In 2021, unconstitutional transfers of power in Myanmar and Afghanistan highlighted that while States may desire a coherent response to questions about the status of governments, and may look for international guidance in such regard, there is no established process for providing such guidance. Thus, attention focuses on the General Assembly's credentials process, designed to assess the eligibility of delegates to represent their States at the UN. This article proposes that rather than the credentials process being stretched in this way, greater use should be made of the Assembly's competence to pass determinative resolutions on government legitimacy.

Since the Second World War, there has been a constant decrease of inter-state conflicts. In sharp contrast, the level of intra-state violence has not declined and has even reached unprecedented peaks. This points to a striking discrepancy between the rejection of violence at the inter-state level and the wide leeway that is still afforded to the use of violence at the intra-state level and to external interferences fueling it. This article takes stock of the main features (and serious flaws) of the existing legal framework on aid to governments or insurgents in internal conflict situations. On the basis of a combined legal and conflict-management analysis, the author proposes a radically different approach and formulates a number of legal and policy recommendations on how to tackle the complex phenomenon of foreign intervention in civil wars, where enormous human, economic, and social implications are at stake.

In an action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiff, the National Petrochemical Co. of Iran (NPC), sought damages against Monnris Enterprises of Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, Rotexchemie Brunst & Co. of Hamburg (Rotex), and Rotex’s Geneva affiliate, Formula S.A., for breach of an agreement to sell chemicals to NPC. Asserting that NPC is a subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Co., which is in turn owned wholly by the Government of Iran, defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the United States does not recognize the Khomeini Government of Iran and, hence, that neither Iran nor its instrumentality NPC has standing to sue in U.S. courts. The district court granted the motion, NPC appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held: (1) that a foreign state may have standing to sue in U.S. courts even if the United States does not recognize its government or have diplomatic relations with it; (2) that an unrecognized government will have standing to sue if the U.S. executive branch has evinced a willingness to permit the plaintiff to litigate its claims in U.S. courts; and (3) that the level of intercourse between the United States and Iran, and a Statement of Interest filed in this case by the United States as amicuš curiae, show that the executive branch is willing to permit NPC to litigate its claims in U.S. courts.

Recognition of Governments — Effect of — Executive Determination of Recognition — Jurisdiction of a Court to Aid a Foreign Ambassador to Enforce His Orders to His Subordinates — Ambassador of the Republic of China in the United States of America.

Jurisdictional Immunity — Foreign States — Set-Off.

Recognition of Governments — Retroactive Effect of — Confiscatory Decree by Government Subsequently Recognized — Effect of Decree on Assets Situate in Country According Recognition — Effect in Country Promulgating Confiscatory Decree — Right of Set-off — Sovereign Immunity.

Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Non — Recognition by the United States of America of the Government of the People’s Republic of China.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Conflicting Claims to Assets in Foreign Country — Conclusive Nature of Decision of Executive as to Recognition — Preservation of Status Quo of Assets — Non-Recognition by the United States of the Government of the People’s Republic of China.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of De Facto and De Jure Recognition — State — Owned Property Abroad in Possession of De Facto Government — Possession Illegal by Local Law — Whether De Facto Government still Entitled to Immunity in Local Courts in Respect of that Property — Attempted Sale of the Property by the De Jure Government — Subsequent Recognition De Jure of De Facto Government — Effect of

States — Immunity from Jurisdiction — State-Owned Property Abroad in Possession of De Facto Government — Illegality of Possession by Local Law — Relevance of — Immunity of — Irrelevance of Purpose to which Property is put — Date of Possession — Attempted Sale of the Property by the De Jure Government — Effect of — Subsequent De Jure Recognition of the De Facto Government — Effect of — Statements of the Executive in the Matter of Recognition.

Recognition of Governments — Retroactive Effect of — Withdrawal of Recognition — Effect of Jurisdiction — Whether Offer made by Former Government Retroactively Invalidated — Recognition and Jurisdiction of Government-in-Exile — Form of Certificate of Secretary of State — Whether Conclusive against Retroactive Effect

Recognition of Governments — Effect of Non-Recognition of Soviet Government by Holland.

Recognition of Acts of Foreign Governments — Extraterritorial Operation of Nationalization of Russian Companies — Effect of Non-Recognition of Soviet Government.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition.

Immunity from Jurisdiction — Distinction between acts iure imperii and iure gestionis — Relevance of Impossibility of Execution — Trade Agencies of Soviet Russia — Requirement of Express Renunciation of Immunity — Brussels Convention of 1926 — Extensive Interpretation of — Relevance of Non-Recognition of Soviet Government.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Incapacity to Appear as Plaintiff — Belgium and the U.S.S.R — Commercial Representation of the U.S.S.R — Whether Distinguishable from the U.S.S.R

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Whether Depriving Subjects of Unrecognised Country of Right of Action — Position of Aliens

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Recognition de jure upon Liquidation and Nationalisation Decrees — Retroactivity of Recognition — Considerations of Public Policy.

Recognition of Acts of Foreign States — Considerations of Public Policy — How far Affected by Recognition — Nationalisation Decrees of Soviet Russia.

Jurisdiction — Extraterritorial Operation of Legislation — Nationalisation Decrees of Soviet Russia.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Decrees of Unrecognised Government — Extraterritorial Effect of — Liquidation and Nationalisation Decrees of Soviet Russia — Considerations of Public Policy — How far Affected by Recognition.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of — Recognition of Soviet Government — Soviet Decrees of Confiscation — Provisions Contrary to Public Policy — Dissolution of Russian Companies by Soviet Legislation.

Continuity of States — Succession of Governments — Effects of Recognition de jure — Recognition de jure of the Soviet Government by the French Government — Nature of Recognition — Application of the Theory of Set-Off.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Recognition — Succession of Governments — Effects of Recognition de jure — Recognition de jure of the Soviet Government by the French Government — Nature of Recognition — Principle of Continuity of States.

Recognition — Effects of Recognition de jure — Recognition de jure of the Soviet Government by the French Government — Nature of Recognition — Succession of Governments.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of — Recognition of the Soviet Government by the French Republic — Legality of Display of Russian Flag by French Citizens.

Recognition of Governments — British Recognition of Russian Soviet Government — Retroactive Effect — Consequential Recognition of Validity of its Legislation and Administrative Acts.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Recognition of Validity of Legislation and Administrative Acts of Foreign Governments Affecting Movables within their Jurisdiction.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Non-Recognition of Soviet Government by Rumania — Russian Diplomatic Representatives and Consuls of the Old Régime in Russia — Permission to Exercise Purely Administrative Functions — Validity of Administrative Acts — Effect of Nationalisation Decree of Soviet Russia upon Property Outside its Jurisdiction.

Recognition of Governments — Effects of Non-Recognition — Confiscation of Russian Merchant Vessels when outside Territory by the Soviet Government when still Unrecognised — International Validity of.