central government is lacking altogether, as was the case in Somalia.53 Statehood also does not cease where the territory has been occupied lawfully or placed under the administration of foreign powers, as the aim is to act as agents and not to dissolve the State, as was the case of Germany post-WWII.54 If exile can be considered as a temporary problem, there is thus precedent for continuity of statehood. The presumption that such exile is temporary, however,55 implies that extinction could occur where ineffectiveness of a government or loss of independence continues over an extended period or becomes permanent. There is no precedent, however, for loss of the entire territory or the exile of the entire population of a State, without a theoretical possibility of reversal of the situation. Presumably, similar considerations would apply. As noted above, the criteria for statehood are interlinked; in principle, the population should inhabit the territory and be under the control of the government. That said, even if a government continues to exist and is recognized, its legal capacities would nonetheless be limited, because of its lack of territory and permanent population.56 The government would need a host State willing to receive it as such. Its scope of action would depend on the rights that a host State would be willing to grant it. Presumably, if a host State extended an invitation to the government of an affected island State, this would include a willingness to permit it to exercise its personal sovereignty over its nationals in the form of diplomatic and consular protection.57 This would also include an acceptance of its legislative jurisdiction.58 It is unlikely that permission to exercise jurisdiction to enforce its laws would be granted, however.59 Therefore, it is unlikely that State institutions, such as the police or courts, would be able to function. Although a host State could agree to use its institutions to enforce the laws of the government in exile, this would probably be very limited in scope.60 The government’s capacities would also be limited by the lack of territorial sovereignty. Since the entire population of the State would be under the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign State, potentially different from the host State, the powers of the government would depend not only on the host country but also on the willingness of other States to accord or recognize the jurisdiction of the government, presumably without the possibility of reciprocity. The government’s effectiveness would be questionable, and the criterion of ‘independence’ would not appear to be met. Nationals of 53 Malanczuk, note 30 above, 77. Malanczuk, note 30 above, 78; see also Brownlie, note 30 above, 72, 106-107; Crawford, note 27 above, 76. The situation of Iran from 1941 to 1946 is similar, albeit for a shorter period; see ibid, 86. 55 See for example Talmon, note 52 above, 136. It should be noted that the examples cited by Talmon, ibid., 218-250, involve governments in exile as a result of foreign occupation during war. Governments in exile continued to be involved in the war effort. These could thus be considered exceptional situations. 56 See Malanczuk, note 30 above, 84, Brownlie, note 30 above, 64, 86-88, Crawford, note 27 above, 26-28, 93. 57 Talmon, note 52 above, 202-206. 58 Talmon, note 52 above, 215-216. Talmon engages in a more extensive examination of the jurisdiction of governments in exile, including the scope of legislative and other State powers and the likelihood that such legislation could conform with constitutional requirements; ibid, 218-250. 59 Only in very specific situations has some judicial competence been accorded; these were, however, related to war-time events; see Talmon, note 52 above, 216-218, 238-243. 60 See Talmon, note 52 above, 215-218, 238-243. Talmon also emphasizes that the courts of host States are under no obligation to recognize the laws of another State on their territory. He examines, however, the extent to which foreign courts have enforced national legislation of governments in exile and notes that this has occurred by comity. This has been limited in general to cases where the laws could be considered valid and were not of a confiscatory or penal nature or otherwise contrary to the public policy of the host State; see Talmon, ibid., 243-250. 54 7