This paper examines the possibility of making the relationship between a de facto state and its patron state measurable in order to determine the degree of “stateness” of the unrecognized entity, and therefore the legitimacy of their claim for statehood. Unrecognized states are often viewed as “places that do not exist” (von Steinsdorff), or mere puppets of their patrons, without their own will, despite there being indication that this is not always the case. While there are some de facto states that can be characterized more as puppet states (e.g. the historical example of Manchukuo), there are others pushing for full independence (e.g. Kosovo, Somaliland, TRNC) that might be dependent on a foreign power, but not effectively or entirely controlled by them. Both the legitimacy and the credibility of the de facto states’ claims to statehood vary, which might require a varied response to their claims. Instead of simply dismissing them as entities controlled by another state, their relationship with the patron might be better understood as that of a patron and a client, which can be characterized as a highly asymmetrical, yet somewhat reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship. The more useful or “valued” the relationship is by the patron, the weaker the patron’s control (Shoemaker, Spanier).
In order to understand where each de facto state actually lies in terms of gravitating towards larger independence vis-à-vis gravitating towards “puppetness”, I propose the composition of an index that would make the relationship quantifiable through the analysis of several dimensions (political, economic, security, socio-cultural).
Such a measurement would help us to better understand the legitimacy of the de facto state’s quest for recognition, as well as the underlying conflict dynamic associated with the existence of an unrecognized state – whether we are observing a secessionist conflict where the patron just takes on a supportive role, or is there actually a hidden interstate conflict taking place, in which case the apparent patron is, indeed, more of an occupant using the de facto entity as a cover-up.
