Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Last two items in the "References" section

Shouldn't these two items belong in the "Notes" section rather than the "References"section?

97.^ Micronations are not included even if they are recognized by another micronation, such as the "BjornSocialist Republic" that claims sovereignty over six square metres of Swedish territory, and is recognized by Ladonia, another micronation which claims one square kilometer of Swedish territory.

98.^ a b It's often up to debate whether micronations have sovereign control over their claimed territories, that are of minuscule size, or the state from which the micronation claims to have seceded simply doesn't deem such declaration (and other acts of the micronation) important enough to react in any way and considers the micronation to be a combination of unofficial private announcements of individuals and a private property, where the individuals remain its (of the state that the micronation claims to have seceded from) citizens and the property remains part of its territory and both remain subject to its laws.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya

Should we list the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" under UN-member states with limited recognition ? The Tripoli based government isn't recognized by France, Italy, Kuwait, The Gambia and the Maldives. --Anthem of joy (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about governments. Everyone recognises Libya as a state. Nightw 11:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm. If I may: The Sahrawi Arab Democratic State currently claims the area commonly known as Western Sahara, but many states consider to be part of Morocco. Now, if they were to claim the whole of Morocco, would that be two governments competing for the same state, and thus warrant removing the SADR from the list? I'm not advocating this, just asking a thought exercise. If that wouldn't count, then why not two governments - with varying levels of control - competing over the state of Libya? One controls the west, one controls the east; in the case of the SADR and Morocco, one controls the north and west, and one controls the southeast. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Except isn't the Libya issue essentially the same as that of China? Two governments (PRC and ROC/GSPLAJ and LR) claiming to be the true (Chinese/Libyan) state, with international recognition divided. 195.188.107.125 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Libya and China situations are similar, but the difference is that Libya Civil War is still a "hot" conflict, in its active phase, (relatively) rapidly changing. Chinese Civil War is at stalemate since 50 years and actually no warfare is conducted currently. Alinor (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Golbez, once again, the reason why no "East Libya" has been added to the list is because no source lists an "East Libya" as a new state. On the other hand, plenty of sources substantiate the existence of two states in China. It's that simple. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

West Papua

I haven't had time to read the sources, but the Foreign relations of Vanuatu article suggests that Vanuatu has recognised West Papuan independence, which if true, would put it in a similar situation to the State of Palestine. sephia karta | dimmi 10:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Googling around, it looks like they supported West Papuan self-determination in June 2010, challenging their annexation, but two months later, this was written saying that they have perhaps backtracked. Either way, the most I can see is support for West Papuan observer status or self-determination, but never an outright recognition that it is a separate country from Indonesia. --Golbez (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the article I see the they wanted the UNGA to request ICJ advisory opinion on West Papua, but it's not written that Vanuatu already recognizes it as a state. Alinor (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Vanuatu just recognised Abkhazia, so anything could happen. As far as I can tell, they treat the West Papuan government in a similar way that many countries treat Taiwan, with an important difference being that the West Papuan government has minimal to no control over most of its claimed territory. Based on this I agree with Alinor and Golbez, they have withheld the explicit recognition and so it shouldn't be added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the center of the island no one has control since the people there dont even know what indonesia or west paupa is lol. And as for Vanatu id really like to know how much the Russians paid them for their recognition. What source was posted for the recogniton text?XavierGreen (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

From the sources available, it seems the Vanuatu government is looking to support the future independence of West Papua. Nowhere did I read they recognize it as an already-functioning state. So it doesn't look like it would fulfill the current inclusion criteria. Ladril (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about Vanuatu, we shouldn't be mentioning at this moment they recognize Abkhazia - that's not confirmed. Ladril (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree re. West Papua. As for Abkhazia, it has now been confirmed. sephia karta | dimmi 11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that qualify as a conflict of sources such as the ones seen on [[1]]?. We should not be making original syntheses of published material ourselves. Ladril (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanuatu's Foreign Minister has now released a video in which he once again confirms that Vanuatu has recognised Abkhazia and that the ambassador was mistaken, and we can cite the New York Times for that. sephia karta | dimmi 10:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks OK. Ladril (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who keeps removing Libya?

At this point, both the Libyan Jamahiriya and the Libyan Republic are partially recognized states. The fact that they both claim the same territory has nothing to do with the simple fact that these are states, and that they have limited recognition. This is not "list of states with limited recognition which do not happen to lay claim to the same territory as some other state with limited recognition". Sheesh. --dab (𒁳) 08:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• These are not two states, but two governments. --maxval (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What's the difference? Form of government? One is a socialist dictatorship, one is a republic. The fact that they claim the same area? So do the DPRK and Republic of Korea, and so do (with minor adjustments) the PRC and ROC. I may be beating a dead horse here but I don't believe I've seen a good explanation yet of the difference between "two governments" and "two states". --Golbez (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Two states are two different entities for different countries, on different de iure terrority. Two governments are two entities claiming to represent the SAME country. The 2 Koreas and Chinas are also 2 governments, but they are treated as if they were two states because there is a long term de facto situation in their cases. --maxval (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • "I don't believe I've seen a good explanation yet of the difference between "two governments" and "two states"." We don't need it. The two Chinas and the two Koreas are described as separate states in multiple sources. I still have to see one mentioning a state of "East Libya". This is a case of some users trying to impose their original research on the page. Ladril (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        • So the functional difference between a state and a government is when someone newsworthy refers to it as a state instead of a government? No definition, just relying on some diplomat to take the plunge? (Yes, yes, I know, verifiability, not truth, etc., but I just want to be absolutely clear it's not a definition issue but rather a issue of pure "no one has said it is yet") At the very least, it deserves a mention in the text, since obviously multiple people are confused about the matter, in the 'excluded entities'. There are, as far as I can tell, only two partially recognized governments in the world today that aren't mentioned in this article anywhere, and they should be. There's the blanket "civil war" one, but so far as I can tell that applies solely to Libya. (Cote d'Ivoire's civil war was both short-lived and didn't involve int'l recognition) If that's the case, we can write out its name and give a little specific context. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"So the functional difference between a state and a government is when someone newsworthy refers to it as a state instead of a government?". The argument is not about "functional difference". The analogy or parallel some users see between the Libya situation and the cases of China or Korea must be made by analysts external to Wikipedia. It's not our role to be journalists or political scientists here. A news report saying "the rebels have declared a new state" would usually be enough as a starting point, but we do not have even this. If outside analysts - who are able to analyze the complexities of the Libya situation - agree with the view espoused by the original poster, then this view will be included in the encyclopedia in relation to its prominence in the relevant literature. The functional differences or similarities between the cases are beyond what our editorial faculties here allow us to dictamine.

The difference between "recognition of states" and "recognition of governments" is indeed covered by political theory books. See for example the Handbook of International Law by Anthony Aust. Ladril (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"There's the blanket "civil war" one, but so far as I can tell that applies solely to Libya. (Cote d'Ivoire's civil war was both short-lived and didn't involve int'l recognition)"

In this case, what is being recognized by other countries is a "representative entity", not a different government. This is similar to the recognition some countries - such as Israel - afford to the PLO, without recognizing it as a state. The insistence on adding this to the page would mean we would have to consider if entities like the PLO also deserve mention on a list of states. I suggest this is at a further remove even from the Order of Malta. Ladril (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seborga

Although it is generally treated as a joke, the Principality of Seborga may have at least limited recognition, with this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article6943215.ece stating in one section that Burkina Faso has opened a consulate. 24.16.251.170 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly backed up at [2]. --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions of the Principality of Seborga...? According to the criteria, if there's hard evidence that it's been recognised as a sovereign state by another, it should be included. But...really? Nightw 15:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are missions it has with other countries, that article makes no mention of missions other countries have with it. --Golbez (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And the Burkina one isn't on this list either. Nightw 16:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The mere opening of a consulate is not a recognition as a sovereign state. Ladril (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, the statements of independence do not sound more convincing than those people who claim Texas never joined the US or Western Australia was never federated with Australia. See [3]. Ladril (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not very convinced, but this source seems to take the case seriously: [4]. Ladril (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And another one by the interested party: [5]. Ladril (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening a consulate can be recognition of a soveriegn state so long as the consular agent is formally accredited by the government to which his home country has sent him to be and agent. Officially recognizing an embassador or consular agent is one manner of extending diplomatic recognition to a country, and indeed in the past it was the most common way of establishing recognition with other states.XavierGreen (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hong Kong received a lot of consulates. To my knowledge, none of them implied recognition as a separate state. Ladril (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How many consulates are in hong kong is irrelevent, what would be relevent is if Hong Kong maintained an independent non-PRC consulate in a third country and that country accredited that consular official. For example there are many consulates in New York, but New York does not have any accredited consulates overseas.XavierGreen (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. You are correct. Ladril (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands recognized as a state by Japan

[[6]] Ladril (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[[7]] Ladril (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For me too. sephia karta | dimmi 12:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So, three for three... who will add it? :) --Golbez (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Who are they not recognised by now? Just South Korea? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, we should involve the editors of List of sovereign states, WP: Wikiproject Countries, Dependent territory and Associated state before taking the step of creating new entries for the Cook Islands. Ladril (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a reaction from Wellington, which seems strange. I was living in New Zealand at the time this recognition was granted, and I don't remember it getting any press at all. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand considers the Cook Islands to be a separate state, so they do not "react" to its diplomatic relations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand lists happily the international activities of the two associated states. Ladril (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

About the Realm of New Zealand [8]. Ladril (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

Bit early I know, but should it be added when the time comes? Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

When the time comes, I highly doubt it will have limited recognition, as even the state it is declaring independence from has stated they will recognise it, in fact, they've stated they will recognise it first. If a country explicitly withholds recognition, then it can be added. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Every state has limited recognition for at least a while, if and when Sudan recognizes it most recognitions will follow.XavierGreen (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 2 prev cmmts. When that happens we will add. Outback the koala (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Chipmunkdavis.

XavierGreen, not every state has limited recognition. We can't treat "non-controversial" cases such as Timor-Leste, Montenegro, South Sudan like Kosovo, Cyprus, Israel, China, etc. If a country explicitly withholds recognition of South Sudan, then it can be added. If some countries simply 'doesn't bother' or 'doesn't have diplomatic resources' to pay attention/issue formal declaration of recognition (do you expect Nauru, Palau, Bhutan, etc. to issue a formal declaration about recognition of South Sudan in the following 5 years?) - this doesn't warrant adding it. Alinor (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Every state has limited recognition at some point, unless you have verifiable proof that a state has been recognized or the diplomatic equivilant of recognition (an exchange of embassadors/un general assembly admission) than saying that a state is recognized without any evidence is untenable.XavierGreen (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but these 'do not bother/not enough diplomatic resources' cases are not included in the article - see the first two sentences of the Background section. Otherwise we have to include almost all states. Nobody is saying "Nauru is recognized by Bhutan" - this simply isn't covered by this list. Alinor (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan may indeed have trouble obtaining recognition from Sudan, according to this source: [9]. Ladril (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yay, politics! When that article said a week before independence would be announced, I assume they meant the announcement of the date of independence, not independence itself? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

April 28, 2011 (the date of the note) was ten weeks before independence is due to be announced. Ladril (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It may then have to be added to this list. I think if the south does declare independence, and this is unrecognised by the North (for whatever reason), it is added at that point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course if North denies recognition to the South, then it has to be added. But the source says "if the southern government tried to annex the contested territory of Abyei" - currently this is unknown, so let's wait and see. Alinor (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what Chip already said. Ladril (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah alinor but Nauru is recognized by bhutan through the vote on nauru's admission to the general assembly. They treat each other as equals diplomatically. Until a country has some manner of diplomatic relations with a state, those statess dont recognize each other. South Sudan and any other new non-un country should be added until they are recognized by all states or are admitted into the United Nations.XavierGreen (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nauru hasn't voted on Bhutan UN membership since it joined later. We don't know whether Nauru does recognize Bhutan. In any case we don't have vote breakdowns for each of the membership votes - so we don't know whether particular country has voted "for" or "against". Also, voting for admission to the UN isn't 'directly' related to recognition as independent sovereign state - we have the examples of India, Belarus, Ukraine, Philippines, New Zealand. Also, joining the UN doesn't mean that all UN members recognize the new member or that the new member recognizes all previous members (e.g. Libya joining after Israel, North Korea joining after Japan, etc.)

And no, UN membership is not a "gatekeeper of diplomatic recognition as State", condition, requirement or proof of that. There are plenty examples of states that weren't or still aren't UN members who nevertheless were or still are recognized as State by the international community. Bhutan, Switzerland, Holy See, Cook Islands, Japan, Nauru are some of these. Alinor (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations is akin to recognition and is treated as such by the United States State Department. As for UN admission votes, they are indeed published by the UN and can be found for every state. The reason you wont find lists for most is because virtually every state that has been admitted has been admitted by acclamation (no state voted no).XavierGreen (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Green : countries that have announced their intention to recognise Southern Sudan (yellow) after it formally declares independence in July. Red : countries opposing independence.

I found this on the page for Southern Sudan. if the map is correct and Libya nad Iran withold recognition, I see no reason not to add it (in two days). Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What's really going to boggle us is: What if Tripoli doesn't recognize it, but Benghazi does? :) --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That map is bollocks. None of the "red" states have officially stated they will not recognize the new state. The sources do not say that. Besides, Gadaffi has other things to worry about. Ladril (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan needs to be included, it does not have formal recognition from all countries. Indeed as of right now its formal recognizors are rather few. The state fits the criteria for inclusion, and a states age should not have anything to do with its status on the page. Nonrecognition is nonrecognition, only diplomatic activity between states (a treaty for example), acceditation of diplomatic officials, or a formal statement of recognition constitute diplomatic recognition under political theory.XavierGreen (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that states do not go into this page unless they are actively disputed. Could somebody else correct me or explain the criteria to Xavier? I'm kind of losing patience with having to revert repeatedly every time somebody around the globe makes a body noise. Ladril (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you even read the article itself? It states that the one section is for non-UN states that are only partially recognized. Currently only a few dozen states recognize South Sudan.XavierGreen (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only read, but written and rewritten practically in its entirety. Ladril (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So why Vatican City is not in this list? Vatican City is not a member of UN, and we haven't confirmation of recognition by few countries (PR China, Afghanistan, Nauru and so on). Aotearoa (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Holy See and Nauru established diplomatic ties on 1 June 1992. See here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_20010123_holy-see-relations_en.html. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Map needs to be updated

The map needs to be updated to reflect the new borders of Sudan. Mtminchi08 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I think. Clear your cache and then tell me. Nightw 19:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If the change in the categories for UN member states is accepted the map should include a new category for the UN member states unrecognized only by non-UN members (China). But I know not like edit the map.--88.8.20.34 (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It won't be, because the PRC is, as the article clearly states, not recognised by 22 UN members. Nightw 06:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are not right. The article tell: "The PRC does not accept diplomatic relations with states that recognise the ROC (currently 22 UN member states and the Holy See)." That mean is the People's Republic of China who accept not diplomatic relations with the 22 countries. That mean not the 22 countries recognize not the People's Republic of China. The article tell more: "The People's Republic of China (PRC), proclaimed in 1949, is currently not recognised by one UN non-member, the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan)." I think the change proposed was rigth.--88.8.20.34 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the next sentence? Directly after the first one you quoted...? Nightw 04:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The map should be updated to include the borders of the unrecognised states. The territory that both Nagorno Karabakh and Somaliland control is different to that which they claim. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The change between what the NKR claims and what the NKR controls would be a total of about five pixels, and I challenge you to tell me which five it would be. --Golbez (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Montenegro

Again added to the article, previous discussion [10]. There was no explicit statement of non-recognition, with the proclamation of the have been established with 144 states, I dont see point to adding to the article Montenegro while the sources of non-recognition will not be--analitic114 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, the site of Montenegro Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the last update was not updated (so you do not recognize the 48 states, with possible further recognition of the independence of Montenegro and establish diplomatic relations because of the too young age of the State (5 years)--analitic114 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a problem here.

• If we include Montenegro, we're tasking ourselves with having to scour every country and find out which are not recognized. It's possible, for example, that Tonga or Dominica or Sao Tome and Principe or what not haven't exchanged relations with some remote landlocked country.
• If we don't include Montenegro because "We're only including active non-recognitions, not passive" (as in, "I recognize someone else," or, "I don't like you so I don't recognize you," as opposed to, "Who are you again?"), then the same question must be asked of entities like Kosovo and even Somaliland - are they unrecognized by certain countries out of aggression, indifference, or ignorance?

Either way, the list is veering towards being unmanageable. We need to make a solid decision: In terms of UN members, do we include those that are partially recognized out of indifference or ignorance, or only those who specify "We do not recognize you"? (for non-UN members I'm fine with including indifference, since for those it's the # that recognize that's more important than the # that don't) --Golbez (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should only include those facing at least one explicit denial of recognition. Nightw 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem may be semantics. What does "state with limited recognition" exactly mean? Is the category supported by outside literature? Does the categorization help or confuse the reader? Can another alternative work better? Ladril (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are giving the key. I think the article should include all the cases between UN members. To exclude some cases is like include some bias in the article. I think the article is very good looking to the non-UN members, but less good looking to the UN members.--88.9.92.150 (talk) 06:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on Cook Islands and Niue

RFC opened on their status here: [[11]]. Editors are invited to participate. Ladril (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Including criteria

As evidenced by the independence of South Sudan every newly independent country has limited recognition for a while, because some governments are not quick enough to recognize it or just don't care, because there is no legal necessity for or immediate legal effects depending on formal recognition. However, this is clearly a different case like with countries that don't enjoy undisputed recognition, because some other countries [b]explicitly withhold recognition[/b]. If we want to include South Sudan, we should at least have a separate category for cases like this. 85.180.31.9 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article more carefully again, it says “Some states do not establish relations with new nations quickly and thus do not recognise them despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations. These are excluded from the list.” So I remove South Sudan, unless there is evidence that at least one country actively disputes her recognition. Sorry, for the mess! 85.180.31.9 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the length of a states existance should have little to do with its criteria for inclusion on the page. For example how new does a state have to be to be included, 4 hours? 4 days? 4 years? 40 years? Political theory is clear on the matter, states have limited recognition if they are not recognized by another state no matter how long that state has existed for or the reason for nonrecognition (whether it be trivial or not).XavierGreen (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So should we add every state which South Sudan has yet to recognize to this list? TDL (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not true. “Recognition” in the context of states means that the recognizing state considers the recognized state to fulfill the criteria for statehood in the context of diplomacy and international relations. But even though it has become common to issue declarations of recognition, it is by no means necessary. Nor does it have any legal effects itself, it is no more that a statement of the opinion of the recognising state on the legal status of the recognised state. However, when a state does not issue such a statement, it does not mean, that they don't recognize the state, just that they haven't publicly stated that they do. They can show their recognition by other means, e.g. by establishing diplomatic relations, or they can do nothing until the new state becomes relevant to their affairs. In controversial cases, which this page is really about, the non-recognising states make it obvious, either explicitly or implicitly, that they don't recognise the state. However, unless you can show that any state has shown that they do not intend to recognize South Sudan, it is a non-controversial case and just because not every state has stated that they do recognize it, does in no way mean, that any state does not recognize it. Furthermore, as I said above, the including criteria in the article itself explicitly exclude cases like South Sudan, please refrain from inserting it again. Thank you! 85.180.22.224 (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that only those coutries should be included that are explicitly NON recognized by other countries. South Sudan needs tyo be included only in the case when there appears any country that explicitly doesnt recognize it. --maxval (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition is only confered through diplomatic activity with another state (accrediting an ambassador, concluding a treaty, signing a formal document of recognition). To say that it has no legal effects is rediculous and shows that you have little understanding of international relations. A non-recognized country does not legally exist in the eyes of a state. Its passports and other diplomatic documents are worthless. For example if i hold a South Sudanese passport and try to gain admission into a state thats doesnt recognize it, more likely than not i would be refused admission into that state. Citizens of unrecognized countries do not have the leisure of calling on a consular agent if they are arrested in a foreign state that does not recognizee them, nor do they have any of the protections that their state might offer. Asking to prove non-recognition is asking for a negative proof. Recognition requires proof, not non-recognition as non-recognition is default upon the creation of a new state. For example, the united states does not recognize Seaborga, but you wont be able to find a document stating so. Similarly the United States does not recognize the Republic of Cabinda, but you wont find any official documentation stating that they do not. Often times states will simply ignore states they do not wish to recognize to avoid giving them legitimacy.XavierGreen (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"A non-recognized country does not legally exist in the eyes of a state. " No, actually 85.180.22.224 is quite correct. There are states that have a policy of not making direct statements of recognition, and the declaration of a "Republic of Cabinda" means nothing if no other state recognizes it and it does not exercise state powers over any territory. I won't regurgitate the rest because the other user already explained it very well. Ladril (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As i have stated above mutliple times, a direct statement of recognition is not needed in international relations to confer recognition. Accrediting a states ambassador/consular official used to be the standard method of giving a state recognition. Signing a treaty on equal terms with a nation also confers recogntion. If a state has done none of these things, then it does not recognize the other state as a peer in international relations and therefore that un-recognized state does not exist in their eyes. Just because a state exists in actuality does not mean that it exists in the eyes of another state. By not including states like South Sudan the list becomes biased and incomplete.XavierGreen (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"If a state has done none of these things, then it does not recognize the other state as a peer in international relations and therefore that un-recognized state does not exist in their eyes" - Xavier, this is a logical fallacy. Please see denying the antecedent. You've taken a true statement ("formal diplomatic recognition => believe state exists") and assumed the converse ("no formal recognition => believe state doesn't exist") is also true. Just because a state hasn't told us that they recognize South Sudan doesn't mean they think it doesn't exist.

I'd point out again that if you're arguing that South Sudan should be included because they haven't initiated diplomatic relations with 100+ states, then we'd have to add all those 100+ states which don't have diplomatic relations with South Sudan to our list for the same reason. TDL (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if your going to go that route, we already dont include the 200 or so states that dont have relations with Trannistria and Somaliland. You seem to have misunderstood what i said there is no inverse error. A state that is not recognized by another state does not exist as a soveriegn peer in the eyes of other states that do not recognize it. I would love for you to show me a reliable book on international relations that proves otherwise.XavierGreen (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Served. [12] Ladril (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you could give me a page number, the version i am seeing gives no preview to the book. (Google Books gives different previews according to location).XavierGreen (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Ladril meant page 82 onwards, it's what my preview begins at and it is about recognition. Useful note in this book that recognition of a state and of a government are different, thus hopefully helping with the Libya decision. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP and Ladril in this case. South Sudan should not be included at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I too concur, just wait for a while until a source proves that at least a nation has not recognized it for a given reason (if that ever happens).That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for the moment the issue is moot with the South Sudan admission vote at the UN having no opposition all the UN states defacto (or dejure if your of like opinion as me) recognize South Sudan as a soveriegn peer in international relations. The problem still stands of defining what exactly a new state is, i.e. 2 days, 2 months, 2 years etc.XavierGreen (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

But if we take the admission in the UN as de facto recognition we should think the same about Pakistan-Armenia and the rest of cases between UN members, not?--88.8.20.34 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, that this list should only include countries whose statehood is explicitly not recognized by any other countries, because, as I said before (sorry for the changing IPs btw), just because other countries do not explicitly state their recognition, or establish diplomatic relations, or have any contact at all, with a new state, does not automatically imply, that they do not recognize it. 85.180.23.39 (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you intend to commit to constant participation, creating an account would be a good idea. I too hated it when people first suggested it, but it gives very little hassle and makes your Wikilife a lot easier. Ladril (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand not the reasons for excluding of the lists some cases like Liechtenstein, South Sudan, Montenegro,...--88.8.20.34 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not included as no state disputes their independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Armenia? Pakistan really disputes the independence of Armenia?--83.61.104.198 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Outback the koala (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

one very difficult item to find a citation for...

"Israel, independent since 1948, is not recognised by 21 UN members and one UN non-member, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic"

This is currently the only "citation needed" in this article. I have tried to find a source for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's non-recognition of Israel. No success as of yet. Any suggestions or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try if I get time. Try searching in French and Arabic. Nightw 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis' revert

Chipmunkdavis, why have you reverted here [13] when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." [14] That much is obvious from a Wikipedia article on Diplomatic recognition. Here's more:

• Professor of International Law at the University of Leicester Malcolm Shaw [15]
• Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Boleslaw Adam Boczek [16]
• United States Naval War College and UC Berkeley Professor Hans Kelsen, who "is considered one of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and has been highly influential among scholars of jurisprudence and public law" [17]
• Dr. Mohammed Bedjaoui [18]
• judge Nurullah Yamali [19]
• Indian jurist S. K. Verma [20]

As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source was a forum thread. Enough said, really. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What "forum" thread? What are you talking about? Please kindly read the above sources that prove the so-called "oxymoron" of de facto recognition vs. de jure recognition true and correct. Please revert yourself in the article back to my version. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the reference I gave in the article comment section [21] was of an article from Arminfo news agency [22], that was simply archived on a forum.[23] I did not use it in bibliography, only in the comment section to show that the information in the article was incorrect. If you'd checked, you would have found the original article on its news agency website.

Also, the incorrect information that I changed - and which you restored - relies on a article from a forum site [24] - why aren't you removing and reverting that? It would be better if you carefully study the sources provided, and then revert yourself as you've obviously been in haste when you made a revert. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you for providing a good source. If you expect me to somehow realise that a single post on Vbulletin powered page was from a news agency, I must disappoint you I'm afraid. Why didn't you just use the news article in your edit summary? As for the current source, I don't speak or read Armenian in the slightest, so I have no idea how reliable it is. At any rate, I still don't think the de facto is necessary. The four unrecogised former Soviet states have met many times trying to align their foreign policies and give each other mutual recognition. Your article simply asserts that they do recognise each other even without diplomatic relations, which is of course a normal thing. To use a term like de facto recognition to say they don't have actual recognition I'd want a better source. Anyway, apparently that whole letter made a big fuss in the caucasus, here is an interesting if very biased Georgian paper. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You could have asked me first, if anything was not clear. In future, I will provide the original link if possible, however, Wikipedia does not require that unless it's asked by other editors in a courteous way (i.e., not in a manner of a revert). At any rate, you don't need to speak or read Armenian - the news piece, which is in English, clearly identified the news agency, ArmInfo, and a quick Google search finds its website (which has an English option), and then from there, searching for that article finds it quickly, too. All takes less than a minute, depending on the Internet connection. Meanwhile, diplomatic recognition or de-recognition are no trivial matter, hence whether someone made a de facto recognition or de jure - matters in the world of law and politics. It is not an oxymoron. These 4 entities - not really states, but entities - are all de facto, not de jure. Even Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only partially de jure, and until they become members of at least one serious international organization, no one will take them seriously. That's why it's important to make that distinction. All these top scholars and sources I've provided say all this in unison, and we must follow them, as they are reliable and verifiable sources - Wikipedia's requirement. Thank you for editing this page, looking forward to collaborating with you in the future. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources for information put in the article, and all editors are perfectly in their right to revert. The armenian was for the other source ou mentioned was also a forum. I didn't know ArmInfo was a newspaper, I thought it was information for Armenians, which made sense as it was on an Armenian forum. The scholarly sources you provided simply used the phrase, not applied it in this context, and were much clearer about what they meant by the phrase. It seems unlikely that the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations do not recognise each other. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think NKR should be removed from those entries completely. There is clearly a considerable level of recognition—if not fully official. A footnote perhaps? Nightw 06:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

http://transparency.ge/ and Vanuatu's recognition of Abkhazia

I think that Georgian sources are not really reliable in such issues. I think that Vanuatu Daily post is much more reliable than any of the Georgian sources. Please, use this source http://www.dailypost.vu/sites/default/files/Issue%203293.pdf instead of transparency.ge. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no "Georgian" sources used, at least by me (since when is Transparency International a Georgian organization?). Secondly, Georgian source is at least as reliable as any Abkhaz source (which are cited, by the way). Thirdly, Transparency International is a very authoritative and reliable organization, and their Vanuatu office's email and phone information are available for verification. So the source [25], which is a full and comprehensive analysis of Vanuatu's position made by a Vanuatu citizen for an authoritative Western organization in August (not July or June like your sources) is definitely more reliable and authoritative. It complies with all Wikipedia rules on reliable and verifiable sources. Finally, your source is from July 14, and it cites the Foreign Minister - not the Prime Minister or the Supreme Court, who are much higher authorities and always speak for the government (unlike an FM, who speaks for the government only when he is authorized by the government to do so). Please don't remove these sources and don't change the article to incorrect information. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign minister of Vanuatu is definitely more reliable than Transparancy international (Georgian division: Transparency international Georgia) in the issues of Foreign policy of Vanuatu. It is obvious for all users except you. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, a foreign minister that said smth in mid-July 2011 is less reliable than an independent Western organization wrote in August 2011. The "Georgian division" does not change the fact that TI is a Western organization, not Georgian, and the report was written by a Vanuatu Division of TI, whose name and email is in the report in case you want to verify. This is very obvious. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As the website will show, it's Georgian; it's based in Georgia, staffed by Georgians, written by Georgians. That's pretty Georgian. The foreign ministry published a statement (with quotes) from the minister on the government's website confirming recognition. As a quick Google search will show on the recent recognition by Tuvalu, the "most recent sources from an independent organisation" show that Vanuatu has indeed recognised Abkhazia. Nightw 07:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The TI is not a Georgian organization (although has an office in Georgia) and the author of the lengthy analysis is not Georgian (the author is from Vanuatu, actually). If we don't want anything "Georgian" on this page, then let's apply the same exact standards to all other parties of the conflict - Abkhazia and Russia, for starters. Lastly, all independent media clearly are very cautious: RFERL states "reportedly" [26] and Eurasia.net uses "allegedly" [27] That's what a quick Google search revealed. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does the TI overview contradict the (well-sourced) fact that after PM Kilman was re-instated, his government re-confirmed the recogition of Abkhazia? sephia karta | dimmi 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the TI's analysis and conclusion? Aside from the Supreme Court being "supreme", have you noted this: "Finally, on 26th July, the Nagriamel President announced that he, “ wishes to make it publicly known that Titam Goiset has no legal mandate to represent the Nagriamel Movement in any dealings or negotiations with the current Government to appoint herself to any foreign missions such as Russia or Abkhazia.” (Vanuatu Daily Post, No 3303, Tuesday 26th July 2011, frontpage and page 4.) The Nagriamel statement also declared that, “Any appointments as such would be solely in Miss Goiset’s own personal interests and capacity.”" Here's the original newspaper issue [28] So clearly, there is a dispute within the Vanuatu government and political movements, and thus, Vanuatu cannot be considered to be in the same league as other countries that have really recognized Abkhazia. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What is "Nagriamel President" and "Nagriamel Movement"??? I think that it is absolutely irrelevant to this article. We are speaking about Republic of Vanuatu - not about this movements. Transparency International, Nagriamel Movement and so on have no relevancy to this article. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh, so again, how does this contradict the fact that the government re-confirmed recognition of Abkhazia? Your quote is from a dispute between two people (Patunvanu and Goiset) who claim to be the president of the Nagriamel movement, which is about traditional leadership. ...nothing to do with the government. You seem to be drawing your own conclusions from this piece. All this shows is that there is a (very minor) political party in a leadership dispute whose claimants are disputing each other's actions. Nightw 09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When and where did the government of Vanuatu "reconfirm" its recognition of Abkhazia? We only have the FM saying that in June and July, that's all. Nothing since then. The "government", which is President, PM and Vice PMs, have not said anything to my knowledge. The article posted on their website is from June and is once again citing the FM. Considering how fast things change in Vanuatu, anything can happen and can be expected. But in Wikipedia, we are supposed to move carefully, after all sources have been studied, verified and researched. As the UN General Assembly is in session right now, with all diplomats meeting, I think we will have clarity in the coming days. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the government is the cabinet, composed of the prime minister and his council of ministers (including the foreign minister). Find a government source that contradicts the statement by the foreign ministry, or leave it be. Right now, you have three editors disagreeing with you and even the source you've provided doesn't say what you want it to. If you can't find a source that does, but still feel strongly about it, you can take the matter to a content noticeboard. Nightw 10:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the foreign minister gave a reconfirmation that's pretty solid. In addition, recent sources discussing Tuvalu note relations exist with five other countries, sometimes explicitly naming Vanuatu. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The FM is not the Prime Minister or President of Vanuatu. And he reconfirmed it several months ago, with no additional news. Considering how many things have happened since then, and how fast things change in Vanuatu itself, a confirmation from an FM from July is not 100% proof. However, since there are no disputes from other Vanuatu officials up to this point, I guess it makes sense to add Vanuatu to the list of nations that recognized Abkhazia. Vanuatu is supposed to speak at the UN GA next week, maybe there will be more clarity there from its delegation to the UN. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

term "claims"

The term "claims" is imprecise and is not NPOV. When saying that the so and so state "claims" the self-proclaimed unrecognized entity, it is important to note that it is not just "claiming" it - anyone can claim anything - but has UN and other resolutions on its side. It's one thing that so and so claims or considers some territory as its own, and it's a totally different thing when so and so is recognized to have the unrecognized entity as its de jure part. The article would greatly benefit from this clarification for many of the entries listed there. --108.18.9.130 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

UN resolution or not, they claim it, which is all we need for the dispute column. Including UN resolutions for every entry would greatly expand the extents of the relevant entities, so it may have to be done on a case by case basis. Any specific suggestions? We do provide wikilinks for further examination. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the user is raising a valid question - that of terminology. In an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, we have to be precise and correct. Indeed, a UN-recognized member nation cannot "claim" something that already belongs to it - that would appear to be a real oxymoron. It is the successionist entities that "claim" independence, but not the other way around. Since this page makes special references to the UN and makes careful distinctions between UN-members and non-UN members, and other such legally-important issues and nuances, it would indeed make more sense to re-word such writings to bring them into compliance with common sense, logic and international law. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no objections and no evidence of current terminology used being proper and correct, I move to change those headings and descriptions to bring them into compliance with international law and practice, as well as with that of UN. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

...As long as you're not bolding the text against style conventions. Nightw 06:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The very reason why there is an article like this is because there is a conflict in international law as to whether the entities listed on this page are independent states or not. It is therefore quite appropriate to talk of claims here, since we cannot objectively say that either side is right. sephia karta | dimmi 06:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not correct - there is no conflict in international law, as international law has always recognized the difference between de jure and de facto entities. So what "conflict" do you mean? Likewise, this article, being an encyclopedia article, relies only on authoritative and reliable sources, not on self-published sources or other personal, non-scholarly, unacademic, etc., sources (which are prohibited in Wikipedia). Neither is this a place for any fringe theories. This is a serious article about a serious legal issue(s), and should be treated as such. When the article as well as the international law discern between de facto and de jure, we have to properly note that everywhere as needed. Also, UN Security Council and the international community cannot "claim" a territory/land/region by definition. They can only issue a decision - whom do they recognize as the rightful owner, de jure, of that land. That's the law, and that's the international practice - I understand you might now like it, but that's how it is, and we should abide by these rules, which none of us here invented or authored. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What is 'not correct'? That there is a conflict in international law? Some states (as indicated) think that these entities are independent states. The others disagree. That is a conflict in international law. As for international organisations, recognition is a prerogative of sovereign states. sephia karta | dimmi 08:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

you clearly misunderstand terminology. Once again, there is no conflict in international law, as both principles co-exist without problem, whether de jure vs. de facto, or some states recognizing another state vs. not recognizing. So the "conflict" is made up by states, or rather, governments, but not by the international law or international legal system. Thus, let's pay attention to terminology and be very careful in its usage and application. Same goes for "claims" - it is Abkhazia that claims it is independent, not Georgia that claims it. Georgian "claim" is recognized by UN SC (highest authority in international law, which can actually create/make international law) and overwhelming majority of sovereign nation-states. So the burden of proof and "claims" are on the unrecognized and semi-recognized de facto entities which are not UN members, not on the fully recognized sovereign nation-states that also happen to be UN members. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to ignore my point: How is it not a legal conflict if some parties consider these entities legally independent states and others don't? sephia karta | dimmi 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you had a point, then please elaborate on it. Who considers which states legally independent and others not? More importantly, once again, where is the "a conflict in international law" which you alleged? --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo is considered to be legally independent e.g. by Germany, Albania, the U.S., but not by e.g. Spain or Serbia. Northern Cyprus is considered to be legally independent by Turkey, but not by India, Greece or China. Abkhazia is considered to be legally independent by Nicaragua, Tuvalu and Russia, but not by Poland, Belgium or Georgia. sephia karta | dimmi 09:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

and once again, where's the "conflict in international law"? What you've shown is conflicting views between sovereign nation-states, but there is no conflict in international law. The international law and system recognizes the difference between a sovereign nation-state that has de jure recognition from all or majority of other such nation-states, and between some de facto entity that is vying for recognition. I've listed a ton of references to top legal scholars who underline that the international law sees a difference between de facto and de jure recognitions. So there is no "conflict in international law". --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the difference between de facto and de jure recognition, which is irrelevant here. All these states recognise Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, etc. de jure. According to Germany, Kosovo is an independendent state in international law, according to Spain it is not. They have different views of the international legal situation here. That is the conflict I am talking about. sephia karta | dimmi 16:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They can have different views, that's normal, but there is no conflict in international law. There is a conflict in views between different nations, but it's a prerogative of a nation-state to either extend a recognition or not. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Call it a conflict or not, the point is that the different actors have a different view of the international legal situation. We cannot choose sides, so calling the two points of view claims is not inappropriate. sephia karta | dimmi 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "we cannot choose sides" - in some things, of course we can, as we must go with the legal and most authoritative side throughout our lives, as well as online, on Wikipedia. If someone bombs your house, he/she is a criminal, there is no second way of looking at it. If someone surfs the Internet and downloads underage porn, he/she is a criminal, no second way of classifying that. If police asks your help, you cooperate. If an enemy attacks your country, you can be called to defend it by your armed forces. You abide by laws every single day, every hour, every second. Wikipedia abides by laws, too, specifically, by U.S. laws, by the laws of the State of Florida - so please keep that in mind. In of international law, it is made by the UN Security Council, so you and all abide by that. Thus, if the UN SC has stated something, has taken a position on the issue, then anyone who says the opposite claims so. But sometimes, the UN SC has not taken a position, and in that case it's more complicated, we have to look at a wider number of sources, and perhaps even assign the same level of trust and weight to both sides' claims/positions. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

By 'we cannot choose sides', I mean WP:NPOV. I don't know where you got the idea that the UN Security Council is the ultimate arbiter of international law - it is most decidedly not. It is a political body, and its statements reflect the political opinions of its members, especially its permanent members. (If anyone, international courts are the arbiters of international law.) In any case, Wikipedia is not obliged to 'abide by the law', as you put it. Instead, by WP:NPOV, if there is a conflict of opinions, we are not to choose sides, but represent both sides fairly. I think it is abundantly clear that there is a conflict of opinions as to whether the entities listed in this article are legally independent states or not. sephia karta | dimmi 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Vanuatu speaks at UN General Assembly - nothing on Abkhazia recognition

So the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, who is the head of the cabinet and the most powerful politician in the country, spoke at the UN General Assembly. While he mentioned Timor Leste and South Sudan twice, there is no mentioning of recognition of Abkhazia. It's very telling, because South Sudan became a UN member July 14, 2011 - same date as the Foreign Minister of Vanuatu unilaterally recognized Abkhazia - whilst Timor Leste became a UN member in 2002. Here's what he said in this context:

• "Mr, President,

I would also like to profit from this occasion to congratulate the Government and People of the Republic of South Sudan on the birth of their new nation on 9th July this year. Vanuatu recognises the sovereignty of South Sudan and offers the young nation our full support."

• "Let me at this juncture acknowledge the work of the peace keeping and nation

building missions of the UN in supporting new countries like Timor Leste, South Sudan, and others in their nation building."

So he mentioned these two nations, one of which declared independence and got recognition exactly around the same time as Abkhazia, but did not mention Abkhazia. Now, he didn't deny anything either, keeping it deliberately ambiguous, to maximize on benefits being offered by Russia and Georgia, but still, it's quite telling: so far, there is no full recognition of Abkhazia by Vanuatu. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Him not mentioning it isn't proof of non recognition. Perhaps he only wanted to mention UN member states? Perhaps he didn't want uselessly create a giant controversy (or several more colourful descriptors) over a political point that was rather irrelevant to him? He wasn't there to speak about Abkhazia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did write "Now, he didn't deny anything either, keeping it deliberately ambiguous, to maximize on benefits being offered by Russia and Georgia, but still, it's quite telling: so far, there is no full recognition of Abkhazia by Vanuatu", so I didn't say its definitive proof. Meanwhile, he was in the UN GA to talk about all the issues concerning his country and the international community. The fact that he talked, unprovoked, about Timor Leste and South Sudan, means he was ready to talk about new states. Most others didn't talk about these nations (I've listened to several speeches, none said, but of course, there are 193 (well, 190) member-states, I can't listen to them all). And of course Abkhazia is not irrelevant to him - as you can see from the TI analysis, it caused problems domestically in Vanuatu, with Supreme Court case, an Ambassador recalled, a whole government fired, then making a come back, etc. Anyways, this just proves the point that it's kept deliberately ambiguous by Vanuatu government. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Caucasus Emirate

How come the Caucasus Emirate shouldn't be included, seeing as it is trying hard to drive Russian forces out of the area and is the direct successor of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, it fails the definition of state (for this page at least). It does not have de facto control (political, military, economic, etc.) over a recognized area of land. Fighting against Russia and simply 'declaring' oneself an Emirate does not make it a state. Secondly, it does not have any recognition (as an independent sovereign state) from established states, or even states with limited recognition. Finally, (to head off comparisons with Somalialand, which is an entirely different case), it does not have foreign relations, in any form, with any sovereign states or governments. In fact its listed as a terrorist organization by both the US and Russia, which severely limits its ability to pursue any diplomatic relations with anyone.

There are lists that it belongs on in Wikipedia (such as List of active separatist movements in Asia and labelled as an insurgency) but not on this particular list. Ravendrop 23:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Governments with limited recognition versus states with limited recognition

I came across this article my accident. I studied and taught international law for nearly 50 years. After only skimming over it, I want to point out an egregious error in the article. You are confusing two different things. There is the issue of recognizing a particular state, and then there is the issue of recognizing a particular GOVERNMENT. In the case of China, for example, no state refuses to recognize it. But some governments/states--including the US for decades--refused to recognize the Communist government and instead continued to recognize the KMT government in Taipeh as the government of China. In other cases (e.g., the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus), it is the de facto state itself that is generally not recognized. I know this may seem like a technicality, but the whole matter is of a technical sort, and this needs to be corrected. Sorry to be so abrupt, but old teaching habits die hard. Eleanor1944 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Taiwan is the exception to the general rule in this article. The issues is it's hard to accurately deal with it, it being so unique. Some states have in the past tried to recognise both as separate states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My point, though, is that (as far as I know) no government refuses to recognize the state of China. It's a matter of whether to recognize the present government in Beijing. The distinction between recognizing a state and recognizing a government is fundamental. Yes, Taiwan is a special case, as it does not dare claim to be a separate state despite its de facto separate status. How can any government formally recognize it if it does not declare itself a state? Aside from China, I don't remember any problem with the list of "unrecognized states."Eleanor1944 (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We have the Republic of China, historically purporting to represent the whole of China but in reality is one island. And then we have another state, the People's Republic of China, that historically purports to represent the whole of China, but in reality is everything but one island. If you ignore the anachronistic claiming of owning the other side, and there's really no reason not to, then we really are dealing with two separate states, rather than two competing governments for the same area a la Jamahiriya vs Libyan Republic. --Golbez (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Eleanor1944, you are perfectly right. China/Taiwan is a case that in reality is not an unrecognized country case, its on the list because of the special situation around this case. Many people tend not to make difference between: 1. lack of recognition of a country, 2. lack of recognition of a government, 3. lack of diplomatic relations. --maxval (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another angle that could be used to argue in favor of including Taiwan: although on paper the governments in Taipei and Beijing both claim to represent the same country, as a matter of today's policy, Taiwan is more often treated like a separate country. The government in Taipei has mostly given up on any claims to the mainland, and many countries might be happy to recognize both China and Taiwan separately if they weren't being prevented from doing so by the PRC. All that said, I have my own doubts about whether we should include Taiwan on a list like this, since as Eleanor said, "the whole matter is of a technical sort," so we have to be careful about subjectively fudging the criteria. I'm still undecided. Evzob (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I am decided, Taiwan is treated de facto by the international community as a seperate state, whether recognising it or not. In the case of the Jamahiriya, we can now say it is unlikely they control any perm. pop. territory anymore - so the point is moot. Outback the koala (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that was a current concern, I was referring to the debate during the civil war when there was a question over if we should list the Libyan Republic and the Jamahiriya separately, or note Libya as having limited recognition. China and Taiwan are two separate states, if not by admission then by reality. Their claims on the other are increasingly anachronistic. --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I also agree then. :) Outback the koala (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Libya again

OK. Upon reviewing international recognition of the National Transitional Council, it certainly appears that the generally-recognized states not recognizing the NTC--which currently number 91--fall into three categories:

1. States that do not oppose the NTC in principle, but are waiting for a better moment to establish formal relations; most likely, this either means the establishment of an elected transitional parliament/constituent assembly or the establishment of a permanent government under a new constitution. This group presumably includes most of the 25 or so states that voted in favor of accrediting the NTC at the UNGA, as well as a few abstentions and absences.
2. States which couldn't be bothered. They'll probably fall with the first group of states, eventually.
3. States which actually oppose the NTC on principle. This mostly means Gaddafi's buddies, like Venezuela, Cuba, and Zimbabwe. These states are unlikely to recognize the NTC even once a permanent government is established, at least not immediately. There are about five of these.

On the grounds of group number 3, I would think that we would, for consistency's sake, have to place Libya among the group of partially-unrecognized UN member states. It's not as extensive as the dispute over China, but for God's sake guys, we list Cyprus and South Korea. Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd need some very good sources saying some countries actively refuse to deal with the NTC, especially now that the previous administration is totally gone. Also, see above conversation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Several states refuse to recognise the NTC, Namibia has taken a very tough stance for example:

In March, Gurirab said he supported Gaddafi because "Africans [...] believe in existential friendship: once a friend, always a friend". In August, he said Gaddafi has lost "his vigilance on the red carpet, doing the danger dance, which doesn’t stop". On 23 August Namibian Foreign Affairs Minister Utoni Nujoma said officially, Namibia still has diplomatic relations with the Gaddafi government. On 22 September main opposition party - Rally for Democracy and Progress - recognised NTC, when the government still refused to recognise until democratic elections are held. Outback the koala (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How disappointing. Still, has there been anything since Gadaffi died? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nambia strongly condemned Gadaffi's death as the "...mindless and uncalled-for extra-judicial killing of Colonel Qaddafi" and refused to recognise the NTC still. (Calling for a UN commission to look into it) They are now calling for an "all-inclusive government in Libya" that will include all sides along with Gadaffi supporters. They also still reject the African Union's recognition of the NTC. [29] [30] Outback the koala (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, as long as these states still claim to recognize the Jamahiriya, based on past discussion Libya cannot be included. --Golbez (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

A discussion on the inclusion of Azad Kashmir is taking place here Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#Azad_Kashmir_inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Page Move

Limited Recognition includes no recognition. We should move the page back to its previous title. The move was just made without discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No recognition is a type of "limited recognition". As per WP:CRITERIA, the old titles was more conciseness and the new title is overly WP:PRECISE when no further disambiguation is required. I've moved the page back to the old title for further discussions. TDL (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lakota/Azawad

the reverts with explanation re vandalism. The same way Azawad is added based on its unilateral unrecognised declaration, Lakota has declared so and reached out to other states see that page and see declaration of independenceLihaas (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious difference between the two situations is that Azawad has de facto control over its claimed territory, while "Lakota" has no de facto control over its claimed territory. --Tocino 10:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's shocking that you can't see the difference. Azawad is based on its unilateral declaration, and the fact that it controls the area. I drove through Lakotah a few years ago and I don't recall ever seeing a sign or border crossing or any indication that I was not entirely within the jurisdiction of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed Azawad. Criteria for inclusion are very clear: "have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states, or be recognised as a state by at least one other state". Azawad has not government nor capacity to enter into relations with other states and is not recognized as a state by at least one other state. Moreover in "Excluded entities" section stetes: "Those of the current civil wars and other situations with problem over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet.". So if you want include Azawaw, firt change inclusion criteria. Aotearoa (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The claimed state has the MLNA as its government, and there is no reason to doubt it could enter into relations with other states. CMD (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Chip. Azawad agrees on the first criterion: it hasde facto control over a territory (half of Mali), a population (while it's Sahara, it's not uninhabited), a government (National_Movement_for_the_Liberation_of_Azawad), and a capacity to enter into relations with other states (via a website: http://www.mnlamov.net/). Pirodam (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Any sources for this? NMLA own web site is not reliable source, and no third-party sources confirmed that NMLA formed government of Azawad. We have only speculation at moment, and, as we know, the conflict in Mali is still in its active phase (Mali army is not defeated), some rebels parties disagrees with proclamation. So this “independent state” is only short-term episode in Mali civil war, not really unrecognized state. Aotearoa (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Malian army is quite defeated indeed (and had a coup about it). At the moment, it is a state enough to have its statehood explicitly rejected. CMD (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This is only your opinion or speculation. Any independent sources confirmed that Azawad has government, that this government controls Azawad territory or has capacity to enter into relations with other states? We have only NMLA delaration and some speculations, this is not enough to say, that Azawad is de facto state. Aotearoa (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

None of that is my speculation. "The Malian army is quite defeated indeed (and had a coup about it)." Easily backed by sources, eg. "The failure of the ill-equipped Malian army to stop the offensive in turn prompted a coup by junior officers in the capital, Bamako, on March 22." Similarly, "At the moment, it is a state enough to have its statehood explicitly rejected." The United States, Africa and Europe dismissed the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad's (MNLA's) declaration of independence. The declaration, long a goal of Tuareg rebels, is a bid to formalise the situation on the ground. A democratic success since its last coup 21 years ago, Mali is now roughly divided into a Tuareg rebel-controlled north and junta-controlled south.. CMD (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

China

China should not be in this section because it is not a state with limited recognition. All other states in the world recognize China as a state. What some states do not recognize is the government of the PRC as the government of China. This does not mean that they do not recognize the state, only the government...

Precedent on this talk page might agree with you. However, there's the extra wrinkle in that the ROC and PRC claim different areas, they aren't merely just claimants to the same state with the same borders, like you had with the Jamahiriya vs Libyan Republic. --Golbez (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we would have eventually had to include the Jamahiriya and the Libyan Republic, if the situation had stabilised. After all, if we abstract away from recognition, a state is defined on purely empirical grounds, encoded famously in the Montevideo Convention and the recommendations of the Badinter Commission. Abstractly, this says that a state is a triple (G,T,P), where G is a government, T, the non-trivial territory it controls, and P the non-trivial population that inhabites T. Now such a triple is uniquely determined by G alone --- in other words, a state is uniquely determined by its government, and a government uniquely determines a state as long as it controls a non-trivial piece of territory inhabited by a non-trivial population. sephia karta | dimmi 16:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Do they? My understanding was that, in theory, both the ROC and the PRC claim the whole area of China (i.e, both the Mainland and Taiwan) as theirs by right, even if the question is, in practice, in abeyance for now. john k (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The ROC claims the borders it held in 1949; the PRC's borders have since been modified. For example, officially, the ROC still claims Mongolia. Compare these maps: PRC and ROC claims. Not that the ROC's claim on Mongolia (and portions of over a half dozen other countries) are legitimate, but the fact remains, they are not claiming the exact same state. --Golbez (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past there has been at least one example of the ROC enforcing those claims, in the 1950's the ROC actually controlled some territory in present day Burma that it claims, but is not claimed by the PRC.XavierGreen (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Xavier, this example is very interesting - could you provide some links or additional information?

On the topic - I agree with sephia karta - both PRC and ROC should remain on the list (and this is discussed multiple times already). Japinderum (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some relevant details here Campaign at the China–Burma Border. The ROC continued to maintain forces in some sections of Burma it claimed as part of Yunnan Province in the 1960's while the PRC formally recognized those areas as being part of Burma.XavierGreen (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Another good example is the ROC issuing of non-resident passports, which any person born in ROC claimed territory can apply for; there have been cases of Mongolians who have been issued a non-resident ROC passport in this way. (A non-resident passport specifically does not allow the holder the right of abode in Taiwan and other island they hold however, it is only for international travel). Outback the koala (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad

Due to recent developments in the insurgency in Azawad region of Mali, it should be considered for inclusion in this list. The MNLA has captured almost all of the major cities in Northern Mali and including the three largest Timbuktu, Gao, and Kidal. They claim the entire Azawad region as a sovereign state, and now it seems they have come close to capturing all of their claimed area. If a formal government is established, the region should be added as a state with limited recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.157.241.162 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but like you say, only if/when they claim to have formed an independent state. sephia karta | dimmi 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This will probably happen any day now. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's happened, and I endorse adding it to this list. That they have de facto control over their claimed territory is not in dispute (unless you're concerned about the schism between the MNLA and Ansar Dine), and they have formally declared independence. --Golbez (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. sephia karta | dimmi 08:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why the rush? I would say to keep it out for some time per "[not listed if] the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet." Japinderum (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What would determine it done, though? The rebels say it's done. The military appears to have given up, what with the coup withdrawing. The situation with regard to Mali appears static: Azawad is de facto independent, though there may be a civil war brewing between rebel factions. Keep in mind that, at this point, if it were to cease to exist, it would definitely merit inclusion on 'list of historical unrecognized countries' along with the Confederate States, so I don't see why it shouldn't be here while it does exist. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Criteria adopted in article are clear. As Japinderum said: "[not listed if] the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet." Moreover we know that NMLA doesn’t control Azawad (some territory is under control of Ansar Dine and other groups that rejected declaration, and Mali army claimed that control some areas in north Mali). So, we have typical situation in civil war – one party takes control over some territories for same days (weeks), then other party takes control over these territories. Unrecognized state we have if this state de facto functioning as state (like Somaliland), declaration of independent is too little. Azawad doesn’t fulfill article’s criteria – without change these criteria, Azawad shouldn’t be included. Aotearoa (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That criteria is for situations like China, and was applied for Libya, where we had two effective states, but both contesting the same country. It doesn't apply to situations where one has declared independence from the other. CMD (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"It doesn't apply to situations where one has declared independence from the other", but who said that? I see nothing in criteria listed in the article about this interpretation. Criteria are general, not referred to certain selected situations only. Aotearoa (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aotearoa. My proposal is to wait some time (months) before adding it. After the dust settles the situation will be much more clear (and widely reported on). Japinderum (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I disagree with this. "Some time (months)"? We work on verifiability here. Unless you can point to a single action, or group of actions, other than "well, they haven't been invaded yet" that would qualify it to be a country rather than a rebel-held area, I don't think we should rely simply on waiting. What would make 2 months better than 1 month or 3, or any other numbers? --Golbez (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The time requirement was only instituted for situations where two groups claim to be the government of the same state (not that i agree with it but thats why it was included in the criteria). Azawad does not claim to be Mali, it claims to be the separate independent state of Azawad.XavierGreen (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Azawad does not claim to be Mali, it claims to be the separate independent state of Azawad". Azawad? Rather not. Only NMLA. And NMLA is not Azawad or Azawad government. As we see, Ansar Dine is against independence, and National Liberation Front of Azawad (contols Timbuktu) too. In Gao islamists fights with NMLA. So NMLA has control only over some limited territory, and this situation is very changeable. In Azawad is regular civil war between rebel parties, and no one has control over territory. No government, no control over a territory = no unrecognized state. Aotearoa (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now the government of Azawad is the MNLA, in effect a military state. Timbuktu and Gao are controlled by multiple factions including the MNLA. It is well sourced that the MNLA controls large amounts of territory in is state of Azawad, so Azawad meets the criteria of the page. The amount of territory controlled is not of concern to the criteria of this page, just the fact that territory is controlled. Your assertion that there is conflict between the rebel forces in Azawad is not sourced, there are no confirmed reports of it happening.XavierGreen (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I say good addition, given what information we have. Outback the koala (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro

This would suggest there are some countries that do not recognize Montenegro:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Relations_of_Montenegro#States_that_have_explicitly_recognized_Montenegro_and.2F_or_establishment_of_diplomatic_relations 208.253.114.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

It may, but sources would be needed to support this (as well as South Sudan) that specific nations don't for whatever the reason it might be.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan

This would appear to indicate that there are states that have yet to recognize South Sudan. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_South_Sudan ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.158.232 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's badly worded and presented. CMD (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the issue is whether it is correct or not 71.207.158.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Depends what you think it's trying to do. It discusses specific diplomatic recognitions which other governments have published, without taking into account UN votes or things like that. CMD (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This page represents countries who are in conflict with their sovernty. South Sudan is recognised by Sudan. Montenegro is recognisd by Serbia. These countries are not publicly denied recognition of their sovernty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:13GravBr|13GravBr]BG's] (BG's|talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove Armenia then? --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No because, Pakistan made it clear that Pakistan will not recognise Armenia, Countries like South Sudan and Montenegro have not been denied recognition. BG's —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC).

Those of the current civil wars and other situations

The section beginning thus is nonsense and has no main verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Improved the wording a bit now.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

“Sovereign Military Order of Malta … claims neither statehood nor any territory.”

[95][96][97][98][99]

95. Permanent Observer Mission of the Order of Malta to the United Nations in New York

96. Shaw, Malcolm Nathan International Law Fifth Edition Cambridge University Press 2003 ISBN 0-521-82473-7 p. 218 Online version available at Google Books

97. Global Legal Information Network "Reconocese a la Soberana Orden Militar de Malta como Entidad Internacional Independiente"

98. Knol Orden de Malta Soberana Orden Militar de San Juan de Jerusalén-Sovereign Military Order of Malta - S.M.O.M.

99. "La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurídica" English language translation from Microsoft Translator

The statement that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta “claims neither statehood nor any territory” is not supported by the five references that are cited for those words:

95) There is no evidence that the website at http://www.un.int/orderofmalta/, upon browsing its pages, says this.

96) The paragraph in this reference does not make this statement.

97) This one-quarter page announcement from 1951 does not make this statement.

98) This is a broken link.

99) Magaly Arocha’s paper is much more detailed and nuanced than given credit; the author not only includes many arguments in favor of the proposition that SMOM sovereignty is equivalent to other States, but also argues convincingly that a claim of territory is not relevant and that the existence of extraterritoriality cannot be discounted. A human translation of the text follows. (The automated translation is unreliable.)

The Order of Malta and Its Legal Nature

http://www.analitica.com/vam/1999.05/sociedad/01.htm

Magaly Arocha

Some historical data

The Order of St. John was founded before the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 by the armies of the First Crusade. It began as a monastic community dedicated to San Juan Bautista, which administered a hospice-infirmary for pilgrims to the Holy Land. In the beginning it was linked to the Benedictines, and under the Blessed Gerard became an independent organization.

With the Bull of 15 February 1113, approved by Pope Paschal II, the foundation of the Hospital of St. John became an Order exempt from the Church.

The political situation after the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, forced the Order, under its second leader (and the first to be called Master), Friar Raymond du Puy, to assume military duties for the protection of patients, pilgrims and the Christian territories that the Crusaders had recovered from the Muslims. Thus the Order of the Hospital of St. John acquired the character of an Order of Chivalry.

The Knights were all subject to the three religious vows of obedience, chastity and poverty. Thus it became a mixed person, a religious-military Order. It has two fundamental goals: serving the poor and the defense of Christianity (protection of the faith).

In 1291, Acre, the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land fell, and the Order settled temporarily in Cyprus.

The independence of the Order from any other State, under papal documents, and its right to maintain armed forces and fight wars, formed the basis of international sovereignty. With the occupation of the island of Rhodes, the Order also acquired territorial sovereignty.

Rhodes became a bastion of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. The Order was ruled by the Grand Master and Council, minted its own money and maintained diplomatic relations with other States. The Grand Master was Sovereign Prince of Rhodes and then of Malta.

In December, 1522, the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent attacked Rhodes, and the Knights were forced to capitulate, and in January 1523, they left the island. For the next seven years the Order, even though it retained its international sovereignty, was without territory until, by assignment of the Emperor Charles V (in his capacity as King of Sicily), obtained the islands of Malta, Gozo and Comino, as well as Tripoli in North Africa, as a sovereign fiefdom.

On 26 October 1530, the Grand Master Friar Philippe de Villiers de l'Isle Adam took possession of Malta with the approval of Pope Clement VII. The Order was to remain neutral in wars between Christian nations.

In 1607 and again in 1620, the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire was united with the rank of Grand Master, and in 1630 became equal to the rank of Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church with the treatment of Eminence.

In 1798, Bonaparte, during his campaign against Egypt, occupied the island of Malta and expelled the Order. The Knights again found themselves without territorial headquarters. There followed what has been called the Russian coup (1798-1803).

The Emperor Paul I of Russia, proclaimed himself Grand Master (de facto, not de jure) through a small group of Knights, in the place of the Grand Master Friar Ferdinand von Hompesch, who had been forced to leave Malta in French hands.

This proclamation was not recognized by the Holy See (a necessary condition for legitimacy). His successor, Alexander I, however, helped the Order to return to a legitimate government in 1803; Friar Giovanni Battista Tommasi was elected Grand Master.

The British had occupied Malta in 1801 and, although the Treaty of Amiens (1802) recognized the sovereign rights of the Order on the island, it was never possible to enforce them.

Having had provisional seats in Messina, Catania and Ferrara, the Order finally in 1834 settled in Rome, where it now enjoys extraterritoriality in the Palace of Malta (at 68 Via Condotti) and the Villa of Aventine.

The Order was ruled by Lieutenants from 1805 until 1879, when Pope Leo XIII restored the Grand Master to the office of Cardinal and associated honors. The hospital work was again the main objective.

Structure of the Order

The Order of Malta, a supranational institution, without abandoning the defense of Christian ideals, their energies and resources devoted to humanitarian and social assistance, is the only religious order of the Catholic Church to be both a Catholic Order and Cavalry.

It is unique in possessing Professed Knights, called Justices, who are direct descendants of the founders of the Order and among whom is elected Grand Master and most members of the Sovereign Council.

The sovereignty of the Order is exercised by the Prince and Grand Master, who is the Chief Justice, and the Councils (the Sovereign Council, the General Chapter and the Complete Council of State).

The General Chapter is the Supreme Assembly of Knights, which normally meets every five years and elects the members of the Sovereign Council, while the Complete Council of State is convened for the purpose of electing a Grand Master or Lieutenant.

Both the General Chapter and the Complete Council of State include representatives of the Grand Priories, Priories, Sub - and National Associations, bodies to which the Order is divided in different countries.

The Grand Master receives the treatment of Eminence and Highness (or Eminent Highness) corresponding by precedence to a Cardinal, and therefore Prince of Royal Blood, as well as for the rank of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire (recognized by Austria and Italy) and still reigning ex-Prince of Rhodes and later Malta, and is also internationally recognized as head of state with corresponding sovereign honors.

The Grand Master governs the Order assisted by the Sovereign Council, chaired by him and consisting of four senior officers (the Grand Commander, Grand Chancellor, the Hospitaller and Receiver of the Common Treasure), four directors and two alternate directors, all elected by the Chapter General among the Professed Knights or on exception among the Knights in Obedience.

The pope appoints as his representative a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, who has title Cardinalis Patronus; the latter is assisted by the Prelate of the Order, also appointed by the Supreme Pontiff.

The life and work of the Order are governed by the Charter, approved by the Holy See and the Code de Rohan, promulgated by the Grand Master Friar Emmanuel de Rohan-Polduc in the eighteenth century.

Legal issues of concern to the Order are considered by an advisory technical body called the Legal Council, appointed by the Grand Master with the consent of the Sovereign Council.

The Order has its own Courts of First Instance and Appeal. Appeals against the judgments of the second degree of the Courts of the Order may be filed with the Court of Appeals of the State of Vatican City, which in such cases acts by delegation of the Order and serves as the Supreme Court.

The Order has diplomatic relations, according to public international law, with the Holy See, which is based on the religious Order but is independent of the chivalric sovereign Order , and with 71 countries in Europe, America, Asia and Africa ( data from 1996-97).

The Order accredits Representatives or Delegates in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Monaco, Germany and Greece and the European Commission. Since 1994, the Order enjoys Permanent Observer status to the United Nations and in that capacity maintains permanent delegations in New York, Geneva, Paris, Rome and Vienna.

THE "STATUS" OF THE ORDER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Order of Malta is presented with full international legal personality. This personality is evidenced by: • the existence of a right of active and passive legation, of the "jus contrahendi," the right to issue passports, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Grand Master and external representative bodies, • the existence of an internal organization that gives life to legal entities recognized on par with foreign legal entities, • the existence of its own legal jurisdiction as an alternative to territorial jurisdiction or membership , and the power of conferring decorations [of honor]. The Order occupies its own place in the scope of the international community no differently than other entities, contributing as others do to forming customary rules – States do not have a monopoly over this – although, from a purely quantitative point of view, fewer in number.

The Legal Nature of the Order

The Order in its centuries-long life is presented as independent of any State. It is not an organization or a governmental institution. It has affirmed, in Constitutions that have been produced over time, its own sovereign quality, an affirmation of great importance in assessing its independence.

The international community, through the behavior of States, has recognized the right of active and passive legation. There are few doubts expressed about the period before 1798, when the Order exercised territorial sovereignty in Malta and neighboring islands.

The problem arises in the nineteenth century, the most difficult stage for the international position of the Order, given the vacancy of the Grand Master (1805-1879), a period in which the Order was ruled by Lieutenants General.

However, the study of international relations in this period shows that the loss of possession of the Maltese archipelago did not affect the right of active and passive legation for the Order, which is legally important for checking the absolute continuity of international status regardless of the territorial possession of Malta.

One can say that there is continuity between the Order as currently structured and as recognized by the international community and the Order as it was when exercising powers deriving from territorial sovereignty.

The only differences are obviously the lack of territory and non-institutional citizens, but in this respect it should be reiterated that this condition is not a limitation of the peculiar characteristics of the Entity, as developed over time, because the exercise of territorial sovereignty was not, nor is today, one of the purposes of the Order, nor does it need a territorial basis to exercise its sovereignty. This exercise was a means to achieve its objectives, of a highly spiritual nature.

However, it is undeniable that the absence of territory deprives the Order of unquestioned independence. This peculiar situation may account for the gradualness with which States agree to diplomatic recognition, the same gradualness expressed in relation to States that are recently created or not yet very stable, but it carries no weight in framing the Order's legal nature, unless one wants to conditionally weigh the territorial element that no longer exists or one does not want to acknowledge the importance of recognition by a subset of States.

It is worth asking how one can justify afterward the continuity of international and diplomatic relations (in the nineteenth century) when during that time span, the International Community did not know other sovereign Entities distinct from the States, and moreover, the same international doctrine precluded the existence of regulatory ordinances outside of states’ legal relations.

The independence of the internal organization, always reaffirmed, was precisely the quality that legitimized the persisting international personality of the Order, admittedly with the peculiarities arising from the absence of a sovereign territory, as well as its particular relationship with the Holy See. The Order, in its entirely individual characteristic, anticipated the phenomenon of recognition by non-state Entities.

The number of States with which the Order maintained diplomatic relations increased in the twentieth century. Without doubt other Governments appreciated its work during the two world wars on behalf of war victims as well as their fight against disease and hunger, especially in Africa and Central-South America.

States recognize its sovereignty even in the absence of a territorial base and in spite of the Inability in some way to set up the existence of a State for its internal organization’s independence, because they understand that full recognition of the international status of the Order and the consequent establishment of normal diplomatic relations is an indispensable tool to fulfill its mission.

The supranational structure of the organization is manifested in the existence of peripheral agencies working in the field of those national territories in which the Knights are present.

Internal sovereignty of the Order of Malta

As sovereign as the Order is in international relations, it is also in its own internal law. If one reviews the manifestations of the internal sovereignty of States, it is evident that, with the necessary adaptations, they are present in the Order of Malta.

The first element is the existence of a governing power that is not derived from any other power (non recognoscens superiorem) and is never imposed by force its subjects.

The Order has a government constituted by the Grand Master and Sovereign Council that exercise with full autonomy the executive power in relation to members of the Order and the institutions of the latter (Priories, Sub-priories, National Associations, Delegations, Bailiwicks, Parcels).

The second element is the existence of a system of legal rules that has in itself its own justification; a part of legal doctrine that speaks to a "native legal system".

The Order of Malta has a complex legal system represented by its own Constitutional Charter, by the Code, by other laws and regulations governing the internal organization of the Order, the functioning of its institutions, the rights and duties of its members in relation to legal relationships that are constituted as a result of their membership in the Order.

The third element is the existence of a judiciary that decides the application of the rules of law in case of controversy. The Order has a judiciary made up of the existing courts before the Grand Magisterium.

The point is that the sovereignty of the Order of Malta is a historical reality, social and political.

The Order maintains political and legal relationships with many of the States, meets and has played a role in the international community with full autonomy and exercises supreme power over its own members.

The legal formulas that explain its existence are: • the theory of a native legal system of non-state character, • the theory of sovereignty as a tool for religious and humanitarian purposes of the Order, • the theory of the existence of an international norm of jus singular that attributes sovereignty to the Order as an international subject sui generis.

Relations of the Italian State with the Order

For the purpose of studying the international position of the Order of Malta, the posture of the Italian State in whose territory, since 1870, the Grand Master of the Order is based, is very important.

Italy would be the state that would have more interest in contesting the sovereignty of the Order, because of inevitable limitations on its recognition arising from Italian sovereignty (the extraterritoriality of the Palace of Via Condotti and the Villa del Aventino in Rome, where the Grand Master and the central functions of the Order have their residence).

The sovereignty of the Order is recognized after the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy (1861) and before its union with Rome (1870). A government commission to study the knightly orders in the various Italian States concluded in 1868 that "the Order of Malta as European public law is concerned, has not ceased to be sovereign."

The question then arose regarding the implementation of the decree of 7 July 1866 (in fact until 1929, when the Concordat with the Holy See was signed) abolishing "orders, corporations and religious congregations." By decision of the State Council of 2 August 1869, application of this decree to the Order of Malta is excluded, in consideration of its particular legal status.

The decree of 28 November 1929, diplomatic relations between Italy and the Order still not existing, established that "the representatives of the High Magisterium of the Sovereign Order of Malta, regularly accredited and expressly delegated by the Grand Master," were present at public ceremonies immediately after the Diplomatic Corps.

The international character of the Order and its sovereignty are explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court of Appeals in several judgments (from 1913 onwards). In particular the Supreme Court found that:

"The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Malta is a sovereign international subject, although deprived of territory, equivalent to a foreign state, with which Italy maintains diplomatic relations, so there is no doubt, as the Court of Appeals has already advised, that it is premised upon the legal treatment relative to foreign States and therefore also the jurisdictional exemption limits already mentioned, i.e., the activity related to the attainment of its public purposes."

In 1948 the Foreign Minister gave provisions to the Prefecture of Rome so that the Grand Master was reserved, in each circumstance, the treatment intended of foreign sovereigns.

After World War II Italian courts have reaffirmed the sovereignty of the Order, extracting all the legal results of this recognition. Thus the Court of Rome, in a June 1947 ruling, held that the Order should be equated with foreign states for the exemption of executive acts.

So, when in 1956, Italy and the Order decided to establish diplomatic relations, it was simply assumed as the logical result of a situation of law and fact well defined and consolidated.

Relations with the Holy See

As seen, the peculiarity of the position of the Order at the international level is due in part to the absence of territory and non-institutional citizens, and in part, the bond of dependence in relation to the Holy See because of the remaining differences between canonical law and Maltese law.

In fact, special links between Maltese law and canonical law can be demonstrated, because of the decision of the Knights – autonomously organized in the institution - to impose religious rule and to place themselves under the protection of the Pope.

The Apostolic Letters show that S.S. Benedict XIV on 12 March 1753 declared the Order subject to the protection of the Apostolic See, and immune to any other jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Order of Malta has a dual legal personality: in international law and in canonical law.

The Holy See confirmed the most important sources of Law of the Order: the Constitutional Charter and the Maltese Code, to verify the religious orthodoxy, as well as approve or ratify the election of the Grand Master, treating him as an eventual religious Lieutenant Grand Master, as in the past and as provided in the Constitution.

These approvals, however, establish character but no verification nor decrease in the self-determination of the Order, because they conform to the traditional relations that were established with the Church, after the Order assumed the characteristics of a "Religion," and should consider that -– until the last century – the Maltese organization being exclusively centered around the professed Knights (First Class), the need for ecclesiastic interventions was clearer.

The sovereignty of the Order led the Holy See to attribute, from the canonical point of view, a very special position of respect for the legal discipline of other religious orders.

The link with the Holy See comes from the fact - mentioned above - that some members belonging to the First Class (inside of the Order the Knights are distinguished by class, based on the nobility of blood, the issuance of religious vows or the promise of obedience (they tend to the perfection of Christian life)). Those in the First Class are Knights of Justice, who profess religious vows and Conventual Chaplains, who are ordained priests.

It is evident that not everything is about a religious profile of assuming vows, and that Maltese law is detached from canonical law, and it is clear that Knights of the First Class only depend on the Holy See within the limits and with respect to the profession of vows.

The Constitution and the Code of the Order include numerous rules of Special Canon Law, which, by repealing Common Canon Law or citing it, discipline the obligations of a canonical nature of the members of the Order, especially those providing religious vows. Under this profile the approval by the Holy See of the Constitution and the Maltese Code was necessary.

The link between the two Entities does not preclude a wide sphere of autonomy of the Order, within which it has the possibility of sovereign self-determination, arising autonomously in its relations with other States, in view of its own institutional purposes.

In international relations, it is ruled out that the Order act in the name and interest of the Holy See, but it is true that the dependent relationship is presented to the outside in the form of "protection" as several historical circumstances demonstrate.

This situation of "dependency," or alleged limitations on the sovereignty of the Order, is not derived from constitutional law or international law, but has its origin in the nature of religious order assumed by the Institution, by the professed vows by the highest ranks of the Order - as noted - and for typically persecuted Christian purposes."

The Grand Master of the Order of Malta is unique among the heads of religious orders in that he has a right to the title of Eminence and to the honors for the Cardinals.

The Order of Malta is the only religious order that has a representative of the Pope, who must be a Cardinal (Cardinalis Patronus), with "the task of promoting the spiritual interests of the Order and its members and to foster relationships the Holy See and the Order itself.”

But in the aspect of religious order, the Order has a particular position, different from that of other religious orders, so much so that even the religious aspect is covered by the Order of Malta in its own legal rules (Constitutional Charter and Code) and, only via an extra channel to establish it, under the Canonical Law.

If we study the issues of a religious nature that the Order has over its sovereignty, it must be noted that such sovereignty has never been put into question by the Holy See and has instead been reaffirmed in the most solemn ways.

The Holy See accepted a diplomatic mission of the Order until 1834 and from 1930 onwards; in the interim period diplomatic relations were suspended simply because, with the Grand Master based in Rome, the existence of a legation in the same city seemed useless.

On 30 October 1921, Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, in his capacity as Secretary of State, declared that:

"The Holy See recognizes the Order of Malta as an independent international order with sovereign privileges."

The Order cannot be mistaken for a religious-monastic order, either by the presence of lay members or by the absence of a requirement of common life, which is one of the most typical monastic characteristics.

In this regard, we should recall that in December 1951 a controversy arose that originated in the pretense of the Sacred Religious Convention to monitor and investigate the institution of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem as a common religious order.

In these circumstances, the Grand Master made use of ancient prerogatives that claimed the privilege of the Order of not recognizing "another bishop as superior that was not the Pope" and filed a request directly to the Pope asking for a trial, that was conducted by a Tribunal Special Cardinals instituted by Pius XII.

In the judgment of 24 January 1953, relations between the Holy See and the Order were defined and the characteristics of "sovereign" and "religious" determined, as well as respective areas of competence.

About the "Nature of the quality of religious rule of the Order," the statement said that "the Jerosomilitana Order of Malta, as composed by the Knights and Chaplains, is a Religion and more precisely a religious order, approved by the Holy See;" it further stated that "the decorations of the Order and their associations depend on it ... "

On 12 March 1953, the Order informed the Secretary of State, through diplomatic channels, of the acceptance of the judgment "conditioned" on the acceptance of a "specific interpretation" in three points: that "the religious nature of the Order is limited to the professed Knights and Chaplains who compose it", and that the judgment precluded any interference by the Secretary of State in the diplomatic activity of the Order. The Holy See communicated as always through diplomatic channels, it "has taken note."

"Taking note," without rejecting or contradicting the proposed interpretation, has meant the improvement "of an international interpretative agreement, reached by the parties concerned, on some controversial points, setting a definite position.”

However, the most solemn reaffirmations of the sovereignty of the Order are contained in the Constitutional Charter approved by SS John XXIII on 24 June 1961. Article 1 affirms that "the Order is a legal entity formally approved by the Holy See. It has the quality of a subject of international law. "

Article 3 states that "the intimate connection existing between the two qualities of a religious order and a sovereign order do not oppose the autonomy of the order in the exercise of its sovereignty and prerogatives inherent to it as a subject of international law in relation to States.”

It also provides a diplomatic mission of the Order to the Holy See and the appointment of the Cardinalis Patronus. It further provides (Article 12) that "the Grand Master is the Supreme Commander of the Order. Incumbent upon him are special prerogatives and sovereign honors under the rules in force."

In short, the current situation is no different - in law - from what has been consolidated historically, so that one cannot assert the non-existence of a sphere of self-determination of the Order in its relations with any State, nor may one assert the right of interference of the Holy See in international affairs of an institutional character, because the protection afforded by the Holy See to the Order does not mean protectorate, nor can one speak of allegiance.

The distinction between Vatican diplomacy and diplomacy of the Order is so clear that in none of the States with which the Order has diplomatic relations, is the representation of the latter entrusted to the Apostolic Diplomatic Missions. The Holy See is not involved in any way in the international conventions of the Order.

From the point of view of internal organization, there is no interference of the Holy See in the elections and appointments to the offices of the Order, unless canonical dispensation (permission) is needed, in some cases, for the appointment of non-professed Knights to offices for which the Constitution of the Order requires them to be professed.

The Prince Grand Master is also head of a religious order and as such, his election ought to be confirmed by the Apostolic See.

The Order of Malta, within the limits that are compatible with its actual position as a subject deprived of territory, is in the international community, a sovereign entity on par with the States, and the Prince Grand Master is comparable, from the point of view of international law, to the Heads of State.

This report is based on the book written by Prof. Aldo Pezzana entitled: "Il Fondamento giuridico e storico della sovranita 'dell'Ordine Gerosomilitano di Malta", 37 pages, and the book by Prof Francesco and Attorney Gazzoni entitled: "L'Ordine di Malta ", Milan, 1979, 137 pages, A. Pecchioli: "Storia dei Cavalieri di Malta", Editalia, Rome, 1978, 125pages; and in the "Annuarie" 1996/1997, Oedre Souverain Militaire Hospitalier de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem de Rhodes et de Malte, Rome, 1996, 142 pages. Feast of the Patron of the Order, San Juan Bautista. "Annuarie" 1996/1997, Oedre Souverain Militaire Hospitalier de Saint-Jean of Jerusalem de Rhodes et de Malte, p.21-23. It is worth remembering that accredited Maltese representatives to the States enjoy immunities and privileges not as international officials, but rather in their capacity as diplomatic officials, with the rank of Ambassador or Minister plenipotentiary. On the one hand, the clear territorial separation of sovereign areas that exists between the Italian State and the State of Vatican City does not exist between the Order of Malta and the Italian State, but neither can it be said that the treatment given to the headquarters of the Order (Aventine, Via Condotti) is, simply, that reserved for the headquarters of diplomatic missions accredited to the Italian State.

In fact, the headquarters of the Order have diplomatic extraterritoriality (authoritarian acts of any kind - executives, inspection, judicial – cannot take place inside), but in addition, the Italian State recognizes the exercise, in the headquarters, of the prerogatives of sovereignty. This means that Italian sovereignty and Maltese sovereignty coexist without overlapping, because the Order exercises sovereign functions in a wider area than occurs in the diplomatic missions of the States for, although enjoying extraterritoriality, the guarantees deriving from the privilege of immunity are constrained to a purely administrative area; the Order, instead, makes use of extraterritoriality to meet the very acts of sovereign self-determination that are the same as the States (legislative, judicial, administrative, financial acts).

Jeff in CA 08:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Azawad

Any sources confirm that MNLA still control any permanently populated territory? Because same said "Islamists declare full control of Mali's north". Furthermore Caucasus Emirate still control some territories but is not regarded as de facto state. So, if MNLA has lost control over all territories, as sources said, or still keep small unimportant pieces of land, as in case of Caucasus Emirate, that mind Azawad is not de facto state at the moment. According to the criteria for inclusion: “The criteria for inclusion means a polity must claim statehood, lack recognition from at least one state, and either: have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states, or be recognised as a state by at least one other state. At the moment Azawad hasn’t capacity to enter into relations with other states and no sources confirmed that has territory and population. Aotearoa (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

[[31]]. The MNLA still claim to control various portions of Azawad totaling some 90% of the territory. There have been no specific reports of the salafists taking control of any MNLA positions other than the three major cities. Azawad is in a similar state to somaliland and taiwan in that it does not control all the territory it claims, but does control some. So long as it controls even one minor village it meets the critera. The Caucus Emirate is little more than roving bands of militants. They do not currently control any populated territory. Though if you can prove that they do then they meet the critera.XavierGreen (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source stating that the MNLA claim to control 90% of Azawad. [[32]].XavierGreen (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

These are only claims though, what is diffrent here than with Somilia and Somaliland? At least Somaliland has foreign relations and is proclaimed independence in 1991. The facts are, no country in the world recognises Azawad and it has no foreign relations. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Map of Somilia, Note: no Somaliland on the map.

There are also reports that Jihadists are in near full control of Azawad > [33] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The claims that the islamists are in full control are also just claims, all of the news reports boil down to statements by statements made by the islamists themselves. Somaliland has no formal foriegn relations with any country, but both Somaliland and Azawad have informal relations with several countries. Officials from Azawad are in peace talks with officials from ECOWAS and Mali. A soveriegn state also dos not need to conduct relations, just have the capability of conducting relations.XavierGreen (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems now that the group has no further land held in the region, meaning the area called Azawad is no longer valid and should be removed from the list. [34](further sources are mentioned below that page)That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we should remove Azawad now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Last I saw was that they had retracted their purported statement that they were ending their independence bid. See http://www.mnlamov.net/ Do we have news (not blog, sorry ww4report) sources that say they have totally withdrawn from the disputed region? --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with removal at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No independent sources say that MNLA has control over any permanent inhabited territory of Azawad. MNLA authorities are outside Mali (last official statements were from Ouagadougou). The State of Azawad has definitely collapsed. 89.75.159.33 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears Azawad has ceased to exist defacto on july 12th with the fall of the town of Ansogo. This source [[35]] indicates that there still are small bands of MNLA roving about the region, but that they hold no territory. A similar analog would be the Republic of Cabinda which claims independence and has forces in the region it claims but does not control any territory outright. Since Azawad fails to meet the criteria, and appartently no longer claims independence i am being bold and removing them from the page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

TRNC - inclusion criteria

The TRNC does not meet the inclusion criteria stated in this article to be in this list. Or do I not understand what I read? --E4024 (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Or the first sentence of the "inclusion criteria" is written in a weird English: (Lack recognition from at least one state)? --E4024 (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Another way to put it is, the TRNC is not recognised by at least one other state. We know this is true as all but one state does not recognise it (Turkey). In this way it meets the inclusion criteria because there are other states that do not recognise it as a state. I hope this is clear? Outback the koala (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess so. I am afraid I did not have good teachers of English at school... --E4024 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Dealing with politics can lead to quite convoluted English. CMD (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.Outback the koala (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

TRNC - category

I'm struggling to understand the rational for the categories created for this list. I mean how can the TRNC belong in the same category as the State of Palestine? The TRNC is recognised by exactly one other country which also happens to be the invading country and its creator. No-one else, UN member or not.

The controversy here is basically Turkey vs. The World. In the same category there is Palestine, which is a truly controversial case since 130 other countries recognise it. How can both these entities belong in the same category? Can anyone else see my point? Masri145 (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes,as I wrote in the other talk Masri, there is something inherently wrong with legitimacy coming ONLY from the creator of a state. There is no other state like the TRNC in the world. The criteria for inclusion should be changed to "recognised as a state by at least one other state that is not it's creator and sponsor" or something like that. The TRNC is in a class by itself and the article should reflect that fact. HelenOfOz (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As a user with political sciences (specialised on international law) background I may assure you two that recognition is not a constituent element of statehood. A State is there with its territory, population, government and the sovereignty stemming therefrom. I am sure you could find this and more info within this same WP but if it (quest for knowledge) were the case... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. Your comment however is completely irrelevant with the issue we're discussing here. The issue is whether TRNC is a special case and whether it should be treated as such. Masri145 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a political science background (specialised on international law) but you didn't know the 1975 "population exchange" in Cyprus was an exchange only for the Cypriots trapped in the wrong territory ? Strange! Anyway, we are arguing that the TRNC is in a class by itself and the article should reflect that fact. HelenOfOz (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see irrelevant comments look below not above, at your friend Helen or your Helen friend... --E4024 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Back on the issue, I suggest changing the category from:

Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member

to

Non-UN member states recognised by more than one UN member

and to create another category (which would include TRNC)

Non-UN member states recognised by one other state .

This way we separate partial recognition with single-state recognition so that any country (UN member or not) invading another and declaring a separate state which is then not recognised by the rest of the world should be included in this category. Masri145 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can create a category for Masri and another for the other users of WP.

For someone who reads law, your contributions here are quite poor I must say. HelenOfOz (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No this isn't a good idea. Virtually every state on this list is a "special case", so we could divide them ad infinitum.

For instance, the inverse of the TRNC case is South Korea, recognized by everyone but (in their view) a country occupying their territory. This is much different than Israel which is significantly disputed. Should we divide the section into:

• "UN member states not recognized by one state"

and

• "UN member states not recognized by more than one state"?

Palestine is recognized by 130 states versus South Ossetia's 5. Should we divide the section into:

• "States recognized by a majority of UN member states"

and

• "States not recognized by a majority of UN member states"?

I don't see how carving out more sections is helpful, there are already too many. Personally I think we should merge all three of the "Non-UN member states" sections together. TDL (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. If we need to have a strong separation line in this list, that has to be UN membership of the disputed entity itself rather than of the state that recognises it. What gives the entity some credibility is a)UN membership and b)the number of states that recognise it (i.e. dealing with a large number of states under international law). So if your suggestion is implemented the list should definately have another column showing the number of countries that recognise it. This column should also be split into two sub-columns to indicate UN-membership or not. I think this way the reader gets a much clearer picture of the level of recognition each entity enjoys. Masri145 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dan, the number of tables should be rather lower. I'm strongly against further breaking. Yes, each of the involved States is a special case. Jan CZ (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if editors were to carve out more sections ad infinitum, what would be the possible distinctions between categories ? HelenOfOz (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TDL and Jan CZ. None of these entities are in exactly the same situation (although some are closer than others). Ad infinitum would probably mean up to 16, which is the number of entities on this list. There are many possible distinctions, some of which are really easy to think of (Taiwan for example was formerly fully recognised), but the point is that we're here to present a list, not give detailed information on each one. That's for those articles. CMD (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

CMD, I fail to see how your distinction example qualifies as a level of recognition. The article is a snapshot of recogntion as of August 2012. How does your distinction affect the level of recognition as it is today ? The heading for the listings are "Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition". The current 4 levels of recognition are these...

    1 Non-UN member states not recognised by any state
    2 Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members
    3 Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member
    4 Partially unrecognised UN member states

If your distinction is valid then demonstrate it by editing the 4 current levels of recognition and/or creating new ones on this talk page so it will be become clear to the editors. I am saying the level of recognition of the TRNC is a distinct level because that state is recognised only by it's creator and sponsor. HelenOfOz (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok since we all agree, would everyone be in favor of reducing the first 3 categories to one according to Dan's suggestion? So then we would only have 2 (more meaningful) categories "UN members" or and "Non-UN members". We can then add another column to each table with the number of countries that recognise them and whether these countries are UN-members or not. Masri145 (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Against. Leave the article as it is. This is WP not the Anti-TRNC WP or a RoC government website... --E4024 (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I cant understand how my proposal is considered "anti-trnc" and "pro-RoC". We're trying to make some more meaningful categorisation here, so that entities recognised by 130 countries are not in the same category as the ones recognised by just 1. Masri145 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

@HelenOfOz: That distinction has a huge and significant effect on Taiwan's relations with the world. Most of these countries are more or less ignored by the world, yet Taiwan has unofficial relations with a wide number of countries, has representation in many international bodies in some politically correct form or another, and is part of a unique political situation where its recognitions are technically recognitions of it being "China". I hope this answers your many bold words.

@On topic: I'm quite happy to fold all non-UN members toegether, but we don't need another column for recognition. That's what the "Status" column is for. CMD (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Status" column is a big chunk of text. A number is easier to read and allows sorting countries according to the level of recognition they receive. Masri145 (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Beyond a certain point, numbers are quite arbitrary. They're also sometimes impossibly exact for some political situations. The SADR for example, initially received quite a bit of recognition, but had an unknown number of retractions and in many cases probably just fell to the wayside. The same thing happened to Palestine. Many former Warsaw Pact countries recognised it, but the current governments gave quite ambiguous statements on their recognition during the Palestine 194 move. In the case of China and Taiwan, some countries have tried to recognise both, which is rejected by both those countries, and usually ends up with one or the other unilaterally breaking ties in response. The country that tried to recognise both then doesn't necessarily have to officially drop diplomatic recognition of one or the other, although I'm unsure whether any of these situations exist in the present. CMD (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

By recognition between countries we mean full political recognition between them...today. Masri145 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Sometimes the situation is unclear. CMD (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean? It's either fully recognised or not fully recognised. It can't be unclear whether it's fully recognised or not! Masri145 (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What is sometimes unclear is individual recognitions. The SADR for example previously had recognition from states it currently does not have diplomatic relations with, but whether or not they have withdrawn recognition is unclear. Palestine was similar until recently, although most positions were clarified last year. CMD (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am against any further changes to the categories. Any more divisions will only ultimately end up with a separate category for each state, as each case is unique in some way or another. Over time people will feel the need to point out the distinction of a specific state over the others, which will lead to this separation. Additionally lumping all of the states together in one category does not adequately distinguish between their overall level of recognition. After all, this article is about 'states with limited recognition'. The TRNC formerly was listed in its own category based on its sole recognition by turkey, but it was decided not to distinguish between the quantity of recognising states, only between the types of recognising states (no recognition, vs UN membership). Please leave all the categories as they are, there does not need to be any further restructuring. Wiz9999 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tacit recognition: 58 in the case of TRNC: RoC and 57 OIC member states. 1 in the case of RoC: TRNC. --E4024 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again you're off-topic. Masri145 (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tacit recognition is a grey concept, and often different in every case. In the case of the OIC, Northern Cyprus is treated more as a community than a state. Its membership name, Turkish Cypriot State, is a reference to it as a constituent state of a Cypriot federation, rather than as a sovereign state. CMD (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not so. The Annan Plan has been rejected and there is no United Rep. of Cyprus at sight. That is rather a way to establish relations with Northern Cyprus without using the name TRNC, to avoid unnecessary disputes. --E4024 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is so. See for reference this OIC resolution, where it is noted that the name was one "which enabled the Turkish Muslim people of Cyprus to participate in the OIC under the name of Turkish Cypriot State as envisaged by the UN Secretary General's comprehensive settlement plan". CMD (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw it the day it was passed. Ask a diplomat or an expert to "read" it for you... --E4024 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show us the reliable source where it states that Northern Cyprus being an OIC observer under its proposed Annan plan name constitutes tacit recognition as a sovereign state. CMD (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you still talking about tacit recognition? This article should only deal with full political recognition. Masri145 (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sealand

Added Sealand to list of state with no international recognition, but it seems Sealand doesn't have a flagcode in Wikipedia. If anyone wishes to fix that, or disagrees with Sealand's addition, feel free to fix it. 70.78.8.214 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it since it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. See the "Excluded entities" section. TDL (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

   have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states, or
   be recognised as a state by at least one other state.

Is the criteria for inclusion. While I understand some guy's bedroom which he declared independent is not so, Sealand is not in the jurisdiction of the UK by court decision. It also is distinctly in control of it's territory, as it is armed with a DP naval cannon and various small arms. 70.78.8.214 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. Search the talk page archives for “micronation” and/or “Sealand”.—Emil J. 17:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not insert a disambiguation at the beginning so as to keep this issue from appearing over and over:

For Micronations such as Sealand, see Micronation.

Or

This article is about populous nations that are not recognized by other nations. For Micronations such as Sealand, see Micronation.

Taiwan

In the entry for Republic of China, the description includes the phrase:

The Republic of China (ROC, also known as Taiwan), constitutionally formed in 1912, is recognised as the government of the state of China by 22 UN members and the Holy See as of 2011 (emphasis mine)

state of China does not seem to be the appropriate term here. Something like "island" or "territory" or maybe a re-cast to avoid characterizing the area? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad citations under Sovereign Military Order of Malta

To reiterate, five citations for the section on SMOM, are wrong in the sense that they do not support the statement that references them. They should be removed in favor of accurate citations, or the statement should be removed.

“Sovereign Military Order of Malta … claims neither statehood nor any territory.” ^{[95][96][97][98][99]}

95. Permanent Observer Mission of the Order of Malta to the United Nations in New York

96. Shaw, Malcolm Nathan International Law Fifth Edition Cambridge University Press 2003 ISBN 0-521-82473-7 p. 218 Online version available at Google Books

97. Global Legal Information Network "Reconocese a la Soberana Orden Militar de Malta como Entidad Internacional Independiente"

98. Knol Orden de Malta Soberana Orden Militar de San Juan de Jerusalén-Sovereign Military Order of Malta - S.M.O.M.

99. "La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurídica" English language translation from Microsoft Translator

The statement that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta “claims neither statehood nor any territory” is not supported by the five references that are cited for those words:

95) There is no evidence that the website at http://www.un.int/orderofmalta/, upon browsing its pages, says this.

96) The paragraph in this reference does not make this statement.

97) This one-quarter page announcement from 1951 does not make this statement.

98) This is a broken link.

99) Magaly Arocha’s paper, The Order of Malta and Its Legal Nature (http://www.analitica.com/vam/1999.05/sociedad/01.htm), is much more detailed and nuanced than given credit; the author not only includes many arguments in favor of the proposition that SMOM sovereignty is equivalent to other States, but also argues convincingly that a claim of territory is not relevant and that the existence of extraterritoriality cannot be discounted. A human translation of the text appears in Archive 9. (The automated translation is unreliable.)

Jeff in CA 18:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are source for the whole sentence, not only for the part you highlighted.

There are no sources stating that SMOM claims to be a state or stakes claim to some territory as its own sovereign territory. Bringing ambiguous and convoluted wording is unnecessary. Using "deprived of territory" instead of "claims no territory" implies that there is some dormant SMOM territorial claim similar to a Government-in-exile. That's certainly not the case as SMOM has full diplomatic relations with both Malta and Italy and there are no SMOM claims against those states.

• "Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a non-state sovereign entity and is not included, as it claims neither statehood nor any territory." - article status quo version
• "Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a non-state sovereign entity and is not included, as it claims to be a sovereign entity on par with independent countries, as a subject deprived of territory." - your redaction

Your edit states basically the same thing, but in a much more convoluted way. While it's true that "SMOM is deprived of territory" and "SMOM claims to be a sovereign entity on par with independent countries", those are a duplicate of the first part of the sentence ("SMOM is a non-state sovereign entity"). The sentence here is better kept shorter and detailed explanation of historical events to be kept at Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta#International_status_of_the_Order. Japinderum (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo does not recognize Serbia

[36] "Kosovo does not recognize Serbia", "We do not recognize Serbia". Japinderum (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Should Serbia be added to the list or not, and why? Japinderum (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Kosovo is not a member of the UN, their lack of recognition doesn't seem to count. The list is for countries that lack total recognition by UN member states, and Serbia has full recognition. Sadly, we don't explicitly say this in the criteria section, we only say 'by a state' without defining what a state is. But if we don't rely on the UN definition then do we have to include all countries that Transnistria, Somaliland, etc. do not recognize? --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. The criteria is well done right now. Non-recognition by any state "counts". Being a state does not depend on having UN membership. As you can see - for PRChina, Israel, Cyprus non-recognitions by states out of the UN are listed; recognitions by states out of the UN are also listed in all cases there are such recognitions (including such where both are not UN members such as NKR recognizes Transnistria, Abkhazia recognizes South Ossetia, etc).

"all countries that Transnistria, Somaliland, etc. do not recognize" - who are those countries? So far we have sources only for SADR not recognizing Israel, TRNC not recognizing Cyprus, Holy See not recognizing PRChina, Kosovo not recognizing Serbia. All of these non-recognitions are already mentioned - only the new source for Kosovo isn't yet. Japinderum (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

They are mentioned, but only in addition to others. If the TRNC was the only entity that did not recognize Cyprus, would we include Cyprus on the list? Not likely. Cyprus is on the list because Turkey does not recognize it, the TRNC note is added along for the ride. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the source link, not surprisingly neither state recognizes each other. So I don't see any problem in added that as a note also for Kosovo. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that we should make such a bold statement based on a one-off news report in a foreign language. Much stronger sourcing would be preferable. CMD (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Golbez, no - TRNC is mentioned because we have sound sources for their non-recognition. UN has nothing to do with that.

CMD, yeach, the source is quite shaky - if there is a consensus that it's unusable - that's a proper reason not to mention anything. Japinderum (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo 94th recognition

Some time ago, after a discussion at the main article International recognition of Kosovo, it was decided to list the SMOM recognition there - outside of the UN list - after the ROC recognition.

I think we should keep the table here in sync with that there, e.g. to add in the Kosovo entry "and SMOM." after "recognized by ROC" - see [37]. Japinderum (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should include such a weird and unknown entity in a list of recognisers, while at the same time having it in the excluded entities section. Its not being included doesn't really harm the article, however including it with states seems confusing to me. The International Recognition of Kosovo article has far more of a remit to be so detailed. CMD (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with CMD. This is a summary article, we don't need to get into include every single detail. This article's focus on the states which "lack recognition from at least one state". Being recognized by the SMOM or not is irrelevant to this, and thus falls outside the scope of this article. International recognition of Kosovo deals with, shockingly, "International recognition of Kosovo" which is by definition a broader topic and so naturally it will contain content which doesn't belong here. TDL (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Going for the distinction between "diplomatic recognition" and "diplomatic recognition only by states" is unnecessary going in details. The current wording here "lack recognition from at least one state" is result of that being more convenient to write instead of properly listing also the other possible diplomatic recognizers. SMOM being mentioned below the tables as excluded has nothing to do with its recognitions of states inside the tables. SMOM is excluded, because it's not a state - not because it can't be recognized by or can't recognize those states. States recognize SMOM and SMOM recognizes states. SMOM is nominally equal peer to states, albeit unique (and because of that odd, weird and unknown). Avoiding "weird and unknown" entities is not encyclopedic. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make unknown issues known to the reader. By your logic we should not mention Taiwan recognition of Kosovo, because this is some irrelevant oddity, unknown for most people, and even Kosovo MFA list counts only recognitions by UN members.

I don't think we, the editors here, are those who should decide whether acts of SMOM, Taiwan, Kosovo, Somaliland or some other entity are irrelevant. Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Japinderum. Jeff in CA 15:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The scope of this article is clearly defined as states which "lack recognition from at least one state". It's about states, not sovereign entities. This is not the result of the wording being more "convenient" as you suggest, it was a deliberate choice to exclude entities like the SMOM from the scope of the article. If you'd like to broaden the scope of the article then feel free to start a discussion about this. But as it stands, the clear consensus is that the SMOM is outside the scope of this article because it's not a state. Yes it can recognize states, but that doesn't make it a state and hence it doesn't belong. TDL (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

TDL, you are confusing the decision not to include SMOM in the list of states (that you link to) with a hypothetical decision not to mention SMOM diplomatic recognition of states. No such decision is taken. SMOM recognized Kosovo, so that should be mentioned in the Kosovo entry. If that means that we should apply a small tweak to the criteria sentence, fine. SMOM inclusion or exclusion is irrelevant to the issue we discuss here. Japinderum (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. The decision was made to make this article about states, not sovereign entities. Even if the USA was unrecognized by the SMOM, it still wouldn't be listed here. The status of recognition from the SMOM is irrelevant to the topic of the article and thus doesn't belong. TDL (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are confused - the article is about limited recognition of states (e.g. limited recognition of Israel by the Arab states). But there is no decision to artificially restrict the meaning of "diplomatic recognition" only to diplomatic recognition by states or only to diplomatic recognition by UN members or in any other way. Every diplomatic recognition/explicit non-recognition that we have source for should be mentioned. So far, the only such case is SMOM recognition of Kosovo. Japinderum (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused, I'm simply reading the article. If you actually read the article I'm sure that you would understand as well. The article clearly states that it is restricted to states which "lack recognition from at least one state" (ie states unrecognized by states). I understand that you you don't like this, and you're free to propose that we change the criteria, but pretending that this text doesn't exist isn't helpful. TDL (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. As I said above and Jeff agreed - "the current wording ... is result of that being more convenient to write instead of properly listing also the other possible diplomatic recognizers." Also, I already addressed that - "If that means that we should apply a small tweak to the criteria sentence, fine". Also, all of this is about the inclusion criteria (e.g. who gets included in the list) - it's not some "general ban/restriction" on mentioning of non-state sovereign entities inside the article. If we have a source showing that a state already included in the list has diplomatic recognition by such entity - there is no reason (or decision) not to mention it. On the contrary - not mentioning is depriving the reader of notable information about the recognition of that included state.

So, even if the sentences you quote aren't changed the result remains the following:

• For a state (Cyprus) we have a source about explicit non-recognition by another state (Turkey) - Cyprus is included in the list

• For a state (Liechtenstein) we don't have a source about explicit non-recognition by another state - Liechtenstein is not included in the list
• For a state (Nauru) we don't have a source about explicit non-recognition by another state - Nauru is not included in the list
• For a state (Holy See/Vatican) we don't have a source about explicit non-recognition by another state - Holy See/Vatican is not included in the list
• For a state (Cook Islands) we don't have a source about explicit non-recognition by another state - Cook Islands is not included in the list

• For a sovereign non-state entity (SMOM) we have a source about explicit non-recognition by a state (France) - SMOM is not included in the list

• For a state (Hypothetical-State) we have a source about explicit non-recognition by a sovereign non-state entity (SMOM) and we don't have a source about explicit non-recognition by another state - Hypothetical-State is not included in the list

• In the list entry for already included state (Somaliland) we mention sources for all diplomatic recognitions it got - none
• In the list entry for already included state (Nagorno-Karabakh) we mention sources for all diplomatic recognitions it got (Abkhazia, Transnistia, South Ossetia)
• In the list entry for already included state (Taiwan) we mention sources for all diplomatic recognitions it got - (~20 and Holy See)
• In the list entry for already included state (Palestine) we mention sources for all diplomatic recognitions it got - (~130 and SADR)
• In the list entry for already included state (Israel) we mention sources for all explicit non-recognitions it got - (~30 and SADR)

• In the list entry for already included state (Kosovo) we mention sources for all diplomatic recognitions it got - (~90 and Taiwan and SMOM)

We already do everything of the above without the Kosovo-by-SMOM recognition discussed here - and for that there is no need to change anything in the criteria or other sentence - just as we didn't change anything in order to add the various explanatory notes in the list entries lines. The criteria/sentences would have to be change only if we wanted to add the Hypothetical-State. So far it's only hypothetical - thus no need to change, but of course, for consistency, we can do the change even now. But for the moment I'll leave that to others to propose/do if they wish.

TLDR - SMOM diplomatic recognition of Kosovo is notable and sourced, that's why I propose we mention it in the Kosovo line after the Taiwan recognition by adding "and SMOM.[1]" Japinderum (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"TLDR - SMOM diplomatic recognition of Kosovo is notable and sourced" - Agreed, which is why it's listed at International recognition of Kosovo. Just because something is notable and sourced doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned on every single article which mentions Kosovo. The "Status" column is there to explain why a state qualifies for inclusion. Since the inclusion criteria is restricted to recognition by states, recognition by the SMOM is irrelevant to the scope of this article. TDL (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The status column is not strictly about the inclusion criteria, but a general description of the statehood and recognition of the included entries. Also, the unnecessarily restrictive wording of the inclusion criteria can be redacted. As explained at 09:41, 29 October 2012 above - there is no reason for Wikipedia editors to filter out some of the diplomatic recognitions. Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As the link I provided to you above clearly shows, the criteria isn't "unnecessarily restrictive", it's intentionally restrictive. The fact that you dislike this restriction doesn't make it unnecessary. There is no reason for Wikipedia editors to fill this article with WP:CRUFT which falls outside the well defined scope of the article. TDL (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning diplomatic recognitions of the included states is inside the scope of the article. What we argue about is not the article scope, but whether the status column is "there to explain why a state qualifies for inclusion" or "a general description of the statehood and recognition of the included entries". As you see above - I'm not the only one disagreeing with you. Japinderum (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TDLs point that this is a summary and should be kept concise. As we discuss states and recognition by other states, I don't see the point of adding recognition/non-recognition by non-state entities. It doesn't help the reader understand the topic, and is better covered in other articles. CMD (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We argue about adding of seven letters - "and SMOM" - so with or without those the summary will be as concise as it's now. The article is about recognition only "of states", but not it's not restricted to recognition only "by other states" - it's about all diplomatic recognitions of the included states. Japinderum (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. See the Criteria for inclusion: "... a polity must ... lack recognition from at least one state, and ... be recognised as a state by at least one other state." The scope of the article is quite clearly restricted to states unrecognized by other states, not sovereign entities. Continuing to pretend otherwise doesn't make it true. TDL (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You are going circular again. We don't argue about inclusion. We argue about mentioning a diplomatic recognition of an already included entity (the Kosovo state). Only states are included in the list, but all diplomatic recognitions they have should be mentioned. Japinderum (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tibet

Why do I not read anything on this list about Tibet? It was after all recognized by at least one non-un member (El Salvador). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.163.78 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This list only covers present entities. If Tibet was recognised in the past, it is not so now. CMD (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Input and opinions requested regarding visa requirement pages

On 23 November I sent User:XLR8TION this message: "Why are you removing states with limited recognition? I didn't want to undo your edits without asking you first. Outback the koala (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)"

And he replied, "First of all DO NOT WRITE on my talk page. Discuss all topics on the article talk page. Second, I have removed thes pariah states. Foreign law dictates that the use of a national passport for unrecognized states can have serious repercussion for passport holder when returning home or transferring through third countries. Pariah states such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not have a consular network and hence are not able to issue visas. They are more puppet pseudo-states and their recognition by 7 nations (mainly economic wards of Russia) is simply economically-related than diplomatically. These states are not recognized by IATA, Interpol, and other international travel/law organizations the their visas and passports are not considered legal travel documents. Therefore, they have been removed from article until recognition is recognized. --XLR8TION (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)"

I am moving here per his suggestion to discuss all topics on an article talk page. Diffs are, [38], [39], [40] and several on Visa requirements for United States citizens. Should these states be included? I beleive they should because they de facto control their own territory and all these citizens could possibly travel there. Outback the koala (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If citizens from those countries can get visas to the states with limited recognition, then I don't see why they shouldn't be included (I don't doubt they could get a Kosovan visa, but perhaps they're unable to get an Abkhazian visa?). As breakaway states have control over some territory, I doubt a visa to the claimant country will mean much. I note Kosovo and Taiwan are on all those pages without apparent dispute. CMD (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also agree that they should be included, since it's a factual reality and not having to be based on visa or passport requirements. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclinded to agree. Any individual could make contact with one of these states as well. I had to undo this user again, here after they reverted me, writing "Please stop adding these fantasy countries!". @Chip If one was to travel to one of these states, and the state in question takes their sovereignty seriously, then they would be inclinded to have visa systems and enforce them on territory they de facto control. It would be a question traveling there. Outback the koala (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If the information is reasonably sourced I agree it should be in indeed. We are not listing sovereign states here, but those territories (for lack of a better word) that de facto have to be dealt with to get you in. Being fully recognized is by no means a requirement (we have also Aruba et al, simply because they are outside schengen and have their own system...) L.tak (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was more wondering if, for example, a US passport could legally have an Abkhazian visa, the same way that many Islamic countries' passports can't be used to get into Israel. CMD (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Those passports have explicitly "valid for all countries except Israel" in their passport. I guess (but don't know) that the US passport does not have that text... L.tak (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please do not add pariah fantasy nations such as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia or Nagorno to this list. Foreign law dictates that the use of a national passport for unrecognized states can have serious repercussion for passport holder when returning home or transferring through third countries. Pariah states such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not have a consular network and hence are not able to issue visas. They are more puppet pseudo-states and their recognition by 7 nations (mainly economic wards of Russia) is simply economically-related than diplomatically. These states are not recognized by IATA, Interpol, and other international travel/law organizations the their visas and passports are not considered legal travel documents. Therefore, they have been removed from article until recognition is recognized.

Take example South Ossetia. Most South Ossetians have Russian passports for foreign travel as traveling on a fantasy passport issued by that country won't get them too far. For example, traveling to Nicaragua (one of 7 out of the 193 nations on this planet that recognized them) will require them to travel to Russia and from there they will have to find a direct flight to Venezuela in order to connect to Managua. The issuance of Fantasy passports for non-sovereign states such as the recent snafu that involved a Native American tribe who tried to travel to the UK for an international match (please see article Iroquois passport) clearly shows that sovereign nations who do NOT recognize pariah states take the usage of a fantasy passport or other fictional travel documents such a visa issued by a rogue state lightly. The U.S. State Department issues U.S. Passports and they DO NOT RECOGNIZE these nations. There borders are not changed, there has been no third party contact with the U.S., nor will the U.S. issue a visa to the passport of any citizen of a rogue pariah state to their passport. Wikipedia is to be accurate and the inclusion of these states is COMPLETELY MISLEADING. Passports from rogue states can result in confiscation by a foreign government and even arrest (passport misuses, regardless if the passport is altered, fraudulent, or issued by a non-recognized state is a serious crime and can result in prosecution). While a U.S. passport is valid worldwide a passport from these states is not. The article applies to U.S. citizens and their visa requirements, but the same can be said for all other nations. Rule here is one nation does not recognize the sovereignity or authority (such as Palestine) of a foreign government, that nation SHOULD NOT be added to this list. Therefore is Russia recognizes South Ossetia go ahead and add them to the article on Visa requirements for Russia citizens. Sames goes for Northern Cyprus - add them to the article on Visa Requirements for Turkish citizens and vice versa, but do NOT add them to the article of a nation that does NOT recognized the other. What's next adding Israel to the article on visa requirements for the citizens of the 32 nations that do not recognize Israel???

Please stop adding these fake countries to this list. As an American citizen, I find it insulting to see writers mislead U.S. citizens who read Wikipedia. All writers should aim to lead but not mislead. --XLR8TION (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you are insulted. If the US state does terrible things to its citizens that dare to have visas of non-fully recognized countries, then that should be added. Fact remains (if it is a fact at least....) that the organizations/authorities in those "states" will define what is required to get into their entity and that's what's described in this article. So my suggestion: let's add a note or paragraph with reliably sourced info regarding what the US does when visa are added; but let's not remove it, as that would can be misleading as well... L.tak (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A U.S Passport REMAINS the property of the U.S. State Department. The State Department sets the rules for the use of THEIR document. They don't recognize state, passport misuse is a criminal offense. These fantasy countries do not belong on a list informing U.S. citizens or nationals that their passports are valid for travel to pariah fantasy countries. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If US citizens wish to be informed on what their government thinks, they should consult a government source. We are dealing here with a wikipedia article for the general public, which should be informative. Whatever you call them, these "fantasy countries" have a certain ... presence and de facto control their borders and thus have some relevance... In summary: we are not following a US State Point of View here, simply because that's only one way of looking at it. I was serious in my suggestion: do we have sources on how the US treats people with Abkhasian "phantasy" visa in their passports (and, but that's beside the point: does that also hold for my entry stamp for Sikkim in my passport)? L.tak (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The U.S. can dictate special use of their passports for ALL international travel. As Treasury Licenses in addition to visa are required for travel to Cuba, North Korea, and Iran, they can set official rules for the use of THEIR travel document. THEIR document = THEIR rules. It is misleading, inaccurate and distasteful to negate the sovereignty of a nation of the U.S. and their travel documents with such absurdity.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Their document, but our wikipedia. Let's add that data, not remove the entire entity (IMO: that is not misleading, not distasteful, not negating sovereignty and not absurd, it is just a non-US point of view)... L.tak (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I would read the article on the Iroquois Passport to see the extent foreign governments go to refuse access to non-recognized states. Furthermore, recent incidents such as Jennifer Lopez's fiasco in Northern Cyprus [41] (the EU per the request of Greece threatened to deny her entry if she was to perform at a casino in the TRNC) shows how multinational organizations and independent nations can retaliate against travel to non-recognized states and misuse of travel documents. Israel prosecutes their citizens if their passports (whether Israeli or foreign) show travel to countries that don't recognize Israel such as Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. --XLR8TION (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This article pertains to U.S. citizens and this information is MISLEADING and the website can be held liable for legal damages if a U.S. citizen was to take misleading information from this article, travel to a fantasy country, and get in some sort of trouble. In this modern age where attorneys can find just cause for a lawsuit, adding any misleading, inaccurate info to an article should not be tolerated. U.S. consular assistance can't be extended in many cases where the U.S. has no representation. Whether or not they have a protecting power treaty with another nation might be one thing but inclusion of fantasy countries to the visa requirements of U.S. citizens or citizens of any country with non-recogition of one another is NOT constructive to Wikipedia's mission. Leave the information out.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Further Proof that the U.S. WARNS not to go to travel to pariah states --> [42].

Here's an excerpt:

"The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against travel to the occupied regions of South Ossetia, in north-central Georgia, and Abkhazia, in northwest Georgia.These regions are not under the control of the central government following civil wars in the early 1990s, and the conflict with Russia in August 2008. Tensions remain high between the de facto authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the central government. Russian troops and border guards continue to occupy both regions. Due to the volatility of the political situation, reported high levels of crime, and inability of embassy personnel to travel freely to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, the U.S. Embassy strongly discourages travel to these areas. The restricted access of U.S. officials to Abkhazia and South Ossetia significantly limits the ability of the U.S. government to assist U.S. citizens in these regions, even in emergencies. All travelers to these regions should enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). The U.S. Embassy recommends that any travel to Abkhazia or South Ossetia be conducted in accordance with applicable Georgian laws (specifically that U.S. citizens enter the two regions from undisputed Georgia) and that U.S. citizens regularly monitor Emergency Messages on the Embassy website for the latest information on the security situation throughout Georgia.

The situation near both Abkhazia and South Ossetia remains unpredictable, and a number of attacks, criminal incidents, and kidnappings have occurred in and around these regions over the past several years. U. S. citizens are advised to exercise caution when traveling near the administrative boundary lines of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as there is a possibility of encountering unexploded ordnance near the administrative boundary lines of both regions, particularly on the North side of the South Ossetia administrative boundary line. Abkhaz de facto "border officials" and their Russian counterparts may demand that travelers entering the region purchase "visas" from the so-called "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Abkhazia," but the U.S. Government and the majority of the international community do not recognize any jurisdiction of de facto authorities in either Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Entering the Abkhazia or South Ossetia area without the proper documentation can lead to arrest, imprisonment by border officials, and/or fines.

Further reason to NOT include pariah states. The U.S. is warning citizens as a legal recourse in case of any citizen encounters troubles prior or after entering non-recognized fantasy countries.--XLR8TION (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I did see nothing in the text you give about not being allowed to have a passport sticker there (just that it is disadvised to go there); also your JeLo example not: it's about supporting "wrong" regimes (not: fantasy regimes or so). It also doesn't change my opinion that the US POV is not the only pov here. I think we will not reach an agreement. I suggest to wait for 24 hours so others can weigh in (maybe you convinced someone else, maybe some of the people above that agreed that the entities should be in the list) and then to see what the consensus is... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that text suggests that the US would permit travel to Abkhazia, blaming the visa on Russian/Abkhaz authorities, so long as you had the appropriate travel documents from the Georgian government. That's the sort of information you'd expect on the visa page. CMD (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In my reading of it, I just don't see this supporting your claim. To me it reads as a general warning and the "arrest, imprisonment by border officials, and/or fines" that might occur would be a the hands of the civil de facto authorities which they do not recognise - not by the United States itself. This is only advise, a citizen does not have to heed advise as they would a law. They are still free to travel where they choose and interact with whomever they wish. Outback the koala (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I would ask you to respect WP:BRD and not revert me again on the Visa requirements for United States citizens page. You made the first change, I reverted, now lets discuss it and come to a conclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Outback, L.tak and others. The articles is about "Visa requirements for United States citizens". The fact that the USA doesn't recognize these states is irrelevant. As others have pointed out above, the USA doesn't recognize Aruba or Taiwan as independent states, but these territories control access to their own territory and thus USA citizens must deal with their border control to enter. If there is well sourced information that USA citizens cannot enter the territory of these disputed states without a visa from the de facto authority, then this content should be added to the article. Any well sourced info about the USA government forbidding citizens from entering these states with a USA passport should also be added, as is done on Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. TDL (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• • First of all please DO NOT revert the article until this dispute is resolved. If it is not resolved here, I will move on to the next level and seek third opinions until I reach the final resolution steps. Once again, DO NOT revert. Second, as the U.S. State Department's country report on Georgia states, these fantasy countries demand the payment of visas at their pseudo border, hence translating that these fantasy countries DO NOT have consular networks like sovereign nations do. This clearly shows that these fake countries are administered by secessionists who are not happy with central rule in the countries that they are officially in. The warning states that the administrators make it difficult for US diplomats in Georgia to enter or travel through the disputed territory, hence stating that U.S. passports are really not valid for travel in these fantasy states. The article should only take into consideration the "Political realities" of the region and not the idealism or imagination of a select few of secessionists who feel that they're above international law. I have reverted the article and will seek open dialogue before moving to the next level of resolution, however, please refrain from reverting the article and causing an edit war. --XLR8TION (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I can identify a consensus when I see one. The consensus is: they should be in the article. Unfortunately we are not unanimous here, but that is not a requirement within wikipedia. We have discussed this now several days, so it is time to conclude. I will therefore re-instate the change and advice you not to edit war over it. Advice to all: please read up to the 3 revert rule if you are not familiar with it. L.tak (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That US diplomats would have trouble entering Abkhazia in no way implies that US passports aren't valid. It just means the US has no consular ability to help its citizens in Abkhazia. CMD (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• • U.S. State department has ruled that South Ossetia and Abzhakia do not exist. As the issuer of U.S. passports, they all legitimate rights to dictate their foreign policy which also includes passport use. Further more please see this article -->[43]. The State Department has ruled that they will accept neutral passports from these regions issued by Georgia. Most residents of these disputed areas have Russian passports, and even the EU has taken a tough stance on these fantasy regimes. This is an ongoing dispute and like the U.S. judicial system, the article should not include disputed info until all viable recourses for dispute resolution on this site is exhausted. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether Abkhazians can use their Abkhazian passports when travelling to the US is completely irrelevant to the issue whether US citizens can use their US passports to travel to Abkhazia.—Emil J. 20:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with EmilJ, the issue is about the ability for US citizens to travel to these states, not the other way around. And your source above shows that the US government knows these states exist, they just do not recognised their validity, and, as Chip says, the US would have, "...no consular ability to help its citizens in Abkhazia." Outback the koala (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This just seems like one (XLR8TION) person's biased look at an issue that is a worldwide reality while the majority clearly sees those areas as legit since sources are also supported to back them up. Personal and diplomatic documentation or whatever, those places are there & the USA's views are not the dominate one to dictate what is or isn't a nation. Opinions about passports & visas should be debated/discussed on their respective articles. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)