A policy of double standards is a typical feature of international relations. It manifests itself in the issue of recognizing newly proclaimed states, as well as in a variety of approaches and assessments. The double-standard policy emerges as a result of different interests. What suits one country might conflict with the interests of another. There is a rivalry between the world powers; even though the cold war ended long ago, there remains a mutual distrust and a desire for dominance.

       In some cases, a unified approach can certainly be developed to the issue of recognizing a newly proclaimed state – but it requires common, or at least parallel interests of the key international players, as well as an awareness that recognizing the new state will lead to stabilization, while failing to do so will give rise to conflict and fresh antagonism.

       Let's consider three examples: Kosovo, Palestine and South Ossetia.

       Kosovo is mentioned most often when referring to the double-standard policy. The state of Kosovo was recognized by Western countries, which in similar circumstances but under different political conditions, refused to recognize other nations that were struggling for their rights.

       In speaking of Kosovo’s prospects, it is important to consider not only recognition of the state, but its viability as well. What is life like in Kosovo now? Is the state stable? Has the emergence of the new state helped solve current problems in the Balkans, or on the contrary, has it aggravated them? Many observers maintain that both the increase in crime and the aggravation of inter-ethnic clashes are directly linked to the policy of the Kosovo authorities, and that they are a result of their unwillingness or inability to resolve crucial issues of nation-building.

       With Palestine, the situation is different. Palestinians are seeking to change their asymmetrical context, with the national movement on one side and the state on the other, having shifted their relations with Israel to an official interstate format, thereby reinforcing the country’s position. In the event that Palestine receives recognition from the United Nations General Assembly, it will become an observer state. Recognition of Palestine by the Security Council would of course be preferable for them – but considering that the United States will veto Palestinian UN bid, this is highly unlikely. Yet even the status of an observer state would provide certain opportunities for Palestine. As I see it, the main thing is that this status would be an important symbol of success for the Palestinians in their struggle to establish a state. Still, this recognition on its own will hardly change anything. All key issues that have to do with the frontier and the capital, as well as the refugee problem, need to be settled in talks. Recognition of Palestinians by the UN will underscore the necessity to resume talks promptly and ensure their effectiveness.

       The problem with South Ossetia is that the state has little chance of broad international recognition, despite recognition from Russia. Alongside political considerations, the reality of the situation must be taken into account as well. There are no institutes that function effectively, and the population is very small. I don't know what will happen with the republic, but in any case, South Ossetia’s future will largely depend on other major countries.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.