Talk:Government-in-exile

Latest comment: 12 hours ago by AndyTheGrump in topic Rights of government-in-exile

This one was in micronations but belongs here edit

References

  1. ^ Thiriet, Maurice (11 March 2009). ""Reichsführerschein" im Thurgau nicht gültig". Tages-Anzeiger (in German). Retrieved 2009-03-25.

Catalonia edit

Shouldn't Catalonia be added to the "Alternative separatist governments of current subnational territories" site? Although there's an actual government set on Barcelona, this government recognizes the one exiled in Belgium/Scotland as the legitime goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raicopk (talkcontribs) 16:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

CRPH Myanmar edit

Why it is not exist on the list while widely recognized as the civilian government-in-exile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_Representing_Pyidaungsu_Hluttaw

Sikkim government-in-exile edit

The   Kingdom of Sikkim government-in-exile should be added to this page.

East Turkistan edit

I'm fairly certain that East Turkistan does not claim the entire country of China (aka PRC) as its own territory. It only claims the province of Xinjiang. As such, this dispute should be moved out of the "shadow governments of entire countries" section and into the "shadow governments of subdivisions of countries" section instead. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Rights of government-in-exile edit

From information available on US Legal, it listed all the rights of a government-in-exile. I added a section called "Rights" to expand it.

AndyTheGrump wɔːr (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 'US Legal' website you linked is a generalist commercial website for US law, offering advice to consumers, rather than the sort of peer-reviewed academic source we'd need to make general assertions regarding any 'rights' under international law for governments-in-exile. The page you link is nothing but a confusingly-worded attempt at a definition. It is clearly not a reliable source for the content you added. None of the remaining sources were of any relevance whatsoever, given that they merely documented that certain governments-in-exile (self-described or otherwise), were doing certain things - not that international law afforded such actions any specific legitimacy etc. They cannot be cited for assertions about international law.
Frankly, I think that any attempt to create a section on the supposed 'rights' of governments-in-exile in general is inherently flawed. No such generalist 'rights' can possibly exist, given that more or less anyone can call themselves a 'government-in-exile'. In as much as a specific body acquires 'rights', it will do so as a result of specific recognition, by legitimate sovereign states, or by intergovernmental organisations, for that particular body. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Interesting to see your points.I wish to know how your arrived that US Law is just commercial website. For the single fact that government-in-exile means government-in-exile, it's not always the case they are recognised by any international law. wɔːr (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re commercial website, see [1] and [2]. As for your comment about recognition, that is precisely why general 'rights' for bodies described as 'governments-in-exile' cannot exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wow, I am amazed at your level of research. This means the section have to be generally reformed avoiding the use of assertions of international law or whatsoever like "According to international law..." to qualify government-in-exile. Maybe we have to use Historically..." or "According to historical events..." to qualify whatever we are going to write. Start up something or should I? wɔːr (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Until you have found appropriate sources, there is nothing to write. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply