recognized as an international state that you have to not be at odds with any of the great powers. Taiwan is not recognized by much of the world because many countries don't want to anger China. Palestine is not recognized by most of the world because most of the world does not want to anger the United States (vis-a-vis Israel).

The "declaring independence only matters if you have the means to enforce it" bit is the non-codified necessity of a state of the monopoly on violence by the state. If a region is actively disputed, the international community is unlikely to recognize it.

A recent example of a country joining the international community by fighting for independence, gaining independence, gaining a (in hindsight temporary) monopoly on violence, and not stepping on the toes of any great powers in the process would be South Sudan, which declared independence in 2011 and is now recognized by the international community (and engaged in a civil war).

Thus your steps above could be modified as such:

• Step -1 Don't piss off any major powers
• Step 0 Gain a monopoly on force (often happens after step 1)
• Step 1 Declare independence (within defined borders)
• Step 2 Gain recognition (not codified)
• Step 3 Join the United Nations

Answer 2

First of all there is no etched-in-stone way to become a sovereign state. Some follow military ways e.g. Bangladesh seceding from Pakistan and becoming an independent country. Some follow political ways e.g. Pakistan and India carved out of united British India. There is no way to get the entire international community on board as interests of all states vary. They rarely agree on anything anyways.

You could say that a state is considered independent if it is considered a person in international law.

There are however two theories which can be considered as "How to be Independent" guides. They are:

1. Constitutive Theory
2. Declarative Theory

Constitutive Theory

This theory concludes that a regional entity is considered an independent state or a person in international law if and only if it is recognized as such by other sovereign entities.

In 1815, Congress of Vienna Final Act acknowledged existence of only 39 sovereign states in Europe. It further outlined the process by which other states who claimed to be sovereign could be acknowledged as such. The process was nominally acknowledgement of their independence by the 39-club which in practice meant that a new state would be recognized as independent if and only if the Great Powers France, Russia, Great Britain, Prussia and Austria recognized them as such.

Lassa Openheim in 1921 however provided a realistic view. He said that even though there is no requirement by the international law for a state to be recognized by others for it to exist or its independence to exist, the Law simply refuses to note their independence. They may be de-facto independent however de-jure, they shall not be treated as such unless other nations recognize them.

Of course recognizing a nation is also a subjective thing, subjective to a number of factors. Chief among those are the interests of pre-existing states. If the new state serves interests of existing states, they might recognize it, if they don't, they might choose not to. Hypothetically consider Kurdistan. If an independent Kurdistan is established today, Israel would be inclined towards recognizing them as an independent Kurdistan is beneficial for Israel. It provides them a friendly partner in the region and it also weakens their regional rivals such as Iran whose own Kurdish region could be stirred to follow the same suite. Iran on the other hand, will oppose formation of Kurdistan for the exact same reasons.

Declarative Theory

Declarative theory is more clearer than the constitutive one. It lays out the following criteria for a state to be considered independent:

1. It has a defined territory.
2. It has a permanent population.
3. It has a government.
4. It has a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The most important point is, if these four points are met, a territory is considered an independent state even if it is not recognized by any existing independent states.

See the Article 3 of Convention on Rights and duties of states or Montevideo Convention which not only explicitly states that the independence is not bound to recognition by others, it also grants new states the right to defend themselves. So if, let's say Catalonia starts a war against Spain, they would be well within their rights to do so as per Convention on Rights and Duties of States. This convention was adopted in 1933 and applies to all parties of International law and not just the signatories.

This was also the set of Laws used by Badinter Arbitration Committee to resolve the crisis of dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1991. So One could say that declarative theory is the one which is currently in practice.

In Practice

In Practice however, one could assert that the only sure way to be seen as an independent state is to join the United Nations. The following is how you join the UN as a member state:

The procedure is briefly as follows:

1. The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
2. The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.
3. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
4. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

So you need at least 9 friends in 15 members of the UNSC to pass the first step and make sure that none of the Permanent members veto the application, (Sorry Palestine, Chechnya, Taiwan, Brittany, Northern Ireland). If that's done (And this is the most difficult step as the General Assembly will mostly follow the suite), you need 2/3 majority in UNGA to gain admission.

But even by joining UN, you are in no way obligating the UN states to recognize you as independent. UN's recognition in itself provides you just a platform to communicate with the rest of the world. It doesn't guarantee the integrity and independence of your country for eternity. But that in itself means little because Montevideo Convention already accords you the right to defend your territory even if no state or UN recognizes you as independent. Not to mention, quite the contrary, UN may in fact take steps to hinder your independence. For example, UNSC resolution 541 which declared that Northern Cypriot declaration of Independence was legally invalid. Furthermore, UN could ask for advise from International Court of Justice as it did in Case of Kosovo.

If you take a look at List of States with limited recognition, you will notice there are UN members not recognized by other UN members, there are Non-UN members not recognized by a number UN members, there are non-UN members who are not recognized by any UN members etc. So there is no certain pattern.

Independent countries may choose their own ways to deal with your independence, e.g. the split among nations regarding Israel. Similarly independent countries may choose their own reactions to violation of your sovereignty i.e. support or opposition on the scale of verbal to in-field.

---

Standard IANAL disclaimer. I was hoping someone with good knowledge of International law could weigh in. But since the OP insisted, oh well.

Answer 3

The only thing that really matters is sovereignty over the land you claim as your country. International recognition is just something that helps maintain sovereignty. Recognition only helps in the sense that those countries probably won't try to take over your claim, and they might help you defend your claim. Declaring independence is somewhat of a formality, as it really only matters if you have the means to enforce it.

For example, the Russian occupied area of Ukraine is largely recognized as part of Ukraine still by the international community, but it doesn't matter in a practical sense because the Ukrainian government doesn't have control of the region.

Answer 4

United Nations Policy

You might be interested in the United Nations rules for admission of new members. Although it only applies to a specific recognition, it is one of the few times you will have a bureaucratic process for recognition.

The United Nations process is:

1. A country must apply for membership. This membership must include a declaration that the applicant accepts the terms of the UN Charter.
2. The Security Council must recommend the applicant for membership.
3. The General Assembly can either approve or reject the membership.

Each step is a potential source of failure. Some potential members may not apply (although there are significant incentives for doing so, especially for a state attempting to established its legitimacy). Any member of the Security Council can quash the applicant with a single vote. Finally, even if the Security Council recommends the applicant the General Assembly gets a vote.

More Generally

In general though, there is no formal legal process by which a country becomes recognized internationally. This relies on soft-skills and "reading the room" more than bureaucracy or process.

Sovereignty and Recognition

There are two primary theories of statehood, which are covered in NSNoob's answer. The important takeaway is that sovereignty and recognition are two different ideas, and the theories disagree on how they relate.

Sovereignty is the "supreme authority within a territory" (SEP). A state is sovereign when it has authority in a certain place. This includes the ability to make and enforce laws and the ability to defend its space from others. For declarative theory, this is enough to be a state.

International recognition speaks to the legitimacy of a state, rather than its authority. Recognition by more established states and participation in the international community enhances legitimacy. For constitutive theory, recognition is required for statehood.

Answer 5

I will break the convention from other answers and say that you do not need to become a member of the UN in order to become an independent country.

You need only one thing, and this is the monopoly over violence over a certain region or area.

The process of establishing a state does not have a defined and codified standard.

Laws themselves are an abstract social construct, and the borders of a nation aren't a physical property of the universe. Neither are institutions, police or military - they are imaginary.

What is not imaginary however, are the humans who believe in such ideas, their uniforms, resources, weapons and bullets.

Countries exist in people's minds.

---

A state could have no recognition by any other country in the world, but if they have the monopoly over violence in a certain area it does not affect their sovereignty.