Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Red Cross

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)

It claims to be an independent authority under international law, has independent relations with other states, and maintains extra territoriallity. I personnally dont believe that this Special Cases section should even be here. But if it is i think that the international committe of the red cross should be listed, since it has almost all the qualifications that the smom does. I also still think that North Sentinal should be added, since it has virtually all of the qualifications of being independent under international law.XavierGreen (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

North Sentinel absolutely should not be added. First off, if we're going by the same criteria used on List of sovereign states, then uncontacted tribes are explicitly not counted as sovereign states. Second off, you will never in a million years find a reliable source that describes North Sentinel as being a "sovereign state" so including it in a list of sovereign states would be a huge violation of WP:OR. And finally, we have absolutely no idea how the Sentinelese society is organized. There could be multiple polities on the island or it could be a stateless society, or, I don't know, there are a million possibilities. But to describe the island as a sovereign state when its inhabitants probably aren't even familiar with the concept as we understand it is eurocentric and presumptuous and absurd and just completely wrong in general.

I mean seriously now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also I'd use the WP:OR argument for the special cases section in general. The SMOM maybe is a bit of a borderline case because of its unique history (you can find a stray official reference to the Order being a sovereign state here and there) but the ICRC? That is a humanitarian institution, not a state. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the special cases section should not be included. This realy is a list of states seeking recogniton, not international organizations or political oddities. The red cross is an organization. If we have it we must include the UN and CERN as well which would open a pandoras box of problems and be well out of the scope of this page. North Sentinel is, as Orange Tuesday said a tribe, not a state. SMOM is on the boundry between an organization and a state but I still think its more of an organization and as such should not go on this list.HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiment that SMOM and ICRC shouldn't be included on this list since they claim to be sovereing entities, not sovereign states. (I tried to make this point above when SMOM was first discussed). Also, there is no evidence that the international recognition of these entites is limited. SMOM claims to have official relations with 110 states [1] which is the number quoted in the article, but the status of the remanin states is unclear. Do they recognize but not maintain official relations? Or do they not recognize SMOM's sovereignty? TDL (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the Red Cross is too much - it clearly does not qualify, but the SMOM is a sovereign entity, and as long as we make that clear, that it is not a state by definition, then I don't see why we should exclude it. Outback the koala (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It shouldnt be included because this is a list of states so why should nonstate entities be included? I think there should be a seperate list of non-state soveriegn entities however because there are several that could be formed into a list.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been explained a lot of times already. Non-state entities should be included if they exercise sovereignty. SMOM does, the Red Cross doesn't. Ladril (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But the ICRC does excercise soveriegnty under international law, it posseses the same authorities that the SMOM does under international law. If we are going to have this Special cases section of entities that are not states yet soveriegn we should include all of them. The UN itself exercises functions soveriegnty and maintains extraterritoriality over territory, shouldnt that be included as well? I really think a seperate list needs to be created. The title of the list is after all List of states with limited recognition not list of soveriegn entities with limited recognition. If we are going to include things that are not states than we need to change the title.XavierGreen (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"But the ICRC does excercise soveriegnty under international law". But you haven't provided a single source to back up this assertion. In fact there are sources that argue the opposite: http://books.google.com/books?id=NR7mFXCB-wgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=red+cross+status+under+international+law&source=bl&ots=Q5ctfDQrjW&sig=Osv9_wIrRX76Xuu_7f0E89vPSi8&hl=en&ei=noXxS96lMYS8lQeb9Pi0CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwATgK# Ladril (talk) 18:46, 17 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)

Inclusion of special case section

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)

Vote

Support or Oppose inclusion of "Special case" section.

• Oppose: see comment above. Night w (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: a seperate page should be created for soveriegn non-state entities.XavierGreen (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose:Per XavierGreen and my comments in the Red Cross section. We should have a separate page.HighFlyingFish (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, it seems to do more harm than good.—Emil J. 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vaguely-defined inclusion criteria make for a weak list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral While I strongly support the inclusion of the SMOM, I think having this section has caused more problems than expected. Although perhaps having a section was the wrong way to go; it should be mentioned in the article elsewhere. Outback the koala (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment They don't want it mentioned and think it's not worthwhile list material. This won't prosper. Ladril (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the SMOM content is not worthwhile, it's that it falls outside of the current scope of the list. TDL (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They are saying it should not be included, ergo it's not worthwhile. But it's worthwhile at List of sovereign states or so the argument goes. I frankly don't get it. Ladril (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and similarly do not under stand the logic right now. Outback the koala (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My original proposal - which fell on deaf ears - was that whether SMOM or any other entity deserves to be listed as a state on Wikipedia is a debate that should take place over at List of sovereign states. This page should be reserved for whether something qualifies as an entity with limited diplomatic recognition. But somehow this page seems to attract far more polemic than that other one. Ladril (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you look a bit closer at List of sovereign states you will notice that SMOM is NOT included with the other states. It's included under the heading: "Excluded from the list above are the following noteworthy entities that do not satisfy all the qualifications in the Montevideo Convention or which do not claim to be sovereign and independent". So it's not fair to say that SMOM is included on that list, since it is explicitly excluded. I'm proposing a similar note here. TDL (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And in this same spirit the note about the SMOM here was meant to be clear and careful. Note the separate table at the bottom, the 'special case' heading, the specific statement that it is not a state... I don't know what was missed. There was no intention to put it on the same level as the other states. Maybe you could write the section then so I can stand back and criticize? Ladril (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that you didn't treat SMOM like a state. It fell under the heading "Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition". Is SMOM a geopolitical entity? The subheadings broke down the states by degree of recognition, which led readers to believe that "Special cases" was a special degree of recognition, not that the entries themselves were special. That being said, I was trying to establish a consensus by proposing a compromise of including a note at the bottom (like LOSS) explaining that some non-states engage in diplomatic relations. And to echo what Night said, I wasn't trying to criticize you personally. Your work is valued. But you need to keep in mind that this is a collaborative project, so not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. TDL (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per my previous comments, non-states don't fall within the scope of the list as currently constructed. Also, no reliable sources to support the claim that it lacks universal recognition of it's sovereignty. However, to Outback's suggestion I wouldn't be overly opposed to a note at the bottom of the page (like on List of sovereign states) which makes clear that SMOM is a non-state. TDL (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean you support exactly the same text in the same position but you have an issue with putting it in table format? This seems like arguing for argument's sake.Ladril (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that is a good suggestion. Noting at the bottom of the page, as oppose to listing it, would likely solve this issue, however we don't want to trivialize the SMOM. Recall that some 102 states regard it as a sovereign entity, to many, but not all, recognizing states, they treat it as if it is a state. For example; I am from Canada and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs treats the SMOM as a foreign state. The list should somehow reflect these view, while maintaining a neutral position and not advocating them. Why not make a section, not table format, under the 'Unofficial relations' section as a 'special case' section in order to explain the SMOM, why it is a non-state, and its position in the international community. Outback the koala (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to superpose text above but I want to make sure we're following a thread. The proposal looks fine to me however I don't believe it addresses all the arguments being made above. Ladril (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• Incidentally, the German version of the List of sovereign states includes the Holy See, the SMOM and the ICRC under its section of Nichtstaatliche Völkerrechtssubjekte (Non-state subjects of international law). If this section here is accurate, the organisations are of a similar nature. Apparently the Red Cross is the only institution listed in the Geneva Convention, which I wasn't aware of... So, maybe it is worth mentioning alongside the Order. But neither of them belong on a list of states. Night w (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes the ICRC is a soveriegn subject of international law, but its parent organization the Red Cross and Red Crecent Soceity is not, it is very important to distinguish between the two.XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

I disagree with removing it at this time, but I understand your motivations. Outback the koala (talk) 21:10, 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)

Thats how its done on the main soveriegn states page, i wouldnt object to including it as an example in a sentace stating why such entities are not included (namingly because they do not satisfy all of the requirements of statehood).XavierGreen (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of an Diliberatly Excluded section like in list of soveriegn states page. I also think that Sealand, North Sentinal and other such resolved controversis should be added.HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing the merits of any entry to be added to the list, but the arguments ought to come from the academic standpoint, simply because this is an encyclopedia. What I see here, however is that too often common wisdom gets in the way of academic wisdom. I think whoever added the EU and SMOM to the List of sovereign states had very valid reasons to do it, and the adding of SMOM of this page was meant to complement that other one. True, not everyone is going to agree, but at least we can listen to each other? Ladril (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Croatia

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)

Having diplomatic relations presupposes mutual recognition as sovereign states, as much as a birth does presuppose a conception. So those that don't list a date of recognition but have a date for relations are not counted as 'states not recognizing'. The reason why they have two columns is because very often states issue a formal statement of recognition first, then a formal statement of relations later. The Montenegro official source is done in a very similar format if you want to compare. Ladril (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Croatia's list includes many states which have the same date for recognition and the establishing relations, so it can't simply be that some states issue formal statements of recognition before the establishment of relations. On Montenegro's list every state which has a date for the establishment of official relations also has a date for recognition, unlike Croatia. And I'm not convinced that the establishment of diplomatic relations necessairly implies recogninition of sovereignty, since there are examples to the contrary. (For example Niue has established diplomatic relations wich China [3], but hasn't been recognized as sovereign. Nor has Niue even claimed to be sovereign). TDL (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What are diplomatic relations, then? Ladril (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We should include Croatia and use the recognition numbers to avoid OR.HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one step to take to solve the problem would be to work on the articles about diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations. There certainly does not seem to be consensus about the meaning of these terms, and sadly common wisdom takes the place of academic definitions more often than it should. If and when somebody does create decent, appropriately sourced pages about those terms, I'll consider working on pages like this again. Ladril (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Palestine

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 see no need to have it's own section, it looks fine where it is presently. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Croatia, Montenegro, etc.

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'm certain that there are dozens of country pairs that haven't formally exchanged recognitions, but which otherwise have no quarrel with one another. They don't actively not recognise one another, they just haven't done the paperwork. It seems to me to be reasonable to assume that all UN members (plus the Vatican) recognise one another unless we have evidence that a country has consciously chosen to actively not recognise another. Pfainuk talk 10:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Non-recognition is normally made explicit. Also, if both Croatia and Montenegro are to remain on the list, the government weblinks used as references are IMO not adequate. Each list includes all states, not just those with which they have relationships. Only some receive entries in the "DOR"/"DODR" columns, but it would be WP:OR to assume that, therefore, those without dates listed do not recognise Croatia/Montenegro as a fellow state. It might even be OR to assume that those without dates listed have not extended recognition. One might easily assume that the dates aren't listed because they're uncertain, aren't available to the public, etcetera. Night w (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, just because an island state did not "do its homework" dosn't meen we should list half the countries of the world hear. Non recognition must be more explicet then lack of paperwork.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I also concur, although it should be mentioned on the page somehow. Outback the koala (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems that we have consesus to remove Croatia and Montenegro from the list. Any suggestions for the "no paperwork" note? Alinor (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think those government sources are adequate. You would need something that states plainly that these states have not yet extended recognition. Relying on blank spots in the dates column to draw conclusions is probably WP:OR. Night w (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the no paperwork note in the lead? Then again the page alredy has a big lead, but I see no better place for it.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, because the current lead version has the wrong leftover statement "the list includes Montenegro"... Alinor (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Soverign Military Order of Malta

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)

I am not sure that we should include SMOM here. It does not claim to be a state. Maybe it could be added if we rename the article "list of sovereign entities with limited recognition", but even then we would need sources confirming that some other state/entity LIMITS recognition (DOES NOT recognise) the SMOM - just like the case of Montenegro above. Alinor (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't reanaming the page due to one entery be undue weight? The section name makes it clear that they do not claim soverignity? I will also add a lead. Sources are given,whats wrong with them? --95.188.169.127 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

The ICRC does posses soveriegnty under international law as stated in its charter. As with before if you are going to include entities that arnt states we have to either change the title of the page and list them all or list none of them.XavierGreen (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few examples of nonstate entities that excercise at least partial soveriegnty under international law. We can create a List of Non-state soveriegn entities and have two categories. One is partial soveriegnty, ie nato, cern, international bureau of wieghts and measures. The other categorpy can be entities with full soveriegnty ie SMOM, ICRC, and possibly north sentinal and other similar cases if any can be identified. a notes section in the table can describe why each entity is considered soveriegn under internation law ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Or just incorporate such a list into the Sovereignty article. Night w (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A general list would be a good idea but there are 2 problems: 1. It wouold be hard to incorporate recognition and 2. We will reach a consencus heer and the problem will be forgotten. Also, how is the ICRC a)soverign or b)unrecognized?--95.188.169.127 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish(talk)

But recognition as a state doesn't concern the organisations you're talking about. They exercise sovereignty, sure, but not as a state. The SMOM isn't recognised by any state as a peer, some just maintain diplomatic relations with it. Diplomacy is a different thing to recognition (which is why we just had Montengro and Croatia removed from the list), and recognition of an organisation's sovereignty is probably not something that can be quantified. The ICRC is the same. I don't know the details (here would be more helpful), but the Geneva Convention classifies it as a sovereign subject of international law. The Sovereignty page would be the best place to describe such organisations; they don't belong here. Night w (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This page should only be for entities that qualify for the main list of sovereign states. If we start broadening the scope of the page just so we can include SMOM we're going to end up with something like List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement (i.e. a big OR mess). Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stepping back in and hoping this doesn't turn into a deaf conversation...

The same criteria should be used in all pages of the encyclopedia. If SMOM fits in List of sovereign states, it fits here. Any proposal to remove it will have to take place in List of sovereign states as well. Since I doubt a consensus will be reached, I'll be looking at the mediation procedure, looking to improve both pages. Ladril (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, SMOM is not on the main list of sovereign states. It is only mentioned in a section following the list which explains why it doesn't qualify for inclusion (no defined territory and no permanent population) Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the page. It cannot be ruled out due to it 'not being a state'. That's the wrong argument. Ladril (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the idea that the Red Cross is a sovereign entity come from? Here are the statutes of the organization: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/icrc-statutes-080503#a1

And the four Geneva conventions can be consulted here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

So far nothing to indicate it claims to be a sovereign person under international law. I'm ready to be proven wrong, though. Ladril (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is text from an official source that states:

"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)

Yeah it's mentioned on the page as a thing which isn't on the list. Should we include Antarctica and the European Union on this page as well? They're in the same section. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is that argument wrong? Are you proposing that we should include Antarctica and Sealand here as well since they are mentioned on the other list (in the excluded section)? I completely agree that this list should follow the lead of List of sovereign states, hence this isn't the place to proposing the inclusion of SMOM. If you think that SMOM shouldn't be excluded from the main list you should start a discussion there to have it included. If it was, this article would surly follow suit.

Regardless of whether non-stats should be included on the list or not, there are still no sources which support the claim the SMOM isn't universally recognized. The fact that it only has diplomatic relations with 110 states doesn't imply that the remaining states don't recognize it as a sovereign entity. TDL (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops...Orange beat me to the punch. TDL (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a list of states, it is very much the right argument. What is this page about if not states??? Ladril, if you wish it removed from the "Excluded" section of the List of sovereign states aswell, then by all means go ahead. It certainly doesn't belong here. I must apologise to HighFlyingFish because apparently he did ask for objections, but while none were raised I don't believe consensus has moved away from what was previously decided above. As no new arguments have been put forth that support its inclusion, it should be removed until this discussion decides as to where it should be listed. Night w (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want SMOM removed from that page. I want both pages to have the same informative scope. In order to convince me, you'll have to argue why you think SMOM belongs there but not here. Ladril (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides, I disagree with the claim that the claim for SMOM is unsourced. Here is a quote from one of the sources:

"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)

A couple things, number one is that the SMOM clearly state that their position is they are not a state yet still are a soveriegn subject under international law. The second is that the title of this article is that this is a list of states. Thus since the SMOM themselves do not recognize that they are a state, how can they be considered one for inclusion in the list. Third the ircr exercises complete soveriegnty under international law for example representatives of the ICRC are treated under international law as being alike to citizens of the ICRC, not as citizens of their home countries. The swiss government has no control watsoever on the activities of the ICRC.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Third the ircr exercises complete soveriegnty under international law"

The problem is, there is not a single source to defend that. I guess that's fair treatment for both sides.

"The second is that the title of this article is that this is a list of states."

We all already know that, none of us are stupid. But in my view, pages about states *must* talk about other things which people *might* confuse with states, to dispel confusions. That's the motive behind the insistence for including SMOM, like it is included in List of sovereign states.Ladril (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The main issue at hand is not whether or not the SMOM is soveriegn, but rather whether or not it is a state. The page critera for inclusion is that only states can be included, hence why other soveriegn entities such as North Sentinel are not included.XavierGreen (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"The main issue at hand is not whether or not the SMOM is soveriegn, but rather whether or not it is a state."

The issue at hand is, sovereign powers are the powers of a nation-state. It doesn't matter if we agree that SMOM is a state. The simple fact that governments the world over recognize its powers as a state is enough for inclusion. Ladril (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned the last time this discussion came up, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief note at the bottom (similar to on LOSS) which explains that some non-state entities engage in diplomatic relations and listing SMOM as an EXAMPLE. However, I think any attempt to construct an exhaustive listing of sovereign entities would become a mess very quickly (as evident by the lengthy debates over ICRC/North Sentinal/CERN/etc).

And as for the status of SMOM's international recognition, there was a discussion above (which I wasn't a part of) which resulted in a consensus that only stats which are explicitly not recognized by another state would be listed. So unless you can find a source which states that "The government of the State of A considers SMOM to be a non-sovereign entity" then it doesn't qualify for inclusion by the current criteria. TDL (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"However, I think any attempt to construct an exhaustive listing of sovereign entities would become a mess very quickly".

Such an attempt is part of the challenge of building an encyclopedia. As regards SMOM, there are many legal documents recognizing its sovereign status, its own websites, and many academic studies that have been cited as evidence of its sovereignty. On the other hand, I've challenged the proponents of CERN, ICRC and North Sentinel to offer one source, with no results so far. Ladril (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ladril, why do you keep saying that you want this page to have the same scope as List of sovereign states when you're arguing for the inclusion of the SMOM? SMOM is not on the list of sovereign states. It is is an explanatory note which follows the list of sovereign states. Those are two different things.

I mean read the page, it clearly says the list has 203 entries. 192 UN Members, Vatican City, and the ten de facto independent states. No SMOM. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

sovereign powers are the powers of a nation-state, what about the soveriegn power exercised by independent city states, tribes, chiefdoms, and other nonstate polities? Eskimos in north greeland possesed full soveriegnty over the land they occupied before colonization and yet were not living in a state like polity.XavierGreen (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the ICRC, its non-state soveriegnty can be sourced. Per this source [[4]]

Switzerland and the International Criminal court both recognize that the ICRC is an independent subject of international law.XavierGreen (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This source [[5]] states that the North Sentinel Islanders maintain soveriegnty over their island.XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 17 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)

While we're on the topic of form, I would propose that each case should be discussed on its own merits, i.e., let's not try to piggyback on SMOM threads to try to argue in favour of other cases. I've seen that source about ICRC before, and it doesn't seem to me like it is sufficient evidence, but I'm willing to consider its inclusion in List of sovereign states (or maybe Sovereignty) if the case is well sourced in a thread of its own. North Sentinel already has its own thread above. Ladril (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should decide what to do with these things before arguing which ones fit the criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Changing the scope of the page would make it less useful for the reader. The page as it stands says "Here's a list of sovereign states which are unrecognized by at least one other sovereign state" and you're proposing that we change it to say "Here's a list sovereign entities that do not fit under the category of widely recognized sovereign state." The former is specific, which makes it easier to understand and maintain. The latter is vague, which makes it more difficult to maintain and less useful as a page. SMOM doesn't need to be on a second list and it doesn't need to be on this list. It doesn't need to be on any list at all. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Why not? The page has a defined scope that SMOM falls outside of. I think we can very easily ignore it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition".

Let's keep calm. That the evidence does not persuade everybody is no reason to squabble. At least some people are beginning to see the point, I guess. Ladril (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Just because something exists doesn't mean that we have to put it on a list. The content of a list is determined by its inclusion criteria, not the other way around. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Because we have a clear definition of what a sovereign state is (defined territory, permanent population, government, capacity to enter into relations with other states, claim of sovereignty) and beyond the 203 entities which fit that definition, things get murky. What criteria would you use to define a "sovereign entity"? Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wish things were that simple. Neither the Holy See nor Palestine fit that definition. Ladril (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that "entity" is an extremely vague definition for something; is it even a term used in legal theory? You said it yourself somewhere above that to rename a page in order to include something that doesn't really fit to begin with would be WP:UNDUE. Night w (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The term exists insofar as the UN uses it to refer to one of the entities on this list: Palestine. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A more refined term would be a soveriegn non-state international personality, or a soveriegn non-state polity.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Holy See has a defined territory (Vatican City), a permanent population (around 900 full-time residents), a government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states (nunciatures, etc.), and a claim of sovereignty. Palestine's situation is somewhat more complicated but it does seem to have a defined territory (West Bank and Gaza), a permanent population (the Palestinians), a government (the Palestinian Authority), the capacity to enter into relations with other states (it's recognized by multiple states and exchanges embassies with them), and a claim of sovereignty (since 1988).

And whatever term we use, we still have the problem of not being able to adequately define it. What is the definition of "sovereign entity" that encompasses only the 16 entities currently on this page + SMOM? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

False. The Holy See, for starters, cannot have a population because it is an entity separate from the Vatican city state. Leaving that aside, the alleged population of Churchpeople reside in the Vatican on a non-permanent basis. Palestine's national authority does not have the full status of a government, as defined in agreements between the PLO and Israel. And the purported State of Palestine does not have a defined territory, as witnessed by the facts that their declaration of independence does not confine them to the West Bank and Gaza and that they are negotiating their boundaries with Israel. Ladril (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's not rehash the argument about Palestine here. It's debatable, I'll admit, but there have been multiple discussions about this on the main List of Sovereign States page and the conclusion has been that Palestine fits the criteria there. SMOM on the other hand, clearly does not. And like you were saying earlier, we should be using the same criteria on both pages. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"but there have been multiple discussions about this on the main List of Sovereign States page and the conclusion has been that Palestine fits the criteria there. SMOM on the other hand, clearly does not."

Not that clearly, since it's still mentioned on that other page. Anyway, whether SMOM fits in a list of states is something that should be discussed over at List of sovereign states. What we we're discussing here is whether it fits in a list of entities with limited recognition. Ladril (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've suddenly decided that List of sovereign states doesn't matter, because earlier in the conversation you were saying: "The same criteria should be used in all pages of the encyclopedia. If SMOM fits in List of sovereign states, it fits here." Well, I agree with that statement. This list and that list should use the same criteria, and SMOM is very explicitly excluded from that list. Just like Antarctica, the EU, Sealand, dependent territories, federal states, and uncontacted tribes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"It's interesting that you've suddenly decided that List of sovereign states doesn't matter"

I did? If you say so... Ladril (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you saying? Do you think we should be using the same criteria as List of sovereign states or not? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that SMOM is mentioned on that other page for a good reason, and that it also deserves a mention on this page. I'm not interested in a polemic on whether it's a state or not. Third-party source support for its existence as a sovereign entity is enough for it to warrant a mention. Ladril (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine has effectively been administered by the Palestinian National Authority since the creation of that body, for example the pna controls the un observer seat and the like. Thus it can be argued that it does have a defined territory and control over some of that territory. The holy see is a seperate administrative body under international law, vatican city is a temporal possesion in effect in personal union with the holy see. Thinking further on the smom issue, i came to realize that there have been dozens if not hundreds of similar cases in the 18th and 19th centuries that resulted from the Mediatization of several monarchs in europe. The monarchs lost their states, but were still seen as soveriegn international personalities immune from the laws and jurisdiction of states similiar to how the ICRC and SMOM are.XavierGreen (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Im not opposed to listing them how their listed on the list of soveriegn states page, the Cook Islands, Niue, SMOM, and ICRC could be listed in such a manner.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Of that list, only the SMOM is apparently without full recognition. Although again, the recognition that it does have remains irrelevant in this context. Night w (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm but dont the countries that have relations with the Cook Islands and Niue recognize them as independent states while the rest simply see them as possesions of new zealand?XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question doesn't really impact on this current discussion; since they are states (independent or nay), they're not in the same category as the other two you mentioned. Night w (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I didn't support your original proposal because the addition didn't belong here. The proposal to change the title had foreseeable problems aswell, mainly that it was too broad and vague of a topic, without a well-defined criteria. I wouldn't be opposed to an "excluded" section, provided it is not entered in table-format. We would also have to agree that this section would be exclusively for the SMOM; a short note on uncontacted societies and micronations (with no examples) would suffice for the remainder. Night w (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me.XavierGreen (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ladril (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to add a "diliberatly excluded section in non table format with SOMOM and a note on micronations and tribes?--95.188.188.144 (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Yeah, seems so. Night w (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

israel, not recognized by hamas

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)

Autonomous areas

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)

We are mentioning them because very often somebody pops up adding Iraqi Kurdistan, Tibet or the Basque Country. We're trying to make the page more manageable for the editors. Ladril (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the purpose behind an encyclopædic article. And why autonomous areas specifically? It seems (especially with the examples) that it's almost intended to pre-empt an addition that would already be disqualified by not having met one of the six points described at the top of the section. Two other questions (and I'm not trying to hijack your thread here, Xavier, I'll stick to the new section): 1, Would it not be better to place the criteria section at the bottom of the page; and 2, Why is there a flagicon next to SMOM? Night w (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the creteria section is to make the page more managable so I see no problem with Autonomous areas. The flagicon is there because it is 1: more visualy appealing and 2: for the sake of consistance.--95.188.189.148 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)(HFF)

If we're going to nitpick, I see no clear reason why uncontacted peoples or micronations should be mentioned on this page. But that's only my own personal perspective; other people think differently and the goal is to tell them that by consensus those kinds of entities are not to be listed here. Same with SMOM and autonomous areas, which have been recurrent topics of debate and edit-warring here. Few things are more frustrating than the continuous edit and revert wars over the addition or deletion of such and such entity. As for the location of the criteria section, I believe such a section is always better at the top (and it should also be that way in List of sovereign states). That way it's harder for people to claim they did not see it before editing. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to include the autonomous areas (outside of azad kashmir) in a faq section at the top of the talk page. This is similar to how common issues are handled on the United States page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's been tried before, and the reality is only a small fraction of editors actually read the talk pages. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." Let's not try to find a problem where there is none. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 1 July 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)

Too much argument over minutiae, really. And serious danger of instruction creep as well. Ladril (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The section's been moved to the bottom by another editor, so I'm fine with leaving the flag in for now. Night w (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with the flag icon as well. What are the icons for then? Ladril (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the SMOM is sui generis, i dont really see a difference with having the flag or not. Its just a stylistic issue i suppose, but one i have no opinion on.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone okay with the section and flagicon as is? (I am).--95.188.177.42 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Night w (talk) 06:43, 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)

Or we can mirror the excluded entities section of the List of sovereign states page. Ladril (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Every page on wikipedia is indipendant, just because we got the inspiration from L.O.S.S. dosent meen we have to mirror it. Including the E.U. for example would be irrational.--95.188.181.243 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

But on the same page, I'd dispute your rationale behind including autonomous areas —which, from what I've heard so far, is basically in the hopes of stemming unwanted additions that have been repeatedly added in the past. But I don't think that explicitly mentioning such cases is going to achieve that result any more than would simply outlining the criteria as we have. We have a set criteria, and autonomous areas fails to meet it; why go any further than that? Otherwise, before you know it, another editor will propose that "associated states" be mentioned specifically, and then something else, until behold: a comprehensive and completely unnecessary list of what doesn't meet the criteria —defeating the purpose of having one in the first place. It is best to adopt a policy of minimalism in regards to that section, else the quality of the read will suffer. Night w (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the issue needs some serious thought. The section looks somewhat weird already. Ladril (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If we list only the polities which claim to have soveriegnty, but do not meet another one of the categories then the number of items on the list will be quite small (i cannot think of any other entity at the moment that claims soveriegnty and is not on the list). Since Autonomous areas do not claim to be soveriegn international personalities, they would not be included on the list.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets stick to stuff that is soverign, though I don't get why we should be minimallists about this and how this isnt instruction creep,however I will not insist since this is a rather minor problem.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An actual serious problem

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)

What about these? [6] or [7] BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like people with greater powers than i have taken care of it already.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Um the flag icon is still blank!!!--95.188.179.145 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism for the second time. Given that the flag is used on hundreds of pages through the {{Flag|SADR}} template, it may be worth protection. Any commons admin around?—Emil J. 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

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)

No, Pakistan does not recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. It considers the whole of Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory that is pending a settlement. Ladril (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Do either of you have any reputable sources you can show us? Night w (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Azad Kashmir Constitution Act of 1974 is available on Scribd. 1 Ladril (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Pakistan sees its relationship with Azad Kashmir to be somewhat similar to suzerainty. The language of the constitution you mentioned treats Azad Kashmir as a power seperate from pakistan yet inferior to it. Pakistan also does not claim Azad Kashmir to be a part of pakistan, only that it is administered by it. I don't really know how to classify it, since it has some aspects similar to an autonomous area, some similar to a dependent territory, and others similar to an associated or vassal state with internal soveriegnty.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be classified as a local administration. In the list of sovereign states it deserves a note to explain its status. But it's not legally a dependency (because Pakistan does not label it as such) nor an associated state (because there is no arrangement of association) nor a suzerain (because this notion does not correspond with modern international law). Ladril (talk) 13:09, 6 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)

Cook Islands is a sovereign associated state, not a possession. As I said before, it's not that Pakistan has annexed a part of Kashmir, but that it considers that Kashmir does not rightfully belong to India, and is awaiting a long overdue UN settlement to determine whether the region should join India or Pakistan. Azad Kashmir is a provisional administration which does not seek recognition as a sovereign state and thus does not merit the same standing as the Cook Islands or the entries on this list. I'm not sure about the citizenship. Now keep in mind that Kashmir cannot have much in the way of foreign affairs, because according to the UN it is a territory in the process of decolonization that should choose between becoming part of either India or Pakistan, and it's not an international legal personality. To complicate matters further, last year Pakistan also set up a government for the Gilgit-Baltistan areas. Ladril (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the evidence, Pakistan represents the parts of Kashmir it controls in international matters. See 3. Ladril (talk) 16:06, 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:

area of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Azad (“Free”) Kashmir, established in 1947 after the partition of India, is neither a province nor an agency of Pakistan but has a government of its own that is regarded by Pakistan as “independent,” even though it is protected by and economically and administratively linked to Pakistan. 4

I wonder if this is anything like Dadra and Nagar Haveli's former status. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake. Pakistan cannot consider Kashmir "independent" because it wants to incorporate it. Ladril (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is wanting to incorporate something mutually exclusive with considering it independent? I can think of counter-examples in history. India and DNH, for one. But Turkey and Hatay also come to mind. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case it is. Let's consider also the fact that there are insurgence movements in Kashmir fighting for independence from Pakistan which seem to lend support to the conclusion. Ladril (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Pakistan recognizing Azad Kashmir as independent and Azad Kashmir actually being independent from Pakistan are two different things. I mean, that's sort of the classic puppet state model, isn't it? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what i was getting at with mentioning suzerinty above. Clearly defacto Kashmir is not independent, but dejure Pakistan treats it as a foriegn entity. I can think of dozens of examples similar to this before 1900, but perhaps the only similar modern one might be Northern Cyprus immediately after the turkish invasion, Sikkim while under indian protection, or the remanents of the Kingdom of Kongo in the early 1900's.XavierGreen (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done quite a bit of research on the matter, and I could not find a single source stating unequivocally that Pakistan considers any part of Kashmir whatsoever to be a sovereign state. The source you reference above seems to me like a mistake or an imprecision, which shouldn't be copied here. Maybe if we take the time to assemble a set of reliable sources we can arrive at a conclusion that satisfies everybody. As a side comment, do keep in mind that this issue is very touchy for both Indians and Pakistanis, so editing lightly can get you into trouble. Ladril (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, I don't think suzerainty is the right word here and those examples don't exactly seem analogous to Azad Kashmir's current status. ...Whatever it is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as very similar to Sikkim or Northern Cyprus either. I'm not familiar enough with the Kongo case to give an opinion. Any analogy would be inexact, but if forced to pick one I would go for the UN Trusteeship Territories; that is polities with a provisional administration while their situation is not yet determined. Ladril (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one of the best texts I have found on the matter. Note that it explicitly states that Pakistan has never recognized Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. 5 Ladril (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking at this source, I must side with Ladril on this. It is as if this area has been completely excluded from the democratic process, this happens in all democratic countries.. I would liken this gerrymandering, on a very large scale indeed - then throw in a conflict between India and Pakistan plus an independence movement in the area as well as an "independent" government that takes up the slack. The state possesses territory that it neglects and does not recognise as sovereign, seems open and shut to me now. Outback the koala (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the impression I get from reading the Azad Kashmir constitution. If we find a different interpretation by a reputed legal scholar and/or statements by the governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir on this matter, they should take precedence. Ladril (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article 7 of the Azad kashmir constitution states: "No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan." Ladril (talk) 03:25, 7 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)

As per 'autonomous areas' above, I believe a note for Azad Kashmir on this very page might be excessive. However the info on List of sovereign states should be expanded upon. Ladril (talk) 15:50, 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)

I'm assuming you mean UN? --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the UN and the US. Isn't the US an independent state? Just kidding. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? Ladril (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I probably did, but, forgive if I'm missing sarcasm here, but the tone of your question appears to be snarking at me for legitimately questioning a typo you made. --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no. My mistake. Apologies. Ladril (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source, more academic than the prior one: 8 Ladril (talk) 18:36, 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)

Fair enough. Tell me a better way to communicate an argument. Ladril (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Telling us what specifically in the source we're supposed to be looking at would be a start. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried that before, but a majority of editors here seem not to be interested in listening to arguments, so I've kind of given up. For example, see "Cook Islands and Niue" below. I posted a rather long quotation justifying an argument and I got scolded for doing it. Tell me the correct modus operandi for being listened to. Ladril (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, whatever. Do what you like. I don't care. But don't expect to throw a dozen sources at people without explanation and expect them to understand what you're getting at. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not a good editor for this page. I'm quite willing to accept that. Peace between us. Ladril (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that souce before and its actually what spurred me to start the thread in the first place. There are several sources that state within google books that pakistan recognizes kasmir as a state apart from pakistan. This source 9 states that it has no defined status under international law, and seems to liken it to an occupied state that has surrendered many of its powers to the pakistani administration, yet is still not part of pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More food for thought: [8] Ladril (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So the Supreme court of pakistan recognizes Azad as independent.XavierGreen (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears the Pakistani government doesn't seem to know if it considers Azad Kashmir independent. Unless you have a new link, because the one Ladril posted doesn't say whether the Supreme Court had come to a decision yet. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The commentary says that the attorney-general of Pakistan considered Azad Kashmir a sovereign state, which is a statement without precedent in the history of the Pakistan government. I'd suggest we avoid having a lawyer-like discussion of this (we're editors, not lawyers). However, a note based on this source would do no harm, even if it's not necessarily added to this article. Ladril (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It however says that two groups headed by the prime minister have said opposite things. I agree that the AG saying it is important, but not if he's overruled by the PM; the problem is that not even the PM seems to know. --Golbez (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should take this as the official position of Pakistan's government as a whole. I'm thinking more along the lines of a note saying "the attorney-general referred to Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state". In my opinion, the statement carries enough weight to be worthy of inclusion here. Ladril (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

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)

Gimme the cliff's notes version: Do they belong on this list or not? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave the Cliff Notes 20 times before, but people just kept repeating the same old assumptions again and again. As for my position, the two definitely have an international personality as sovereign (albeit associated) states. Not every country recognizes it, apparently. For example, Japan does not recognize Cook Islands as sovereign, though several other states do. Ladril (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If any UN member state recognizes the Cook Islands as independent, then I see no reason not to mention it here. They don't necessarily have to declare themselves independent to qualify. For example, if Tibet didn't declare independence but yet Belgium recognized them as such, I suspect we'd include them on this list based on that. --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Statehood is not only achieved through a declaration of independence. Free association is also a way to develop a separate legal personality as a state. Proof of this is the existence of the associated states of Palau, Micronesia and Marshall Islands, which have never declared themselves independent from the USA. Ladril (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of those, I'm not sure it was their place; they were administered by the US but were technically(?) territories directly of the United Nations. But that's a little academic at this point, it really sounds like the Cook Islands belongs up there, regardless of their independence status, if recognition can be sourced. (I apologize if this has been brought up before) --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comparison to Palau etc. makes sense. Both Palau's constitution 2 and the Compact of Free Association 3 explicitly describe Palau as having sovereignty over its land and territorial waters. I'm not sure CI or Niue have ever made a similar claim.

Also, I know that there are states which have diplomatic relations with CI/Niue, but have any of those relations come with explicit recognition? I seem to remember that last time we had a discussion like this we couldn't find any evidence. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand and Cook Islands have declared each other independent states in their own affairs. See 4 Also the same document states that Cook interacts with the international community as an independent state. Ladril (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The prime minister of Cook Islands refers to his country as a sovereign state here: 5 Ladril (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, just because people seem to be making strong assumptions here, Cook Islands and Niue are more free than Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. New Zealand does not have any authority over its associated states. The latter three, on the other hand, have to ask the US government for permission to allow foreign ships into their territorial waters (read the Compacts of Free Association). Ladril (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The following source states that several states have recognized the Cook Islands as independent and some don't. 6

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)

The Hillebrink source says that many states "deal with the territory as an independent legal personality". That's not explicitly recognition, and I don't think that would be an acceptable source for any other country currently on this list. The Keitner/Reisman source is exclusively about the United States and I don't think we can generalize anything about associated statehood since it is a vaguely defined concept that each country has implemented differently. And I feel like you're being too strict with your interpretation of the Dugard source. Quebec, for example, has diplomatic relations with a number of foreign countries but none of them recognize it as independent. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel like we should probably be having this conversation on the much more well-trafficked List of sovereign states before we have it here. This would be a pretty significant change. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:26, 10 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)

I can't make an improvement to the encyclopedia, just because the sources don't have the exact wording you want? How functional. Ladril (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the problem is I don't think the sources you're posting back up your claim about recognition. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't verify it, it's not an "improvement" in the first place. Night w (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If we don't agree, we don't agree. Ladril (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the statement of recognition for the Cook Islands from Belgium: 9. Ladril (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is another which states that states, verbatim, that Germany has recognized the Cook Islands as a sovereign state: 10 Ladril (talk) 22:18, 20 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)

Just one comment since this was lost in the translation. "Selbständige" can translate as both "sovereign" and "independent". Ladril (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks valid enough to me. But how would we portray it on this list? "... is recognized by at least two countries", or are you going to hunt down every foreign ministry and find out if they recognize them? :) --Golbez (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, we may be exaggerating here. Check the documents used as sources for Kosovo. You'll hardly find one saying "country X recognizes Kosovo as sovereign". The establishment of relations generally assumes recognition. Ladril (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as inclusion on this list is concerned, my plan is to include the Cook Islands as a state that is not recognized as independent by Japan. In the case of Niue only three countries (New Zealand, Popular China and Nauru) have recognized it. Ladril (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's giving undue weight to Japan's lack of recognition. In the case of the Cook Islands, recognition seems far more important and 'off-the-norm' than lack thereof. It is, after all, not a member of the UN. For the Cook Islands, you should say "is recognized by at least X countries, despite not being a UN member and being in free association with New Zealand", rather than saying "is not recognized by Japan". One improves our understanding of the subject, the other not so much. --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with those caveats is that both CK and Niue are full members of UN organizations like UNESCO and are state signatories of many treaties and agreements. According to various texts on international law I've read, it would not be untrue, but it would be inexact to say that "only" 21 countries recognize Cook, since several other countries also treat it like a sovereign state. This is a strange grey area of international law. Ladril (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested waffling on it by saying "at least". It may be a member of UNESCO, etc., but unless it has a vote in the general assembly, it's a non-UN member. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that being members of UNESCO makes them "partially" or "some sort of" UN members (I'm quite clear about the distinction between being a UN member and not being one). What I'm trying to emphasize is that, even though we should definitely mention on the page that they are not UN members, we cannot stress this too much as an indicator of non-recognition, due to other factors mentioned above. Ladril (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

True; a mention that they are members of UNESCO would work too. Here's a question that might boggle you: Are they officially represented in the General Assembly by New Zealand, or do they lack representation? :) --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, New Zealand is responsible for their foreign policy, and as such has spoken for them - with their previous consultation and approval - at the United Nations. Increasingly however, they have been speaking on their own accord at the organization. Ladril (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another way to answer the question - which may boggle you- is that both Cook and Niue are full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, which is an observer organization of the UN General Assembly. Ladril (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference I recommend looking at the List of sovereign states on the German Wikipedia, which contains text that can be inspiration for the entry. 11 Ladril (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The same topic was discussed here and currently here. Alinor (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil war

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)

Recommended category split

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:

• recognition by a few UN members (Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia)
• recognition by substantially many UN members (Republic of China, Kosovo, Palestine, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic).

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)

But where would you draw the line? The distinction that comes closest to your list there is "less than 10" and "10 and more", but then we're starting to pick numbers to conveniently match a distinction. Furthermore, no one knows exactly how many states recognize Palestine, according to the list. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, to leave it with just at least one is simple enough. The line is drawn where whether or not an UN state recognises the particular state. Liu Tao (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We have too many categories as is.—Emil J. 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with previous editors and object the idea. The distinction will be hard to make without making this another POV issue. Readers with half brain can get the difference on their own. --Muhandes (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that dividing by number of recognition here leads to the problems of how or why? For example, the Republic of China has only 22, as opposed to the other 3 you wanted to group, which have much closer to 100. Even within those three, there are some differences. Between the "few UN members" ones, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have 300% more recognition than Northern Cyprus, so why should they be grouped together? It's much better to just leave them as one. Chipmunkdavis (talk)

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)

'Estimation' in general should be best avoided, there's too much gray when estimating. Liu Tao (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Hard numbers talk. Outback the koala (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the catagory split will just cause confusion.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential Additions

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)

If you can find sources which state that these fulfill our criteria for inclusion (detailed in the article), then post them here. From what I am aware, though, these polities are instead better listed at List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. Nightw 13:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, this article is only for entities that have either been recognized as independent, or hold full de facto control over their territory and have declared independence. Neither Nevis nor Anjouan qualify; Anjouan's independence is not recognized, nor do they have control over their territory (At least since 2008) and Nevis, so far as I can tell, has not declared independence. --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 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)

Neither the local government of Tibet nor the exiled government of the Dalai Lama have declared independence, and neither is recognized as an independent country; the Dalai Lama seeks more autonomy within China. Based on what I can tell, the Republic of Cabinda is also entirely unrecognized, and operates only in exile, and thus holds no actual control over its territory. In other words, it is neither de jure nor de facto a country. Neither qualify for this list. --Golbez (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez. I would also like to urge people to search the archive before asking. The subject of Tibet has popped up more than once already.--Muhandes (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

... Oi... 97.96.65.108 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What about those native homelands in South Africa? South Africa recognizes them as independent nations, and before you start coming up with a list of why these shouldn't be in here...

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)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

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)

SMOM

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)

Yes, of course this arrangement does not work for North Cyprus/Palestine/Somaliland/South Ossetia/Abkhazia/Transinstria/Nagorno-Karabakh/Sahrawi/Taiwan/Kosovo - I don't propose to use it for them.

The map was updated - see here.

I changed the text to "The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign non-state entity, subject of international law.[59][60][61][62][63][64] It is recognized as such and [has established](wikilink) full diplomatic with sovereign states. The order participates in the United Nations as an [observer entity](wikilink).[65] Six states (France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Canada) maintain only official, but no diplomatic relations with it,[66] because they do not recognize it as sovereign[citation needed]." - but it was reverted "because of inaccuracies, tone". What are the inaccuracies? And where is the tone problem, so that we can rephrase it? With my change I tried to explain three things - why SMOM is mentioned on a "list of states"(regardless what type of states) - this is important since it does not claim to be a state; why is SMOM placed in the "excluded" part; who does "not recognize" it (e.g. the main "limited recognition" part of the article topic). In the previous (and now reverted to) wording only some of these were explained (SMOM is mentioned, because it is sovereign entity - as are all of the states; SMOM is in the "excluded" part because it doesn't claim any territory/is not a state), but there was no explanation what is limited in the SMOM recognition - thus it appeared as falling under the "nobody disputes its sovereignty (the reason to be mentioned in this list in the first place), some just didn't established relations yet, because of lack of interest/resources". If that is the case, then it should not be mentioned (as it would fail the inclusion criteria to "lack recognition from at least one state").

I propose: "The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign non-state entity, subject of international law.[59][60][61][62][63][64] It is recognized as such and [has established](wikilink) full diplomatic with sovereign states. The order participates in the United Nations as an [observer entity](wikilink).[65] As a non-state entity it doesn't claim any territory. At least 11 states withhold its full recognition.(footnote - France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Canada maintain only official, but no diplomatic relations; Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Greece maintain no relations and do not recognize its passports [9])" - the "because they do not recognize it as sovereign[citation needed]." could be removed if that is objected by "tone" reasons (I think the citation-needed flag "softens" the tone, but of course it can go out entierly). Alinor (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Omissions section deleted

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)

Why? I don't see the reason for it. We don't need to mention anything that isn't relevant, and doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Maybe we should submit an RfC? Nightw 14:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We should have a list of significant and notable exceptions. There are several reasons for this. The one in the front of my mind is that it limits the amount of anon additions and talk page requests about them(micronations are always the worse). But additionally, pages should note major points of controversy on any given subject and encompass its notable points, these points are notable. Outback the koala (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we must have a section and it should be more noticable then it is now. There are numerous anonymous additions of micronations which can be prevented in this way and it is a compromise in the SMOM debate. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It was previously at the top of the page before being moved lower. I would support moving it back up to above the lists. Outback the koala (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason why they need to be mentioned is some form is that by various interpretations of the critera they could meet the critera. Through concensus we have chosen to use an interpretation of the criteria that excludes these polites, though they still should be mentioned in some form (whether as a footnote or in some other manner) so that the reader may understand that it is possible that they might meet the criteria under certain circumstances.XavierGreen (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well, but is there a need to go into so much detail behind the recognition of these things? The section for SMOM previously read as:

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.

But now reads (with extreme difficulty) as:

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

Firstly, I'm failing to see how any of the cited sources say anything close to that. What does "official, but no diplomatic" mean? And how does that amount to withholding recognition? What do passports have to do with recognition as a subject of international law? Recognition as a legal travel document, and recognition of the status of the issuer are two separate things. And if they're not, I don't see anywhere in the sources that states "non-acceptance of passports = non-recognition of issuer". There are hardly any limitations for ROC passport carrier... Can we change the paragraph back to the original version? Nightw 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should restore the old section as it was.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt matter to me how they are included as long as they are mentioned in some form or another.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources are about "what is SMOM", "SMOM bilateral relations", "who doesn't recognize the SMOM passports" (I think), not about "non-acceptance of passports = non-recognition of issuer" - that's why it's written "11 states withhold its full recognition" instead of "11 states do not recognize it as sovereign entity".

About the official vs. diplomatic relations - see here - the first list is "has diplomatic relations with 104", the last "has official relations with 6" (the "Ambassador level official relations" is the type of relations that the EU conducts - it just isn't a sovereign entity, so it can't have "diplomatic relations").

About restoring the old version. The page here has two (three) types of entities - "exceptions", "regular" (and "excluded" - in their own section or in a footnote). Exceptions are entities, where we give a list/link to these entities that do recognize the exception (as "generally" these are non-recognized? this has to do with the debate here). Regular are entities, where we give a list/link to these entities that do not recognize the regular (as "generally" these are recognized and additionally there is the thing mentioned in the page that "Some states do not establish relations with new nations quickly and thus do not recognize them despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations."). Now, the Excluded - there we have micronations and uncontacted people. It is explained why they are excluded - micronations, because they don't control their territory (one of the inclusion criteria), etc.; uncontacted people - because of lack of information. Both types have no recognition.

Then we have SMOM. The main things that should be mentioned about it (these are inter-related):

1. Why it is relevant to a "list of (whatever) states"? - because, albeit it doesn't claim statehood, it claims sovereignty - a feature very often associated with states (in fact, besides the Holy See/Vatican City sovereignty/statehood mix, the SMOM is the only sovereign non-state entity). Since 99.5% of sovereign entities are states it is reasonable to note somehow the 0.5% sovereign non-state entities in such lists of states, that are relevant also to a non-state entities (for example "List of sovereign state flags").
2. Why is it excluded? - because of the above it doesn't claim any territory, thus fails one of the criteria for inclusion
3. Why is it relevant to a list of LIMITED recognition states? - SMOM should be mentioned only, if some states do not recognize it - this does not mean "some states haven't estblished relations with it" (so SMOM, Nauru and Tuvalu doesn't bothering to establish relations between them, because of lack of interest/resources/etc., but not objecting the existing/status of the others - such cases do not count). I asked for a list of such states here. The sources that we have so far show only that 6 states established non-diplomatic instead of diplomatic relations (similar to "Economic and Trade Office of Australia in Taiwan" - official Australian office/mission in foreign state, but not diplomatic) and 5 others do not recognize SMOM passports (do we have any example of two states that recognize each other, but one of them doesn't recognize the passports of the other?). That's why I wrote "At least 11 states withhold its full recognition" - the sources found so far show only this. I would prefer "XX states do not recognize SMOM as sovereign entity" (as much more straightforward), but we don't have such source yet. Anyway, the 11 cases are enough to answer question3. Even the 6 "non-diplomatic" are enough.

Mentioning 104/110 that established diplomatic relations is not helpful (in text such as "At least 104 states recognize SMOM"), as it doesn't show any non-recognition, so it doesn't answer question3 above. Using straightforward text such as "104 states recognize SMOM" would wrongly imply that all ~101 others do not recognize it - and we don't have such source (such as in the case of Nauru, where it has established relations with a small number of the states that recognize it).

About the format of the footnote - as I don't know a way to make a reference inside a reference I had to put the sources links in-line with the text. Maybe we should but the external links in a second footnote right after the first one? Alinor (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the SMOM does not meet all the criteria for inclusion under any interpretation of the criteria (it has no territory) why does it need to be mentioned at all. The other two classes of entities possibly do meet all of the criteria and thats why they need to be mentioned, but the SMOM is clearly lacking in the territorial element.XavierGreen (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is because of "Answer1" above. Sovereignty/statehood are used interchangeably (as 99.5% of sovereign entities have statehood), so we can assume that some readers of the "list of states with limited recognition" would also want to check the rest 0.5% of the sovereign entities - e.g. they want to see 100%, the article scope is narrowed to 99.5%, but in a footnote it is mentioned that there are 0.5% that are excluded. Alinor (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But we're talking about two completely unrelated things. Nobody recognises the SMOM as a state, which is what this page is about, nor does it claim to be one. Do we have any sources that claim that any state explicitly does not recognise it as whatever it claims to be? Please provide some. Even if you can, what's its relevance on a list of polities claiming to be states? There are many different types of sovereignty—tribal sovereignty, supranational sovereignty, the kind that a federated state holds—but this list deals with one only, which is not the type that the SMOM holds. Nightw 10:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained what is wrong with the current description - it may be considered to answer question1 and 2, but doesn't answer question3. Additionally you don't agree with the supposed answers of all 3 questions - So, what do you propose? Alinor (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Night/Xavier. Throughout this debate, and the last time it came up, no one has been able to produce a source supporting the claim that SMOM is explicitly unrecognized by another state. (I don't think that a state not accepting their passports is enough). Until such a source is found, the debate over mentioning them is moot. Even if a source is found, I don't see why we need to mention them. Uncontacted peoples/micronations could concevable satisfy our criteria, which is why they need to be mentioned as "excluded entities". SMOM is undebatably outside the scope of our article. Maybe a link to Foreign relations of the SMOM in the See also section would be appropriate (provided we find the sources) TDL (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If all agree that these "circumstancial" leads are insufficient to answer question3 - then yes, SMOM should not even be mentioned in the article. But in any case there is no point in the current setup "SMOM is recongnized by 110 states".

On the other hand I think that it is notable that 6 states have chosen to establish non-diplomatic official relations with SMOM (instead of diplomatic relations). A direct reference like ", because they don't recognize it as sovereign" is better, but I haven't found such. Non-recognizing its passports is less notable, but still relevant. In my opinion relevant are also the rest of the Catholic and/or Mediterranean states that don't have diplomatic relations with it, but of course no source supports that. Alinor (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So what should it be:

1. not mention SMOM at all in this article; or
2. mention SMOM with 11 "withholding"; or
3. mention SMOM with 6 "withholding"; or
4. mention SMOM with another number of "withholding" or "not (fully) recognizing"? Alinor (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The first one, or as it is. Nightw 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But this stance is a self-contradiction. If we leave it "as it is" - then you agree with the above-proposed answers to questions1&2, but what will be the answer to question3? If we use the first one (not mentioning SMOM at all) - then you don't agree with the answers to question1&2. So what is it? Alinor (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My preference is for removing it. But if it has to remain because some (or one) editors think it somehow "relevant", then I'd be strongly against going into detail about its recognition status, especially since you're not going to use any sources that state what you claim, and since I have a feeling that you aren't the most knowledgeable person on the subject. If it's explicitly not included in the list, then there isn't any point in explaining who or what recognise its status. Such superfluous detail would be contrary to our explicit ommission of this particular item. It's like saying "We don't include this item (but here are the details anyway)", which is not an encyclopaedic way of presenting information. Nightw 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My preference is to remove SMOM completely as well since it's not relevant to the list for two important reasons:

• It's doesn't claim to be a state and isn't recognized as one
• It's not explicitly unrecognized by any state

If someone can find a source showing that it's unrecognized, then maybe it would be worth mentioning why they are excluded. But it seems silly to say "SMOM is excluded from our list of states with limited recognition because it's neither a state nor unrecognized". We don't need to exclude them, they don't qualify. TDL (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I found this: "The French Republic does not recognize the SMOM as a subject of international law; see a statement by the spokesman of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Feb 7, 1997." Alinor (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't make it relevant. Nightw 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, why not? The SMOM has everything but territory. If states treat it as a state and other refuse to recognise it, does it not deserve a mention on this page. NOT as a footnote, because that it not inclusion at all. Outback the koala (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

I don't have specific preference for "exclusion footnote" or "exclusion section", but I think its content should answer the 3 questions from above. I have some reservations about the wording of the current version (pre-debate) - it answers question1&2, but in somewhat convoluted way.

The problem with this text is that it doesn't answer question3, so in the end it is not clear why SMOM is on this page.

My proposal for answer to question3 is "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." Adding sources (including the last one above) after this text of course. Other options were given above. Alinor (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A new option would be to list only France as non-recognizer. Alinor (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would we list details for something that we've already explicitly excluded? That doesn't make any sense. Nightw 09:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As you can see above - there is no consensus to remove it. And it was already put back in the article. Plus, since we have a clear indication that it is not recognized by France; plus the other 5-10 'withholding full recognition' not so clear indications - it should remain at least as a footnote explaining that its not a state, but a sovereign entity with limited recognition, government, citizenship, diplomatic relations with states. Alinor (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So, as I propose:

• answer to question2 (Why is it excluded?): "The non-state sovereign entity Order of Malta is not included as it claims neither statehood nor any territory."
• answer to question1 (Why it is relevant to a "list of (whatever) states"?): "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," (we could also add that it satisfies the other inclusion criteria: citizenship and government)
• answer to question3 (Why is it relevant to a list of LIMITED recognition states?): "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." relevant source links to follow; should we keep "at least" or should we delete it? Alinor (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If any state which doesn't have full diplomatic relations with every other state is relavant to this list, we are going to have an awful lot of excluded entities. Why, for example, is Iran excluded? The US witholds full diplomatic relations from them. The reality is that states can choose not to engage in diplomatic relations with other states for many reasons, and only one of them is due to a lack of recognition. TDL (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, withholding relations is different from denying recognition (for example Israel is denied recognition by 20 states, some additional are withholding/freezing/suspending/canceling relations - and some yet-others fall into the category "don't care" like "Montenegro-Nauru relations").

But in the case of SMOM we have "withhold full recognition" instead of "withhold relations" (Iran, etc.). See above for: "The French Republic does not recognize the SMOM as a subject of international law". Alinor (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes Alinor is exactly right, recognition and relations are entirely different. I think the France source is clearly an indicator of a specific state withholding recognition. And unlike the List of Sovereign States, we can get specific, because we specifically deal with this issue on this page. Outback the koala (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the argument Outback. I agree with you that recognition and relations are different. I'm the one arguing this position. Alinor's proposal was:

"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."

This statement puts forward the position that since Switzerland only has official, and no diplomatic, relations with SMOM they don't fully recognize them. There is no basis for this conclusion. Ths US has not only withheld official relations with Iran, they have withheld ALL relations with them. And yet they fully recognize them as a state. My point is that the nature of relations and status of recognition are independent. You can't use one to prove the other. TDL (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the basis for this conclusion is remote (thus can be challenged), but alas we don't have enough sources (even UN observer resolution was "adopted without vote"). So far we have only the France source showing straight "does not recognize SMOM".

The basis is as follows: one state does not recognize SMOM as a subject of international law (SMOM being subject of international law is the main argument in the question1 answer). At the same time it has official, but no diplomatic relations with SMOM. So, it may be considered that the other states that have only official, but no diplomatic relations with SMOM also do not recognize it. At the same time we have 104 states that have full diplomatic relations with SMOM and 6 states that have only official, but no diplomatic relations - but are not (or are they?) "at odds" with SMOM over some issue (such as the US-Iran nuclear issue) - on the contrary, they cooperate in humanitarian activities, they do "shake hands" photos, etc., so it can be assumed that those 6 of 110 (clearly an exception) do not recognize SMOM as subject of international law (thus no diplomatic relations), but otherwise look at it favorably (thus they have official relations - "good/excellent", not "strained/poisoned" like US-Iran). This assumption is so far confirmed, but only for France.

The basis for the 5 "passport" cases is even more remote, so let's leave it aside.

Anyway, that's why I proposed wording "withholding full recognition" instead of "does not recognize at all".

In any case the current text is wrong (there are no 110 states recognizing SMOM - only 104) and more importantly (as the "wrongness" is easily correctable) - does not answer question3 (what is limited in SMOM recognition).

So, let's remove the assumption in the question3 answer and use the following: "but is not recognized by at least one state: France.[footnote] SMOM maintains only official, but no diplomatic relations with France and five other states: Germnay, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Canada.[footnote] Five more states maintain no relations with SMOM and do not recognize its passports: Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Greece.[footnote]" Alinor (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's still a lot of undue detail on something that doesn't even qualify for inclusion. We don't even mention informal diplomatics for the entries that are listed. Nightw 07:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here the relevance of "only official, but no diplomatic" is greater - because that is the only lead (besides the France source) showing non-recognition of SMOM. For the 10+6 "regular" limited recognition cases we have plenty of sources with statements in both directions (recognition and non-recognition). Alinor (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure what I missed Dan, but in general I am in favour of inclusion, whatever form it takes on. To me, we have the sources, so why not be as detailed as possible. This is the place for the info afterall. Outback the koala (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So, do we agree on the last wordings proposed above? Alinor (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

UN note

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)

Currently, as it stands in the bottom of the Definition section, it looks odd - what is its relevance for the article?

I made the change (see 393288940) in order to make some sense of including the UN note - e.g. linking it to "Cyprus/Armenia/etc." cases of "generally recognized with limited number of states non-recognizing" (see link in the above section for the debate on List of sovereign states about what "generally recognized" means); paraphrased it a little, to stress sovereignty - so that it is more clear why there are Holy See and SMOM notes (Holy See right after the UN note and SMOM in the exclusion footnote). Alinor (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it to connect it with the other paragraph. Nightw 10:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it is still not clear why such note is put in the article, what is its relevance?

What are the objections against the other variant? Alinor (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be relevant to make note of the United Nations membership when entries are categorised according to that very membership, would it not? I don't see any notable improvement in your longer version. On the contrary, as I said, it delved into some irrelevant historical detail... Nightw 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This categorization is problematic by itself, but as you are well aware we are discussing a related issue elsewhere.

Anyway, what value to the article does this "The UN has 192 member states and 1 observer state" note bring to an article about "states with limited recognition"? The version of the note as it currently is seems unrelated to the issue of recognition (or even if it is related - its relations is not obvious by its wording). Alinor (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To put things in context. "'Such and such is recognised by 22 UN members'. Hmm, 22 out of how many? Oh, 192, I see..." I don't know how I can explain this any simpler. Nightw 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And why should we restrict the context to UN members? Why leave aside the non-UN entities that recognize and conduct diplomatic relations? 10 of these entities are the topic of this very same article! You see, we came to the 'other issue' we both are aware of. With my proposal I tried to add additional relevance of this note, so that it could remain in the article.

Otherwise we can simply change to "Such and such is recognised by 22 sovereign states". Alinor (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your change was:

As of 2010 there are 192 United Nations (UN) members and all of them are currently sovereign states 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.

In what way does this address non-members or provide "additional relevance"? Nightw 15:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what this debate is over. As far as I can tell, the original was:

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.

So the dispute is over the phrases "...and all of them are currently sovereign states" and "...and is recognized as sovereign"? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Alinor's intention is to motivate why we treat recognition by some states as more important than others. So, why is Abkhazia's recognition by Russia so much more important than Transnistria's recognition by South Ossetia that it get's put in a whole different category. I think it's worthwhile to explain why we use UN member for categorization, but maybe it can be done more clearly. TDL (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The UN note is a blanket statement "There are 192 UN members and 1 observer" (true of course) without any explanation why is this relevant to the article. The note should be expanded (in-line or with footnote). My version tried to give some other background to it (about sovereignty) - yes, it may be considered also a "blanket statement without explanation why is it relevant to the article", but it is no less true. Alinor (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

---