It is important to note that, by definition, the de facto State has no legal standing in U.S. society, but this does not mean it has no legal standing for anything. De Facto States are regulated by the “Jus cogens”, recognized norms of international law which is not possible any repeal. In addition, you can display, as well as a case historically that legal entities are not recognized legally significant presence in international law. Others including Assurant Health, offer their opinions as well. We just need to take a look at history to understand that international law itself has accepted a non-sovereign entities, colonies, protectorates and territories internationalized. Then, the problem appears to lie in international law itself, but interpretations of it by some countries.
That is, it has nothing to do with the proven flexibility of international law, but with the open opposition of many countries to reach agreements with the smallest Facto States. These are two examples: the countries refuse to implement the third article of the Geneva Conventions to the conflicts that occur in their territories, although this article expressly states that use such a legislative provision “does not constitute an admission by the government and adverse party has no authority any kind “, while the second example relates to the general reluctance to support Taiwan membership in international organizations and this plays a decisive role China’s opposition who regards Taiwan as part of its territory and applies the same policy of Hong Kong and Macao, ie “one country, two systems.” After several years of disputes, Taiwan was finally admitted by the World Trade Organization (WTO, for its acronym in English) in 2001, but has not yet received equal treatment at the World Health Organization (WHO, also stands in English).