Continuous recognition: A latent variable approach to measuring international sovereignty of self-determination movements

Abstract

How do self-determination groups move toward diplomatic recognition? Although recognition is the dominant activity used to understand international sovereignty, it is perhaps the most costly decision states make towards these groups. Third parties have many substantial interactions with aspiring states, building their sovereignty by other important means. I argue that our understanding of international sovereignty can be improved by conceptualizing it as a dynamic, continuous process, reflected in foreign policy decisions short of the legal recognition. I create a Bayesian latent variable model of international sovereignty, using bilateral data on diplomatic exchange, IGO voting, sanctions, military aid, and intervention in separatist conflicts. Complementing prior work on international sovereignty, my measure provides support for important theoretical expectations previously explored using only recognition as a measure of sovereignty. I find that diplomatic recognition, extant violence, separatist victory, and sour third-party–incumbent relations positively impact latent sovereignty of separatists, while concern for precedent negatively impacts it.

Foulweather Friends: Violence and Third Party Support in Self-Determination Conflicts

“…To demonstrate this trend of partial support, I utilize the latent variable model of self-determination groups sovereignty developed by Huddleston (2020), whose measure incorporates several unilateral decisions states make vis-à-vis both parties in these conflicts. This allows me to detect and analyze shifts in policy orientation toward self-determination conflicts that are less weighty than recognition, and explore differences between third parties.…”

“…However, a more inclusive measure of third-party stance toward self-determination movements may reveal yet new insights that are undetectable through that lens, primarily because recognition is such a difficult and risky decision. Therefore, to test these hypotheses, I use a novel continuous measure of third-party recognition developed by Huddleston (2020), which he calls “latent sovereignty.” Rather than taking recognition as a political decision, the measure treats latent sovereignty as an underlying trait that influences a number of unilateral decisions states make toward these conflicts. One might conceptualize these third-party actions as forms of “declaratory recognition” (see Wellman 2005).…”

“…Huddleston (2020) includes these policy variables because: each constitutes a unilateral decision by the third party toward both conflict actors; they require the third party to “recognize,” in the plain English sense of the term—a non-state actor with whom they can interact; and these actions advance or degrade the aspiring state’s “eligibility” for recognition. The idea behind this framework is to look beneath the high-stakes political decision of recognition and consider the lower level unilateral decisions third-party states make toward these groups that advance their sovereignty.…”

“…Huddleston’s (2020) latent variable model of international sovereignty, builds on a Bayesian item response theory (IRT) model, which is often used to estimate variables that cannot be observed themselves, but which are taken to be correlated with observable variables. Figure 2 illustrates the intuition behind this model.…”

“… 6. A thorough description of the model, its components, and all data, can be found in Huddleston (2020), as are Figures 2, 3, and 4. …”