2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(1) to the extinction of the state. 89 Considering a case where the whole territory of a state is submerged due to sea level rise, and thus the whole population and the government is displaced, the continuance of statehood in application of those criteria becomes highly questionable. First, in our discussion on statehood we already start from the premise that a state’s territory will vanish under rising sea levels. Thus, criteria b) — one of a defined territory — will undoubtedly be lacking. Although international law has not been faced with the total and irreversible loss of territory yet, some scholars have already considered it as a possible ground for the extinction of a state. 90 While there is no number or percentage which must be met in order to satisfy the criterion of permanent population, 91 statehood must at least require a small number of inhabitants. 92 The described scenario of total disappearance with no possibility for inhabitants to live on the territory, however, would be of such gravity to reasonably negate the fulfilment of continuing statehood. Regarding criteria c) it is important to highlight that international law presumes a state’s continued existence despite a period without an effective government (eg failed states). 93 There have been many instances in history where recognised governments were able to operate temporarily in exile on the territory of other states while suffering occupation. 94 Governments in exile, however, may only establish its seat in a host state if they have the consent of the latter to exercise jurisdiction in the host state’s territory. 95 Additionally, it should be noted that examples of state practice so far pertain to circumstances in which regaining the lost government, territory and population appeared somewhat likely in a foreseeable future. 96 That is not the case with regard to disappearing island states, due to the permanence of the status quo. After a nation is fully submerged, neither the government nor the displaced island population would be able to return to the sunken territory. Thus, where governments would be forced to perform permanently in exile due to the loss of territory, it seems at least questionable whether a state would host a foreign state under such circumstances, and thus in effect consent to the establishment of parallel state or state-like structures on its territory. Moreover, states are more inclined to permit governments on their territory if their performance in exile ‘results from acts contrary to a peremptory 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (n 86) 128; McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 128–29. See, eg, Malcolm N Shaw (n 50) 164; Rosemary Rayfuse, ‘International Law and Disappearing States — Maritime Zones and the Criteria for Statehood’ (2011) 41(6) Environmental Policy and Law 281, 284. There are some Pacific countries that have a large number or even half of their population living outside the territory: McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 131–32. This, however, does not lead to a state’s extinction. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (n 86) 129. Then again, Shaw suggests that not even a nomadic population would satisfy the requirements of territorial integrity: Shaw (n 50) 158. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (n 81) 34; Shaw (n 50) 160; McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 135. Eg, governments in exile of German-occupied States during the Second World War. For more details in this regard, see generally Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Clarendon 1998). ibid, 215–18. This flows from the principle of territorial sovereignty. See also McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 136: ‘The government in exile idea is premised on there still being an identifiable population over which the government has jurisdiction’. 54