(Grant, 1999, p. 1) That refers to the notion that declaratory convention seemed to reduce the inconsistency of legal entities to some states and some non states. However, both conventions ignored critical factors and requirements of legal personality. Instructions as to how, as a practical matter, recognition is to be extended can only be analyzed from the doctrines by implication. The doctrines do not take adequate account of the composite character of the state, ignoring that statehood is probably best described as a bundle of rights, obligations, and functions. And neither doctrine directly addresses where recognition falls along the spectrum between law and politics.
While highlighting the needs of the International Community, there is no doubt that the Montevideo formula was drawn up at a time when self-determination was not generally recognized as a 'need' in international law, and when the implications of the nascent rule prohibiting the use of force between states had not been worked out. That makes it even odder to debate the statehood of entities such as Palestine in terms of the Convention's hackneyed formula. (Gill & Talmon, 1999, p. 113)
Montevideo Convention gives a satisfactory definition of the state ...Show more