Grant argues that current projects for the elaboration of >"Montevideo Plus" criteria for statehood are -- while legitimately attempting to infuse statehood with considerations that better reflect changing normative standards

Basically it is the convention plus the state be democratic - but this has already proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas. So to my original reply I stand firm that the convention applies but more practically it is "standing in the international community" that is the norm of current international law (as of yet to be codified) and you can be sure it is not democracy as your referenced article suggests.

> proven to be a failure in international law as a result of Afganistan democratically electing the Taliban and Palestine electing Hamas

I'm not trying to condone either government, but why is this a failure? If (I'm assuming this for the argument's sake) they were really elected democratically who are we in other countries to say that's wrong? Wouldn't that be the same as giving merit to a (hypothetical) North Korea declarations that the US has no legitimate statehood for whatever reason?

Why we value democracy? What is it in this process that we think it is good when it's there and is bas when it isn't? Why we think democracy is better than monarchy, for example?

If you think about it, one answer could be - because democracy tends to possess some features we find valuable and necessary, such as respect for the rights and freedoms of people that we consider basic and unalienable, personal security from arbitrary prosecution by the government, orderly transition of power, general participation of the population in the political process, not inhibited by government restrictions, etc.

Now if you look at what happens in Gaza with Hamas, you will find very little of that. Personal rights are not respected, government is a bunch of armed thugs ruling with iron fist and violently suppressing any dissent and any competing movement (it helps little that those are another bunch of armed thugs), and in general almost no benefit of democracy except the ability to vote for whoever is already in power is available to the citizens. If this is not a failure, what is?

However, if we look into the matter even more, I'm not sure there was democratic election involved at the first place. Political fate of Gaza was decided in 2007 in violent clashes between Fatah and Hamas, and Fatah lost. It would probably have lost also if the elections were fully democratic, but what actually happened and the process that led Hamas to assume power in Gaza had almost nothing to do with democracy.

I'm not really interested in those two specific examples used by the OP. My question was more along the lines of the beginning of your reply.

The association of the features you mention with 'our' view of democracy is part of why I personally associate "democracy" and "good".

But, for example, why is it "bad" if people democratically choose a government with values different from ours? Shouldn't the 'voice of the people' be of enough value?

It's not "bad" per se, but the history teaches us that governments that do not share the values of personal rights and freedoms very soon devolve into the governments that are treating their citizens very badly and the citizens themselves are living very poorly. It also happens very frequently that while initial consent may be given by democratic means, very soon such consent is not required anymore by the government and it usurps the power completely and does not let the citizens to dissent and choose better government anymore, instead forcing the citizens to accept the fruits of their poor choice in the past forever, or at least until they can overthrow such government by violent means.

>>> Shouldn't the 'voice of the people' be of enough value?

Not every "voice of the people" has equal value. For example, if 100 years ago in the US white majority would vote to keep black people in slavery, would we now recognize this decision as good and legitimate? What if there were a country somewhere else right now that has majority oppressing the minority and denying them their rights and freedoms? I think we would consider it "bad", despite formal requirement of "voice of the people" being satisfied. That's why, I think, USA is a republic, and while Americans elect their leaders democratically, there are limits to what "voice of the people" could do, at least until current system of government persists.

>why is this a failure?

I am offering a objective standard based on the international community where UN authorized the use of force in one example (which i believe violates the UN charter)and where the other is not a member state. Compare that with a post WW2 era where former colonies throughout the world became independent states simply through "self determination" and democratic elections. The double standard is again attributable to change in international norms, again this creates a problem because the international community does not want to codify their own position that they are unwilling to recognize a democratically elected government.

>Who are we in other courtries to say what's wrong?

"We" should not be referring to individuals with opinions but the international community and I think most would argue the international community has a duty to create international law, norms and customs or in your words say what is wrong behavior.