International law demands territory as a precondition for statehood. If the Maldives were to lose its territory as a result of climate change, would it cease to be a state? In light of the negligible contribution of the Maldives and similar states to climate change, if they were to lose their statehood and international legal personality on account of climate change, serious questions would arise as to the legitimacy and efficacy of international law. But these states will not lose their statehood, for three reasons. First, in light of the diminishing utility of territory for states, at least for the continuation of established statehood, territory need not be a necessary requirement. Second, the requirement of territory for the creation of states does not necessarily imply a territorial requirement for the continuation of statehood. International law is silent as to the extinction of statehood upon physical disappearance of territory and equity demands that statehood be preserved in such a situation. Third, the political realities of recognition will operate to ensure the continuing statehood of these small island nations. But this continuing statehood raises the question of how these states will exist without territory. There are two options: acquisition of new territory or deterritorialised existence. Both are possible but present significant practical hurdles. In the short term, the de jure statehood of these states will be protected in international law, but in the longer term, it is likely that they will cease to exist as states de facto.
