![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The Red Cross was just added to the list. I belive it is not a sovireign entity and does not claim to be one. If so, it has no place on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighFlyingFish ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Even if we assume for argument's sake that the ICRC is sovereign (and I think you'd need to back that claim up with some pretty strong sources), how would putting it on this list make any sense? The ICRC does not engage in diplomatic relations. It can't really be "recognized" or "unrecognized" in the same way that a state can and to describe it in that context is pretty misleading. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 03:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this "Special case" section is just going to open up a whole lot of completely stupid debates. The Red Cross for goodness sake! Seriously? The Order is definitely a special case in international law, but this is a page for states (like actual legal entities that you can live in, and be a citizen of, etcetera). It just doesn't belong, and I'm predicting a lot more of these silly suggestions unless the section is removed. Extra territorialism, embassies, exercising sovereignty —so does the EU, so does the UN, so do so many other organisations. Can we take a vote, please? I think that's appropriate, as it is a new introduction, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of support for (or logic behind) its inclusion. Night w ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Support or Oppose inclusion of "Special case" section.
I believe it's a mistake, however for the sake of ending the bashing, I'll remove it. Ladril ( talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please rest assured: it was not my intent to criticise anybody, and I apologise if I came off as harsh from the get-go. That said, I still don't think it belongs, and somebody has yet to clarify how the Order differs from, say, the UN, the EU, the Holy See, the other organisations that have been mentioned. I'm not opposed to mentioning it in plain text, but mentioning it as an example of its class would probably be best, as it would deter problems with potential additions. Night w ( talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that Croatia was recently added. However, I'm not sure the claim that it is unrecognized by 20 states is quite accurate. The source [2] lists 20 states which haven't established diplomatic relations with Croatia. However, the source's list of states doesn't seem to be complete. I count 192 on their list (194-Croatia-EU), including Kosovo. Palau for one is missing, but there must be at least 1 more (192UN+VC+Kosovo=194). Also, many states have a date listed for establishing diplomatic relations, but nothing under the official recognition column. Shouldn't we be counting the number which don't recognize? Or can we assume that all states which have diplomatic relations recognize? I assume that this is the case, but it would be nice if we had a source which clearly listed states which recognized, as opposed to had diplomatic relations. TDL ( talk) 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Palestine is recognized by a majority of UN members but not in the UN should it have its own section? I have brought this up in the Number of states recognising Palestine? section but got no answer. HighFlyingFish ( talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that Croatia, Montenegro and similar cases should not be listed. The numbers of "non recognition" cited for them are just the number of states that have made no formal letter/statement of recognition/diplomatic relations. This is quite different from the cases like Israel, Armenia - where there are states that have explicitely stated that they DON'T recognise. I can't find any source showing that some country DOESN'T recognise Croatia or Montenegro. Yes, there are lists for the opposite (wich states DOES recognise it), but we can't simply assume that all the rest are WITHOLDING recognition - for example there are countries like Tuvalu, Bhutan, etc. that have very limited diplomatic activities and haven't made official statements of recognition regarding many of the UN members, but this doesn't mean that we should list all countries without explicit Bhutan recognition letter here.
I think that in the "UN members" part of the limited recognition list we should include only countries that had their recognition DENIED by at least 1 other state - like Israel, Cyprus, the Koreas, PRChina and Armenia. Alinor ( talk) 10:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I have had some time to think about this, one entery does not a list make so we cannot create a sepparate list as was previous consensus. I think SMOM should be restored under the hedding Soverign non state entities with limited recognition however the Red Cross, Sealand and the North Sentinel Islands do not fall under this hedding: The Red Cross is uneversily recognized and does not claim soverginty, Sealand per above discussion and the North Sentinel Islands because we do not know if there is one state or more, we do not know if they even have a government one of the agreed upon requierments for this page.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Founded in 1863, the International Committee of the Red Cross is a private Swiss institution that acts as a neutral intermediary in matters of human suffering related to international conflicts, civil wars and internal social, political and military disturbances throughout the world. As custodian of the Geneva Conventions, it provides protection and assistance to both military and civilian victims of conflicts, including war wounded, prisoners of war, civilian and political detainees and civilian populations in occupied and enemy territories. "
Source: http://www.redcross.org/museum/images/IHLAct4.pdf
So no, I don't take the Red Cross argument as valid unless proven otherwise. Ladril ( talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"The number of States formally extending recognition to the Order of Malta in the modern era is growing...Since 1994, that recognition has enlarged to 99 Member States."
"And another from the Analitica source: "However, it is undeniable that the absence of territory deprives the Order of some independence. This peculiar situation may be explained by the gradual access of states to diplomatic recognition, which is the same expressed in relation to the States newly created or not very stable yet, but it has no weight for the purposes of framing the nature Order legal unless you want to give the territorial element condition a weight that it no longer has or do not want to see the importance of recognition by States."
So no, I don't understand why they deny it's an entity with limited diplomatic recognition. Ladril ( talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
How about we just stick to what was proposed —i.e., How and where to best incorporate sovereign institutions into a list like this one? After an idea has been agreed upon, then you can all go nuts with your additions and sources and what have you. Personally, I'm against incorporating the SMOM (or anything similar) into this list, for reasons that are obvious, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. For now, consensus apparently hasn't changed since the poll was made above, so let's agree on something before we start arguing about what else should be included. ??? Night w ( talk) 06:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus hasn't changed. I gess you have a point about non recognition not being obvious, lets put this to rest until obvous sources regarding nonrecognition surface. A list of non state soverign entities should be made.--
95.188.189.98 (
talk)
09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
On a second thought Ladril's source provided above seems to imply lack of recognition. One of the main arguments against SOMOM was that this is a list of states. Then lets just rename the page!!!!!!!! Creating a second list would be redundant and we can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! As for the Red Cross (since this is bound to pop up if SOMOM passes Its recognized by everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- 95.188.168.85 ( talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
I am not proposing we remove all entitis from this list. I would rather it not come to renaming the page either, when I made the section I made a lead which explained that this section contained non state entities but everybody said "this is a list of states". I am proposing we change it to a general term, states are soverign entities after all.We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! . This would remain-- 95.188.181.153 ( talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
The goal of wikipidia is to provide verifieble, notable, NPOV information. This fits all those criteria, but we don't know were to put it, what's wrong with putting it hear?-- 95.188.181.120 ( talk) 07:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
Yes, but whats wrong with renaming the page to List of soverign entities with limited recognition and adding SMOM?-- 95.188.172.219 ( talk) 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
I am fairly sure that a soverign entitie is a subject of international law with a government and a capacity to enter negotiations with other states but I stand to be corrected. As for renaming the page, I would rather it not come to this, it is a counter to the list of states argument. I still think renaming would be undue weight and unnecissary hassal, why do people oppose a section of soverign entities? As for Palestine, it has a A Territory: Gaza, West Bank, a population: those living there, a government: the PNA and diplomatic capability.-- 95.188.178.48 ( talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
What do you meen like on the list of soverign states, in a Diliberatly Excluded section? That is definatly a possibility though I still don't get why my origional proposal was rejected. 2 questions must be razed: whill we include other entities excluded from the page such as Sealand or North Sentinel and what will we do if a similer entity to SMOM surfaces, though we can cross that bridge when we get there.-- 95.188.187.224 ( talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
but hamas isn't un member... 84.228.162.239 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
It has been established that we list recognition and non recognition by non UN members as well as UN members. -- 95.188.187.224 ( talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (HFF)
Since these areas do not claim soveriegnty, i see no reason for them to be included in the critera section. If we leave them there it gives reason for other editors to include other categories that are not nessesary. I state that we should only include categories of entities in this section that meet the soveriegnty criteria but not the others. (note i understand the azad kashmir problem and i think we should discuss that in a seperate thread than this one.) XavierGreen ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well some obvious ones have been identified. Firstly, the flagicon on SMOM needs to go. There's no reason for it, and having it there (especially at the top of the page) makes it seem like it's an entry on the list. I'll ask again, why autonomous areas specifically? Why not also add dependent territories? secessionist units? associated states? governments-in-exile? There are many territories that have been disqualified already by the criteria layed out...why is "autonomous areas" mentioned specifically? It was not part of the consensus established in the discussion above when we agreed that this section would be incorporated. Another thing, which was part of what was stipulated, was that examples were not to be used. I've reverted to what was agreed upon. Changes and additions that are opposed, per proper procedure, should be proposed and discussed here. I've let the flag issue go for now, because it wasn't explicitly ruled out in the discussion above, but I am still arguing for its deletion. Night w ( talk) 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly as I said before autounamus areas are here because they have been added to the main list in the past by (possibly) misguided editors. I have no problem with dependent territories secessionist units associated states and governments-in-exile except that that would make for a giant section and that so far these have been added and debated far less then say Autanimus areas or micronations. As for the flag I do not get whats wrong with it. It is visualy appealing and identifies that this entery is a specific entity not a group.-- 95.188.179.145 ( talk) 07:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
Is everyone okay with the section and flagicon as is? (I am).-- 95.188.177.42 ( talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay now lets get back to Autonomous areas, I beleve that all entities that were repeatedly added should be listed, autaunimus areas were added as much as micronations and debated as much as unconected tribes.-- 95.188.168.184 ( talk) 06:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
It appears some clown has deleted the file for the flag of the western sahara and i have no idea how to fix it. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
Flag|SADR}}
template, it may be worth protection. Any commons admin around?—
Emil
J.
12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Since we have been tackleing relatively minor issues as of late, here is a problem of a bit more substance. Azad Kashmir is apparently recognized by Pakistan as a soveriegn foriegn state, under occupation by Pakistani forces. No other country to my knowledge recognizes azad kashmir as a soveriegn state. It apparently maintains its own government, yet many (if not most) functions of government are handled by the pakistani government. So my question is what do we do with this thing? Do we add it to the table, or in some other form. I think it should be added in some form since it has official recognition. Perhaps this case is similar to that of Northern Cyprus is it not? XavierGreen ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The fundamental question is, does Azad Kashmir have authority in foreign matters or do they exercise them, or does that lie with Pakistan? If the latter, then it seems more akin to a possession like Puerto Rico or the Cook Islands, and not worthy of inclusion. If the former, then things get more complicated. Similarly, citizens of the Cook Islands are citizens of New Zealand, and citizens of Puerto Rico have dual US/PR citizenship. Are citizens of Azad Kashmir considered citizens of Pakistan? According to 2 the matter seems complicated but it does say that citizens of Azad Kashmir travel with a Pakistani passport. It almost seems akin to the PRC's relationship with Hong Kong, but with more autonomy. -- Golbez ( talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that Pakistan considers Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory awaiting a final settlement, but does that necessarily mean that it doesn't consider Azad Kashmir independent? I'm not sure. For what it's worth, this is how Britannica describes Azad Kashmir:
I wonder if this is anything like Dadra and Nagar Haveli's former status. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this source. 6 It explicitly states that Pakistan does not recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. However, it suggests that the territory has tried to act as one in its dealings with Pakistan. Perhaps the 'disputed territory' and 'quasi-state' labels are not inappropriate in this case. Thoughts? Ladril ( talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As debated above this is a list of states with limited recognition so a 'quasi-state' would not be listed. Azad Kashmir already has a note on the List of territorial disputes, perhaps Azad Kashmir deserves a note in the excluded entities section.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 03:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source that states that Azad Kashmir sought to join the US as an independent state. 7 In light of this evidence, I'm beginning to consider it for inclusion in this page. Ladril ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ladril, it would be really helpful if you weren't just posting Google Books links in here. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
More food for thought: [8] Ladril ( talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A citation from an official New Zealand government web site at 1
"3.2 The Cook Islands and Niue - associated states
The older Commonwealth states (such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) evolved as autonomous members of the international community by growth of conventions, advising the Crown, as titular head of the British Empire, that each of these former Dominions would function separately in respect of their interests.
This doctrine of the divisibility of the Crown enabled the position to be reached in 1926 where, in the Balfour Declaration of that year, it could be agreed by all the Prime Ministers that:
'(The Dominions) are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, and in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'.
The practice that supported this doctrine was not reflected in constitutional statutes until much later. Yet, in accordance with the widely accepted analysis of the British jurist Albert Venn Dicey, the conventions that gave it operational reality were part of the Constitution. By that analysis, the Constitution was made up of two kinds of rules: rules of law that it was the job of the Courts to enforce, and conventions that were rules that the Courts did not enforce.
This did not mean that the latter were unimportant: to this day the vital principle that the Monarch (in New Zealand the Governor-General) acts in almost all matters only on the advice of responsible Ministers is not a rule of law but rather a convention of the Constitution. Not surprisingly, this arrangement causes much confusion among foreign observers - and even New Zealand inquirers - who are told to disregard apparent legal powers which are explained to have been modified, or even displaced, by unwritten conventions of sometimes mysterious origin.
We are now in a position to understand the concept of the Realm of New Zealand as it is defined in the 1983 Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of New Zealand. Clause I of this instrument declares the Realm to comprise:
(a) New Zealand; and (b) The self-governing state of the Cook Islands; and (c) The self-governing State of Niue; and (d) Tokelau; and (e) The Ross Dependency...
Both the Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing states in free association with New Zealand whose respective Constitutions expressly vest full legislative powers exclusively in their legislatures.
The New Zealand Parliament has thus ceased to have power to make law of any kind for the Cook Islands and Niue.[54] Even if the New Zealand Parliament were to repeal or amend the New Zealand statutes conferring the Constitutions of 1965 and 1974 on the Cook Islands and Niue, those statutes and constitutions would continue as part of Cook Islands and Niue law, even though they ceased to be part of New Zealand law.
There are no matters on which the Cook Islands and Niue legislatures cannot make laws, although special procedures (special voting majorities in the legislatures, extended time-scales for legislation, and referenda) are required for modification or amendment of certain designated fundamental elements of the Constitutions.
Constitutional links nevertheless remain with New Zealand. First, the Queen in right of New Zealand continues to be Head of State of both the Cook Islands and Niue. In the Cook Islands Her Majesty is represented by the Queen's Representative appointed on Cook Islands' advice, and in Niue by the New Zealand Governor-General.
Secondly, and of great importance to the island populations, New Zealand citizenship is retained with full rights of access to New Zealand. Thirdly, a peculiar provision in the Constitutions of the two Associated States declares that the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in respect of external relations and defence remain unaffected by the relocation of law-making power in the respective legislatures. That provision was, in the early years after self-government, the subject of some misunderstanding in New Zealand and internationally. Now it is widely understood that the effective source of advice to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand on Cook Islands and Niuean matters are Her Cook Islands and Niuean Ministers. As with the emergence of the older Commonwealth States as autonomous members of the international community, this position was reached by the evolution of constitutional conventions.[55]
The Cook Islands Constitution came into force on 5 August 1965 as a result of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 of the New Zealand Parliament. The New Zealand Act contained the elements of the associated state model to which reference was made in the preceding chapter. Specifically it declared that: Section 3: The Cook Islands shall be self-governing. Section 4: The Constitution set out in the Schedule...shall be the supreme law of the Cook Islands. Section 5: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands, those responsibilities to be discharged after consultation by the Prime Minister of New Zealand with the {Prime Minister} of the Cook Islands.[56] Section 6: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the status of any person as a...New Zealand citizen... Ten years later, the Niue Constitution Act 1974 (NZ) followed a similar pattern to bring the Constitution of Niue into force on 19 October 1974. It set out the following elements of the association with New Zealand: Section 4: The Constitution set out (in the Schedule)...shall be the supreme law of Niue. Section 5: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the status of any person as a...New Zealand citizen... Section 6: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue. Section 7: It shall be a continuing responsibility of the Government of New Zealand to provide necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue.[57] Section 8: Effect shall be given to the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of this Act...after consultation between the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Premier of Niue, and in accordance with the policies of their respective Governments...
In relation to Section 6 of the Act just quoted, it is important to stress that, as with the Cook Islands, the responsibilities of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue do not confer on the New Zealand Government any rights of control. Full legislative and executive powers, whether in those fields or in any others, are vested by the Constitution in the legislature and Government of Niue. Where the New Zealand Government exercises responsibilities in respect of external affairs and defence, it does so in effect on the delegated authority of the Government of Niue.
On 10 November 1988, the New Zealand Government lodged a Declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the relationship of the New Zealand treaty-making power to the self-governing States of the Cook Islands and Niue. The Declaration recited that the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue have 'exclusive executive and legislative competence to implement treaties in the Cook Islands and Niue'. It also stated that those Governments had requested that future New Zealand treaty actions not extend to the Cook Islands or Niue 'unless the treaty is signed...expressly on behalf of the Cook Islands or Niue'.[58] The Declaration reversed the previous understanding that New Zealand treaty action applied to all the Realm of New Zealand unless any part was specifically excluded."
With this, the issue of Cook Islands and Niue being considered sovereign states is completely settled, I hope. Ladril ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope this settles it. Ladril ( talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Also check the following source, which states that free association does not mean the two partners are not sovereign states: 7 Ladril ( talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC) As for the issue of recognition, in this text it is stated that recognition is a prerequisite for the establishment of diplomatic relations: 8 I hope this puts the matter to rest. Ladril ( talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
But it's not really going to happen, is it? Unless somebody can provide a primary source from the recognising government that explicitly states "The republic of *blank* recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign state" (or something along those lines), nothing is going to change, since relying on interpretations of scholarly essays would be synthesis. Night w ( talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(Changed link to the English version, since I'm sure many other English readers don't also know German) That-Vela-Fella ( talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The same topic was discussed here and currently here. Alinor ( talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a link " List of civil wars (the establishment of many states with limited recognition is caused by a civil war)" after looking for a suitable place for the Fatah-Hamas split discussion.
As it seems that each of the entries in the list of states with limited recognition is caused by similar conflict - maybe we should put links to the Somali Civil War, Korea War, etc. in the "notes" column (or additional column)? Alinor ( talk) 10:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to recommend that topic #2.3 - "Non-UN member states recognized by at least one UN member" be split into two sections:
While there aren't many states in each category, the differences are substantial enough to be treated separately rather than be grouped together as is presently the case. — Glenn L ( talk) 17:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I withdraw my request. However, perhaps the current list could be listed (least to most) based on best estimated UN member recognition. — Glenn L ( talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Nevis aiming for independance from St.Kitts & Nevis? And Anjouan is trying to secede from the Comoros again, I believe. Should we add these? 98.244.221.85 ( talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, then... 97.96.65.108 ( talk) 23:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What about Cabinda? Or Tibet? 97.96.65.108 ( talk) 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
... Oi... 97.96.65.108 ( talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
1) A nation does not have to be recognized in order to be independent. You guys keep on bringing that one up, and yet Somaliland is included in this list. 2) South Africa does handle foreign relations for these homelands, but this is similar to Palau's situation during its Trust Territory period. I'm pretty sure that at some point before full trusteeship ended, the United States did recognize Palau as an independent nation. Whether this is on par with the South African homelands's situation, I'm not entirely sure. But this is just a suggestion, after all. And suggestions need verification and acceptance by a lot of different people, so your opinions are up to you. So, could the South African homelands be potential additions to this list? I think they are, personally. 97.96.65.123 ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, nevermind. I just learned that these homelands no longer exist. I will never get my information from a book made in 1992 ever again. Oops... 8^P 97.96.65.123 ( talk) 00:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala ( talk) 05:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently SMOM is mentioned in the "excluded" list with a note "it is recognized by 110 countries". I think that we should mention not the number of states recognizing it, but those who don't recognize it (as for the Armenia/Cyprus/China/Israel/Koreas). I asked for such list here and still there is no answer, but in any case that is the relevant information. Maybe unitl we have a "hard number" we should list the number of states with "official non-diplomatic relations". Alinor ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This would improve the SMOM entery, but it would not work for other cases such as North Cyprus or Palestine. Also, your list seems to conflict with this map.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 21:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the "Excluded" section on the same grounds as put forward here. If there is opposition for this, feel free to revert, and we'll continue discussion. Nightw 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The section was added as a result of the SMOM debate, I am not sure if we should have the section, but we should mention SMOM somehow.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 23:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign subject of international law that is currently recognized as such by 110 UN member states and the Holy See, through the establishment of diplomatic or "official" relations. The order participates in the United Nations as an international organization with permanent observer status. However, it is a non-territorial entity and as such does not define itself as a state. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
The non-state sovereign entity Order of Malta is not included as it claims neither statehood nor any territory. It is has established full diplomatic relations with sovereign states as a sovereign subject of international law and participates in the United Nations as an observer entity, but at least 11 states withhold its full recognition: France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Canada maintain only official, but no diplomatic relations with it; Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Greece maintain no relations and do not recognize its passports.
International law By Malcolm Nathan Shaw, [10]
Ley 14026 de fecha 15 de junio de 1951. "REconoce la Soberana Orden de Malta como entidad internacional independiente."
Order of Malta Granted Diplomatic Recognition - by Wezi Tjaronda
Soberana Orden Militar de San Juan de Jerusalén-Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Google Knol
La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurнdica, analitica.com
The Order and the United Nations
SMOM Bilateral relations with countries
Council of the European Union - Schengen Visa Working Party - Table of travel documents
BTW, why is the Omissions section not on the page currently, we dont have consensus here. WP:BRD says we should have the status quo until then. I'll return the Omissions Section as best I can. Outback the koala ( talk) 03:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So, as I propose:
So, do we agree on the last wordings proposed above? Alinor ( talk) 07:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a confusing edit to this note. It delves into the history and technicalities of United Nations membership, which isn't required here. I'm not sure what the issue was with the original paragraph... Nightw 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As of 2010 there are 192 United Nations (UN) members and all of them are currently sovereign states a The Holy See is observer state to the United Nations and is recognized as sovereign. Some of these countries are on this list, such as Cyprus and Armenia - they fulfill the declarative criteria, are recognized by the large majority of other nations and are members of the United Nations, but appear here because one or more other states do not recognize their statehood, due to territorial claims or other conflicts.
^a Previously some of the UN members were non-sovereign territories, subordinated to a sovereign state.
Some countries on this list, such as Cyprus and Armenia, fulfill the declarative criteria, are recognized by the large majority of other nations and are members of the United Nations, but appear here because one or more other states do not recognize their statehood, due to territorial claims or other conflicts.
Currently there are 192 United Nations (UN) member states. The Holy See holds observer status in the United Nations. [8]
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The Red Cross was just added to the list. I belive it is not a sovireign entity and does not claim to be one. If so, it has no place on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighFlyingFish ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Even if we assume for argument's sake that the ICRC is sovereign (and I think you'd need to back that claim up with some pretty strong sources), how would putting it on this list make any sense? The ICRC does not engage in diplomatic relations. It can't really be "recognized" or "unrecognized" in the same way that a state can and to describe it in that context is pretty misleading. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 03:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this "Special case" section is just going to open up a whole lot of completely stupid debates. The Red Cross for goodness sake! Seriously? The Order is definitely a special case in international law, but this is a page for states (like actual legal entities that you can live in, and be a citizen of, etcetera). It just doesn't belong, and I'm predicting a lot more of these silly suggestions unless the section is removed. Extra territorialism, embassies, exercising sovereignty —so does the EU, so does the UN, so do so many other organisations. Can we take a vote, please? I think that's appropriate, as it is a new introduction, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of support for (or logic behind) its inclusion. Night w ( talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Support or Oppose inclusion of "Special case" section.
I believe it's a mistake, however for the sake of ending the bashing, I'll remove it. Ladril ( talk) 18:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Please rest assured: it was not my intent to criticise anybody, and I apologise if I came off as harsh from the get-go. That said, I still don't think it belongs, and somebody has yet to clarify how the Order differs from, say, the UN, the EU, the Holy See, the other organisations that have been mentioned. I'm not opposed to mentioning it in plain text, but mentioning it as an example of its class would probably be best, as it would deter problems with potential additions. Night w ( talk) 23:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that Croatia was recently added. However, I'm not sure the claim that it is unrecognized by 20 states is quite accurate. The source [2] lists 20 states which haven't established diplomatic relations with Croatia. However, the source's list of states doesn't seem to be complete. I count 192 on their list (194-Croatia-EU), including Kosovo. Palau for one is missing, but there must be at least 1 more (192UN+VC+Kosovo=194). Also, many states have a date listed for establishing diplomatic relations, but nothing under the official recognition column. Shouldn't we be counting the number which don't recognize? Or can we assume that all states which have diplomatic relations recognize? I assume that this is the case, but it would be nice if we had a source which clearly listed states which recognized, as opposed to had diplomatic relations. TDL ( talk) 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Palestine is recognized by a majority of UN members but not in the UN should it have its own section? I have brought this up in the Number of states recognising Palestine? section but got no answer. HighFlyingFish ( talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that Croatia, Montenegro and similar cases should not be listed. The numbers of "non recognition" cited for them are just the number of states that have made no formal letter/statement of recognition/diplomatic relations. This is quite different from the cases like Israel, Armenia - where there are states that have explicitely stated that they DON'T recognise. I can't find any source showing that some country DOESN'T recognise Croatia or Montenegro. Yes, there are lists for the opposite (wich states DOES recognise it), but we can't simply assume that all the rest are WITHOLDING recognition - for example there are countries like Tuvalu, Bhutan, etc. that have very limited diplomatic activities and haven't made official statements of recognition regarding many of the UN members, but this doesn't mean that we should list all countries without explicit Bhutan recognition letter here.
I think that in the "UN members" part of the limited recognition list we should include only countries that had their recognition DENIED by at least 1 other state - like Israel, Cyprus, the Koreas, PRChina and Armenia. Alinor ( talk) 10:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I have had some time to think about this, one entery does not a list make so we cannot create a sepparate list as was previous consensus. I think SMOM should be restored under the hedding Soverign non state entities with limited recognition however the Red Cross, Sealand and the North Sentinel Islands do not fall under this hedding: The Red Cross is uneversily recognized and does not claim soverginty, Sealand per above discussion and the North Sentinel Islands because we do not know if there is one state or more, we do not know if they even have a government one of the agreed upon requierments for this page.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Founded in 1863, the International Committee of the Red Cross is a private Swiss institution that acts as a neutral intermediary in matters of human suffering related to international conflicts, civil wars and internal social, political and military disturbances throughout the world. As custodian of the Geneva Conventions, it provides protection and assistance to both military and civilian victims of conflicts, including war wounded, prisoners of war, civilian and political detainees and civilian populations in occupied and enemy territories. "
Source: http://www.redcross.org/museum/images/IHLAct4.pdf
So no, I don't take the Red Cross argument as valid unless proven otherwise. Ladril ( talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"The number of States formally extending recognition to the Order of Malta in the modern era is growing...Since 1994, that recognition has enlarged to 99 Member States."
"And another from the Analitica source: "However, it is undeniable that the absence of territory deprives the Order of some independence. This peculiar situation may be explained by the gradual access of states to diplomatic recognition, which is the same expressed in relation to the States newly created or not very stable yet, but it has no weight for the purposes of framing the nature Order legal unless you want to give the territorial element condition a weight that it no longer has or do not want to see the importance of recognition by States."
So no, I don't understand why they deny it's an entity with limited diplomatic recognition. Ladril ( talk) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
How about we just stick to what was proposed —i.e., How and where to best incorporate sovereign institutions into a list like this one? After an idea has been agreed upon, then you can all go nuts with your additions and sources and what have you. Personally, I'm against incorporating the SMOM (or anything similar) into this list, for reasons that are obvious, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. For now, consensus apparently hasn't changed since the poll was made above, so let's agree on something before we start arguing about what else should be included. ??? Night w ( talk) 06:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus hasn't changed. I gess you have a point about non recognition not being obvious, lets put this to rest until obvous sources regarding nonrecognition surface. A list of non state soverign entities should be made.--
95.188.189.98 (
talk)
09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
HighFlyingFish (
talk)
On a second thought Ladril's source provided above seems to imply lack of recognition. One of the main arguments against SOMOM was that this is a list of states. Then lets just rename the page!!!!!!!! Creating a second list would be redundant and we can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! As for the Red Cross (since this is bound to pop up if SOMOM passes Its recognized by everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- 95.188.168.85 ( talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
I am not proposing we remove all entitis from this list. I would rather it not come to renaming the page either, when I made the section I made a lead which explained that this section contained non state entities but everybody said "this is a list of states". I am proposing we change it to a general term, states are soverign entities after all.We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! . This would remain-- 95.188.181.153 ( talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
The goal of wikipidia is to provide verifieble, notable, NPOV information. This fits all those criteria, but we don't know were to put it, what's wrong with putting it hear?-- 95.188.181.120 ( talk) 07:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
Yes, but whats wrong with renaming the page to List of soverign entities with limited recognition and adding SMOM?-- 95.188.172.219 ( talk) 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
I am fairly sure that a soverign entitie is a subject of international law with a government and a capacity to enter negotiations with other states but I stand to be corrected. As for renaming the page, I would rather it not come to this, it is a counter to the list of states argument. I still think renaming would be undue weight and unnecissary hassal, why do people oppose a section of soverign entities? As for Palestine, it has a A Territory: Gaza, West Bank, a population: those living there, a government: the PNA and diplomatic capability.-- 95.188.178.48 ( talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
What do you meen like on the list of soverign states, in a Diliberatly Excluded section? That is definatly a possibility though I still don't get why my origional proposal was rejected. 2 questions must be razed: whill we include other entities excluded from the page such as Sealand or North Sentinel and what will we do if a similer entity to SMOM surfaces, though we can cross that bridge when we get there.-- 95.188.187.224 ( talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
but hamas isn't un member... 84.228.162.239 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
It has been established that we list recognition and non recognition by non UN members as well as UN members. -- 95.188.187.224 ( talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (HFF)
Since these areas do not claim soveriegnty, i see no reason for them to be included in the critera section. If we leave them there it gives reason for other editors to include other categories that are not nessesary. I state that we should only include categories of entities in this section that meet the soveriegnty criteria but not the others. (note i understand the azad kashmir problem and i think we should discuss that in a seperate thread than this one.) XavierGreen ( talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well some obvious ones have been identified. Firstly, the flagicon on SMOM needs to go. There's no reason for it, and having it there (especially at the top of the page) makes it seem like it's an entry on the list. I'll ask again, why autonomous areas specifically? Why not also add dependent territories? secessionist units? associated states? governments-in-exile? There are many territories that have been disqualified already by the criteria layed out...why is "autonomous areas" mentioned specifically? It was not part of the consensus established in the discussion above when we agreed that this section would be incorporated. Another thing, which was part of what was stipulated, was that examples were not to be used. I've reverted to what was agreed upon. Changes and additions that are opposed, per proper procedure, should be proposed and discussed here. I've let the flag issue go for now, because it wasn't explicitly ruled out in the discussion above, but I am still arguing for its deletion. Night w ( talk) 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly as I said before autounamus areas are here because they have been added to the main list in the past by (possibly) misguided editors. I have no problem with dependent territories secessionist units associated states and governments-in-exile except that that would make for a giant section and that so far these have been added and debated far less then say Autanimus areas or micronations. As for the flag I do not get whats wrong with it. It is visualy appealing and identifies that this entery is a specific entity not a group.-- 95.188.179.145 ( talk) 07:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
Is everyone okay with the section and flagicon as is? (I am).-- 95.188.177.42 ( talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay now lets get back to Autonomous areas, I beleve that all entities that were repeatedly added should be listed, autaunimus areas were added as much as micronations and debated as much as unconected tribes.-- 95.188.168.184 ( talk) 06:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish ( talk)
It appears some clown has deleted the file for the flag of the western sahara and i have no idea how to fix it. XavierGreen ( talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
Flag|SADR}}
template, it may be worth protection. Any commons admin around?—
Emil
J.
12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Since we have been tackleing relatively minor issues as of late, here is a problem of a bit more substance. Azad Kashmir is apparently recognized by Pakistan as a soveriegn foriegn state, under occupation by Pakistani forces. No other country to my knowledge recognizes azad kashmir as a soveriegn state. It apparently maintains its own government, yet many (if not most) functions of government are handled by the pakistani government. So my question is what do we do with this thing? Do we add it to the table, or in some other form. I think it should be added in some form since it has official recognition. Perhaps this case is similar to that of Northern Cyprus is it not? XavierGreen ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The fundamental question is, does Azad Kashmir have authority in foreign matters or do they exercise them, or does that lie with Pakistan? If the latter, then it seems more akin to a possession like Puerto Rico or the Cook Islands, and not worthy of inclusion. If the former, then things get more complicated. Similarly, citizens of the Cook Islands are citizens of New Zealand, and citizens of Puerto Rico have dual US/PR citizenship. Are citizens of Azad Kashmir considered citizens of Pakistan? According to 2 the matter seems complicated but it does say that citizens of Azad Kashmir travel with a Pakistani passport. It almost seems akin to the PRC's relationship with Hong Kong, but with more autonomy. -- Golbez ( talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that Pakistan considers Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory awaiting a final settlement, but does that necessarily mean that it doesn't consider Azad Kashmir independent? I'm not sure. For what it's worth, this is how Britannica describes Azad Kashmir:
I wonder if this is anything like Dadra and Nagar Haveli's former status. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this source. 6 It explicitly states that Pakistan does not recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. However, it suggests that the territory has tried to act as one in its dealings with Pakistan. Perhaps the 'disputed territory' and 'quasi-state' labels are not inappropriate in this case. Thoughts? Ladril ( talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As debated above this is a list of states with limited recognition so a 'quasi-state' would not be listed. Azad Kashmir already has a note on the List of territorial disputes, perhaps Azad Kashmir deserves a note in the excluded entities section.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 03:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source that states that Azad Kashmir sought to join the US as an independent state. 7 In light of this evidence, I'm beginning to consider it for inclusion in this page. Ladril ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ladril, it would be really helpful if you weren't just posting Google Books links in here. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
More food for thought: [8] Ladril ( talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A citation from an official New Zealand government web site at 1
"3.2 The Cook Islands and Niue - associated states
The older Commonwealth states (such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) evolved as autonomous members of the international community by growth of conventions, advising the Crown, as titular head of the British Empire, that each of these former Dominions would function separately in respect of their interests.
This doctrine of the divisibility of the Crown enabled the position to be reached in 1926 where, in the Balfour Declaration of that year, it could be agreed by all the Prime Ministers that:
'(The Dominions) are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, and in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'.
The practice that supported this doctrine was not reflected in constitutional statutes until much later. Yet, in accordance with the widely accepted analysis of the British jurist Albert Venn Dicey, the conventions that gave it operational reality were part of the Constitution. By that analysis, the Constitution was made up of two kinds of rules: rules of law that it was the job of the Courts to enforce, and conventions that were rules that the Courts did not enforce.
This did not mean that the latter were unimportant: to this day the vital principle that the Monarch (in New Zealand the Governor-General) acts in almost all matters only on the advice of responsible Ministers is not a rule of law but rather a convention of the Constitution. Not surprisingly, this arrangement causes much confusion among foreign observers - and even New Zealand inquirers - who are told to disregard apparent legal powers which are explained to have been modified, or even displaced, by unwritten conventions of sometimes mysterious origin.
We are now in a position to understand the concept of the Realm of New Zealand as it is defined in the 1983 Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of New Zealand. Clause I of this instrument declares the Realm to comprise:
(a) New Zealand; and (b) The self-governing state of the Cook Islands; and (c) The self-governing State of Niue; and (d) Tokelau; and (e) The Ross Dependency...
Both the Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing states in free association with New Zealand whose respective Constitutions expressly vest full legislative powers exclusively in their legislatures.
The New Zealand Parliament has thus ceased to have power to make law of any kind for the Cook Islands and Niue.[54] Even if the New Zealand Parliament were to repeal or amend the New Zealand statutes conferring the Constitutions of 1965 and 1974 on the Cook Islands and Niue, those statutes and constitutions would continue as part of Cook Islands and Niue law, even though they ceased to be part of New Zealand law.
There are no matters on which the Cook Islands and Niue legislatures cannot make laws, although special procedures (special voting majorities in the legislatures, extended time-scales for legislation, and referenda) are required for modification or amendment of certain designated fundamental elements of the Constitutions.
Constitutional links nevertheless remain with New Zealand. First, the Queen in right of New Zealand continues to be Head of State of both the Cook Islands and Niue. In the Cook Islands Her Majesty is represented by the Queen's Representative appointed on Cook Islands' advice, and in Niue by the New Zealand Governor-General.
Secondly, and of great importance to the island populations, New Zealand citizenship is retained with full rights of access to New Zealand. Thirdly, a peculiar provision in the Constitutions of the two Associated States declares that the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in respect of external relations and defence remain unaffected by the relocation of law-making power in the respective legislatures. That provision was, in the early years after self-government, the subject of some misunderstanding in New Zealand and internationally. Now it is widely understood that the effective source of advice to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand on Cook Islands and Niuean matters are Her Cook Islands and Niuean Ministers. As with the emergence of the older Commonwealth States as autonomous members of the international community, this position was reached by the evolution of constitutional conventions.[55]
The Cook Islands Constitution came into force on 5 August 1965 as a result of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 of the New Zealand Parliament. The New Zealand Act contained the elements of the associated state model to which reference was made in the preceding chapter. Specifically it declared that: Section 3: The Cook Islands shall be self-governing. Section 4: The Constitution set out in the Schedule...shall be the supreme law of the Cook Islands. Section 5: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands, those responsibilities to be discharged after consultation by the Prime Minister of New Zealand with the {Prime Minister} of the Cook Islands.[56] Section 6: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the status of any person as a...New Zealand citizen... Ten years later, the Niue Constitution Act 1974 (NZ) followed a similar pattern to bring the Constitution of Niue into force on 19 October 1974. It set out the following elements of the association with New Zealand: Section 4: The Constitution set out (in the Schedule)...shall be the supreme law of Niue. Section 5: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the status of any person as a...New Zealand citizen... Section 6: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue. Section 7: It shall be a continuing responsibility of the Government of New Zealand to provide necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue.[57] Section 8: Effect shall be given to the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of this Act...after consultation between the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Premier of Niue, and in accordance with the policies of their respective Governments...
In relation to Section 6 of the Act just quoted, it is important to stress that, as with the Cook Islands, the responsibilities of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue do not confer on the New Zealand Government any rights of control. Full legislative and executive powers, whether in those fields or in any others, are vested by the Constitution in the legislature and Government of Niue. Where the New Zealand Government exercises responsibilities in respect of external affairs and defence, it does so in effect on the delegated authority of the Government of Niue.
On 10 November 1988, the New Zealand Government lodged a Declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the relationship of the New Zealand treaty-making power to the self-governing States of the Cook Islands and Niue. The Declaration recited that the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue have 'exclusive executive and legislative competence to implement treaties in the Cook Islands and Niue'. It also stated that those Governments had requested that future New Zealand treaty actions not extend to the Cook Islands or Niue 'unless the treaty is signed...expressly on behalf of the Cook Islands or Niue'.[58] The Declaration reversed the previous understanding that New Zealand treaty action applied to all the Realm of New Zealand unless any part was specifically excluded."
With this, the issue of Cook Islands and Niue being considered sovereign states is completely settled, I hope. Ladril ( talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope this settles it. Ladril ( talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Also check the following source, which states that free association does not mean the two partners are not sovereign states: 7 Ladril ( talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC) As for the issue of recognition, in this text it is stated that recognition is a prerequisite for the establishment of diplomatic relations: 8 I hope this puts the matter to rest. Ladril ( talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
But it's not really going to happen, is it? Unless somebody can provide a primary source from the recognising government that explicitly states "The republic of *blank* recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign state" (or something along those lines), nothing is going to change, since relying on interpretations of scholarly essays would be synthesis. Night w ( talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
(Changed link to the English version, since I'm sure many other English readers don't also know German) That-Vela-Fella ( talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The same topic was discussed here and currently here. Alinor ( talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I added a link " List of civil wars (the establishment of many states with limited recognition is caused by a civil war)" after looking for a suitable place for the Fatah-Hamas split discussion.
As it seems that each of the entries in the list of states with limited recognition is caused by similar conflict - maybe we should put links to the Somali Civil War, Korea War, etc. in the "notes" column (or additional column)? Alinor ( talk) 10:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to recommend that topic #2.3 - "Non-UN member states recognized by at least one UN member" be split into two sections:
While there aren't many states in each category, the differences are substantial enough to be treated separately rather than be grouped together as is presently the case. — Glenn L ( talk) 17:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I withdraw my request. However, perhaps the current list could be listed (least to most) based on best estimated UN member recognition. — Glenn L ( talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Nevis aiming for independance from St.Kitts & Nevis? And Anjouan is trying to secede from the Comoros again, I believe. Should we add these? 98.244.221.85 ( talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, then... 97.96.65.108 ( talk) 23:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What about Cabinda? Or Tibet? 97.96.65.108 ( talk) 13:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
... Oi... 97.96.65.108 ( talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
1) A nation does not have to be recognized in order to be independent. You guys keep on bringing that one up, and yet Somaliland is included in this list. 2) South Africa does handle foreign relations for these homelands, but this is similar to Palau's situation during its Trust Territory period. I'm pretty sure that at some point before full trusteeship ended, the United States did recognize Palau as an independent nation. Whether this is on par with the South African homelands's situation, I'm not entirely sure. But this is just a suggestion, after all. And suggestions need verification and acceptance by a lot of different people, so your opinions are up to you. So, could the South African homelands be potential additions to this list? I think they are, personally. 97.96.65.123 ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, nevermind. I just learned that these homelands no longer exist. I will never get my information from a book made in 1992 ever again. Oops... 8^P 97.96.65.123 ( talk) 00:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala ( talk) 05:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently SMOM is mentioned in the "excluded" list with a note "it is recognized by 110 countries". I think that we should mention not the number of states recognizing it, but those who don't recognize it (as for the Armenia/Cyprus/China/Israel/Koreas). I asked for such list here and still there is no answer, but in any case that is the relevant information. Maybe unitl we have a "hard number" we should list the number of states with "official non-diplomatic relations". Alinor ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This would improve the SMOM entery, but it would not work for other cases such as North Cyprus or Palestine. Also, your list seems to conflict with this map.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 21:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the "Excluded" section on the same grounds as put forward here. If there is opposition for this, feel free to revert, and we'll continue discussion. Nightw 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The section was added as a result of the SMOM debate, I am not sure if we should have the section, but we should mention SMOM somehow.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 23:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign subject of international law that is currently recognized as such by 110 UN member states and the Holy See, through the establishment of diplomatic or "official" relations. The order participates in the United Nations as an international organization with permanent observer status. However, it is a non-territorial entity and as such does not define itself as a state. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
The non-state sovereign entity Order of Malta is not included as it claims neither statehood nor any territory. It is has established full diplomatic relations with sovereign states as a sovereign subject of international law and participates in the United Nations as an observer entity, but at least 11 states withhold its full recognition: France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Canada maintain only official, but no diplomatic relations with it; Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Greece maintain no relations and do not recognize its passports.
International law By Malcolm Nathan Shaw, [10]
Ley 14026 de fecha 15 de junio de 1951. "REconoce la Soberana Orden de Malta como entidad internacional independiente."
Order of Malta Granted Diplomatic Recognition - by Wezi Tjaronda
Soberana Orden Militar de San Juan de Jerusalén-Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Google Knol
La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurнdica, analitica.com
The Order and the United Nations
SMOM Bilateral relations with countries
Council of the European Union - Schengen Visa Working Party - Table of travel documents
BTW, why is the Omissions section not on the page currently, we dont have consensus here. WP:BRD says we should have the status quo until then. I'll return the Omissions Section as best I can. Outback the koala ( talk) 03:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So, as I propose:
So, do we agree on the last wordings proposed above? Alinor ( talk) 07:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I reverted a confusing edit to this note. It delves into the history and technicalities of United Nations membership, which isn't required here. I'm not sure what the issue was with the original paragraph... Nightw 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
As of 2010 there are 192 United Nations (UN) members and all of them are currently sovereign states a The Holy See is observer state to the United Nations and is recognized as sovereign. Some of these countries are on this list, such as Cyprus and Armenia - they fulfill the declarative criteria, are recognized by the large majority of other nations and are members of the United Nations, but appear here because one or more other states do not recognize their statehood, due to territorial claims or other conflicts.
^a Previously some of the UN members were non-sovereign territories, subordinated to a sovereign state.
Some countries on this list, such as Cyprus and Armenia, fulfill the declarative criteria, are recognized by the large majority of other nations and are members of the United Nations, but appear here because one or more other states do not recognize their statehood, due to territorial claims or other conflicts.
Currently there are 192 United Nations (UN) member states. The Holy See holds observer status in the United Nations. [8]
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |