Recognition in International Relations: A Conventional, Teleological, or Critical Concept?
Subject Areas : Research in Theoritical Politics
1 - Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: International Relations, recognition, constructivism, critical theory, and teleology.,
Abstract :
Recognition has long been a subject of discussion in international relations, primarily due to the significance of sovereignty and its relevance in international law. However, it has received relatively little theoretical attention, particularly from realists and liberals. At the same time, certain international relations theories—most notably the English School, constructivism, and critical theory—have given it special consideration. The English School, constructivism, and a significant portion of conventional constructivist studies on recognition have adopted a conventional state-centric, analytical, and explanatory approach. However, Alexander Wendt, in one of his works, moves beyond this framework and adopts a teleological approach to recognition. Although recognition has been discussed in critical scholarship as a means of emancipation at the societal level, its critical dimension has not been consistently maintained in international relations. Nonetheless, alongside Axel Honneth’s works, certain studies written from a non-Western perspective—such as those by Ayşe Zarakol—exhibit a critical stance toward the practice of recognizing non-Western actors in international relations. This raises the question of how these three approaches can be integrated into a coherent framework. The argument presented in this article is that what connects these three strands of theorizing on recognition in international relations, beyond their explanatory function, is the normative dimension that is more or less implicitly embedded within them.
Keywords: International Relations, recognition, constructivism, critical theory, and teleology.
Introduction
Recognition is a key concept in international relations, primarily referring to the recognition of a state by other states, closely linked to the notion of sovereignty in the international community. However, over the past two to three decades, recognition has also gained importance among social theorists in international relations. Given the theoretical discussions surrounding recognition in international relations, beyond the conventional approach, two other main perspectives can be identified: the critical approach and the teleological approach. But how can these three perspectives, which originate from different analytical viewpoints on the significance and role of recognition in international relations, be interconnected? The main argument of this paper is that, in addition to their explanatory aspects, all three approaches possess a normative dimension that links them together. In other words, each of them can contribute to international political or normative theory.
The Three Approaches to Recognition
The Conventional Approach
In realist, neoliberal, and historical sociological discussions on statehood, sovereignty and recognition are often assumed rather than explored. In contrast, the English School and constructivism, due to the constitutive role of sovereignty in the international society, have paid greater attention to recognition in its conventional sense. The international society is built around mutual recognition of state sovereignty, aiming for state coexistence and an ethic based on respect for differences.
Alexander Wendt argues that while states have a self-constitutive aspect—meaning their sovereignty is partially shaped through their own capacity and identity as a state—it is external recognition that ensures their survival and mitigates the effects of international anarchy. Furthermore, recognition of a state’s status by others provides existential security and fulfills its need for self-respect. Erik Ringmar, from a constructivist perspective, contends that states serve as the political guardians of storytelling communities, shaping their own identity through narratives and seeking recognition of these narratives and identities from other states. When recognition is denied, it generates feelings of humiliation and trauma. The history of international relations is filled with ongoing struggles for recognition. Michelle Murray connects the issue of recognition to discussions on the rise of emerging great powers, the potential instability associated with it, and theoretical debates on whether power transitions in international relations are peaceful or conflict-prone. The interactions of rising powers with others revolve around gaining recognition as a great power, a process often perceived as revisionism. It is recognition, Murray argues, that can prevent war.
The Teleological Approach
In the teleological approach, Alexander Wendt argues that the need for recognition can only be fully satisfied with the eventual formation of a global state. There is a structural tendency that makes the emergence of a global state inevitable sooner or later. The territorial state represents a "structure of unequal recognition," where outsiders are not granted rights, leading to the killing of the "other" in wars. In such a system, the state's primary duty is to protect its members against these outsiders, but war always remains a possibility. If war is to be entirely eradicated, full mutual and global recognition must be established. However, this universalism necessitates the recognition of particularism. A combination of a communitarian process (akin to realist perspectives) and a cosmopolitan process can lead to the necessity of a global state to achieve full recognition of differences. Thus, the struggle for recognition at the level of individuals, groups, and states interacts within a single systemic logic.
The Critical Approach
The critical approach to international recognition is rooted in Axel Honneth’s theory. In his social theory, social cohesion entails "a struggle for the recognition of the identity claims of social actors." These struggles persist until all groups and individuals have the opportunity to participate in the political community, and stability is achieved through the acceptance of recognition claims. Non-recognition, in the form of disrespect—whether through mistreatment, denial of rights, or insult—leads to struggles for recognition. Honneth argues that transferring the concept of recognition to international relations is unproblematic and can apply to minorities, ethnic groups, and others who struggle for recognition due to experiences of exclusion or disrespect. However, discussing recognition in inter-state relations is more challenging because states lack a singular collective identity, given the presence of minority groups within them. Nevertheless, states are recognized in the sense of acceptance (though not necessarily respect). In international relations, the desire to avoid public shame and the norms of diplomatic conduct prevent political representatives from directly demanding respect from others. At the same time, the definition of state interests is always embedded within normative expectations that assume citizens desire recognition of their collective identity. As a result, inter-state relations are shaped by "conflicts over recognition." The desire for recognition can be used both to legitimize aggressive foreign policies and to justify conciliatory ones. However, the "we" that influences foreign policy objectives emerges when expectations shape a collective narrative, making certain international stances appear justified in light of desired recognition and past humiliations. Governments can justify hostile and aggressive actions only if they can convincingly present them as responses to violations of their collective self-respect. Consequently, states that either disrespect or respect other states influence their foreign policies—either by pushing them toward aggression or toward peaceful engagement.
Ayşe Zarakol, drawing from a sociological framework with a reinforced critical dimension, examines how Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Japan, as non-modern empires, faced European superiority in military, technological, and other domains. In their quest for recognition within the Westphalian system, they were forced to abandon their self-affirming positions and instead negate themselves as outsiders. Over time, they no longer saw modernity as an imposed external force but rather as something to be voluntarily adopted and imitated. Unlike colonized nations, they accepted their subordinate position on the basis of their perceived lack of modernity. All three states, having suffered historical trauma from military defeat and the loss of empire, sought recognition and acceptance. In the twentieth century, they pursued grand strategies to reclaim their position within the society of states. However, the revisionist policies of all three ultimately failed, leaving them in an ambiguous position—both external to and yet members of the international society. This led to an existential anxiety in their state identities, as they internalized the stigma imposed upon them. Despite their efforts at reform, revolution, reactionary responses, and even war to be fully recognized as "insiders," they were never entirely freed from their external status, even as they remained partially integrated within international society.
The Normative Dimension of Recognition
The impact of recognition on the normative aspect of international relations is undeniable. When discussing normative theories in particular, as well as the normative dimension of both conventional and critical international relations theories in general, we are inevitably engaging with ethical debates. It can be argued that peace and justice are the most fundamental normative concerns of these theories. Peace and stability may be considered as part of a minimal conception of justice. However, justice itself is less frequently addressed directly due to the lack of international consensus on its definition. Even in its minimal legal sense, international recognition serves as a foundation for non-intervention, conflict reduction, and peace, making it a fundamental pillar in what the English School refers to as international society and what Alexander Wendt calls the Lockean culture. Conversely, disrespect, as a form of non-recognition, reduces the potential for cooperation and increases tension and conflict. Recognition fosters a sense of respect, which in turn paves the way for collaboration and conflict reduction. Beyond the formal recognition of states, the recognition of differences and respect for them become essential.
A teleological perspective on recognition extends beyond the Lockean culture and even beyond anarchy itself. If the Kantian vision of perpetual peace is to be realized, the process of recognition must continue until it reaches the recognition of every individual. At that stage, the emergence of a global state becomes inevitable, leading to lasting peace and universal security under its governance. From a critical perspective, recognition is also viewed as a tool for peace. While state recognition is based on the collective identity of its people, the act of recognition—or lack thereof—plays a decisive role. The use of soft power through respect and acknowledgment is the first step toward fostering cooperation and peace, as it signals to citizens of other states that they are understood and not regarded as inferior. However, when considering the role of recognition in promoting justice, its normative significance becomes even more evident. Discussions of insult and disrespect hold weight primarily because recognition is vital for individuals. Non-recognition is, in itself, a form of injustice. Axel Honneth’s argument is explicitly centered on justice, while Wendt’s argument, which focuses more on peace, inevitably leads to considerations of justice. At the international level, Honneth appears to prioritize justice for individuals and social groups, viewing their recognition as essential for achieving justice. Ultimately, Wendt also aligns with this perspective, as recognition—and consequently, respect for human life—ensures justice for individuals. Of course, recognition extends beyond mere respect for human life; it encompasses the fulfillment of needs and other essential aspects, paving the way for justice in a deeper and more comprehensive sense.
Conclusion
Although recognition has been approached from various perspectives and examined through different theoretical frameworks, what ultimately connects all these approaches is the normative dimension of the discussion. This is because recognition is intrinsically linked to peace and justice, which are among the most fundamental normative and ethical concerns in international relations. As many scholars have emphasized, normative issues are inescapable in international relations, and thus, political theory continues to maintain its relevance, particularly in relation to questions of peace and justice.
References
Beigi, M., & Moeini Alamdari, J. (2018). The implications of Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition for contemporary radicalism. Political and International Approaches, (58), 102-123. (In Persian)
Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2021). International Practice Theory. (S. J. Dehghani Firouzabadi & M. Sajjadi, Trans.). Tehran: Abrar Moaser. (In Persian)
Ghavam, A., & Ravanbod, A. (2011). The struggle for recognition: The missing link in the analysis of international relations. Rahbord Quarterly, (61), 7-29. (In Persian)
Lotfi, F. (2019). The concept of recognition of states and governments in international law. Qanounyar Quarterly, (12), 551-589. (In Persian)
Moshirzadeh, H. (2021). Political theory and international relations: Marginal yet inevitable. Global Politics, (4), 33-68. (In Persian)
Wendt, A. (2005). Social theory of international politics. (H. Moshirzadeh, Trans.). Tehran: Center for Political and International Studies. (In Persian)
Wendt, A. (2021). Why a world state is inevitable. (H. Salimi, Trans.). Tehran: Elmi. (In Persian)
English Sources
Agne, H. (2013). The politics of international recognition: Symposium introduction. International Theory, 5(1), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971913000018
Adler-Nissen, R. (2014). Stigma management in international relations: Transgressive identities, norms, and order in international society. International Organization, 68(1), 143-176.
Alderson, K., & Hurrell, A. (2000). Hedley Bull on international society. Oxford University Press.
Bartelson, J. (2013). Three concepts of recognition. International Theory, 5(1), 107-129. https://doi.org/10.1017/1S75297191300002X
Belsey, C. (2013). Textual analysis as a research method. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Research methods for English studies (pp. XX-XX). Edinburgh University Press.
Bull, H. (1977). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics. Macmillan.
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Fabry, M. (2010). Recognizing states: International society and the establishment of new states since 1776. Oxford University Press.
Fabry, M. (2013). Theorizing state recognition. International Theory, 5(1), 165-170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971913000080
Haacke, J. (2005). The Frankfurt School and international relations: On the centrality of recognition. Review of International Studies, 31, 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210505006376
Honneth, A. (1992). Integrity and disrespect: Principles of a conception of morality based on the theory of recognition. Political Theory, 20(2), 187-201.
Honneth, A. (2012). Recognition between states: On the moral substrate of international relations. In T. Lindemann & E. Ringmar (Eds.), The international politics of recognition (pp. 25-38). Paradigm Publishers.
Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Krasner, S. (2013). Recognition: Organized hypocrisy once again. International Theory, 5(1), 170-176. https://doi.org/10.10177/S1752971913000092
Lindemann, T. (2010). Causes of war: The struggle for recognition. ECPR Press.
Lindemann, T., & Ringmar, E. (Eds.). (2012). The international politics of recognition. Paradigm Publishers.
McKee, A. (2003). Textual analysis: A beginner’s guide. Sage.
Mazinani, M. M. (2012). Stigmatized states. The Review of Politics, 74(2), 330-332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670512000459
Murray, M. (2019). The struggle for recognition in international relations: Status, revisionism, and rising powers. Oxford University Press.
Onuf, N. (2015). Acts of recognition, shades of respect. In C. Daase, C. Fehl, A. Geis, & G. Kolliarakis (Eds.), Recognition in international relations: Rethinking a political concept in a global context (pp. 265-278). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ringmar, E. (2012). Introduction: The international politics of recognition. In T. Lindemann & E. Ringmar (Eds.), The international politics of recognition. Paradigm Publishers.
Ringmar, E. (2014). Recognition and the origins of international society. Global Discourse. https://doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2014.917031
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis (B. Jenner, Trans.). Sage.
Walker, J. W. (2012). Review: Ayse Zarakol, After defeat: How the East learned to live with the West. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 44, 357-359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743812000177
Wendt, A. (2003). Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 9(4), 491-542.
Wight, M. (1966). Why is there no international theory? In H. Butterfield & M. Wight (Eds.), Diplomatic investigations. George Allen & Unwin.
Wolf, R. (2011). Respect and disrespect in international politics: The significance of status recognition. International Theory, 3(1), 105-142.
Zarakol, A. (2011). After defeat: How the East learned to live with the West. Cambridge University Press.
Zarakol, A. (2022). Before the West: The rise and fall of Eastern world orders. Cambridge University Press.
بیگی، محسن و جهانگیر معینی علمداری (1398) «پیامدهای نظریه شناسایی اکسل هونت برای رادیکالیسم معاصر»، رهیافت¬های سیاسی و بین¬المللی، شماره 58، صص 102-123.
بیوگر، کریستین و فرانگ گادینجر (1400) نظریه کردارگرایی بین¬الملل، ترجمه سید جلال دهقانی فیروزآبادی و ماندانا سجادی، تهران، ابرار معاصر.
قوام، عبدالعلی و امین روان¬بد (1390) «مبارزه برای شناسایی: حلقه مفقوده در تحلیل روابط بینالملل»، تحقیقات استراتژیک، شماره 61، صص 7-29.
لطفی، فروزان (1398) «مفهوم شناسایی دولت¬ها و حکومت¬ها در حقوق بین¬الملل»، فصلنامه بینالمللی قانون¬یار، شماره 12، صص 551-589.
مشیرزاده، حمیرا (1400) «نظریه سیاسی و روابط بین¬الملل: در حاشیه اما گریزناپذیر»، سیاست جهانی، شماره 4، صص 33-68.
ونت، الکساندر (1384) نظریه اجتماعی سیاست بین¬الملل، ترجمه حمیرا مشیرزاده، تهران، دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین¬المللی.
---------- (1400) چرا دولت جهانی اجتناب¬ناپذیر است؟ ترجمه حسین سلیمی، تهران، علمی.
Agne, H. (2013) The Politics of International Recognition: Symposium Introduction. International Theory, 5,1: 94-107. doi:10.1017/S1752971913000018.
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca (2014) “Stigma Management in international Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society,” International Organization. 68, 1: 143-176.
Alderson, Kai and Andrew Hurrell (2000) Hedley Bull on International Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bartelson, J. (2013) “Three Concepts of Recognition,” International Theory, 5,1: 107-129. doi:10.1017/1S75297191300002X.
Belsey, Catherine (2013) “Textual Analysis as a Research Method,” in Gabriele Griffin, ed., Research Methods for English Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.
Douglas, Heather E. (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburg, PA: Pittsburg University Press.
Fabry, Mikulas (2010) Recognizing States: International Society and the Establishment of New States since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
----------------- (2013) “Theorizing State Recognition,” International Theory, 5,1: 165-170. doi:10.1017/S1752971913000080.
Haacke, Jürgen (2005) “The Frankfurt School and International Relations: On the Centrality of Recognition,” Review of International Studies, 31, 181–194. doi: 10.1017/S0260210505006376.
Honneth, Axel (1992) “Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition,” Political Theory 20, 2: 187-201.
----------------- (2012) “Recognition between States: On the Moral Substrate of International Relations,” in Lindemann and Ringmar, eds.:25-38.
Krasner, S. (1999) Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
------------- (2013) Recognition: Organized Hypocrisy Once Again, International Theory, 5(1), 170-176. doi:10.10177/S1752971913000092.
Lindemann, Thomas (2010) Causes of War: The Struggle for Recognition. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Lindemann, Thomas and Eric Ringmar, eds. (2012) The International Politics of Recognition. Boulder and London: Paradigm Publishers.
McKee, Alan (2003) Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. London: Sage.
Mazinani, Mehran Mohammadi (2012) “Stigmatized States,” The Review of Politics 74, 2: 330-332. DOI:10.1017/S0034670512000459.
Murray, (2019) The Struggle for Recognition in International Relations: Status, Revisionism, and Rising Powers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Onuf, N. (2015) “Acts of Recognition, Shades of Respect,” in Christopher Daase, Caroline Fehl, Anna Geis, and Georgios Kolliarakis, eds., Recognition in International Relations: Rethinking a Political Concept in a Global Context. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan: 265-278.
Ringmar, Eric (2012) “Introduction: The International Politics of Recognition,” in Lindemann and Ringmar, eds.:
-------------- (2014) “Recognition and the Origins of International Society,” Global Discourse http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2014.917031.
Titscher, Stefan, Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak, and Eva Vetter (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, Translated by Bryan Jenner. London: Sage.
Wolf, Reinhard (2011) “Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition,” International Theory 3, 1: 105-142.
Walker, Joshua W. (2012) “Review: Ayse Zarakol, After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West, Cambridge Studies in International Relations: 118 (London: Cambridge University Press, 2010),” International Journal of Middle East Studies 44: 357-359. doi:10.1017/S0020743812000177.
Wendt, A. (2003) “Why a World State is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9,4:491-542.
Wight, M. (1966) “Why Is There No International Theory?” in H. Butterfield and M. Wight, eds., Diplomatic Investigations. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Zarakol, Ayşe (2011) After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
----------------- (2022) Before the West: The Rise and Fall of Eastern World Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
