0

Voted against UN Partition Plan and voted against admission of Israel to membership of UN. Iranian government refrained from recognizing Israel de jure despite de facto recognition.[106] Relations severed on 18 February 1979.[107] Does not accept Israeli passports,[22] and the holders of Iranian passports are "not entitled to travel to the occupied Palestine"[108]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Israel

What are the diplomatic challenges and advantages associated with a state receiving de jure recognition compared to de facto recognition, and how might these differing forms of recognition influence a state's international relations and standing in the global community?

Considering Iran's historical stance towards Israel, a critical question emerges regarding the diplomatic ramifications of not giving de jure recognition of a state. Generally speaking, and not Iran's situation specifically, how does this dual approach of de facto recognition and de jure non-recognition impact diplomatic relation between two countries?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    Not my DV, but I'm guessing you're getting that because Israel is a rather poor example of an unrecognized state, being otherwise recognized by most. As for "key" that may a bit opinion based. I mean the quote you have already shows some of the issues: passports [not] being accepted etc.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 14:21
  • I noticed someone keeps downvoting people for no reason. Not sure why he does that. It prevents people from asking questions.
    – user28660
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 14:25

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

The key diplomatic issue with de jure recognition of partially recognized states is that usually another (recognized) country already claims that land as its own. Recognizing part of your country as a different state is considered an act of war. This is what unites Taiwan with Donetsk PR - they could not get de jure recognition from the states sympathetic to their cause.

In case of Israel this is non-issue because no larger entity claims it. So Iran is at will to recognize it if it wanted.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Well, Syria still claims the Golan back. Territorial disputes indeed often go hand in hand with non-recognition though.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 14:25
  • 1
    @Fizz Countries which have only part of its territory claimed by the others are more easily recognizable :)
    – alamar
    Commented Oct 15, 2023 at 14:34
1

"De iure" means "by right" in latin, while "de facto" means "by facts". So, "de iure" = "on papers only" and "de facto" = "in reality, actually". Just the ethimology is enough to explain that "de iure" means nothing, and "de facto" is all.

More than 120 countries decided to recognize Palestine as a state in the UN, "de iure". It means nothing. Everyone, including even the USA, considers Gaza and the West Bank "illegally occupied territories". That doesn't prevent Israel to use its land and its resources (water and cheap labour, mainly) at will.

Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh (while it lasted) were recognized "de iure" by some countries, and not recognized by others. It does not really matters. As long as their armed forces controlled the territory, they governed the land. Being recognized "de iure" while not having actual control over the territory is worthless. Having "de facto" statehood, even while unrecognized by some, allows you to govern the land. Of course it helps if some other countries recognize your country, "de iure", since it helps with diplomacy and trade, but that depends on how powerful and numerous those countries are - Iran and Venezuela recognizing Crimea as part of Russia doesn't mean much - and how powerful or influent your own country is - if people are still trading with your country even while formally not recognizing it.

Improve this answer
2
  • Lack of recognition does create various kinds of hassles. For example, Spain will still deport owners of Kosovo passports with valid Schengen entry, as far as I know.
    – alamar
    Commented Oct 16, 2023 at 23:31
  • @alamar Indeed. But this is done against the citizens, not against the state. What I meant is that, if you have a country with "de facto" recognition, you have a country. If you have a country only with "de iure" recognition, you have nothing. Obviously the best is having both.
    – Rekesoft
    Commented Oct 17, 2023 at 7:21

You must log in to answer this question.