Degrees of legitimacy: Ensuring internal and external support in the absence of recognition

- In-depth analysis of legitimation strategies adopted by unrecognised states.
- Examines the different audiences to which appeals are directed and possible conflicts.
- Legitimacy crucial but always problematic in the context of non-recognition.
- Tensions between external and internal legitimacy.
- Affect both governance and ability to survive.

Unrecognised states, such as Abkhazia, Nagorno Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and Transnistria are denied (widespread) international recognition, and have therefore tended to be viewed as illegitimate entities by the international community. This is despite much recent academic literature which has rejected binary conceptions of sovereignty and has demonstrated both the varying levels of international engagement available to non-state actors and the degrees of statehood and legitimacy that can be achieved without (external) sovereignty. Taking this literature as its starting point, but based on a reconceptualization of existing approaches to legitimacy in the context of non-recognition, this article analyses legitimation strategies adopted by unrecognised states and how these affect their degree of internal and external legitimacy. Drawing on evidence from several case studies, it finds that there is often a fraught relationship between different forms of legitimacy. Both external and internal legitimacy are crucial if unrecognised states are to survive, but external legitimacy is always problematic in the absence of recognition and attempts to garner external support risk undermining the internal legitimacy achieved. Strategies for ensuring internal legitimacy can similarly undermine attempts to achieve external support. These tensions affect both the type of governance found in these entities and their ability to survive.