Adolfo, Adolph Cyril G.

EH 408 9-19-19

Tisoy, Paul Mart R.

1. Why is legal personality a relative concept?

Based on the Reparations For Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion,
legal personalities are relative because they are not necessarily identical in their nature or in the extent
of their rights. And their nature depends upon the needs of the community.

The principal feature of legal personality is exemplified by states because of their capacity to conclude
treaties and the enjoyment of privileges and immunities from the exercise of national jurisdiction. This
term of relativism is most applicable to non-state actors in international relations as they will only possess
those rights and obligations vested by the state, as opposed to a state’s full capacity. Thus, in this manner
the legal personality will be relative as to the capacities these non-state actors can exercise.

2. What is the problem with the two approaches to the role of recognition?

According to the book of Anders Henriksen, the problem with the constitutive approach is the fact
that the need to be recognized by the other states poses the issue that there could be no absolute
existence of a state because its existence would be relative to other states. Further, there would be
conflict on how many states would be sufficient for recognition.

While the problem with the declaratory approach is the fact that although the satisfaction of the
requirements in the Montevideo Convention has been complied with, nothing precludes a state from
asking for additional requirements for their recognition. And this recognition is critical because if an
emerging state is not recognized, this could mean that the state would not permit bilateral relations
between them and the emerging state. For instance, with the United States and the European Committee
where they added adherence to democracy and rule of law as an additional requirement for statehood.
So, what is the purpose of satisfying the requirements for statehood when the state can’t even exercise
its rights to have relations with other states because nothing prohibits another state from not recognizing
their statehood.

3. Is Palestine a State for purposes of international law?

Yes. Palestine is a state for purposes of international law.

Under the Montevideo Convention, the requisites are: permanent population, defined territory,
government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. Palestine satisfies all the necessary
requisites for statehood. Although there have been political uncertainties about the exact location of a
potential territorial border between Israel and Palestine, this issue has not been a bar for Palestine’s
statehood. Further, the fact that Palestine is not a member of the UN does not negate its status because
although UN membership is an evidence for statehood; it is not a requirement.

4. Has Syria lost its status as a State as a consequence of the absence of an effective government?

No. Syria has not lost its status as a state despite the absence of an effective government.
 The requirement under the Montevideo Convention of an effective government ceases to be relevant
once a state has been established. An illustration would be Somalia where it has continued to be
recognized as a state despite not having an effective government for decades.