After the second world war many colonies got independence. Some existed earlier as political entities or protectorates but gained international recognition post-war. The colonizers left few of these States with unsettled disputes over territories on which the struggle is still on. Some of States like Bangladesh was born much later than the decolonization era by cessation from Pakistan in, 1971. To recognise a State then became a practical necessity. India was the fist Country to recognize Bangladesh on 6 December 1971, even before its war of independence formally ended. Similarly, The United States recognized Israel in 1948, immediately after its declaration of independence. International law jurist, Hans Kelsen argued for legal personality of the States in international law. The 1933 Montevideo convention further laid down the criterion for Statehood; permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to few international law advocates, the recognition of States is a constitutive necessity, without which the State cannot legally exist. On the other hand, few see it as merely a declaration of something which already is existent. Notably, unlike, recognition of State, recognition of Government does not form parts of any legal instrument. Recognition of governments isn't codified in international law; it's rather, a matter of diplomatic policy. Each State, in a globalized world has to deal with other State on some or the other issue, and engaging with any State simply means engaging with the government of that other. Thus, recognition of government also became pivotal in international law. There are certain views behind government recognition, for example- Tobar doctrine, Estrada doctrine amongst others, each doctrine is on the name of the person who first applied the same. Tobar Doctrine of 1907 states that, no recognition of governments that came to power through unconstitutional means whereas, Estrada Doctrine of 1930 lays down that, no State should pronounce on the legitimacy of foreign governments, rather, recognition is to be implied through continued or ceased diplomatic relations.
A government technically need not be recognized by other States, as it is an internal matter of the State. To not recognize a newly elected government can actually be seen as an interference in the internal sovereignty of the State. A situation however gets difficult when the new government comes to power through insurgency or belligerency. The new government then, seeks recognition from other States for validation in international law. In general, governments are usually recognized by a simple act of diplomatic relation or as little as congratulating the newly elected leader over a phone call.
India's relationship with Afghanistan's Taliban government is essential for international relations as India has a considerable strategic and economic stakes in Afghanistan. India has made around USD 3 billion investment in Afghanistan since 2001 and it's obvious to be desperate to secure those investments. Similarly, China has made new investments in Afghanistan, though it has not recognized the new government. So far, though India has engaged with Afghanistan ministers but has not formally recognized the government. A question thus arises- is formal recognition necessary when diplomatic ties have been made?
In an ordinary scenario, these actions were enough for implied recognition of the government. However, the UN Credentials Committee continues the acceptance of the representative of the former Afghan government, the same reflects the collective international position against legitimizing the Taliban administration. The reasons for non-acceptance are not difficult to guess; the relationship of Taliban with Al-Queda and Haqqani network in past, systematic gender discrimination, blatant human right violations, calls for an express formal recognition. So far, except Russia, no country has formally recognized the Taliban government, though several; including, China, Pakistan, and Iran maintain working diplomatic relations. India's recognition of Afghanistan in current arrangement can be considered as de facto, that is, only for practical purposes without full embassy exchange- not de jure.
It is also to be noted that, unless in express mode, there is no practical distinction between de facto and de jure recognition, the line between the two is rather blur. And in the current context, where India has a strategic interest along with major projects pending in Afghanistan, we need a more legally compliant Afghanistan. After closing its embassy in 2021 India is again upgrading its technical mission in Kabul to a full embassy, indicating a significant step in re-engaging with the Taliban administration. India has also reopened a technical mission for humanitarian work. Theoretically, the de facto recognition may not suffice to legitimize India's claim over its sovereign assets in Afghanistan. Recognition thus, remains one of the most fluid concepts in International Law, here legality, politics and self-interest are inseparable. India's cautious diplomacy demonstrates how to navigate legitimacy without endorsement, ensuring strategic continuity without compromising normative principles.
Author is Assistant Professor, IIULER, Goa. Views Are Personal.