# So.... \*IS\* ISIS a state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907 "2015-09-29T02:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/181 "2015-10-05T15:13:02Z")
> [@Staale\_Nordlie](#): > > There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. > > First of all, I’m assuming it’s a thread about international law. YMMV. > > The Montevideo Convention from 1933 is a decent starting point. It is generally considered a codification of existing customary international law. The US is a signatory. > > Does ISIS have a population? Yes. > > Does ISIS have a territory? Yes. It doesn’t have to be undisputed. For example, Israel is clearly a state. > > Does ISIS have a government. Yes. It has an army, taxes, laws and various government services. > > The fourth criteria is perhaps better described as “independence”, as opposed to being under the control of another state, and overlaps somewhat with “government”. > > Is ISIS independent? Again, I would say yes. It is not a puppet of some other existing state. > Recognition by other states is _not_ a criteria for statehood. > > From the Montevideo Convention again: > > So, “capacity to enter into relations with the other states” does not depend on other states _wanting_ “relations”. > Similarly, from the EU appointed Badinter Arbitration Committee: > People have suggested other criteria, such as long-term stability, for statehood. They’re not commonly accepted as far as I can see. > \*\*So, ISIS is probably a “state” according to international law. \*\* > > (This thesis has more details about the legal issues if anyone’s interested: [http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=121942](http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=121942) [from page 22] .) The Arbitration Committee made the same mistake you are making. Here’s what it said: > [@](#): > > b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty; Please compare this definition with the Montevideo Convention! Note that it is significantly different. For one, it has three criteria rather than four (the “capacity to enter into relations with the other states” is left out); for another, it misses the qualifiers “permanent” population and “defined” territory. Your last source makes it clear that there is a live debate over this issue of the effect of recognition - even in the laws of international legal academe, it isn’t a done deal. Indeed, while extreme “Delaratory” theorists have a lot of legal support, they do not have it all their own way, as your own article makes quite clear - the reason being, it is a completelyt unrealistic position in a world that lacks any formal mechanism to evalute the criteria! Like many musings of international scholarly legists, it proposes a world that does not, as of yet, exist: > [@](#): > > Despite the considerable support for the declaratory theory in international law, there is at least one issue that continues to reopen the debate between the declaratory and constitutive theories: international law does not have any mechanisms for authoritatively determining whether an entity fulfills the factual criteria for statehood.148 The absence of such a body is one of the main arguments used by proponents of the constitutive theory to argue for the importance attached to recognition by existing States. Kelsen - one of the prominent defenders of the constitutive theory - argues for instance, that international law provides existing States the freedom to determine in each case separately whether an entity meets the necessary criteria for statehood.149 Recognition is therefore necessary to close the gap between the general rules of international law and the specific facts on which these rules should be applied. Kelsen notes that recognition is a determination of facts: a determination of the existence of a sufficiently effective and independent authority (government) over a territory and a population.150 Without such an approval it would not be possible to speak of the existence of a State under international law.151 Note that the balance of the article is about how, despite the “declaratory” theory being “predominant” (that is, among scholars!), no-one considers Somaliland a state, because it is not “recognized”. :smack: From p. 48: > [@](#): > > While the above distinction is artificial - as there is no distinction in international law between different categories of States174 - it does reveal, that neither the declaratory, nor constitutive theory of recognition can satisfactorily explain the objective legal situation of States in international law. If Somaliland has achieved statehood, the continuity and territorial integrity of Somalia should be affected. Yet, Somalia’s statehood and borders remain internationally uncontested by existing States. This causes the curious situation where Somaliland is a State according to the predominant declaratory theory, yet it is Somalia which continues to (formally) exist through recognition and subsequently enjoys all rights inherent in statehood. On the other hand, if Somaliland is not a State, the declaratory theory would be inadequate, as the classic criteria for statehood have been met for well over two decades. However, while the debate between “Constructivists” and “Declaratory” theorists is interesting, it all presumes that the proto-states in question want to be part of the state system! In short, it is about entities quite unlike ISIS. Your cited paper basically conflates “capacity to enter into relations with other states” with the “effective government” criterion (basically, an “effective government” is one with capacity to enter into relations with other states). The authors probably never dreamed of a situation in which an entity arises that has no such interests. Thus the argument is - an entity such as ISIS cannot be a “state” since it lacks the essentials, even under “declaratory theory” - namely, an effective government capable of entering into relations with other states. Moreover, I would suggest that, while “declaratory” theory is popular with international legal scholars, your own article points out it has no effect on reality - in which, as always (or at least until an effective world government exists), “recognition” remains in reality the very essence of statehood - because only other states have any actual power. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/182 "2015-10-05T16:26:12Z")
Yeah, what he said. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/183 "2015-10-05T17:07:40Z")
When is a state a state? When is a person attractive? When is a food tasty? When is enough enough? It comes down to definitions and opinions. There is no single set of criteria universally accepted by all states and all peoples that defines what is a state, although there are sufficiently commonalities (as discussed above in this thread) that usually (but not always) there will eventually be international consensus. For shits and giggles, google about for “sovereignty” and “public international law”. Although ISIS is the subject of this thread, I think you’ll find more illuminative examples of what constitutes statehood if you research what has been going on vis a vis recognition of statehood in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration of 1917 through to the present. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/184 "2015-10-06T00:44:22Z")
> [@Staale\_Nordlie](#): > > There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread. > > First of all, I’m assuming it’s a thread about international law. YMMV. > > The Montevideo Convention from 1933 is a decent starting point. It is generally considered a codification of existing customary international law. The US is a signatory. > > Does ISIS have a population? Yes. > > Does ISIS have a territory? Yes. It doesn’t have to be undisputed. For example, Israel is clearly a state. > > Does ISIS have a government. Yes. It has an army, taxes, laws and various government services. > > The fourth criteria is perhaps better described as “independence”, as opposed to being under the control of another state, and overlaps somewhat with “government”. > > Is ISIS independent? Again, I would say yes. It is not a puppet of some other existing state. > Recognition by other states is _not_ a criteria for statehood. > > From the Montevideo Convention again: > > So, “capacity to enter into relations with the other states” does not depend on other states _wanting_ “relations”. > Similarly, from the EU appointed Badinter Arbitration Committee: > People have suggested other criteria, such as long-term stability, for statehood. They’re not commonly accepted as far as I can see. > \*\*So, ISIS is probably a “state” according to international law. \*\* > > (This thesis has more details about the legal issues if anyone’s interested: [http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=121942](http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=121942) [from page 22] .) I could kiss you. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/185 "2015-10-06T00:51:44Z")
[More](http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/who-is-russia-bombing-in-syria-the-militant-groups-determined-to-fight-to-the-death/) from the useless, evil, unworthy little Patrick Cockburn Did anyone ask what it means to be stable ? How long do you have to hold land for to “qualify” ? How much territory are you allowed to lose or gain before being deemed unstable ? Not that recently both Ukraine/Russia lost/gained territory - and nobody is saying they are not states any more because of it. > [@](#): > > By far the most important movement is Isis (also known as Islamic State, Isil and Daesh) which controls a third of Iraq and half of Syria. > It works as a genuine state able to tax, and conscript and control the five or six million people who live within its frontiers. > Despite being targeted by some 7,000 air strikes, Isis holds about the same ground as it did last year and captured Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq this May. It never willingly shares power with anybody and has in the past acted in alliance with other jihadis only for as long as it has to. This year it has lost ground to the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, but has won victories against the Syrian and Iraqi armies. And re; the difference between Islamist groups > [@](#): > > Jabhat al-Nusra was created by Isis in 2012 as its Syrian branch drawing on Isis’s resources of men, arms and money. It rapidly grew in strength until 2013, when Isis leader Abu Baqr al-Baghdadi tried to curb its independence and bring it firmly back under his authority. > The result was a savage intra-rebel civil war which at first Isis seemed to lose as it withdrew to eastern Syria, but was then able to rally its forces for successful counter-attacks. And a short comment on their backers > [@](#): > > More recently, Turkey, Qatar and other Sunni states have been trying to rebrand al-Nusra as more moderate than Isis and therefore internationally acceptable as an ally against President Bashar al-Assad. I don’t personally want ISIS to last as an entity, my bias would be to deny it’s statehood as an attack on it’s legitimacy, but it is what it is. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/186 "2015-10-06T00:54:26Z")
What’s the difference between a state and a caliphate ? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/187 "2015-10-06T00:56:08Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > I could kiss you. Do you just want someone, somewhere to agree with you, or do you want to actually get the correct answer? Because, as noted, that is NOT the correct answer. Or better yet, why are you so personally invested in ISIL being a state? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/188 "2015-10-06T01:19:08Z")
I just said I wasn’t invested in ISIS being a state. In my view way too many people are invested one way or another. “Because, as noted, that is NOT the correct answer.” In your opinion. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/189 "2015-10-06T01:41:41Z")
What constitutes, really, capacity to enter into relations with other states ? There’s the legalese version in which the state has a recognised legal personality, Great, but on the other hand there are things called telephones and printers and the capacity to enter relations is right there. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/190 "2015-10-06T13:47:29Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > What constitutes, really, capacity to enter into relations with other states ? There’s the legalese version in which the state has a recognised legal personality, Great, but on the other hand there are things called telephones and printers and the capacity to enter relations is right there. You ask a lot of good questions - “Did anyone ask what it means to be stable ? How long do you have to hold land for to “qualify” ? How much territory are you allowed to lose or gain before being deemed unstable ?” and now “What constitutes, really, capacity to enter into relations with other states ?”. The answer is the same in each case - there is no single body that can, definitively, answer any one of them! Sure, there is the UN, there is international arbitrations, and there are international legal opinions - but as we have seen in the sources quoted above, none of them agree, or are in any way consistent. So what does that mean, practically, in terms of real consequences (and not some airy theoretical opinionating that you once said you were against?) It is very simple, really - the answers to these questions are established by other, existing states, who pick and choose what they find important. This, then, is what is meant by “recognition” (and why, despite the "considerable support for decalaratory theory [that is, the theory that “recognition” isn’t one of the criteria for statehood], in reality, it is the only one that really matters - recognition is other states deciding for themselves - sometimes based on “arbitrations” and the like, sometimes not - who is or is not a ‘state’. Why is this the only really important criterion? Because only states that are recognized as “states” are treated by other states as having rights (again, not that states will not, on occasion, violate those rights). Non-“states” (that is, entities not recognized as states) have no such rights. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/191 "2015-10-06T14:06:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Because only states that are recognized as “states” are treated by other states as having rights… Plenty of states clearly _treat_ Taiwan as a state in all but name. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/192 "2015-10-06T14:34:54Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Plenty of states clearly _treat_ Taiwan as a state in all but name. This, I think, is the heart of the problem. ISIS clearly isn’t a state, and the international diplomatic community is all about playing silly games. What I want to know is, if others were to recognize ISIS as a state, would it be able to continue as such, or would it collapse? Frankly, I think the best hope for the people there is if ISIS forms a state, and gradually shifts from barbarian lunacy to stability. I estimate that takes a generation, but if we let them get on with it, with not-so-subtle encouragement and many carrots and sticks, the whole region has a better shot than the current “bomb them into inescapable war” plan. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/193 "2015-10-06T15:36:31Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Plenty of states clearly _treat_ Taiwan as a state in all but name. An example that proves the point I made earler: that the debate over the importance of recognition only applies to entities that _want_ to be accepted into the “club” of nations as independent states. Taiwan has maintained the notion that Taiwan is, and always was, and remains, a part of China. Although it has all the attributes of a “state” under “declaratory theory”, and although everyone de facto treacts Taiwan as a “state”, it can’t formally be a “state” because it doesn’t actually seek that status; however, it is “recognized”, even though it lacks the accoutriments of formal recognition - through diplomatic double-speak: > [@](#): > > The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Republic of India, Pakistan and Japan have formally adopted the One China policy, under which the People’s Republic of China is theoretically the sole legitimate government of China. However, the United States and Japan acknowledge rather than recognize the PRC position that Taiwan is part of China. In the case of Canada[29] and the UK, bilateral written agreements state that the two respective parties take note of Beijing’s position but do not use the word support. The UK government position that “the future of Taiwan be decided peacefully by the peoples of both sides of the Strait” has been stated several times. Despite the PRC claim that the United States opposes Taiwanese independence, the United States takes advantage of the subtle difference between “oppose” and “does not support”. In fact, a substantial majority of the statements Washington has made says that it “does not support Taiwan independence” instead of saying that it “opposes” independence. Thus, the US currently does not take a position on the political outcome, except for one explicit condition that there be a peaceful resolution to the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.[28] The United States bi-partisan position is that it doesn’t recognize the PRC’s claim over Taiwan, and considers Taiwan’s status as unsettled.[30] All of this ambiguity has resulted in the United States constantly walking on a diplomatic tightrope with regard to cross strait relations. You can read all about the arguments both for and against Taiwan already being a state (in wiki form) here: > **[Political status of Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan#Legal_arguments)** > > Lai Ching-te (DPP) > Hsiao Bi-khim (DPP) > Cho Jung-tai (DPP) All very interesting, but moot if Taiwan _doesn’t actually want to be an independent state_. ISIS on the other hand both lacks the attributes of a state _and_ doesn’t want to be treated as a “state”. It can’t become a “state” until both of those change. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/194 "2015-10-06T15:47:32Z")
ISIL doesn’t want to be treated as a state? Can you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/195 "2015-10-06T16:01:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > An example that proves the point I made earler: that the debate over the importance of recognition only applies to entities that _want_ to be accepted into the “club” of nations as independent states. But which completely shoots down your latter, perhaps careless, claim that formal recognition is the only thing that matters. Look, labels have power. Constructs do _construct_ a level of reality. But it’s not the _only_ reality. Physical facts still count, often overridingly. States largely treat Taiwan as a state, whether they call it so or not, because in physical fact it serves and acts as one. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/196 "2015-10-06T17:22:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > ISIL doesn’t want to be treated as a state? Can you elaborate? Because its declared purpose is to re-create a universal Caliphate, as a precursor to the apocalypse. This is a set of goals completely incompatible with seeking “statehood” within a system of sovereign states. Under a Caliphate (or at least as it is conceived by ISIS), there is only one legitmate authority that can exist, and the relationship between it and the existing states is set. > **[What ISIS Really Wants](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/)** > > The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/197 "2015-10-06T17:42:48Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > But which completely shoots down your latter, perhaps careless, claim that formal recognition is the only thing that matters. > > Look, labels have power. Constructs do _construct_ a level of reality. But it’s not the _only_ reality. Physical facts still count, often overridingly. States largely treat Taiwan as a state, whether they call it so or not, because in physical fact it serves and acts as one. Formal recognition “matters” only because, through it, states grant other states various rights - such as becomming irritated when their “sovereignty” is violated. In the case of Taiwan, the US (the party, otherthan China, that really matters in this context) has made it clear that, while it does not “formally” recognize Taiwan as a state (because, among other things, Taiwan refuses to see itself as a seperate state - but more fundamentally to avoid irritating China), it supports the existence of Taiwan - in effect, that it will be annoyed if Taiwanese “sovereignty” is violated. > [@](#): > > Washington’s “one China” policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing’s claims to sovereignty over Taiwan.[8][9] On the contrary, on July 14, 1982, Washington gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China’s claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances),[10][11] and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that “[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan’s sovereignty.” > > The United States position on Taiwan is reflected in “the six assurances to Taiwan”, the Three Communiqués, and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).[12] The Six Assurances include: 1. The United States has not agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan; 2. The United States has not agreed to hold prior consultations with the Chinese on arms sales to Taiwan; 3. The United States would not play any mediation role between Taiwan and Beijing; 4. The United States has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act; 5. The United States has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan; and 6. The United States would not exert pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the Chinese.[13] The “Three Communiqués” include The Shanghai Communiqué, The Normalization Communiqué, and The August 17 Communiqué. > > Despite friendly relations with China, United States President George W. Bush was asked on April 25, 2001, “if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?” He responded, “Yes, we do…and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.”[14] He made it understood that “though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree.” [15] Taiwan has worked out a system where it obtains the benefits of statehood vis. the US and China without the label. This is tantamount to de facto recognition (even if “formal” recognition is withheld to avoid irritating China). I see this as “diplomatic doublespeak”, not as “this shoots down totaly the notion that recognition is the only thing that matters” (I note you added the word “formal” to my point. Why?). On the contrary: remove the US assurances, and Taiwan’s position vis. China would be a lot weaker - depite the fact that it meets the “statehood” criteria just as much (namely, its own territory, its own government, etc.). In “declaratory theory” terms, Taiwan is as much a “state” if the US turned its back on it and said to China “help yourself - we always knew Taiwan was just a rebel province, and really belongs to you”, as if the US told China “we will defend Taiwan against you to the last drop of blood”. Yet practically, the two situations could not be more different. At least, that’s my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/198 "2015-10-06T18:24:05Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Because its declared purpose is to re-create a universal Caliphate, as a precursor to the apocalypse. This is a set of goals completely incompatible with seeking “statehood” within a system of sovereign states. Under a Caliphate (or at least as it is conceived by ISIS), there is only one legitmate authority that can exist, and the relationship between it and the existing states is set. > > [What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) OK, that’s what I thought you were thinking. But that doesn’t preclude it from being a state, just because it’s the _only_ state. Right now, it doesn’t even satisfy the definition of having a defined population and territory. Both are in flux. You cannot draw the boundaries of “The Islamic State” and have those hold true for even few months. They are a rebel group that is trying to establish a state, but has not succeeded. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/199 "2015-10-06T18:37:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, that’s what I thought you were thinking. But that doesn’t preclude it from being a state, just because it’s the _only_ state. > > Right now, it doesn’t even satisfy the definition of having a defined population and territory. Both are in flux. You cannot draw the boundaries of “The Islamic State” and have those hold true for even few months. > > They are a rebel group that is trying to establish a state, but has not succeeded. While I agree that it hasn’t got a defined population or territory, I disagree that it would satisfy the Montevideo Convention if it did - because it lacks the capacity (because it lacks any interest in) entering into relations with “other states”. How can it enter into “relations” if it doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of state-hood as such? An apocalyptic, universal revolutionary group (unless it changes goals, which of course is totally possible) simply isn’t “trying to establish a state” among other states. Even so, I still contend that calling something a “state” is meaningless unless it is recognized as such by other states - in that only other states have the ability to define what a “state” is. Thus, even assuming it met all of the Montevideo Convention criteria - which we both agree, ISIS currently doesn’t - it still would not be, in any meaningful sense, a “state” without recognition - which is unlikely to be forthcomming (again, unless its goals change). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/200 "2015-10-06T18:50:44Z")
I’d just like to point out that even Wikipedia – Wikipedia!! – doesn’t recognize the Islamic State, because Raqqa is still described as being a city in Syria. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907.md?page=11)