Advancing “Government Recognition in Uncontested States” as a Research Agenda: Evidence from Post-Coup Myanmar

Abstract

Recent unconstitutional changes of government in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Venezuela offer a distinct challenge for the international community: How to respond when rival governments contest authority over a state where statehood itself is not in question. Such instances highlight the value of examining “government recognition in uncontested states” as a distinct object of inquiry in International Relations, separate from the well-established literature on state recognition. To advance this new research agenda, we build on scholarship on norms and practices of recognition with an inductive case study of post-coup Myanmar. We argue that the international community has largely pursued a strategy of “(non)recognition” by engaging in ambiguous practices that avoid explicit recognition of any competing authority while maintaining ties with all parties on pragmatic grounds. We argue that such ambiguous practices are interpreted differently across social and political domestic groups, enabling multiple and competing constructions of what government recognition means in practice. This multiplicity of meaning-making produces a form of government recognition defined by three core features: (i) divided (a disconnect between international recognition and local legitimacy), (ii) subjective (diplomatic practices actively constructed and co-opted by competing domestic actors), and (iii) co-constituted (citizens contest and reshape the international community’s recognition decisions).