Quasi-state explained

A quasi-state or state-like entity, to include what is termed a proto-state,[1] [2] is a political entity that does not represent a fully institutionalized or autonomous sovereign state.[3]

The precise definition of quasi-state in political literature fluctuates depending on the context in which it is used. It has been used by some modern scholars to describe the self-governing British colonies and dependencies that exercised a form of home rule but remained crucial parts of the British Empire and subject firstly to the metropole's administration.[4] Similarly, the Republics of the Soviet Union, which represented administrative units with their own respective national distinctions, have also been described as quasi-states.[3]

In more recent usage, the term quasi-state has most often been evoked in reference to militant secessionist groups who claim, and exercise some form of territorial control over, a specific region, but which lack institutional cohesion. Such quasi-states include the Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia during the Bosnian War and Azawad during the 2012 Tuareg rebellion.[5] The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is also widely held to be an example of a modern quasi-state or proto-state.[6] [7]


The term "proto-state" has been used in reference to contexts as far back as Ancient Greece, to refer to the phenomenon that the formation of a large and cohesive nation would often be preceded by very small and loose forms of statehood.[8] For instance, historical sociologist Gary Runciman describes the evolution of social organization in the Greek Dark Ages from statelessness, to what he calls semistates based on patriarchal domination but lacking inherent potential to achieve the requirements for statehood, sometimes transitioning into protostates with governmental roles able to maintain themselves generationally, which could evolve into larger and more centralised entities fulfilling the requirements of statehood by 700 BC in the archaic period.[8] [9]

Most ancient proto-states were the product of tribal societies, consisting of relatively short-lived confederations of communities that united under a single warlord or chieftain endowed with symbolic authority and military rank. These were not considered sovereign states since they rarely achieved any degree of institutional permanence and authority was often exercised over a mobile people rather than measurable territory. Loose confederacies of this nature were the primary means of embracing a common statehood by people in many regions, such as the Central Asian steppes, throughout ancient history.[10]

Proto-states proliferated in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, likely as a result of a trend towards political decentralisation following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the adoption of feudalism.[11] While theoretically owing allegiance to a single monarch under the feudal system, many lesser nobles administered their own fiefs as miniature "states within states" that were independent of each other.[12] This practice was especially notable with regards to large, decentralised political entities such as the Holy Roman Empire, that incorporated many autonomous and semi-autonomous proto-states.[13]

Following the Age of Discovery, the emergence of European colonialism resulted in the formation of colonial proto-states in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.[14] A few colonies were given the unique status of protectorates, which were effectively controlled by the metropole but retained limited ability to administer themselves, self-governing colonies, dominions, and dependencies.[4] These were distinct administrative units that each fulfilled many of the functions of a state without actually exercising full sovereignty or independence.[14] Colonies without a sub-national home rule status, on the other hand, were considered administrative extensions of the colonising power rather than true proto-states.[15] Colonial proto-states later served as the basis for a number of modern nation states, particularly on the Asian and African continents.[14]

During the twentieth century, some proto-states existed as not only distinct administrative units, but their own theoretically self-governing republics joined to each other in a political union such as the socialist federal systems observed in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union.[4] [3] [16] Another form of proto-state that has become especially common since the end of World War II is established through the unconstitutional seizure of territory by an insurgent or militant group that proceeds to assume the role of a de facto government. Although denied recognition and bereft of civil institutions, insurgent proto-states may engage in external trade, provide social services, and even undertake limited diplomatic activity.[17] These proto-states are usually formed by movements drawn from geographically concentrated ethnic or religious minorities, and are thus a common feature of inter-ethnic civil conflicts.[18] This is often due to the inclinations of an internal cultural identity group seeking to reject the legitimacy of a sovereign state's political order, and create its own enclave where it is free to live under its own sphere of laws, social mores, and ordering.[18] Since the 1980s a special kind of insurgent statehood has emerged in form of the "Jihadi proto-state", as the Islamist concept of statehood is extremely flexible. For instance, a Jihadi emirate can be simply understood as a territory or group ruled by an emir; accordingly, it might rule a significant area or just a neighborhood. Regardless of its extent, the assumption of statehood provides Jihadi militants with important internal legitimacy and cementes their self-identification as frontline society opposed to certain enemies.

The accumulation of territory by an insurgent force to form a sub-national geopolitical system and eventually, a proto-state, was a calculated process in China during the Chinese Civil War that set a precedent for many similar attempts throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Proto-states established as a result of civil conflict typically exist in a perpetual state of warfare and their wealth and populations may be limited accordingly.[19] One of the most prominent examples of a wartime proto-state in the twenty-first century is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,[20] [21] [22] that maintained its own administrative bureaucracy and imposed taxes.[23]

Theoretical basis

The definition of a proto-state is not concise, and has been confused by the interchangeable use of the terms state, country, and nation to describe a given territory.[24] The term proto-state is preferred to "proto-nation" in an academic context, however, since some authorities also use nation to denote a social, ethnic, or cultural group capable of forming its own state.[24]

A proto-state does not meet the four essential criteria for statehood as elaborated upon in the declarative theory of statehood of the 1933 Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government with its own institutions, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.[24] A proto-state is not necessarily synonymous with a state with limited recognition that otherwise has all the hallmarks of a fully functioning sovereign state, such as Rhodesia or the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan.[24] However, proto-states frequently go unrecognised since a state actor that recognises a proto-state does so in violation of another state actor's external sovereignty.[25] If full diplomatic recognition is extended to a proto-state and embassies exchanged, it is defined as a sovereign state in its own right and may no longer be classified as a proto-state.[25]

Throughout modern history, partially autonomous regions of larger recognised states, especially those based on a historical precedent or ethnic and cultural distinctiveness that places them apart from those who dominate the state as a whole, have been considered proto-states.[4] Home rule generates a sub-national institutional structure that may justifiably be defined as a proto-state.[26] When a rebellion or insurrection seizes control and begins to establish some semblance of administration in regions within national territories under its effective rule, it has also metamorphosed into a proto-state.[27] These wartime proto-states, sometimes known as insurgent states, may eventually transform the structure of a state altogether, or demarcate their own autonomous political spaces.[27] While not a new phenomenon, the modern formation of a proto-states in territory held by a militant non-state entity was popularised by Mao Zedong during the Chinese Civil War, and the national liberation movements worldwide that adopted his military philosophies.[28] The rise of an insurgent proto-state was sometimes also an indirect consequence of a movement adopting Che Guevara's foco theory of guerrilla warfare.[28]

Secessionist proto-states are likeliest to form in preexisting states that lack secure boundaries, a concise and well-defined body of citizens, or a single sovereign power with a monopoly on the legitimate use of military force.[29] They may be created as a result of putsches, insurrections, separatist political campaigns, foreign intervention, sectarian violence, civil war, and even the bloodless dissolution or division of the state.[29]

Proto-states can be important regional players, as their existence impacts the options available to state actors, either as potential allies or as impediments to their political or economic policy articulations.[27]

List of modern proto-states

Constituent proto-states


Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood SinceSource
Aruba Netherlands1986
1957 [31]
Papua New Guinea2001
Christmas Island Australia1958
Cook Islands New Zealand1888
Faroe Islands Denmark1816
French Polynesia France1847
Greenland Denmark1816
Guam United States1816
Indian reservations United States1658
1991 [32]
Jewish Autonomous Oblast1934
New Caledonia France1853
United Kingdom1922
United States1899
1993 [33]
Puerto Rico United States1816
1998 [34]
United Kingdom1816
Solomon Islands1981
United States1816
United Kingdom1816
Myanmar1989[35] [36]


Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood DatesSource
South Africa1977–1994[37]
, 1920–1991
South Africa1981–1994
Republic of Crimea UkraineMarch 11–18, 2014[38] [39]
Carpathian Ruthenia1919–1939
South Africa1972–1989
South Africa1971–1994
South Africa1970–1989
South Africa1972–1994
Karelian ASSR, 1923–1940
South Africa1973–1989
South Africa1981–1994
South Africa1981–1994
South Africa1972–1994
Montenegro, 1945–2006
Moldavian ASSR, 1924–1940
South Africa1973–1989
South Africa1974–1994
Serbia, 1945–2006
Singapore Malaysia1963–1965
South West Africa (Namibia) South Africa1915–1991[40]
Southern Sudan Sudan2005–2011[41]
South Africa1976–1994
United Kingdom1820–1971[42]
Turkestan ASSR1918–1924[43]
, 1919–1991[44]

Secessionist, insurgent, and self-proclaimed autonomous proto-states


Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood Since Source
1996 [45]
2015 [46]
and 2014 [47]
Islamic State (ISIL) 2013 [48]
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan Pakistan 2006
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria2013[49]
Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities1994


Proto-state Parent state Achieved statehood Dates Source
1919–1920 [50]
, 1938–1939
1964–2017 [51]
1917–1918 [52]
1919–1922 [53]
1982–1989 [54]
1992–1999 [55]
1992-1997 [56]
1942–1945 [57]
1969–1976 [58]
1991–1995 [59]
"Taylorland" or Greater Liberia 1990–1995/97
, 1941
, 1917–1921
1975–2002 [61]
United States1776-1783
, Poland1918–1919
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth16th century–1649
Islamic Emirate of KunarAfghanistan1989–1991
Islamic Republic of Imbaba Egypt1989–1992
Fatah al-Islam Lebanon2007

See also

Notes and references


Notes and References

  1. Web site: How the Islamic State Declared War on the World. Foreign Policy. 2016-07-20.
  2. 493, 580. Quasi-State. A term sometimes used to describe entities with many, but not all, the criteria of statehood . . . which are nonetheless possessed of a measure of international personality. . . . a term of international relations, and certainly not of international law, it connotes former colonies . . ..
  3. Book: Hahn, Gordon. Russia's Revolution from Above, 1985-2000: Reform, Transition, and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime. 2002. 527. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick. 978-0765800497.
  4. Book: Griffiths, Ryan. Age of Secession: The International and Domestic Determinants of State Birth. 2016. Cambridge University Press. 978-1107161627. Cambridge. 85–102, 213–242.
  5. Web site: Independent Azawad: Tuaregs, Jihadists, and an Uncertain Future for Mali. Alvarado. David. Barcelona. Barcelona Center for International Affairs. May 2012. 25 March 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20170325064003/https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/142674/NOTES%2054_ALVARADO_english.pdf. 25 March 2017.
  6. News: The caliphate cracks. The Economist. 0013-0613. 2016-07-20.
  7. Web site: The Islamic State: More than a Terrorist Group?. E-International Relations. 2016-07-20.
  8. Book: The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium. Scheidel. Walter. Morris. Ian. 2009. Oxford University Press. 978-0195371581. Oxford. 5–6, 132.
  9. Runciman. W. G.. July 1982. Origins of States: The Case of Archaic 351–377 Greece. Comparative Studies in Society and History. en. 24. 3. 351–377. 10.1017/S0010417500010045. 0010-4175.
  10. Book: Kim, Hyun Jin. The Huns. 2015. 3–6. Routledge Books. Abingdon. 978-1138841758.
  11. Book: Borza, Eugene. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. 1992. 238–240. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 978-0691008806.
  12. Book: Duverger, Maurice. The Study of Politics. 1972. 144–145. Thomas Nelson and Sons, Publishers. Surrey. 978-0690790214. registration.
  13. Book: Beattie, Andrew. The Danube: A Cultural History. 2011. 35. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 978-0199768356.
  14. Book: Abernethy, David. The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415-1980. 2002. 327–328. Yale University Press. New Haven. 978-0300093148.
  15. Book: Morier-Genoud, Eric. Sure Road? Nationalisms in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. 2012. 2. Koninklijke Brill NV. Leiden. 978-9004222618.
  16. Book: Kostovicova, Denisa. Kosovo: The Politics of Identity and Space. limited. 2005. 5–7. Routledge Books. New York. 978-0415348065.
  17. Book: Sellström, Tor. Sweden and National Liberation in Southern Africa: Solidarity and assistance, 1970–1994. 2002. 97–99. Nordic Africa Institute. Uppsala. 978-91-7106-448-6.
  18. Book: Christian, Patrick James. A Combat Advisor's Guide to Tribal Engagement: History, Law and War as Operational Elements. 2011. 36–37. Universal Publishers. Boca Raton. 978-1599428161.
  19. News: Estados-embrión. Torreblanca. José Ignacio. José Ignacio Torreblanca. 12 July 2010. El País. es. 18 March 2016. http://www.elpais.com/.
  20. News: ¿Por qué Estado Islámico le está ganando la partida a los herederos de Bin Laden?. Segurado. Nacho. 16 April 2015. 20 minutos. es. 12 March 2016. http://www.20minutos.es/.
  21. News: Javier Martín: "El Estado Islámico tiene espíritu de gobernar y permanecer". Rengel. Carmen. 5 April 2015. es. 12 March 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.es/.
  22. News: Islamic State: The struggle to stay rich - BBC News. en-GB. 17 March 2016. 2016-03-08. Keatinge. Tom.
  23. Book: Martín Rodríguez , Javier . Estado Islámico. Geopolítica del Caos. Los Libros de la Catarata. 2015. 978-84-9097-054-6. 3rd. 15. Madrid, Spain. es. Islamic State: Geopolitics of Chaos. 2016-04-22. https://web.archive.org/web/20171203195640/http://www.catarata.org/libro/mostrar/id/1057. 2017-12-03. dead.
  24. Book: Middleton, Nick. An Atlas of Countries That Don't Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States. 2015. 14–16. Macmillan Publishers. London. 978-1447295273.
  25. Book: Coggins, Bridget. Power Politics and State Formation in the Twentieth Century: The Dynamics of Recognition. 2014. 35–64, 173. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 978-1107047358.
  26. Book: Augusteijn, Joost. The Irish Revolution, 1913-1923. limited. 2002. 13. Palgrave. Basingstoke. 978-0333982266.
  27. Book: Araoye, Ademola. Okome. Mojubaolu. Contesting the Nigerian State: Civil Society and the Contradictions of Self-Organization. 2013. 35. Palgrave-Macmillan. Basingstoke. 978-1137324528.
  28. Book: McColl, R. W.. Encyclopedia of World Geography, Volume 1. 2005. 397–398, 466. Facts on File, Incorporated. New York. 978-0-8160-5786-3.
  29. Book: Newton. Kenneth. Van Deth. Jan. Foundations of Comparative Politics. 2016. 364–365. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 978-1107582859.
  30. Web site: Euromosaic - Swedish in Finland. www.uoc.edu. 2017-11-11.
  31. Book: Roeder, Philip. Where Nation-States Come From: Institutional Change in the Age of Nationalism. 2007. 281. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 978-0691134673.
  32. Book: Dyer, Gwynne. Don't Panic: ISIS, Terror and Today's Middle East. 2015. 105–107. Random House Canada. Toronto. 978-0345815866.
  33. Book: Tillery, Virginia. Faris. Hani. The Failure of the Two-State Solution: The Prospects of One State in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. 2013. 28–29. I.B.Tauris, Publishers. London. 978-1780760940.
  34. Book: Palmer, Andrew. The New Pirates: Modern Global Piracy from Somalia to the South China Sea. 2014. 74. I.B. Tauris, Publishers. London. 978-1848856332.
  35. 29 December 2004, 佤帮双雄, Phoenix TV
  36. Web site: Steinmüller. Hans. 2018. Conscription by Capture in the Wa State of Myanmar: acquaintances, anonymity, patronage, and the rejection of mutuality. live. London School of Economics.
  37. Book: Marx, Anthony. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil. 1998. Cambridge University Press. 978-0521585903. Cambridge. 106.
  38. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26465962 Ukraine crisis: Crimea parliament asks to join Russia
  39. News: de Charbonnel. Alissa. How the separatists delivered Crimea to Moscow. 2014-03-12. Reuters. 2020-04-03. en.
  40. Book: Recueil des cours: Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Hague Academy of International Law. 1978. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Publishers. 978-90-286-0759-0. Alphen aan den Rijn. 100–101.
  41. Book: Suzuki, Eisuke. Non-State Actors in International Law. 2015. Hart Publishing. 978-1849465113. Noortmann. Math. Portland. 40. Reinisch. August. Ryngaert. Cedric.
  42. Book: Ulrichsen, Kristian Coates. The Rise of the Global South: Philosophical, Geopolitical and Economic Trends of the 21st Century. 2013. World Scientific Publishing Company. 978-9814397803. Dargin. Justin. Singapore. 155–156.
  43. Book: Reeves, Madeleine. Border Work: Spatial Lives of the State in Rural Central Asia. limited. 2014. Cornell University Press. 978-0801477065. Ithaca. 66.
  44. Book: Ryabchuk, Mykola. Envisioning Eastern Europe: Postcommunist Cultural Studies. 1994. University of Michigan Press. 0-472-10556-6. Kennedy. Michael D.. Ann Arbor. 135. Between Civil Society and the New Etatism: Democracy in the Making and State Building in Ukraine. For Ukraine, even the formal declaration of the Ukrainian SSR, however puppet like, was extremely important. First, it somewhat legitimized the very existence of the Ukrainian state and nation, even if by an “inviolable” union with Russia. Second, it provided an opportunity to create certain state structure, establish state symbols, and even attain an only informal but, as it turned out, crucial membership in the United Nations. Third, the formal existence of the Ukrainian SSR as a distinct ethnic, territorial, and administrative entity with state like features objectively created a legitimate and psychological basis for the eventual formation of a political nation. It has proven much easier to change a nominal “sovereignty” to a real one than to build a state out of several provinces (gubernia) threatened by foreign intervention and civil war, as in 1917–20..
  45. News: New insights on Congo's Islamist rebels . Daniel Fahey . . 19 February 2015 . 16 October 2017.
  46. Web site: Central African Republic rebels declare autonomous state in north. 15 December 2015. The Washington Post. 20 December 2015.
  47. Book: Socor, Vladimir. Countering Hybrid Threats: Lessons Learned from Ukraine. 2016. IOS Press. 978-1614996507. Iancu. Niculae. Washington, DC. 187–192. Conserved Conflict: Russia's Pattern in Ukraine's East. Russia’s 2014 military intervention breached [Ukraine’s titles to sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of its borders] de facto, but the Minsk armistice formalizes that breach at the international level. Under the armistice, a formal restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and control of the external border in Donetsk-Luhansk is no longer a matter of title, right, or international law. Instead, that restoration becomes conditional on enshrining the Donetsk-Luhansk proto-state in Ukraine’s constitution and legitimizing the Moscow-installed authorities there through elections. Moreover, the terms of that restoration are negotiable between Kyiv and Donetsk-Luhansk (i.e., Moscow) under the Minsk armistice.. Fortuna. Andrei. Barna. Cristian. Teodor. Mihaela.
  48. Remarks by Anicée van Engeland. 10.1017/S0272503700103052. 2016. Van Engeland. Anicée. Proceedings of the Asil Annual Meeting. 110. 225–228.
  49. Book: Williams, Brian Glyn. Counter Jihad: America's Military Experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. 2016-10-20. University of Pennsylvania Press. 9780812248678. en.
  50. Shambarov, V. The State and revolutions (Государство и революции). "Algoritm". Moscow, 2001
  51. Book: Faure. Guy Olivier. Zartman. I. William. Engaging Extremists: Trade-offs, Timing, and Diplomacy. 1997. 5. United States Institute of Peace Press. Washington, D.C.. 978-1601270740.
  52. Book: Roberts, Glenn. Commissar and Mullah: Soviet-Muslim Policy from 1917 to 1924. 2007. 14. Universal Publishers. Boca Raton. 978-1581123494.
  53. Book: Suzman, Mark. Ethnic Nationalism and State Power: The Rise of Irish Nationalism, Afrikaner Nationalism and Zionism. 1999. 144–145. Macmillan Press. Basingstoke. 978-0312220280.
  54. Defence Journal. Ikram ul-Majeed Sehgal, 2006, Volume 9-10 Collected Issues 12(9)-12 (10) page 47.
  55. http://www.keshilliministrave.al/index.php?fq=brenda&m=news&lid=7323&gj=gj2 Statement of Albanian PM Sali Berisha during the recognition of the Republic of Kosovo, stating that this is based on a 1991 Albanian law, which recognized the Republic of Kosova
  56. Web site: Rashid Dostum: The treacherous general. December 2001.
  57. Book: Laqueur, Walter. Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study. 1997. 218. Transaction Publishers. Piscataway, New Jersey. 978-0765804068.
  58. Book: Domínguez, Jorge. To Make a World Safe for Revolution: Cuba's Foreign Policy. 1989. 127–128. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 978-0674893252.
  59. Book: Glaurdic, Josip. The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia. 2011. 149. Yale University Press. New Haven. 978-0300166293.
  60. Book: Gilbert . Martin . Gott . Richard . The Appeasers . . . 1967.
  61. Book: Beck, Theresa. The Normality of Civil War: Armed Groups and Everyday Life in Angola. 2013. 83–84. Campus Verlag GmbH, Publishers. Frankfurt. 978-3593397566.