Analysis of Statements on Statehood and Recognition

This question requires evaluating the correctness of four statements concerning the theories and types of statehood and government recognition in international law.

Statement (a): Constitutive Theory vs. Declaratory Theory

Statement (a) claims that according to the constitutive theory, statehood exists independently of recognition. This is incorrect. The constitutive theory posits that a state comes into existence in international law only *after* it is recognized by other states. Conversely, the declaratory theory holds that statehood exists independently of recognition and recognition merely acknowledges this pre-existing fact. Therefore, statement (a) misrepresents the constitutive theory.

Statement (b): Nature of De Jure Recognition

Statement (b) asserts that de jure recognition is provisional and conditional. While de jure recognition signifies formal, legal, and generally final acceptance, the process of granting it can involve the recognizing state verifying that certain conditions (like effective control over territory and population) are met. The term 'provisional' here might refer to the fact that recognition reflects the *current* legal status and is dependent on the continued existence and stability of the recognized entity. Thus, interpreted in this context, the statement can be considered correct as recognition might be granted after conditions are verified.

Statement (c): Internal Acts and Recognition Types

Statement (c) refers to the principle established in cases like Luther v. Sagar regarding the effect of recognition on the internal acts of a recognized authority. The ruling suggests that courts in the recognizing state should give effect to the legislative and executive acts of a recognized foreign government concerning matters within that state's territory, irrespective of whether the recognition is de facto or de jure. This implies that for the validity of *internal acts*, the distinction between de facto and de jure recognition is minimal. Hence, statement (c) is correct.

Statement (d): Finality of De Jure Recognition

Statement (d) states that de jure recognition is final and cannot be withdrawn. This aligns with the general understanding in international law. De jure recognition signifies complete legal acceptance and is considered irrevocable, although the withdrawal of recognition is theoretically possible in extreme circumstances (e.g., state collapse), it is exceptionally rare and legally complex.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis:

• Statement (a) is incorrect.
• Statement (b) is considered correct in the context of the process and conditions for recognition.
• Statement (c) is correct, citing the principle regarding internal acts.
• Statement (d) is correct, regarding the finality of de jure recognition.

Therefore, statements (b), (c), and (d) are correct.