The article presented here is a modified excerpt from a book in preparation, tentatively titled "80 and Still Laughing." In the book, I reflect on topics related to and close to personally known and respected international professionals who have become friends, about whom the general public knows little or nothing, and often with distorted information. In the case of the article presented today, the topic is national and state sovereignty, and it features friends from what is called the "gerontology section" of the Gallup Institute.
The name arose during a time when some members had retired, and one of them, whose identity is now unknown, said: "Gentlemen, we are becoming a gerontology section of the Gallup Institute; we are now a group of gerontologists." This group of gerontologists consists of professionals born in the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s, originating from various regions of Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia. They are highly educated men from diverse fields, including humanities and natural sciences: economists, lawyers, diplomats, philosophers, historians, teachers, military experts, journalists, writers, and entrepreneurs. I personally joined this group of gerontologists around 2012, after several years of observation and evaluation of my work by key members of the "gerontology section" of the Gallup Institute, and at the invitation of one of the main organizers, Josef K., chairman of the MGIMO alumni club, and not least, my still intellectually sharp 96-year-old friend, JUDr. Stanislav M.
Stanislav's diplomatic and legal career began after being accepted into the legal department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He started as a third secretary according to international classification and was gradually promoted to counselor. Before reaching the position of ambassador, he was dismissed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to become a specialist in public international law and head of a smaller unit within the ministry. With this specialization, he was sent as a secretary to the permanent mission at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and later as a secretary to the permanent mission at the United Nations in New York.
As a member of the delegation, he participated in the UN conference on international arbitration in New York, followed by the Vienna Conference on diplomatic law. Later, he served as the head of the delegation at the Vienna Conference on international treaty law and at the committee for the definition of aggression in Geneva. He was a member of the delegation to the United Nations General Assembly several times. At the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (Academy of Sciences), he published the book Diplomatic Relations and Immunities, with which he defended his postgraduate degree. Later, together with Miroslav Potočný, professor of international law, he published a book in English titled Main Legal Principles of Peaceful Coexistence of States, as a publication of Charles University. He has published over 30 scientific articles and has his own section in the National Archives. This is a brief overview of the academic career of this kindred spirit and a reference.
After leaving his mission at the UN in New York, he was invited to the legal department of the UN Secretariat. He became an assistant to the Legal Advisor and Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. As a member of the secretariat, he participated in meetings of the UN Committee in Mexico. He served as the sole secretary of the Special Committee on Strengthening International Law of the UN General Assembly and was appointed legal advisor to UN forces in Cyprus. During his service with the UN, he also worked as a legal advisor in the P5 category for the plebiscite in West Irian, now Indonesia, as a legal advisor for the United Nations in the Middle East, and after obtaining approval from the Israeli government, he held a senior position as a legal advisor for all UN missions worldwide. Despite all of this, in 1970, Deputy Minister Klusák forbade him from leaving, prepared his dismissal from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and confirmed that "envy always lasts longer than the happiness of those we envy" (F. de La Rochefoucauld), and that "Bohemia is the cradle of envy" (Petr Nárožný, voice actor, engineer, TV host).
Introduction
War not only tests armies but also doctrines. The current renewed conflict between Israel and the United States with Iran has once again raised a fundamental question: When does territorial integrity maintain order, and when does it protect systemic disruption? This is not an argument for fragmentation, especially not for Iran. I unconditionally support its people since my studies of Islamic banking and insurance in London and after my first visit to Iran during the solar eclipse on August 11, 1999. I observed the eclipse with my daughter Olga, Betina, and Jiří Lobkowicz in Isfahan, which lies within the path of totality. The phenomenon occurred around 2:50 PM local time, and the total phase lasted approximately 1.5 minutes.
In the Czech Republic, the most significant event will be the partial solar eclipse on August 12, 2026. The Moon will cover up to 86% of the Sun. A total solar eclipse directly from Czech territory will not be visible until October 7, 2135, long after the first total solar eclipse on May 12, 1706. There will be a partial solar eclipse in Iran on August 2, 2027, and the next total solar eclipse will occur on March 20, 2034. The path of totality, with a maximum duration of around 4 minutes and 9 seconds, will affect the African continent and then extend through the Middle East into Asia.
I mention the solar eclipse because when it began, almost miraculously, the sky cleared up and became clear. It was an amazing experience also because it was possible to see countless "srpečků" (small spots) on the ground as light shone through the branches. Another thing that struck me was how the birds fell silent. Suddenly, there was silence. Only the shadow caused by the enormous cosmic ship obscuring the Sun passed through the landscape, and with it came a not very strong wind and a strange feeling of awe from the eclipse.
From a scientific perspective, a solar eclipse offers a unique opportunity to study the solar corona and the behavior of Earth's atmosphere. Historically and astrologically, eclipses are seen as symbols of change, chaos, or warnings. And that is what this article is about. Current challenges have a structural character, and the doctrine of recognition, i.e., the framework governing sovereign legitimacy, either functions according to disciplined criteria or collapses into political improvisation. We are witnesses who do not always realize the extent of the stakes, which go far beyond the borders, this time of the Middle East, Iran, and Tehran.
Montevideo Convention (1933)
The convention establishes four objective criteria for statehood: 1) Permanent population. 2) Defined territory. 3) Effective government. 4) Ability to conduct foreign relations. However, recognition does not create sovereignty; it is an institutional realization, not a rhetorical inheritance.
For decades, this standard maintained stability. Tensions began when recognition shifted from expression to political signaling. The wave of recognitions extended to Palestine despite the divided territorial power and the operational presence of an armed organization that some Western governments consider a terrorist group, which speaks for itself. More than 140 countries recognize Palestine as a state. This recognition was granted despite the divided territorial control and unresolved armed conflicts within the claimed territory. The motivations varied, but the structural consequences were the same: the threshold for recognition was lowered. This is where we are now: in a state of war, with human rights being ignored, and amidst disputes.
The United Nations cannot lower the applied threshold for recognition while simultaneously strictly enforcing the original threshold in other crises. Such actions create an opportunity to accuse the UN of selective sovereignty, which undermines the legitimacy of the UN. Therefore, the precedent set with Palestine not only created a diplomatic outcome but also legal vulnerability and introduced elasticity into a framework that relies on unity. As a result, we are witnessing the erosion of the authority and legitimacy of the UN.
International law recognizes not only sovereign rights but also sovereign obligations. The responsibility to protect reflects a central premise: sovereignty implies an obligation to protect populations and refrain from actions that destabilize others. From a security perspective, this principle is becoming increasingly critical. When a state uses its sovereign territory to incubate, finance, or provide operational depth for non-state armed actors, it is not only a violation of policy but also a breach of the very foundations of the Westphalian system and sovereignty. Both the system and sovereignty presuppose a monopoly on force within a territory while simultaneously imposing limitations outside of it.
From what has been stated, the right to territorial integrity is only as strong as the obligation of territorial responsibility. If a state violates this obligation, for example, by exporting instability, protecting proxy violence, or undermining protective governance, the presumed territorial immunity weakens. Sovereignty ceases to function as a shield of order and becomes a shield of disorder. Why? Because sovereignty represents a contract based on fulfilling obligations, not an unconditional inheritance.
What if Iran or Russia were to collapse?
Emerging entities would invoke this precedent. If Russia destabilizes after Putin, the republics within its federal structure will cite this precedent. Regions across Africa and Eurasia with defined territories and claims of historical continuity will also cite it.
I remind you that Africa itself has thousands of historically defined ethno-linguistic communities, many of which formed pre-colonial political entities before the imperial cartographic consolidation. According to a strict definition and interpretation of the Montevideo Convention, most of these entities cannot be recognized. I recommend those interested in this topic to study it in more detail and compare the results and consequences of *elastic recognition* (elastic matching) and *rigid comparison* (rigid matching).
The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in fifteen internationally recognized successor states. The Russian Federation includes more than twenty federal republics and several autonomous regions. A destabilizing scenario could trigger a large number of aspiring entities, far exceeding the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The UN system was designed for approximately two hundred sovereign members. It was not designed to handle cascading claims for recognition stemming from elastic criteria. Therefore, the UN is in an internal contradiction that allows for the recognition of aspirant statehood without unified territorial control and consolidated authority.
For those unfamiliar with law, "aspiring statehood" refers to a situation where a particular community or territory seeks to achieve full statehood but does not currently possess all its characteristics. The concept of aspiring statehood can be divided into two main areas: international law (stateless nations, such as Kurdistan) and socio-philosophical (the ideal of the state). In political science and legal philosophy, this area represents society's desire to achieve a certain ideal, legal order, or arrangement. Statehood is perceived more as a goal, value, or norm that society strives to fulfill, even though real conditions often fall short of this ideal. In the context of Czech national revival history, it was a period when the nation lived within foreign empires but maintained the idea of its own statehood as a legitimate political goal.
A brief detour into the Czech lands
During pre-election deliberations, a kindred spirit, Rudolf H. (1935), a former Czech and Czechoslovak politician of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (during normalization, he was Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Socialist Republic and Chairman of the Czech Commission for Scientific and Technological Development), reflected on a figure from the Vysočina region who could serve as a guide in evaluating many candidates for positions in our state. This person is Zdeněk Mahler. This highly educated individual, known to both Rudolf and me, is well-known to the general public. Mahler was a historian, writer, journalist, and scholar. He admired the politics of Charles IV, Hus, Comenius, Palacký, Havlíček, and Masaryk – individuals with strong ties to the Czech nation.
From the works of those mentioned above, a Czech political perspective on the existence of the Czech nation and the idea of a Czechoslovak state emerged. This idea connected historical experiences with democracy and became an active force in resistance. It culminated in the establishment of the Czechoslovak state in 1918 and its restoration after 1945. Mahler also embraced this idea. His opposition to tendencies that based national life on lies and fabrications was inspiring. In one of his last communications, Rudolf H. sent me a link to an article from "Právo" dated December 31, 1999. In it, Mahler wrote: Sometimes I have the impression that a model of global totalitarianism is being created, which has one very prominent feature – a completely deliberate and programmed debilization...it's a betrayal by intellectuals...television celebrates only the lower half of the body – the stomach and glands. Culture, however, is related to cultivation; it should appeal to the heart and mind.
CT, ČRo, and others have much to catch up on, because Mahler argued that the intellectual and moral level of our people is higher than that of those who claim the right to rule them. We could cite countless examples from life after November 1989. The lost ideals of Mahler pained him, as they pain every patriot or true friend. Today, many know that after November 1989, the people ceased to be the free custodians of their own state. They lost pride, self-confidence as citizens of the Czech state, national character, genuine patriotism, respect, empathy, love for themselves and others," wrote Rudolf H., and continued: The thousand-year struggle for national self-determination is being obscured from the people. Surely we remember his television program "Yes, Masaryk!" Mahler stated, among other things, what remains true today: We are a plebeian nation in our essence. Some scorn this plebeianism because plebeians survived through various compromises and concessions, but also thanks to hard work and the ability to survive. Because of this, we survived, but we continue to carry that bent spine…
Mahler urged us to respect those personalities who are rejected by propaganda and power, but who have demonstrated faith, love for their country, and have given their hearts, strength, defense, and development to Czech traditions. On December 20, 2008, in the magazine "Práva," he truthfully stated: We do not have an excess of heroes in our history, and sending people who have proven themselves morally and have done no harm to their deaths is a heinous act. We can each cite personalities from the national revival, from the periods of the First and Second World Wars, and from the times of construction efforts during the creation of our socialist republic. Their condemnation and ridicule was and is beyond common sense, but it served and serves the enemies of our nation. I will not continue…
Back to the substance of the post
The presented and described aspirational statehood, anthropological warfare, the funeral in Iran, and the position on it cannot coexist indefinitely. Russia, which shares a destiny with Islam, must win the ongoing anthropological war on the Ukrainian battlefield against the West. Its current elites apparently do not realize the importance of institutional arithmetic, and that recognition under conditions of incomplete sovereignty, defended as political adaptation and formalized by voting, acquires a precedent-setting character and becomes an argument available to all future applicants.
If recognition in one case is extended without full compliance with Montevideo, the institution must establish a limiting principle that distinguishes this case from others. Without such a doctrine, claims of parity become structurally inevitable. If emerging entities in Iran, Russia, or elsewhere apply equal treatment, the UN will face limited choices and a reduction in legitimacy. This is not a prediction of collapse, but it is an acknowledgment of structural tension. The Iranian crisis tests this with a result that will indicate whether recognition will be restored or further weakened and become a victim of anthropological warfare.
Israel represents the opposite model
While others strive for recognition as a substitute for governance, Israel maintains administration as the foundation of its recognition and fully meets the Montevideo criteria. Israeli borders are not administrative remnants; they represent security necessities based on historical continuity and consolidated institutional reality. Where sovereignty is exercised consistently, recognition stabilizes. Where sovereignty is invoked rhetorically and administration collapses, recognition destabilizes. Therefore, we encounter a dual assessment: Israel is either a sovereign gold standard or an outcast.
Consistency requires that the criteria relating to the legitimacy of Israel be applied everywhere. If fragmentation in Iran is analytically debatable primarily under sovereign pressure, similar structural assessments cannot be prohibited elsewhere. Unfortunately, reality does not conform to the needs, even of international law, which is already dead.
Example of a security anchor
The Western Cape is not only administratively viable. It is strategically located, has a defined territorial jurisdiction, functioning courts and law enforcement agencies, financial systems, commercial infrastructure, and a permanently organized population. It lies on the Cape Sea Route, one of the most important maritime corridors in the world. Therefore, it is a thorn in the side of the United States and all those who oppose BRICS.
If the central South African government were to deepen its strategic ties with Iran or Russia, the Western Cape would gain increased significance. It would represent a pre-consolidated block of administration along a global bottleneck. In this context, independence would not be local agitation but geopolitical protection. In short: a security anchor. Here is an opportunity for those interested in international politics and security to draw comparisons with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.
Indigenousness and regaining sovereignty
International law distinguishes between succession, the creation of a new state, and restoration, that is, the re-establishment of interrupted sovereignty in a previously sovereign state.
Indigenousness, recognized in modern discourse on self-determination, does not represent fragmentation but rather the lawful regaining of political continuity. Indigenousness provides a legal anchor for claims of restoration where colonial disruption has disrupted political continuity. The Zionist restoration of Jewish sovereignty occurred within this intellectual framework. It was nothing new or original. It was a reaffirmation, about which, unfortunately, there is little discussion or writing.
Regaining sovereignty after interruption by an empire represents a structurally parallel argument. Rejection solely on the basis of inherited colonial borders would contradict the elasticity already established elsewhere. The ultimate test of the doctrine of recognition is not separation but the continuity of obligations of the successor state. Recognition in such cases would not lead to legal invalidity. It would transfer the obligation to entities that are structurally capable of fulfilling it.
In a world where some central governments increasingly operate outside Western security norms while simultaneously invoking sovereign immunity, recognizing structurally stable successor entities may represent geopolitical hygiene rather than instability. Why? Because territorial integrity is not sacred simply because it exists. It is sacred because it is legitimate and functional.
In the context of Palestine, Iran, and Israel, among many others, Iranian negotiations raise questions about the loss of sovereign property. In the case of Palestine, this sets a precedent that raises questions about doctrinal flexibility. In the case of Israel, it represents demonstrable, disciplined sovereignty. However, Cape Town and similar entities present cases to be evaluated according to consistent criteria of preparedness, responsibility, and originality.
Therefore, the doctrine of recognition must return to its contractual foundation. The right to territorial integrity depends on the obligation of territorial responsibility. Where this obligation fails, the doctrine must adapt. Not emotionally, not selectively, but structurally, because maps are not territories, and they do not maintain order. It is an act that maintains order. The current Iranian crisis is a historical test for us all. The response will determine whether sovereignty remains a contract or becomes a slogan.
Grant Arthur Gochin, a diplomat, journalist, and wealth advisor focused on historical responsibility, Jewish continuity, and the doctrine of recognition, writes more extensively and in detail on the topic mentioned above. Gochin is a retired ambassador of the African Union for diaspora affairs, representing all fifty-five member states of the Union, and is a retired dean of the consular corps in Los Angeles.
(To be continued next time)
Jan Campbell