Time to Review US Foreign Policy on Dependencies & Areas of Special Sovereignty

Over the last decade, there have been several changes to the official list of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty recognized by the U.S. Government. For example, the Trump Administration terminated the recognition of Western Sahara as a dependency and area of special sovereignty during its first term in office, and the Biden Administration terminated the recognition of Cook Islands and Niue as dependencies and areas of special sovereignty when it recognized both as independent states. Despite these changes, there remain significant issues with official policy on foreign dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. One is that the official list does not provide a formal definition for what counts as a “dependency and area of special sovereignty.” Another is that there are inconsistencies in the designations of particular geopolitical entities as dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. The Trump Administration should address these issues as soon as possible. It would significantly improve the quality characteristics of the official list of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty recognized by the U.S. Government.

Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty

The official list not only fails to articulate a constitutive rule for the concept of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty (i.e., what counts as a dependency and area of special sovereignty). It fails to mark a formal distinction between what counts as a dependency from what counts as an area of special sovereignty. Those gaps undermine conceptual clarity. To fix that problem, the Trump administration should take the time to articulate formal definitions for the concept of a dependency and the concept of an area of special sovereignty. Then, it should systematically re-classify geopolitical entities on the basis of those formal definitions. In doing so, the Trump Administration would help to clarify the status that is recognized by the U.S. Government for geopolitical entities such as Hong Kong and Svalbard.

Overseas Constituent Countries of Constitutional Monarchies

U.S. policy fails to adequately specify the regulative rules that are associated with dependencies and areas of special sovereignty (e.g., If Curaçao counts as a dependency and area of special sovereignty, then the U.S. Department of State has the right to create an independent mission for Curaçao). Consider the Foreign Affairs Manual. It not only fails to adequately specify what kinds of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty can have what kinds of U.S. posts and what kinds of U.S. missions. It fails to specify what kinds of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty can serve as the referent objects of U.S. mission strategic plans. Those gaps undermine conceptual clarity. To fix that problem, the Trump administration should seek to articulate the full set of deontic powers that are carried by the designation of a dependency and area of special sovereignty. In doing so, the Trump Administration would help to clarify whether there should ever be independent U.S. missions for overseas constituent countries such as Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

Areas that Exist Beyond Traditional National Jurisdiction

There are apparent inconsistencies in the kinds of geopolitical entities that are officially designated as dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. Consider areas that exist beyond traditional national jurisdiction. Although the U.S. Government formally recognizes Antarctica as a dependency and area of special sovereignty, it does not formally recognize the Deep Seabed and Outer Space as dependencies and areas of special sovereignty. That undermines conceptual cohesion. The Trump administration should therefore either: 1) recognize Antarctica, Deep Seabed, and Outer Space as areas of special sovereignty; 2) terminate the recognition of Antarctica as a dependency and area of special sovereignty.

Disputed States

There are no formal designations for many disputed states out there in the world (e.g., Somaliland). Consider the Palestinian Territories. In the official list of independent states and the official list of dependencies and areas of special sovereignty, there are no footnotes that declare that the U.S. Government recognizes the Gaza Strip, Municipality of Jerusalem, and/or West Bank as falling within internal administrative divisions of Israel. Nor is there any entry for the Palestinian Territories under dependencies and areas of special sovereignty, other states, or independent states. One can imagine that changing under the Trump Administration. As part of the resolution of the current conflict, a diplomatic pathway may open that would encourage the Trump Administration to formally recognize the Palestinian Territories under internal administrative divisions, dependencies, areas of special autonomy, other states, or independent states within the official taxonomy.