IISPPR

Category: International Relations

International Relations
Tanuj Samaddar

The Strategic Ramifications of CPEC: A Disquisition on Its Impact on India’s Geopolitical and Border Security Paradigm

Authors : Tanuj Samaddar, A R Sangeetha, Md. Rizwan, Ankush Kumar   Within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) framework, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a flagship undertaking of great significance throughout South Asia as a strategically significant regional, economic, and geopolitical undertaking. Wolf (2019) conceived the corridor between the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China and the Gwadar Port in the Balochistan province of Pakistan via a sprawling network of roads, railways, energy initiatives, and special economic zones (SEZs). New Delhi sees CPEC as a significant security threat that violates India’s sovereignty, escalates border tensions, and redraws regional power disparities, even though Beijing touts it as a forerunner of economic revitalization and regional connectivity.  (Pant and Joshi , 2017) Its passage through the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan territory, a region still a crucial part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and subject to territorial claim by India, is the main argument supporting India’s strategic concerns on CPEC. CPEC’s effects cover a more Chinese military presence in the Indian Ocean Region, the militarization of economic corridors, and regional economic architecture realignment. Through the lenses of sovereignty, economic dependence, military tactics, and geopolitical reconfigurations, this research charts the complex security consequences of CPEC for India. This study seeks to provide a subtle view of the manifold security threats presented by CPEC and the corresponding countermeasures India uses to minimize its negative effects by combining a large amount of academic work. The sovereignty narrative surrounding the CPEC has caused intense unease among Indian policy and strategic circles. Pant and Joshi (2017) among others argue that the corridor’s crossing through Gilgit-Baltistan directly violates India’s territorial integrity, hence supporting Pakistan’s effective administrative authority over the area. Kumar (2019) adds that China’s infrastructure related spending in the area practically acknowledges Pakistan’s territorial claims, thereby worsening the legal and political deadlock over Kashmir. India’s strategic apprehensions are further accentuated by the potential encirclement effect precipitated by China’s economic corridors, collectively known as the ‘String of Pearls’ strategy (Brewster, 2018).  The encirclement theory posits that Beijing’s financial statecraft is fundamentally tied to its larger geostrategic aims, where infrastructural investments act as channels for security leverage  In addition, India’s positive outreach to regional actors—namely Iran, Afghanistan, and Central Asian Republics—through infrastructural ventures like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is indicative of a move to offset Pakistan’s geoeconomic centrality in CPEC. The synergizing of Indo-Pacific alliances, more specifically through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), is an adjunct mechanism to counterbalance Chinese strategic gains (Jacob, 2020).   Economic and Military Aspects of CPEC Influencing India’s National Security The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has fundamentally altered the economic landscape of South Asia, with notable implications for India’s national security. Pakistan’s increasing reliance on Chinese investments has spurred significant infrastructure development along India’s western border, raising fears of strategic encirclement. The corridor linking Gwadar Port to China’s Xinjiang province enhances Pakistan’s logistical capabilities, allowing for more efficient military mobilization (Pant,2018) . Chinese involvement in vital transport and energy projects in Pakistan challenges India’s trade networks, potentially diminishing India’s influence in South Asia (Small, 2020). Furthermore, as Pakistan grapples with a growing debt burden from the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, this economic imbalance has become closer aligned with Chinese policies, thereby complicating India’s geopolitical position (Rana,2021).   The military implications of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) present significant security concerns for India, especially given the increasing Chinese presence at Gwadar Port. Analysts indicate that what was initially intended as a trade hub may now serve dual military functions, potentially allowing China to station naval assets in the Arabian Sea (Singh, 2019). This development raises apprehensions about a possible Chinese-Pakistani naval partnership, which could undermine India’s maritime security. Moreover, CPEC traverses Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK), a region that India claims as its own. China’s investments in infrastructure, including highways and railways in POK, bolster Pakistan’s ability to mobilize forces along the Line of Control (LoC), heightening border tensions. Furthermore, reports suggest that Chinese-funded security deployments along the CPEC route have increased militarization in border areas, raising the likelihood of potential conflict scenarios (Sharma, 2022).   The expanding military and economic partnership between China and Pakistan has prompted a more assertive Pakistani approach to border disputes, resulting in a rise in ceasefire violations along the Line of Control (LoC) (Malik, 2022). This corridor enhances China’s geo-economic influence, positioning it as a key South Asian player and marginalizing India’s role in the region. The potential for a two-front war scenario—where India could face simultaneous military threats from China to the north and Pakistan to the west—has become a significant concern for India’s defense strategists. Furthermore, China’s debt-trap diplomacy in Pakistan raises alarms about long-term geopolitical realignments, posing an additional threat to India’s strategic interests. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has significantly transformed India’s national security landscape, impacting economic sovereignty and military readiness. The corridor’s path through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) has exacerbated border conflicts, and Pakistan’s increasing economic dependence on China fortifies the Sino-Pak alliance, thereby challenging India’s position in the region. From a military perspective, the potential dual-use nature of Gwadar Port, alongside infrastructure that enhances Pakistan’s military mobility, heightens the risk of cross-border skirmishes. In response to these developments, India must bolster its border security, strengthen alliances with global partners, and seek to expand alternative trade routes, such as Chabahar Port. Addressing these complex challenges necessitates a comprehensive security strategy integrating diplomatic, economic, and military measures to protect India’s strategic interests. Impact of CPEC in Indo-Pak border In such a scenario, which is likely to be created by India’s concessions to Pakistan, the Indo-Pak border dimensions along with border dynamics would substantially change. Such considerations most certainly include the geographical base of Pakistan and India as an extension of these countries to Afghanistan as it brings the vast areas of Balochistan, Sindh, and the southern provinces of Afghanistan into geographical proximity to the western borders of northern India via scanty highlands and plateaus connecting these desert-based provinces.

Read More »
International Relations
Mohit Sharma

International Human Rights Laws and Refugee Crisis.

The global refugee crisis has intensified due to conflicts, persecution, and climate change, challenging international legal frameworks designed to protect displaced individuals. Despite the existence of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, refugees often face restrictive immigration policies, xenophobia, and inadequate living conditions in host countries. The principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of refugee protection, is frequently undermined by national security concerns and political interests. This article explores the complexities of forced migration, international human rights laws, and the challenges of global responsibility-sharing, emphasizing the need for comprehensive policy reforms and stronger international cooperation to safeguard refugee rights.

Read More »
International Relations
Vaibhav puri

Hunting Bin Laden: The Deadly Manhunt of Operation Neptune Spear

INTRODUCTION  Operation Neptune Spear was a pivotal military operation conducted by the United States on May 2, 2011, to eliminate Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Executed by the U.S. Navy SEAL Team 6 (DEVGRU) under the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the U.S. Department of Defence, the raid took place in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The operation was the result of years of intelligence gathering and strategic planning, culminating in a high-risk mission that ultimately led to bin Laden’s death. This paper examines the intelligence efforts, strategic execution, and geopolitical implications of Operation Neptune Spear, assessing its impact on U.S. national security and counterterrorism policies. Intelligence and Planning Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the CIA began collecting information on key individuals connected to or providing support to Bin Laden.   THE FIRST CLUE Shortly after 9/11, the CIA began tracking individuals linked to bin Laden. A major early breakthrough came from a piece of luggage belonging to Mohammad Atta, the lead hijacker. The bag contained documents, hijacker instructions, and flight training manuals, confirming al-Qaeda’s involvement and bin Laden’s role. Intelligence efforts continued, with a CIA operative, Jalal, identifying bin Laden’s voice in transmissions from the Tora Bora Mountains, proving his continued influence. However, bin Laden evaded capture and resurfaced in Pakistan. (Washington Post), (CIA), (PBS).  A MISTAKE Bin Laden relied on trusted couriers to maintain communication with Al-Qaeda. One, Ibrahim, made a fatal error on August 27, 2010, when he used a mobile phone in Peshawar, a city under CIA surveillance. This allowed the agency to track him to a suspicious compound in Abbottabad, which exhibited unusual security measures. The compound’s high walls, lack of digital communication, and residents’ habit of burning trash pointed to the presence of a high-value target. Surveillance identified a mysterious tall man, “The Pacer,” whose physical traits matched bin Laden’s.  GREAT DISCOVERY Once the CIA identified Ibrahim’s location, they conducted further surveillance to assess the compound. The facility was situated in a highly secured area of Abbottabad, close to the Pakistan Military Academy. Several key factors indicated that the compound housed a high-value individual: Unlike other homes in the area, the compound had no telephone or internet connections, an unusual measure suggesting the need for secrecy. The residents burned their trash instead of disposing of it in the usual collection system, minimizing external exposure. A mysterious tall man, who never left the premises, was occasionally seen walking in the courtyard. Analysts referred to him as “The Pacer” due to his habitual pacing back and forth. His physical characteristics closely resembled those of bin Laden. After gathering substantial evidence, the CIA presented its findings to top U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama. While the intelligence was not 100% certain, the assessment strongly suggested that bin Laden was hiding in the Abbottabad compound. (bookshelf) Nail Into the coffin To further verify bin Laden’s presence in the compound, the CIA enlisted the help of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician. Dcotor Afridi was tasked with running a fake vaccination campaign in Abbottabad under the guise of administering hepatitis B vaccines. The objective of this covert operation was to collect DNA samples from individuals residing in the compound to confirm bin Laden’s identity. Dr. Afridi and his medical team visited the surrounding areas and attempted to gain access to the compound by offering free vaccinations. While the team was unable to directly obtain DNA from bin Laden or his immediate family, their efforts provided valuable intelligence on the residents and their movements. This reinforced the CIA’s confidence that bin Laden was indeed hiding inside the compound. (BBC) EXECUTION OF THE MISSION On the night of May 1, 2011, two stealth-modified Black Hawk helicopters carrying SEAL Team 6 with 24 officers departed from a U.S. base in Afghanistan and infiltrated Pakistani airspace undetected. Upon arrival at the compound, one of the helicopters experienced mechanical issues and crash-landed, though no personnel were injured. The SEALs quickly adjusted their strategy and proceeded with the mission. The team breached the compound and engaged in a brief firefight with bin Laden’s guards. Moving through the building, they encountered and neutralized several occupants before reaching the top floor, where Osama bin Laden was located. Bin Laden was shot and killed after resisting capture. His body was positively identified through facial recognition and DNA analysis. The SEALs collected valuable intelligence materials before exfiltrating the site. Due to the compromised helicopter, a backup aircraft was called in, and the damaged helicopter was destroyed to prevent technology from falling into foreign hands. Within 40 minutes of landing, the SEAL team successfully completed the operation and returned to Afghanistan. (Caravan)  Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Hunt for Osama bin Laden Legal Considerations Under U.S. Law: In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) in 2001. This legislation empowered the President to employ “necessary and appropriate force” against entities responsible for the attacks. The Obama administration cited the AUMF as a legal basis for the operation against bin Laden. John Bellinger III, former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department asserted that the operation was a legitimate military action, stating that the assassination prohibition does not apply to killings in self-defence or during armed conflict. Under International Law: The incursion into Pakistani territory without prior consent sparked debates about sovereignty violations. Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillian, emphasized the nation’s disapproval of such unilateral actions, highlighting concerns over sovereignty and adherence to international law. Conversely, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended the operation as an act of national self-defence, aligning it with the U.S.’s inherent right to protect itself under international law. (Wikipedia) Scholars have also scrutinized the operation’s legality under international humanitarian law. Some argue that the absence of an active armed conflict between the U.S. and al-Qaeda at the time challenges the justification of bin

Read More »
International Relations
Samriddhi Shet

India’s National Security Challenges in the context of Cross-border terrorism

Cross-border terrorism poses a severe threat to India’s national security, affecting its sovereignty, economy, and social stability. The evolving nature of terrorism, from infiltration to hybrid warfare and cyberattacks, has made counterterrorism efforts more complex. India faces challenges from Pakistan-backed groups, insurgencies in the Northeast, and emerging threats like drone warfare. While diplomatic measures and international cooperation are crucial, addressing root causes such as ideological radicalization and socio-economic disparities is essential. A comprehensive approach integrating technology, security reforms, and global alliances is necessary to safeguard India’s democratic values and ensure long-term peace and stability.

Read More »
International Relations
Debolina Bhattacharyya

Leveraging India’s Informal Music Sector: National Economic Development, Cultural Diplomacy and Global Soft Power

India’s informal music plays a pivotal yet underrecognized role in the nation’s cultural and economic landscape. This paper highlights the potential of this sector as a tool for economic development and cultural diplomacy and provides policy recommendations with India’s neighbors and the Western nations with a large Indian diaspora population.

Read More »
International Relations
Vaibhav puri

When Faith meets fire: Unravelling the Israel-Palestine War

Introduction The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most complex and long-standing disputes in modern history, marked by deep-rooted political, religious, and territorial disagreements. Centred around the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the conflict encompasses competing nationalistic aspirations: Jewish claims for a homeland in Israel and Palestinian demands for sovereignty in what they consider their ancestral territory. Over decades, it has led to wars, uprisings, and failed peace negotiations, leaving a legacy of displacement, mistrust, and suffering. To understand the intricacies of this conflict, it is essential to delve into its historical roots, tracing back to when the region underwent transformative political, social, and demographic changes. Historical Background The story begins with the ancient Kingdom of Israel, where Jews lived under King Solomon’s rule around the 10th century BCE. Solomon built the First Temple in Jerusalem, known today as the Temple Mount, a sacred site for Jews. In 586 BCE, the Babylonians, led by King Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the First Temple and exiled many Jews to Babylon. Later, the Persian Empire, under Cyrus the Great, allowed the Jews to return and rebuild the temple, which was completed in 516 BCE and called the Second Temple. However, the Romans destroyed this temple in 70 CE, forcing Jews into the Diaspora, scattering them across Europe and the Middle East. During this period, Jesus of Nazareth was born in Roman-occupied Judea. His teachings diverged from Jewish traditions, forming the foundation of Christianity. Following his crucifixion by Roman authorities, tensions grew between Christians and Jews, as some Christians blamed Jews for Jesus’ death. By the 4th century, Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity and built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher near the Temple Mount. In the 7th century, Arab armies under Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem, building the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock. These overlapping histories make Jerusalem sacred for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, setting the stage for modern conflict. The First World War and the Balfour Declaration  During World War I (1914-1918), Britain sought to secure the support of various groups, including Jews and Christians, as part of its broader strategy to counter the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine and supported Germany. In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, a statement expressing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This declaration was pivotal, as it recognized Jewish aspirations for a homeland while also asserting that the rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine would not be prejudiced.   Following the war, the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine in 1920. This marked the beginning of increased Jewish immigration to Palestine, with approximately 300,000 Jews migrating to the region between 1919 and 1936. Many were fleeing rising anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly with the ascent of Adolf Hitler in Germany. However, this migration and Britain’s policies caused significant discontent among the Arab population, who viewed it as a threat to their demographic and political dominance in the region. (Balfour Declaration) World War II and the Holocaust The Holocaust during World War II (1939-1945) had a profound impact on the Jewish community worldwide. An estimated six million Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazi regime in concentration camps and through other means. The genocide underscored the urgent need for a safe haven for Jews and galvanized international support for the establishment of a Jewish state. At the end of World War II in 1945, the victorious Allies, including Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations (UN). The Holocaust’s atrocities strengthened the argument for a Jewish homeland, leading to increased global advocacy for a resolution to the situation in Palestine. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 In 1947, Britain, unable to resolve the escalating tensions between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, referred the matter to the United Nations. The UN proposed a partition plan to create two independent states—one Jewish and one Arab—while placing Jerusalem under international administration. The plan was endorsed by major powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union, and was adopted by the UN General Assembly. The establishment of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948. However, this decision was immediately rejected by Arab nations, leading to the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948. Israel, despite being newly established and facing considerable odds, emerged victorious and gained additional territory beyond the original UN partition plan. The war resulted in significant displacement, with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians becoming refugees—an issue that remains a core grievance in the Israel-Palestine conflict. (UN Partition Plan 1947) The Suez Crisis and the Six-Day War Tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbours continued to escalate in the following decades. Egypt, under President Gamal Abdel Nasser, sought to challenge Israel’s trade and military security. In 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and blocked Israeli shipping. This led to the Suez Crisis, where Israel, supported by Britain and France, launched a military intervention. Although Israel withdrew under international pressure, the conflict highlighted the strategic vulnerability of the region. The Six-Day War of 1967 further reshaped the geopolitical landscape. Triggered by Egypt’s closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and the mobilization of Arab forces, the war saw Israel launch a pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. In just six days, Israel achieved a decisive victory, capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights. These territorial gains significantly altered the dynamics of the conflict, as Israel now controlled areas with large Palestinian populations, further intensifying tensions. The Right to Exist  The Jewish connection to the land of Israel spans over 3,000 years, with Jerusalem at the core of their historical and spiritual identity. The establishment of Israel was seen as a necessary refuge for Jews worldwide, especially after the Holocaust. The United Nations’ approval of the partition plan gave legal recognition to this homeland (United Nations, 1947). However, Israel’s formation was met with immediate

Read More »
International Relations
Muskaan Grover

Evolving Terror Financing Methods: Traditional and Modern Aspects

Discover how terrorist organizations adapt their financing strategies, from traditional methods like state sponsorship and charities to modern tactics involving cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. Learn about global efforts to counter terror financing in this in-depth analysis.

Read More »
International Relations
Abhishek Kulkarni

France: A Step Towards Global Innovation and Sustainability

France is emerging as a global leader in AI governance, green technology, and scientific diplomacy. With major investments in AI, renewable energy, and international trade, France is shaping the future of innovation, sustainability, and diplomacy on the world stage.

Read More »
International Relations
Cherry Wong

The Legal Status of Palestine: Analyzing Recognition of Statehood in International Law

Introduction (Paiman Riazat) The question of Palestinian statehood is and has been a for decades controversial matter.  The main conclusion is that Palestine seems to satisfy all the four traditional criteria mentioned in the issues of recognition such as people, land, government, and capacity (Montevideo Convention, 1933). However, Palestine has these requirements; its legal status remains in vogue for the sake of political and historical conditions. As January 2025 begins the situation in Palestine is still unknown. The war between Israel and Palestinian groups in Gaza has resulted in significant casualties and destruction. The United Nations has reported that over 46,000 Palestinians have lost their lives and many more have been injured or displaced (United Nations, 2024). Gaza is home to approximately 2.3 million people and continues to endure a strict blockade imposed by Israel since 2007 (Amnesty International, 2024). In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status (United Nations General Assembly, 2012). This recognition has allowed Palestine to join international organizations and participate in international legal proceedings, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) (International Criminal Court, 2021). This paper aims to effectively analyze the recognition of Palestine’s statehood in international law, discovering the legal arguments for and against its recognition. By bringing up the Montevideo criteria and the current situation on the ground, this research seeks to provide an extensive understanding of Palestine’s legal status in international law. Background (Cherry Wong) International law is a set of rules and principles that governs the relations between states and other international actors (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). It comprises treaties, customary practices, legal precedents etc. that establish obligations and rights for states to adhere to (Butchard, 2020). The aim of international law is to maintain global peace and security, addressing issues such as human rights, trade, and environmental protection (United Nations, n.d.). It is enforced through various mechanisms, emphasizing both state responsibility and the roles of international institutions (Iwasawa, 2023). Palestine’s historical context is characterized by a long struggle for self-determination amidst colonial and geopolitical challenges. The Palestinian national movement began in the early 20th century, with significant events such as the 1920 Palestinian National Council demanding independence from British rule, which was largely ignored due to the British commitment to the Balfour Declaration favoring Jewish immigration and settlement (Boulos & Abu Eid, 2024). The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed separate Jewish and Arab states, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Nakba, which resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (Utrecht University, 2024). The quest for statehood continued with the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, which became the representative body for Palestinians (Powell & Strug, 2016). The PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988, gaining recognition from numerous countries and the UN General Assembly, which granted it non-member observer state status in 2012 (Powell & Strug, 2016). Despite this, the ongoing Israeli occupation and settlement policies complicate the realization of Palestinian statehood (Boulos & Abu Eid, 2024). International law defines statehood criteria primarily through the Montevideo Convention, which stipulates that a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to engage in relations with other states (Fang, 2023). Recognition by other states is essential, as international relations are built upon the acknowledgment of a state’s sovereignty. While Palestine has been recognized by approximately 146 countries, its quest for full statehood remains hindered by geopolitical dynamics, particularly the influence of the United States and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict (The Hindu, 2024). The significance of recognition in international law (Tasnuba Tasnim Anita) Recognition refers to the formal acknowledgment by one state of the existence and sovereignty of another state within the global community. In international law, statehood is traditionally determined by the Montevideo Convention of 1933, which outlines four criteria: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933). However, recognition by other states often solidifies and legitimizes a state’s legal standing in the international arena. But recognition is not a prerequisite for statehood, it facilitates the newly established state’s ability to participate in international organizations, treaties, and diplomatic engagements (Roth, 2010).  Diplomacy often revolves around recognizing states to foster alliances, resolve disputes, and promote stability. Conversely, withholding recognition can serve as a form of protest or leverage in international negotiations. The process of recognition is rarely free of political influence. States may base their recognition decisions on strategic interests, ideological alignments, or economic incentives. This selective approach can lead to inconsistencies (Christopher J Borgen, 2009). Recognition of states in international law can take two primary forms: de jure and de facto recognition (Cochran, C. L.1968). De jure recognition is often permanent and implies that the recognized state satisfies all the criteria of statehood, including effective control and governance. It refers to the formal and unequivocal acknowledgment of a state’s sovereignty and legal personality under international law. De facto recognition often occurs in situations where a state has effective control over a territory but faces unresolved issues regarding its legitimacy or sovereignty (Briggs, H. W. 1939). It implies that while the recognizing state acknowledges the factual existence of the entity as a governing authority, it does not grant full legal legitimacy or permanence (Houghton, N.D, 1932). The case of Palestine illustrates the nuanced application of de jure and de facto recognition in international law. Over 130 UN member states have granted Palestine de jure recognition, acknowledging its sovereignty and right to statehood under international law (Ghaedi, M. 2024). Conversely, many states, including major powers like the United States, have limited their acknowledgment to de facto recognition, if at all (Al Jazeera, 2024). The recognition of Palestine is often viewed through the lens of the broader Arab-Israeli dispute, making it a symbol of regional and global political divisions (Palestine Unbound, 2016). The case of Palestine highlights the significance of recognition in shaping the legal and political realities of statehood under

Read More »