What the Recognition of Palestine Reveals About Statehood: Our Perspective
In recent days, several governments including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Portugal and France announced recognition of Palestine. These developments have drawn international attention, but for us the important point is what they illustrate: the question of what makes a country remains unsettled.
For nearly sixty years we at the Principality of Sealand have lived at the centre of this debate. Our experience shows how international law, politics, and persistence overlap when it comes to sovereignty. Events like these remind the world that the rules of statehood are not fixed. They are shaped by facts on the ground and by the shifting positions of other governments.
Recognition versus reality
Recognition is often mistaken for legitimacy. In truth, recognition is a political act, not a legal one. Even with recognition from more than three quarters of the world’s countries, Palestine does not hold full United Nations membership. A single veto in the Security Council is enough to block that step.
International law takes a different approach. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 sets out four criteria for statehood:
• A permanent population
• A defined territory
• A government
• The capacity to enter into relations with other states
By these standards, many entities qualify as states. But recognition in practice depends less on law and more on geopolitics.
Inconsistencies in international law
History provides many examples. The People’s Republic of China was not recognized by the United States until 1979 despite governing nearly a billion people. Taiwan maintains its own government, economy, and borders yet remains excluded from the UN. Kosovo is recognized by over 100 states but not all, keeping it outside full membership. Palestine, though recognized by more than 150 states, remains in a similar position today.
The reality is clear: recognition is shaped as much by politics and timing as by law.
Our place in the debate
Since declaring independence in 1967, we have consistently met the conditions for statehood. We have a defined territory, a permanent community, and a functioning government. We govern ourselves, uphold our laws, and maintain our national symbols. Read more about our history.
We have also demonstrated the ability to act internationally. In 1978, following an attempted coup, a German diplomat travelled directly to Sealand to negotiate the release of a citizen. This was not symbolic. It was a clear act of diplomacy that proved we can and do operate as a sovereign state. Our constitution reinforces this with a framework of governance and law that continues to define us today.
For us, the lesson is simple. Sovereignty is not granted by others. It is lived, defended, and proven in practice.
Why this matters
The recognitions of Palestine show how fluid the concept of statehood remains. Countries can exist for decades in a grey area between recognition and rejection, functioning as nations in every practical sense while awaiting broader acknowledgment.
We know this truth first hand. Our statehood is grounded not in the permission of others, but in the reality of governance, community, and the will to remain independent. Join our global community as an official Sealand E-Citizen.
Conclusion
We have lived this reality for nearly sixty years, maintaining our independence and growing our community while others debate the rules. Recognition may be inconsistent, but sovereignty is not defined by outside approval. It is proven through facts on the ground. On every measure, we have already shown ourselves to be a state. History demonstrates that persistence in claiming nationhood is often what secures acknowledgment — and we remain steadfast in ours.
