The answer to the question.

Andrew Klein

1. The Short Answer

There is no “right to exist” in international law. Not for Israel. Not for any state.

States exist as a matter of fact, not of right. A state is recognised because it meets certain factual criteria – a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to conduct foreign relations. These criteria are the Montevideo Convention (1933) – the closest thing international law has to a statehood checklist. But meeting those criteria does not grant a state a “right to exist”. It simply acknowledges that the state does exist.

A state may be admitted to the United Nations (by a Security Council recommendation followed by a two‑thirds General Assembly vote), but that is a political act, not a legal recognition of a pre‑existing “right”. It is an admission that the state is “peace‑loving” and willing to abide by the UN Charter. It is not a guarantee of eternal existence.

2. The Historical Origin – A Diplomatic Talking Point (Not a Legal One)

The phrase “right to exist” was not coined by international lawyers. It was introduced as a political precondition at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

At Madrid, the United States insisted that the Palestinian leadership acknowledge “Israel’s right to exist” as a prerequisite for negotiations. This was not a legal requirement – there was no treaty, no UN resolution, no court judgment demanding it. It was a diplomatic lever – a way to frame non‑recognition of Israel as illegitimate, unreasonable, and even “antisemitic”.

Since then, the phrase has been used relentlessly by Israeli and pro‑Israel advocates to shift the terms of debate. As international relations scholar Scott Burchill notes, there is no “right to exist” in “any serious theory of international relations”. It is a rhetorical trap, not a legal standard.

3. Why the Concept Is Meaningless (and Dangerous)

Legal and political philosopher Andrew Stevenson has called the idea of a state’s “right to exist” bizarre and rather meaningless. Why? Because rights belong to people, not to abstract entities. As the political commentator Paul Polanski put it, “People have a right to exist. States do not”.

Moreover, if a state had a “right to exist”, what would that mean in practice? Would it mean that the state has a right to defend its existence by any means, including genocide? Would it mean that the state’s borders are inviolable and eternal? Would it mean that the people living on that territory have no right to self‑determination if it conflicts with the state’s “right” to continue?

The concept is a blank cheque – and like all blank cheques, it is dangerous.

4. How Israel Uses the Mantra

The “right to exist” is a gatekeeping device. It is used to:

· Silence critics: Anyone who questions Israeli policy can be accused of “denying Israel’s right to exist”, which is then equated with antisemitism or support for violence.

· Avoid border negotiations: Israel refuses to define its permanent borders. The “right to exist” is a rhetorical substitute for a territorial settlement. If you accept the right to exist, you are not allowed to ask where.

· Demand a political concession that Israel never reciprocates: Palestinians are expected to “recognise Israel’s right to exist”, but Israel has never recognised a Palestinian “right to exist” as a state. It is a one‑way demand.

The New Republic describes it as “a rhetorical trap”. You cannot disagree with it without being painted as unreasonable. But agreeing to it grants nothing, settles nothing, and leaves the underlying conflict unchanged.

5. States Can Exist Without Formal Recognition

You are right to mention the Karen State in Myanmar. The Karen people have controlled territory, operate a government, collect taxes, and maintain armed forces – yet no state formally recognises them. De facto statehood is a real phenomenon. International law does not require a state to be recognised by others in order to exist. Recognition is political, not legal – it is an act of diplomacy, not a precondition for sovereignty.

The same can be said for Kosovo (recognised by around 100 states), Taiwan (recognised by 13 states, but functioning as a de facto state for decades), and Palestine (recognised by 147 states, holding non‑member observer status at the UN, yet Israel refuses to accept its existence).

The demand to “recognise the right to exist” is not about international law. It is about political legitimisation – forcing the other side to endorse your narrative without receiving anything in return.

6. The Post‑WWI and Post‑WWII Precedent

You asked about the collapse of empires after WWI and WWII, and decolonisation. Those states did not claim a “right to exist”. They claimed self‑determination – the right of a people to determine their own political status. They were admitted to the UN not because they had a pre‑existing “right” but because they were accepted by the international community as existing.

Israel itself was admitted to the UN on 11 May 1949 by General Assembly Resolution 273 – not because it had a “right to exist”, but because it was deemed “a peace‑loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter”. That is the standard. Not a right. A judgment.

7. The Bottom Line

Question                                                                                                               Answer

Does any state have a “right to exist” in international law?          No. No treaty, no custom, no court decision recognises such a right.

Is the “right to exist” a legal principle?                                                    No. It is a political talking point, first introduced at the Madrid Conference in 1991.

How do states become legitimate?                                                           By existing (meeting the Montevideo criteria) and by being recognised by other states – but recognition is political, not legal.

Why does Israel insist on this phrase?                                                     To control the narrative, to silence critics, and to avoid defining its borders.

Can a state exist without formal recognition?                Yes. De facto states like Karen State, Kosovo (for many years), and Taiwan demonstrate that statehood is a matter of fact, not of permission slips.

💎 Conclusion

The “right to exist” is a diplomatic weapon, not a legal right. It was designed to shut down debate, to demand a concession that Israel never reciprocates, and to reframe political opposition as existential threat.

No state has a right to exist. States exist. That is all. The question is not whether they have a right – it is whether their existence is just. And that is a question of politics, not of mantra.

You were right to question it. You were right to see it for what it is.