As a political phenomenon, exile remains largely overlooked by the academic literature. Of those pieces that have addressed the topic, most tend to relegate it to a fringe phenomenon, a tool of illiberal regimes.
This article aims to offer a working conception of exile that brings it back into the realm of politics, where it belongs. It seeks to do so by examining the ways in which diaspora movements and cultural practices underscore alternative understandings of modernity, nation, identity, and place.
In doing so, it demonstrates that while exile may have taken on a more mundane appearance in the democratic age, it is still very much alive and well at both the sub-national and the national level. It furthermore shows that, despite its seeming incompatibility with liberal commitments to individual rights, exile persists in a variety of forms.
Governments-in-exile are a phenomenon that has emerged throughout history. They arise during conflicts and occupations and seek diplomatic recognition from other States in order to exercise some functions of sovereignty, even if they do not control territory. This is an inherently ambiguous matter, given that the criterion for recognition rests solely within the competence of the recognizing State. Nevertheless, governments-in-exile have fulfilled some basic requirements: they had to have fled their homeland under threat of military force or belligerent occupation; they had to show continuity with a past existing regime; and they had to be willing and capable to perform traditional sovereign functions (Koberg 41).
Although the practice of recognizing governments-in-exile has evolved over time, no clear rules have been established. The most common criteria is the existence of a formal constitutional structure with a Prime Minister (e.g. the Dutch government-in-exile during World War II headed by Pieter Sjoerds Gerbrandy).