A pariah state may face international isolation, sanctions or even an invasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or even its very existence unacceptable.
Until the past few centuries, the authority to designate a nation as an outcast, or pariah state, was relatively clear, often resting with religious authorities (e.g., "the Ottoman Empire for example was regarded as an outcast by European states" from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 until the nineteenth century on a "religious basis.").
[1][2] In more recent times, however, the criteria for and attached implications of pariah statehood, as well as the designating authorities, are the subject of much disagreement.
[3] The word "pariah" derives from Paraiyar, a large indigenous tribal group of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
"[7] This definition, as the previous one, does not indicate what kind of political system, ideological posture, leadership or general behavior, is ascribed to the pariah state by the other nations.
"[1] Similarly, Harkavy offers, "A Pariah State is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior.
"[8] Geldenhuys gives a more detailed definition of that type: "A pariah (or outcast) country is one whose domestic or international behaviour seriously offends the world community or at least a significant group of states.
For example, Harkavy and Marks make reference in their definitions to the international behavior of a nation in order to qualify it for pariahood.
[8] Marks goes one step further and includes the question of nuclear weapons in his criteria,[10] while Weiss adds "a state’s defiant existence in the face of international non-recognition.".
[1] However, Bellany's sole criterion is a lack of soft power,[6] while the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations requires that the pariah states also "suffer from diplomatic isolation and widespread global moral opprobrium".
[11][12] Such poll results are not listed among objective criteria advanced by academic sources, international authorities or NGOs, or any governing bodies as criteria for designation as a pariah state, and Geldenhuys argues that major world powers by definition cannot be pariah states because they cannot be isolated or harmed politically or economically, or brought into compliance with international norms by pariah designations, whether by individuals or international governing bodies.
The second characteristic is that, although they are not necessarily small, pariah states cannot be "regarded as a major power in world terms."