Rising Statelessness Due to Disappearing Island States norm’. 97 Even if assuming that the government of a former island state would have the consent of a foreign state to function on its territory, its effectiveness would most probably eventually wane. 98 The importance of sovereign territory for a government’s ability to operate effectively should not be undervalued. 99 Moreover, the aspect of independence should for the sake of completeness also be mentioned here. Apart from the criteria illustrated above, the capacity to enter into relations with other states and thus independence is also crucial to statehood. 100 Independence in other words means inter alia that a state is unaffected by the ‘factual dependence upon other states’. 101 Hence, it may not be subject to the authority of a foreign state. 102 While it will obviously depend on the host state whether governments in exile become subordinate, it seems rather reasonable to conclude that a state without territory will find itself more easily in dependency than other states. 103 Thus, it only seems plausible to assume the end of statehood based on the criteria in the Montevideo Convention. The ILA Executive Council established the ILA Sea Level Rise Committee in 2012 with the specific mandate ‘to study the possible impacts of sea level rise and the implications under international law of the partial and complete inundation of state territory’ and in this regard to ‘to develop proposals for the progressive development of international law… including the impacts on statehood’. 104 In its 2018 final report, the ILA Sea Level Rise Committee poses the question whether the problem of permanently uninhabitable state territory due to sea level rise would eg require international law to recognise a new category of subjects in international law, even if those entities lose their legal status as states. 105 Although international law recognizes entities sui generis such as the Holy See or the Sovereign Order of Malta for historical reasons, it seems rather unlikely that submerged states will be 97 Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (n 86) 125; Rosemary Rayfuse and Emily Crawford, ‘Climate Change, Sovereignty and Statehood’, (Legal Studies Research Paper No 11/59, Sydney Law School, September 2011) 8: If the government of a state has been forcibly displaced from its territory through belligerent occupation, the government in question is considered to remain the legitimate government and state… Under international law, such exile must be accepted by the international community; that is, there should be no general acknowledgement of a change of circumstances. 98 For instance, McAdam argues that a merger with the organs of the host state would ultimately lead to the extinction of the state if no other interests to uphold the continuance of statehood prevail: McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 137. It is important to keep in mind that disappearing island states would not only lose territory but also their population. McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 160: ‘[A] substantial loss of population would start to erode the effectiveness of the State’s government as its economic base declined’. Shaw (n 50) 160. ibid. McAdam, Climate Change, Forced Migration (n 29) 133. For more details on the independence criterion, see Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (n 81) 62–89. International Law Association, Committee on International Law and Sea Level Rise, Sydney Conference: Final Report (Report, 2018) 1 (‘Sydney Conference Final Report’). ibid, 25. Regarding subjects of international law in general, see Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (n 86) 115–26. 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 55