On September 21, a coordinated effort by the Western nations of Britain, Australia, Canada, and Portugal aimed to promote a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by announcing their recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. This decision happened amidst the escalating humanitarian crisis following continuous Israeli offensive attacks, which have caused global outrage over civilian casualties. It is estimated that 90% of housing units in Gaza have been damaged. Public pressure from citizens within Europe and Australia has increased, especially among young voters. These global demonstrations happened all across major cities, and the form of civil unrest has ranged from peaceful protests worldwide to student encampments across the U.S. that have demanded a ceasefire and accountability for civilian deaths. Together, the intensification of the conflict inspired younger generations and, in turn, pushed governments to recognize Palestinian statehood at this current moment.
The first acknowledgment of a Palestinian state was in 1988, and since then, 157 of the 193 U.N. member states have followed suit, with the most recent recognition happening in mid-2025. The most recent decision by Western nations can be seen as historic and a long-overdue acknowledgment of Palestinian self-determination, but also one that might have little impact on the genocide happening on the ground. While this decision is symbolically powerful, Israel still retains military control over 53% of Palestinian territories under the first phase of Trump’s Peace Plan. Currently, the Palestinian Authority lacks institutional capacity and legitimacy to allow it to function sovereignly. A comparative example to this situation is the current status of Taiwan, which has operated as an independent democracy for decades but remains invisible in diplomacy. These examples force the question: why do some states earn recognition while others remain in flux, and what does recognition truly mean in an international system where power often overshadows notions of sovereignty?
The political situation behind recognition shows the contradictions of modern sovereignty. On paper, it shows a state’s entry into the global community that allows diplomatic relations, access to international institutions, and security. In practice, it is a political tool that is used by powerful nations to advance their interests rather than uphold universal standards.
The recognition of Palestine by several Western powers this year follows the U.N.’s recent consideration of Israeli actions in Gaza as genocidal, and calls by various leaders for a two-state solution. For countries like Britain and Canada, the decision is not only a moral decision but a relevant geopolitical one—a power move to rise in the multipolar system. They move against the standards set by the United States, which does not favor recognizing Palestinian statehood. Despite the recent declarations, the violence on the ground continues, and the leading solution of President Trump’s Peace Plan does not guarantee anything for Palestinians, but rather favors Netanyahu’s Israel. Recognition does not seem to guarantee sovereignty or safety, but is a move made for a powerful state’s benefit.
Taiwan’s situation, meanwhile, shows the inverse effect. While the island functions as a fully autonomous democracy with its own government, economy, and military, fewer than 15 U.N. member states formally recognize it. The main reason is the power of Beijing; China’s economic dominance, diplomatic pressure, and the reliance of the whole world on Chinese goods have made recognizing Taiwan feel nearly impossible for most countries. Taiwan’s sovereignty without recognition causes it to exist in continuous political uncertainty, especially with the increasing military pressure from China, including rising activity in the Taiwanese strait.
Palestine and Taiwan both show the limitations of international law, but in opposite ways. The Montevideo Convention in 1933 asserted that a state should possess a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter relations with other states. Both Palestine and Taiwan meet these criteria in practice, but their varying degrees of recognition show that legal definitions do not guarantee political legitimacy or international acceptance. They demonstrate how the global system is run by a few powerful states, and other than that aspect of control, nations have little agency. State recognition is no longer about the lived realities but about the interests of wealthy nations. For those in the Gaza Strip or Taipei, the symbolic acts have little effect on security or stability. The contradictory nature of sovereignty is important to understand as it shapes the lives of millions in Taiwan and Palestine, but also in states that get less attention in the news, like Somaliland and Kosovo. Somaliland, despite decades of stability and democratic governance, remains unrecognized because of pressure to preserve its territorial integrity from the African Union. In contrast, Kosovo’s recognition by much of the West has not secured U.N. membership because of Russian and Chinese vetoes. These examples help show that sovereignty is gifted by power and not principles of territorial integrity norms. If sovereignty were still determined by the same Westphalian concepts of non-interference and self-governance, governments would have a much louder response to current events in Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.
The current ceasefire plan offers a pause but not ultimate peace. Recognition may strengthen Palestine’s international standing which would allow participation in global institutions like the ICC or various U.N. agencies, as it currently sits as a non-member observer state meaning it can participate in sessions but is prohibited from voting on resolutions, but this also risks intensifying Israel’s isolation and the polarization within the Middle East, meaning conflict could escalate at any time in the coming months. Whether Trump’s plan marks a turning point in the conflict or another symbolic gesture is not yet known and depends on the strength of commitments being made, including rebuilding Gaza and the everyday lives of Palestinians.
Featured Image Source: The National
