Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

International Court of Justice, on Kosovo's Declaration, Paragraph 81

81. Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, in ter alla, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia: Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.

The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council.
(end of paragraph 81)

Q1: "...the illegality attached to the declarations of independence ..." Who attached illegality to the declarations of independence? UN SC or ICJ?
A1: UN SC of course, not the ICJ! ICJ decides on a subject and attaches legality or illegality only if countries (or UN Gen. Assembly (with 2/3 of 193)) apply to ICJ; as in the case of Kosovo.

Q2: International Court of Justice (ICJ) was requested to give an advisory opinion on Kosovo as "Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?". Was ICJ requested to give an advisory opinion on "declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus"?
A2: Of course, not! Nobody requested ICJ to give an opinion on Northern Cyprus!

Q3: Can a court (international or not) decide on a topic to which it is not requested?
A3: Obviously not! Courts look and examine only the cases they are requested to do so. If a court violates this rule and state an opinion about a subject before the case is presented to that court, then the case of the issue of that subject is not presented to that court due to universal law since "result is stated in advance" situation, and this depicts a bias of the court that will handle the case.

Q4: Did ICJ state any decision of its own on legality or illegality of the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus?
A4: Obviously no! ICJ only interpreted the behaviours of UN SC about UN SC's decisions on UDIs.
Alexyflemming (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Further info: The President of the ICJ Justice Hisashi Owada said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence." The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one. That is to say, "being not recognized does not affect legality/illegality of a country". Recognition is a political action. Alexyflemming (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC) [2]

The limit of power of the United Nations Security Council

After the partnership government collapsed, the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus at the stage of the debates in New York in February 1964 (Cyprus-Mail, 09.03.2014 UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/03/09/unficyp-a-living-fossil-of-the-cold-war)
Q1: Does the UN SC have a right to
recognize the Flamans as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Flamans try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Wallons?
recognize the Wallons as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Wallons try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Flamans?
recognize the Czechs as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Czechs try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Slovaks?
recognize the Slovaks as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Slovaks try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Czechs?
A1: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.
Alexyflemming (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Legality and illegality of a use of outer force

In ICJ's 2008-2010 Kosovo process, ICJ only showed the "stance of UN SC on use of (claimable) outer force", but did not show its own stance on that issue.
As such some journal articles appeared about the limit and cases of legality of usage of outer force.

There are many discussion on this: Turkey on Northern Cyprus (Turkish Cypriots), NATO on Kosovo (Kosovar Albanians), Russia on Abkhasia (Abkhasians), Russia on South Ossetia (South Ossetians), Russia on Crimea (Crimean Russians)... I will explain the facts and realities, little later.Alexyflemming (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to the article? Per WP:NOTFORUM this is not the place for discussion of the issues, only of the article. Kahastok talk 08:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Change on Northern Cyprus part of the article

Current:
Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983. It is recognised by one UN member, Turkey. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization have granted Northern Cyprus observer status under the name "Turkish Cypriot State". United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 defines the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus as legally invalid. Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".
Proposed:
Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983. It is recognised by one UN member, Turkey. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization have granted Northern Cyprus observer status under the name "Turkish Cypriot State". United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 defines the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus as legally invalid. Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".
Namely: the deletion of the "... the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force"..." part.
Reasonings:
A. That part does not give any plausible extra information: "UN SC's stance ("use of outer force") was already stated just in the resolution of the previous sentence.". i.e. in the UN SC 541 (1983) resolution.
Notice that ICJ has no stance on declarations of the specified countries (NC is among them) in paragraph 81. ICJ states its stance only such a request is raised from ICJ, as in the case of Kosovo.
B. I do not know the Wiki user who added that extra info; it seems s/he has not enough English knowledge. Before I corrected that part, it was like that:
"the Court also said the illegality of the TRNC declaration stemmed from "the unlawful use of force".".
I changed this to:
the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".
based on the following facts:
1. The wiki user is deriving "attribution of illegality to the DOI of NC" by the ICJ from parag. 81. The fact is that parag 81 has no mentionings of stance of ICJ on Northern Cyprus. Notice also that ICJ states its stance about an issue only if it is requested to do so, as in the case of Kosovo.
2. In paragraph 81 (all of which is given above), ICJ is just making statements about the stance and position of UN SC on declarations of the specified countries. In paragraph 81, ICJ is not clarifying its stance on declarations of the specified countries. Notice that ICJ does this only in the case of a request is raised from ICJ to do this, as in the case of Kosovo!
3. The one who attaches illegality to declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus is UN SC, not the ICJ (as understood by the parag. 81)
4. Parag. 89 has no mentionings related with Northern Cyprus.

So, there seems to be (a Wiki user who has not enough level of English understanding edited the related part) or (a Wiki user who edited that part without enough research).
C. The relevant edits are:
PeterPedant 22.08.2014 08:21: "Inappropriate quote from ICJ para. 79 (covering 18C and 19C) changed to quote from para.89"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=next&oldid=621662492
From: International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence
To: general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence  ; parag89

PeterPedant 22.08.2014 09:06: "False claim that ICJ Kosovo opinion applies to TRNC corrected, with ref to ICJ para. 81"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=next&oldid=622311928
From: though the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence"
To: Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", the Court also said the illegality of the TRNC declaration stemmed from "the unlawful use of force"....and 81.

My interpretation about Peter's 22.08.2014 09:06 edit: Peter corrects one thing while he creates another incorrect situation. In first part ("..., though..."), the word "though" seems to so-pro to TRNC. Here one can also say, only the situations of these two entities "may" be similar. Hence, in another approach, there is no inconvenience in this. However, when Peter correct this to "...the Court also said the illegality of the TRNC declaration stemmed from "the unlawful use of force"", any normal body in the street can understand that ICJ stated some fact that is against TRNC. In parag 81, ICJ is not stating ICJ's stance on TRNC, Rhodesia, etc.; in parag 81, ICJ is stating UN SC's stance on TRNC, Rhodesia etc.. Hence, in parag 81, ICJ is saying simply that "UN SC is thinking that TRNC's declaration is illegal due to the unlawful use of force". Peter's editing/handling reflects (as a wrong info) that "ICJ is thinking TRNC's declaration is illegal due to the unlawful use of force". To Peter: ICJ does not state anything on an issue in which it is not requested to give its (advisory or compulsory) opinion. In parag 81, though ICJ is finishing paragraph with "no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council", ICJ did not state (and has no right to make a statement at all; see the last of this sentence) any pro or con decision on DOI of Northern Cyprus (or on DOI of Rhodesia etc.). ICJ cannot do that! ICJ explains, states, decides only when it is requested to do so, as in the case of Kosovo.
Alexyflemming (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be concerned with this proposal, because:

• The sentence it creates ("Although X opinion on X in 2010 found Z.") is ungrammatical.
• The remaining sentence is not clearly relevant to the TRNC situation. What does Kosovo have to do with the TRNC? The existing sentence makes this clearer.

If you want to remove this (and while I haven't looked at the rationale or sources in detail, I don't see a major problem with removing it if it is wrong), please remove the entire sentence starting with "Although...".

Yes, you are right, Kahostok; the sentences that wanted to be connected with "though", "although", etc. in a specific way, should be seen or should be derivable or inferable from the given sources and given references clearly. Connecting many sentences with connectives as if the sources said like that is false. Hence, based on your suggestion and above arguments; I offer:

From: Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".

To: The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".

Alexyflemming (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to TRNC? Note that per WP:NOR we cannot state or imply that a statement made in one case is necessarily relevant in another, unless reliable sources also draw a connection. In this case, the point being implied - that TRNC had the right to declare independence - is apparently not accepted by the source (even if that rejection not accurately described at present).

No, we need to lose the reference to the ICJ completely or explain how the ICJ referred to TRNC in its decision. We can't leave a reference to the ICJ in a completely different case hanging like this. Kahastok talk 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In deciding Kosovo's case, in paragraph 81, ICJ mentioned Northern Cyprus. Some misunderstands what ICJ means (they make derivations as if ICJ made negative statements for NC); They must read the whole paragraph completely carefully. In parag. 81, ICJ only interpreted UN SC's actions on NC and others. The one who attached illegality to DOI of NC is UN SC, not ICJ!

The other equivalently important thing is that some Wiki users make comments in this issue without knowing any law theory. In international law, ICJ and other courts make statements, explanations, decisions only if they are requested to do so. In Kosovo, UN General Assembly requested ICJ to make an opinion. In Northern Cyprus case, nobody requested ICJ to make an opinion or decision; Also, ICJ made no negative or positive statements on Northern Cyprus specifically (and has no such a right due to ICJ's own regulations).

Also, ICJ's approach in general is clear enough:

a: ICJ (Kosovo 2008-10): "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence."

b: President of ICJ, Hisashi Owada: International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.

So, from 2 ICJ info given in the article: The 1st (summary of both a and b) is necessary since it is new and directly related with "UN SC's illegality decision on DOI of NC", whereas the 2nd (ICJ's interpretation of UN SC's use of outer force arguement) is redundant since:

ICJ once more states and emphasizes position of UN SC (use of outer force) that is already given in the resolution of previous sentence (1983-541). That's why, that is redundant.

ICJ did not make any clarification what ICJ thinks at all. i.e. From "a" and "b", can one also say that whether the "use of outer force" also do not affect legality of DOI of a country or not? We will see this when NC's (or some other country's) case is presented to ICJ. (Hint and a guess: in Kosovo, NATO also was an outer force!)

Also, please do not miss what I offer: I offer not to use connectives like "though, although, etc." since in that case it is understood as you stated: "the point being implied - that TRNC had the right to declare independence". On the other hand, when it comes to WP:NOR (no original research), look at these two:

Did ICJ say that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence"? Yes! Exactly used this sentence in its decision. Hence, it is not an original research.

Is there any relevance of the presented info? Yes! UN SC made 3 illegality decisions on DOIs of countries "Southern Rhodesia, Northern Cyprus, Republika Srpska"; and (UN SC's decisions) and (ICJ's decision and President of ICJ's decision) are conflicting in some sense.

Alexyflemming (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is OR because it links an ICJ decision on Kosovo to the situation of the TRNC. We are not allowed to do that unless the sources make that link.

Let me put it another way. What point, that is relevant to the situation of the TRNC, are you seeking to make by including the words, The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".?

If those words are intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then that point is OR unless it cites a source that corroborates that point specifically in the context of the TRNC.

If those words are not intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then there is no reason for them to be in the article.

The conclusion is the same either way. Kahastok talk 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"It is OR because it links an ICJ decision on Kosovo to the situation of the TRNC. We are not allowed to do that unless the sources make that link."

R: WP:OR; No original research: ...Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...

I said (in offer; and that is currently on the article) that "The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".

I am presenting a fact and presenting reliable source. I did not change even a letter from ICJ's decision on official ICJ website! I take the mutatis mutandis (exactly) the same sentence from there, and included nothing besides it.

I did not make any analysis or synthesis. I did not state any conclusion. The source's writing is directly related to NC's case since in paragraph 81, NC is mentioned.

From "The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", one cannot deduce ICJ decided or thinked the same for NC just like Kosovo.

What point, that is relevant to the situation of the TRNC, are you seeking to make by including the words "The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".?

R: In 1983-541, UN SC declared DOI of NC as illegal. In 2010-Kosovo,

ICJ said:"..general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence..", and

President of ICJ said: "..international law contains no prohibition on declaration of independences..".

Hence, "UN SC's declaration of DOIs of countries as illegal" has weak or no basis to be depended on general international law. (This is stated in parag.81 in ICJ's decision:

"The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the ICJ to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral DOI may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council")

i.e. "UN SC's declaration of DOIs of countries as illegal" is not an absolute determiner; i.e. that the applying/usage of that exceptional character has no root in general international law.

If those words are intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then that point is OR unless it cites a source that corroborates that point specifically in the context of the TRNC.

'R: With those words, I do not say that the "TRNC's case is exactly the same, and DOI of NC also does not violate general int'l law". I say exactly the same thing as ICJ, and does not add anything to ICJ.

From what I put there, one can derive/infer as much as what ICJ said. I do not make any derivation/inference from ICJ's 2010 decision.

If those words are not intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then there is no reason for them to be in the article.

R: In 2010 Kosovo, ICJ handled the DOI of Kosovo; not DOI of NC. However, in parag.81, there is a point which is regarding with TRNC.

The name of the country ("northern Cyprus") is included in parag.81 of ICJ decision.

ICJ 2010 parag.81 does not state "DOI of NC is legal as well just like Kosovo", but say something/point related with TRNC, and I put exactly the same something/point.

If one connects sentences like "though" or something else, then that makes an analysis or synthesis.

What is irrelevant/redundant is the "the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".

Because: just in the previous sentence, UN SC's 1983-541 resolution is mentioned and in that resolution UN SC's attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force"

That is to say, this last sentence "does not say something new" or "does not add an extra information". If ICJ handles the case of NC in future and say something positive or negative on DOI of NC, then that thing can be put as a new (or extra) info in NC's paragraph in the article.

Alexyflemming (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When I ask what point you wish to make you do not apply the sentence to TRNC. By mere fact of placing the sentence in a section about the TRNC, you imply that the there is some relevance to the TRNC in the statement - that TRNC may be legal as its declaration of independence is not illegal per se. That implication is OR. In fact the source says the opposite, as the status quo makes clear.

I thus oppose the proposal as is. If the entire sentence was removed, I would accept it. With a caveat as per the status quo, I would accept it. As is, I cannot as it is a violation of WP:NOR. Kahastok talk 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When I ask what point you wish to make you do not apply the sentence to TRNC.

R: ICJ made a point on DOIs of countries in general, that is not specific to TRNC. ICJ made no point on legality/illegality of DOI of TRNC (It can do so only if it is required to do so)

By mere fact of placing the sentence in a section about the TRNC, you imply that the there is some relevance to the TRNC in the statement

R: That relevance is not pro/con in itself. Also, in that section of TRNC, the decisions on DOI(s) of international organizations are placed like UN SC. Note, ICJ is also an international organization and also made a point about DOIs of countries.

That point is related with TRNC since in that paragraph, TRNC is also mentioned to reach that point.

- that TRNC may be legal as its declaration of independence is not illegal per se. That implication is OR.

R: From that point (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence) what you said (TRNC may be legal as its DOI is not illegal per se) cannot be deduced.

From (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) one can only deduce (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI)!

In fact the source says the opposite, as the status quo makes clear.

R: The source says nothing about legality/illegality of DOI of TRNC. Even, in international law, ICJ make statements, explanations, decisions, opinions only if it is required to do so, as in the case of Kosovo.

For NC, ICJ was not requested to make an (advisory or compulsory) decision till now.

"The continuation of the status quo in Cyprus island" has nothing to do with "the ICJ's opinion on DOI of TRNC". "The continuation of the status quo in Cyprus island" is due to UN SC's 1964-186 and UN SC's 1983-541. The case of Northern Cyprus was not presented to the ICJ till now!

as it is a violation of WP:NOR:

R: WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...

(general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) is said. it is exactly in ICJ's website. It is reliable. It is already in the article itself.

No analysis or synthesis is made. ICJ said (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) and (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) is offered in the article, which is still there!

What is offered as well is the deletion of "the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force" since:

a. "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC" is already still there, in the article; one paragraph above in 1983-541.

b. By using "Although ((ICJ's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence)), ((ICJ also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force"))."

From this presentation, especially from the second part, a negativity is deducable. A derivation/inference is made. That is WP:NOR!

Alexyflemming (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The analysis you're making is that the statement:

The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".

is of relevance to the TRNC situation, as I have pointed out several times now. You make that analysis by mere fact of putting it in the TRNC section. You seem to suggest that you are not trying to draw such a connection. In that case, there is no reason for the sentence to be there - in fact it is counterproductive as it implies that there is a connection that is unintended.

I will accept full removal of both parts of the sentence, or inclusion with an explicit mention of the ICJ's reference to the TRNC. Given the arguments presented, I would suggest that both parts of the sentence should just go. Kahastok talk 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What about the following more neutral:

The International Court of Justice stated on Kosovo's independence in 2010 that "the Security Council in an exceptional character attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because it was, or would have been connected with the unlawful use of force" and "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".

This offer satisfies the followings:

(((a.))) Kahastok: "I will accept inclusion with an explicit mention of the ICJ's reference to the TRNC"

It now includes explicit mention as you suggested. Notice paragraph 81:

81. Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, in ter alla, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia: Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus, and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.

The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens).

In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council.

(end of paragraph 81)

(((b.))) Since there is no "though, although", no derivation or inference exists in the above offer, and takes mutatis mutandis (exactly) the same phrases ICJ used.

Alexyflemming (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

New Source on ISIS?

In this http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/exclusive-prime-minister-david-cameron-speaks-to-brian-williams-332636227814 NBC interview, David Cameroon describes ISIS as a "terrorist group controlling a state". Does this amount to a reliable source acknowledging the "caliphate's" status as an unrecognized country? --50.46.148.231 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be de facto recognition, but it could just mean that the Islamic State is controlling Iraq? Here's your quote with more context:

"I think the threat is very clear, that you've got here not a terrorist organization that is, at it were, leaching off another state as we had in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda and the Taliban state. Here you have got ISIS which is a terrorist organization controlling a state. It has oil, it has money, it has territory, it has weapons."

It all depends on how you interpret it. [Soffredo] 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking.

No, the United Kingdom is not recognising, de facto or otherwise, ISIS as a legitimate sovereign state. I shouldn't need to tell you that. It's blindingly obvious to anyone with the vaguest understanding of international politics. The fact you even suggest that it might be otherwise suggests desperation on your part. Kahastok talk 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said It all depends on how you interpret it. I thought it was clear that Cameron was implying that the Islamic State is controlling Iraq. [Soffredo] 01:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Palestine

Not sure where to complaint, but the State of Palestine is illustrated with the German III Reich flag. Pretty sure that's not accurate (duh). Jorge6207 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone messed with Template:Country data Palestine. Should be fixed now, but might require a refresh. TDL (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Declarative Theory Requirement

I do not believe that the title of this page accuratly describes its contents. I understand that states such as the Federal States of New Russia and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant do not meet declarative theory, but are they not states with limited recognition? I think this page should include a category for any state with de facto control over an area. Any thoughts? -OBCPO

I agree with you that we need a category for any state with de facto control over an area but why do you think that The Islamic State, Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic do not meet declarative theory? 3bdulelah (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I sympathize with this issue. I think that if academics or journalists (the latter in reliable, substantive pieces addressing the issue, not with passing mention) call something a sovereign state, and treat something like a sovereign state, then we should be comfortable listing it, whether or not this definition is explicitly made in relation to the declarative theory. What's important is that we have proper sources mentioning statehood.

I have no problem with the active conflict exclusion - initial control over land during a war is not the same as having developed territorial control. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Breakaway states in Ukraine

Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic (now the Federal State of Novorossiya as of 24 May 2014) satisfy the 'Declarative Theory' actually.

• 1) They have proper boundaries (Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast)
• 2) They have permanent population (for sure)
• 3) They have their governments (you can take a look at their self titled presidents)
• 4) They have capacity to enter into relations with other states (they have been recognized by South Ossetia and made truce/ceasefire agreements with Ukraine etc.)

So what is the problem in putting them on that list? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the 'Declarative Theory' is it is a person's WP:POV Who gives the final say if these countries meet it or not? If it is editors here on Wikipedia then it is a problem. I mean Is someone eyeballing the map and saying "Yup I think this country's boundary looks good"? - USomalilanledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)_

Do you have any reliable sources that say that it meets the Declarative theory? If not, then it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. TDL (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree entirely, however any suggestions I make saying this are immediately removed because I can't find an article specifically stating that ISIL, Novorossiya, etc. meet declarative theory. Not that one could find ANY article saying this about ANY country.... Also, it says this at the bottom of the page: "Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems 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." -OBCPO

The active conflict exclusion refers only to competing governments (ie: countries with government succession problems) were two governments hold territory and yet claim to be the same state. Separatist governments (those that do not claim to be the same state as there predecessor are not covered under this exclusion. As for the declarative theory, an objective political scientist would say that the breakaway separatist states meet the declarative theory. Unfortunately, some of the folks around here are rather strict in what they regard as a reliable source, and want a source applying the theory in detail.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly Xavier! It seems the vast majority of us feel the same way as you and I. I challenge our opposition to find an article that says ANY country meets declarative theory, and that says it as specifically as an article they demand from us. -OBCPO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@OBCPO1: There are already such sources in the article, for example:

• Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.

Here is another:

• Kreuter, Aaron (2010). "Self-Determination, Sovereignty, and the Failure of States: Somaliland and the Case for Justified Secession" (PDF). Minnesota Journal of International Law. Under the declarative theory of statehood, a region attains statehood by declaring itself a state, by having a permanent population, by having a defined territory, by having a government, and by having the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Considering each of these factors, Somaliland has a colorable argument that it meets the theoretical requirements of statehood. TDL (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, this is OBCPO. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with these. I never said anything about Somaliland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@OBCPO1: You asked me to "find an article that says ANY country meets declarative theory". These are two sources which say that Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland meet the declarative theory. TDL (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Danlaycock: Right, thank you. I was curious if such sources existed, as I could not find any reliable ones. Sorry for not reading the sources when you first posted them. Thanks! OBCPO1 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

XavierGreen's comments are rather disingenuous. No one has even provided a single source, reliable or otherwise, that so much as mentions the declarative theory and any of the proposed entities in the same article. To suggest that mentioning the two words in the same article is "applying the theory in detail" is rather laughable. All that has been provided is editors personal hypotheses on what "an objective political scientist would say". Such opinions are not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia because wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. If you think this claim is true, then show me an "an objective political scientist" who says such things and I will support inclusion. But postulating it is true, without any evidence to back it up, is pure speculation.

And no, as explained above the active conflict exclusion does not only apply to cases of succession. That is why there is an "and" in the sentence. TDL (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

They are not at all disingenuous, you and one or two others want detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity. If an objective political scientist applied the theory, they would each be considered states as the elements of the theory are present in each case. Anyone can do a google search and find dozens upon dozens of articles calling the entities in questions states.

As for the "active conflict" rule, the word "and" limits the scope of the rule to government succession problems (ie: where two entities claim to be the same state) because the word "other" follows it. Thus when read like a statute or rule (which it is in essence on governing the page) applying the principle of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps) the rule is clearly limited to government succession problems and does not include break away states, which are an entire beast in themselves. The rule would not apply to the entities in question, unless you want to argue that Donetsk and or Luhansk claim to be the legitimate government of all Ukraine which would be a laughable assertion. Furthermore, if you look back at the relevant archives on the list of sovereign states page, one would clearly see that the purpose of the rule was to exclude entities with government succession problems that temporarily met the criteria (ie specifically the Libyan Transitional Authority) there is no discussion whatsoever of the rule being applied to separatist states that claim to be separate legal entities from their former "mother countries". Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely disingenuous on your part and misrepresentative of the facts at hand.XavierGreen (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually what I want you to do is the opposite of "detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity". I don't want you to do any analysis of the theory at all.

If there were sources that said, Donetsk and Luhansk are states according to the Montevideo Convention/declarative theory of statehood, that would go a very long way toward demonstrating that they belong on this list. It isn't a particularly high standard. And yet nobody has ever found any source that comes even close to it.

If, as you claim, "[i]f an objective political scientist applied the theory, they would each be considered states as the elements of the theory are present in each case", it should be trivial to find one. We as Wikipedia editors are patently not qualified to apply the theory per WP:NOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret what "objective" fact is in a realm such as political science.

I do not propose to discuss the "active conflict" rule, beyond noting that I do not accept your interpretation, because it makes no difference in this case as there is no alignment with the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kahastok, this is OBCPO. Please find a source saying ANY state on this page satisfies the declarative theory of statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You've already had two from TDL above, and between them they cover every state on this list that needs such a source (because all the others are recognised by at least one UN member state). Kahastok talk 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kahastok: Yes, sorry about the confusion. OBCPO1 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So we just have to wait for an article or a book to be written about Donetsk and Lugansk PP's foreign or interior relationships, right!? Those two actually meet the criteria but you just want a sentence that includes 'Donetsk and Lugansk PP meets the Declarative Theory' from a scientist, researcher or a reporter. Mate, its time to gather on common grounds now or things will be like 'the story of the two goats'. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Kahastok's above statement, it is not trivial to find a scholarly political science article regarding anything that has happened recently. Rather in fact it is quite an undertaking to get something published in a journal. For virtually any journal of note, one first has to get the article peer reviewed at a conference which are not all that frequent (at most quarterly per journal). And it makes a ton of difference as to the interpretation of the "active conflict" rule. If i didnt say something, its very likely that 6 months from now when it potentially does matter one of you would have gone back and said "oh there was consensus that this was the interpretation because no one objected". I've seen some of you do it before, and i'm making it clear that there is no consensus hear for a "new" interpretation of the "active conflict" rule so that it excludes separatist states. Its an entirely bogus reading that has no basis in the original conversation that lead to its implementation in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

XavierGreen, you are either being extremely disingenuous or you've completely failed to grasp the points being made to you over and over again. As Kahastok explained, no one has ever asked for "detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity". A single sentence which says something along the lines of "Donetsk meets the declarative theory of statehood" would be perfectly acceptable. If you think 7 words constitutes a "detailed analysis" then you have a very strange understanding of the words "detailed" and "analysis" indeed. I don't think any reasonable person would think 7 words constitutes a "detailed analysis". And who said anything about only scholarly political science articles being acceptable? Certainly not Kahastok nor I. If some scholar made the statement in an interview to a newspaper, that would be more than fine in my opinion. Newspapers come out daily.

Basically, your argument comes down to that it's too hard to find a source so we should just ignore WP:V and WP:OR and try to guess what RS would say if they did exist. Clearly that isn't acceptable in a serious encyclopedia. If it takes 6 months for sources to evaluate the situation, then we'll just have to wait. There is WP:NODEADLINE.

As for your "unique" interpretation of the "active conflict" rule, you have assumed (without any basis) that "government succession" only applies to the succession of sovereign governments. There is, of course, a "government succession" problem from the Donetsk Oblast to the PRD. TDL (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone opposed to making a new category on this page listing unrecognized de facto states that hold territory? I would hate to spend a lot of time making a new section to have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBCPO1 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OBCPO1, There is a page called List of active separatist movements in Europe mate, no need for that. TDL, you wrote well. I agree with you.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with XavierGreen on this one. Demanding explicit reference to the Montevideo criteria seems to me like an unreasonable demand. I think secondary sources referring to any kind of de facto statehood should be enough. If I think about WP:COMMONSENSE and what readers will expect from this article, I feel like states with clear de facto control (like the Islamic State and MAYBE Donetsk or Luhansk) should be included. Let me make clear that I HIGHLY RESPECT TDL, CMD, and Kahastok (etc.) for maintaining a voice of reason in this article and others; but how many voices do we need before we can consider there no longer to be a consensus on the status quo? GeoEvan (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well, if sources are reporting about this widespread how many more opinions do we need? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But the point is that it's a question of scope. By definition this article isn't a list of entities with "de facto statehood". It is a list of entities which are considered to be a sovereign state under international law. If we want to use a technical term like "sovereign state" we need to be sure we follow the academic consensus on it's usage. Rebel groups which have tenuous control over territory, but which don't have a legitimate claim to statehood under international law, are out of scope of this article. The only way to draw a line between such groups and sovereign states is to insist on sources which demonstrate a legitimate claim to statehood under international law.

If we were to include every place with "de facto statehood", we'd need to add numerous rebel groups including Al-Shabaab [3], Kurdistan [4][5][6], Houthis, Kachin Independence Army, etc., etc., etc., all of which control territory. Every time some rebel so much as takes control of a building, they'd need to be added. List of rebel groups that control territory was created for just such entities until such time as reliable sources describe them as being a sovereign state under international law. TDL (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The key difference is that the entities you have listed (ie the houthis, KIA, al shabab, ect) have not declared independence and thus cannot meet the declarative theory while Donetsk and Luhansk clearly have declared independence and meet criteria set forth under the theory.XavierGreen (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, Donetsk and Lugansk have both received limited recognition and should be listed under the "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" section (NKR & PMR). [Soffredo] 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with XavierGreen. This list would best serve readers by listing entities with de facto statehood PLUS declarations of sovereignty separate from existing states. Insisting on a strict legal interpretation seems like overkill, especially when no one is suggesting we restrict our sources to formal legal opinions. GeoEvan (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Than we should add every entity which has declared independence, such as Principality of Hutt River, Sealand, Carpathian Ruthenia (independence declared by 100 delegates to the Congress Of Carpathian Ruthenians in 2008), Moskitia, Republic of Lakotah and many more. Aotearoa (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Except the entities you've listed are generally considered micronations or don't have any sovereignty. [Soffredo] 19:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, the same would apply to Luhansk and Donetsk. Kahastok talk 20:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I said "de facto statehood", meaning they have to be in control of territory. None of the entities you listed, Aotearoa, fit this criteria except for maybe Sealand. I just think that reliable sources calling an entity a "de facto" state should be enough. Requiring explicit mention of "Montevideo" is overly pedantic in my opinion. GeoEvan (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly NO CONSENSUS here. Just stating the obvious, and I too dispute exclusion of the 3 states with ongoing conflicts. Palestine too has ongoing coflict/intifada/civil war, and should not be excluded. This is just one side pushing their POV on a list of UNRECOGNISED entities. BritishProudImperialMrn (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The people's republics and Kiev have agreed to a truce, potentially ending this conflict. This may be the beginning of a frozen conflict seen in other former soviet republics (Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and Morocco (Western Sahara) with self proclaimed republics with limited recognition. I believe it's best to add Lugansk and Donetsk to this article while negotiations are ongoing (negotiations are still ongoing in other areas for decades, like for Western Sahara and Transnistria, for example). They also still seek independence despite earlier reports that they want "special status" with Ukraine. They had a formal declaration of independence after a majority of people approved it in a referendum, are establishing international relations with South Ossetia and have been in talks with Russia (thus, Russia has treated them in a similar manner like Transnistria), they have their own leaders and parliaments (unlike other rebel movements they have been grouped with), they have their own militaries, control sizable territories, and have large civilian populations still living in their territories. If the argument is used that they shouldn't be incuded because they don't control the territories they claim, we shouldn't be adding Western Sahara, since the rebels there only control minuscule part of the territory they claim from Morocco. Also, Palestine does not even control all its proclaimed territory and is currently in a ceasefire with Israel, no telling if it will last. Also, the fact that it has international limited relations has distinguished it from Somaliland. I believe so far that Wikipedia has been biased in not listing them.

"Also, Palestine does not even control all its proclaimed territory and is currently in a ceasefire with Israel, no telling if it will last" Palestine is a recognized country by many members of the UN and is itself somewhat a member of the UN, so it gets included on this list even if it controlled not one acre. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an incomplete statement of clause #4. The complete clause reads "4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states, so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure." Did Lugansk and Donetsk achieve this capacity by force? If they did, then they should not be included here. --206.47.13.28 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm. Diplomatic relations with South Ossetia was definitely not achieved by force. They requested diplomatic relations, and South Ossetia voluntary responded by recognizing them. This completely mirrors the situation faced by separatists in other Post-Soviet states. Also, elections were just announced by secessionists in Lugansk and Donetsk. By November, they will finally have a democratically-elected government like in Transnistria and Nagorno Karabkh, states that have recognition only from non-UN countries recognized by some UN countries (Russia, Venezuela, etc.). They are now entering the cold conflict phase like in other Post-Soviet republics like Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. They definitely are in the same league with other unrecognized/semi-unregonized states. I don't see why they are excluded here, unless some Ukrainians/Pro-Kiev people are intentionally trying to block their inclusion in this page. Wikipedia needs to be objective by listing the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics. Based on all this, they clearly satisfy the four points of the declarative theory, like Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh, other states that are listed on this page without dispute and are exactly like the People's Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.177.22 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, according to the BBC News articles published on 5/11/14 the Russian Federation "recognises" the elections held in the DPR, which can arguably be considered a de facto recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.10.119 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry, I have deleted transnistria for the list

Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics are actually independent states:

• 1) They have proper boundaries (Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast)
• 2) They have permanent population
• 3) They have their governments (you can take a look at their self titled presidents), they have done their elections, they have a parliament...
• 4) They have capacity to enter into relations with other states (they have been recognized by South Ossetia and made truce/ceasefire agreements with Ukraine etc.)

Please, don't delete Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics from the list

• This has been discussed here. In brief, (a) no, there are no borders for the so-called DNR and LNR - only ceasefire lines and (b) even these ceasefire lines were not recognized by the self-proclaimed LNR and DNR authorities who continue fighting to expand their territory. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This provides perhaps the root cause for their failing the inclusion criteria, but in Wikipedia terms it's the fact that they fail the inclusion criteria that is important, regardless of the reasons for it.

Basically, in order to have some kind of integrity to the list, we need to have a clear standard defining exactly what belongs and what does not. This then allows us to compare potential entries (which could be just about anything) with the standard and say whether an entity belongs or not. The standard here is that the potential entry must either be sourced as meeting the standard of the declarative theory or that they must be recognised as a sovereign state by a UN member state. The most common argument made for inclusion is that some Wikipedians believe based on their own assessment that the standard of the declarative theory is met, and that this is enough for us to ignore the fact that nobody outside Wikipedia believes that that standard is met. This is insufficient. We do not include without evidence from external sources that the standard of the declarative theory is met.

This point has been discussed repeatedly over the past few months, and the conclusion - that they should not be included - has been the same at every one. I see no need to revisit this.. Kahastok talk 10:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that is important that two new states Donetsk and Lugansk in Eastern Europe have been included in the list but I don't know why always someone deletes these two states from the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier Cussó Bordes (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Read discussion about it first, then argue why it should be changed, at the and, if your argumentation be accepted, you will be able to change it. Aotearoa (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw previous argument by this editor :[7]. Where he is wrong? 1) no, the boundaries of DND and LNR do not coincide with Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast; they are much smaller; 2) no, they do not have permanent population and borders (noted many times in these discussions); 4)no, they do not have a truce/ceasefire agreement with Ukraine, they officially refused to follow any ceasefire agreements. My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

why do Ossetia, Abkhaszia, Tansistria and NKO get it then? AsharaDayne (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • Do you have reliable, third-party source for inclusion of these areas?--Yopie (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia get in through being internationally recognised by UN member states (Russia and a few others). NK, Transnistria and Somaliland can be sourced as meeting the declarative theory (sources provided in the above discussion). No such sourcing has ever been provided for these two groups, and the arguments being made now are the same as have been made for months now. If you want a change, first read the above and understand why it has been rejected in the past. Kahastok talk 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Do the non-UN members recognize the UN members as states? If they do not, then ALL states would have limited recognition. And how do we source it either way? --Khajidha (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No one really cares if a non-UN member recognizes anyone, except for other non-UN members. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You and I, nor various rebel/opposition etc groups are not UN members and our recognition or non-recognition of the United States of America or Italy has no bearing on the status of these being recognized countries. Being a country generally requires being let into the club of nations. Good question. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The general assumption here has always been that sovereign UN member states are recognised unless there is active non-recognition: per WP:REDFLAG, the more surprising claim in such a case would be that there is no recognition, not that there is recognition. Kahastok talk 22:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is the problem I have with this. You are all making the assumption that being a UN member makes something a state, when it seems to me that being a is a prerequisite for UN membership. Why are we giving UN membership such a priority and why isn't that prioritization made more explicit if it is to be used. To me, it seems like an unexpressed and unexamined assumption. If, for example, Kosovo is state enough to be considered a partially recognized state then it is state enough for any refusal of recognition it makes to cause some other state to be considered a partially recognized state. Fully recognized should mean exactly that, fully recognized.--Khajidha (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that this is a problem in any practical sense? Your first message claimed that, potentially, all states had limited recognition. If you want to say that, you need proof. Speculation is irrelevant.

UN membership is not used to determine whether entities go on this list, only whether their recognition is considered significant. We make it clear that we are using UN status to determine this in the article. We do have to recognise that there is a significant body of opinion that holds that Kosovo, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh et al are not sovereign states. In many cases, that's a clear majority opinion internationally. In those cases, WP:NPOV requires that we respect that POV and give it due prominence. We should have very little time for the argument that it can neutrally be said that Transnistria is the equal of Moldova because outside Wikipedia it is near-universally held that it cannot.

We spent years arguing over what the most appropriate way of distinguishing the generally-recognised from those over which there is widely-held objection. UN membership was the best we found. There will never be perfection and it's the best we're likely to get. And I see no reason to change it and I doubt there will be much appetite to restart that discussion. Kahastok talk 20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that joining the UN makes something a state. However, since UN membership is restricted to sovereign states, and UN membership is near universal, if a state is able to join this suggests that it is recognized as a state by most other sovereign states. UN membership is often described as "collective recognition", since it shows that the international community as a whole has recognized it. See for example:

International Law. it is nowadays accepted that admission into the UN markes something like collective recognition; a state admitted as a member of the UN is accepted as a legitimate member of the community of states

This "collective recognition" is a strong indication that the entity is a state:

International Law. membership of the United Nations constitutes powerful evidence of statehood.

Conversely, recognition by fringe states is generally not considered to be strong evidence of the existence of a state:

Teachings on Basic Topics in Public International Law. The faculty to grant recognition is absolutely reserved to entities that have attained statehood in undeniable term ... it is a legal requirement that the recognising entity must itself not be one which existence as a member of the international community is yet to be fully established

Thus, recognition by say Sweden, whose status as a state is undisputed, is much more significant than recognition by South Ossetia, whose status as a state is widely disputed. TDL (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

An entity does not have to be a soveriegn state to be a member of the UN, in the past as recently as 1991 there were various non-soveriegn entities that had membership, ie soviet Ukraine, the Philippines and India before independence.XavierGreen (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 07 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clear consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below (WP:SNOW). Dekimasuよ! 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

---

List of states with limited recognition → List of contested states – The current descriptor "states with limited recognition" is almost never used by RS. The only non-wiki book or scholarly source I can find which uses it is [8]. Conversely, the proposed "contested states" terminology is well established in the literature to describe states without universal recognition. See for example: [9][10][11][12][13].

In addition to being more WP:RECOGNIZABLE and natural due to its commonness off-wiki, the proposed title is also more WP:PRECISE. The current title does not reflect the content since the list does not contain all states with less than universal recognition. Some new states like Montenegro have yet to be recognized by every state (see [14]). However, there is a long-standing consensus that this limited recognition is not notable. Rather, it is just a technicality since the formalities that go along with recognition can take time, and some states can't be bothered to exert the effort to formally recognize uncontroversial states. Since the list only includes the subset of non-universally recognized states which are contested, the proposed title more precisely reflects the content. Additionally, it has been argued by some that the current title does not encompass the unrecognized states on the list. I disagree with this argument, but the renaming would resolve this concern.

Finally, the proposed title is also significantly more WP:CONCISE. TDL (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strong Oppose This is not about electoral contests, such as which states are purple and not red or blue (if you're American, you'll know what I mean) This is also not about states being contested between the Soviet Bloc and the Western Bloc. Etc. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title is more neutral, especially when applied to countries like Israel or China. If in doubt, please ask people on talk pages of articles like State of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The important issue is WP:AT, "The title indicates what the article is about..." An accurate NPOV title would be List of geopolitical administrations with limited international recognition. Some nations may recognise a non-UN member as being a state. Other nations may not. Wikipedia should not make a judgement. The common denominator is that every entry relates to Geopolitics. This is the terminology that is used in the first line of the article and I think that it would be best used in the title. Limited recognition should range from only one nation recognising an administration to only one nation not recognising an administration. Territory controlling groups with no recognition are best presented elsewhere.

Oppose for reasons "stated". The proposed move would just add to confusion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The current title is highly accurate as to the content on the page and such a move would be misrepresenting the page content. Outback the koala (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Misleading as regards the content and scope of the article per WP:AT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOV reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the current name is meaningful. I assume that the proposed new name would mean that if a state's existence were contested, it should be listed here - but that definition applies to many of Russia's neighbours - the current regime in Moscow is actively trying to destabilise them - so by that definition, Ukraine (which is a founder-member of the UN) would count as a contested-country. That is a very big step; it is not Wikipedia's business to take that kind of big step.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Question. So, for example, Israel and China will be considered "contested states". Which exactly RS call them this way? Would that be consistent with WP:NPOV? My very best wishes (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC: Propose use of terminologies "non-UN members"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose support for the use of subsection titles within section "Present geopolitical entities by level of recognition" to use text "Non-UN members..."

Also propose support for the presentation of items in sequence of recognition and not in sequence of lack of recognition.

This would present contents as follows:

• UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member
• Non-UN members recognised by at least one UN member
• Non-UN members recognised only by non-UN members
• Non-UN members not recognised by any state

My argument is that we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice to describe a "state" in situations in which that view is not unanimously accepted and may be unanimously rejected. I also think that, if recognition is a positive and lack of recognition is a negative, then the list should most naturally be presented in that order.

At present content is presented as follows:

• Non-UN member states not recognised by any state
• Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members
• Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member
• UN member states not recognised by at least one UN member

The article Sovereign state begins, "A state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system.." I don't see how we can declare non recognised entities to be states. We can declare non-UN members to be exactly that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support the reordering, do not support the removal of the word state from the section headers. No state is unanimously rejected as a state. If nothing else, it accepts itself as a state. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I am a non-UN member not recognized by any state. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Khajidha Please note that a state requires international recognition to be considered a state. There a number of Rebel groups controlling territory that do just that but have no recognition. I argue that Somaliland should not be considered a state. It is just an administration holding territory in Somalia. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. An "administration holding territory" is what a state is. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Khajidha This is all well and good as far as theory goes but certainly on a page like this we have to go by NPOV. We cannot indicate in Wikipedia's voice that an administration is a state in cases in which this is disputed. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. According to the title ("List of states with limited recognition"), states included in this list must have at least a limited official recognition by other states. Therefore, "Non-UN members not recognised by any state" (4th category) should NOT be included in the list. I would also argue that some other "states" must also be excluded. Even the most loose criterion for inclusion, the so called "declarative theory", claims that something can be recognized as a "state" in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states, so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. Certain "states" (currently included here) do not meet these criteria. In particular, they are kept by force, and in essence simply represent a territory occupied and kept by military forces of another state.My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Which states do you believe do not meet this criteria? There are RS in the article which verify that Somaliland/Nagorno-Karabakh/Transnistria meet the criteria you described above.

"limited" in the title of this article means "restricted". No recognition qualifies as "restricted" recognition. That being said, if you have a title which better includes unrecognized states then that might be helpful. TDL (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, South Ossetia and Transnistria should be excluded as highly questionable "states" which only recognize each other. As I noted above, they are probaly not even "states" per "declarative theory", because they have been created and continue to exist due to use of external military support ( note that the "declarative theory" itself is still unsourced here). My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And as I said above, that these three states meet the declarative theory is already sourced in the article to the following book:

Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland..

Do you have any sources which refute this source? Also, South Ossetia is recognized by 5 UN member states so your argument doesn't apply to it. TDL (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Refute? Easily. For example, "Self-Determination and Secession in International Law" by Christian Walter, Antje von Ungern-Sternberg, Kavus Abushov, published later (2014), by the same Oxford University Press (see page 188) tells that South Ossetia is not a state, or at least this is something highly controversial, so that recognition of South Ossetia statehood by Russia and other countries is illegal, according to Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia quoted in the book. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that does not refute the point. It does not say that "South Ossetia is not a state", it merely summarizes the findings of the IIFFMCG report, which was prepared by the European Union diplomats. That the EU does not think that they are states should hardly be a surprise: that's why the don't recognize them. (Also, the IIFFMCG report was published in September 2009, years before the source linked above. That a newer source has quoted it does not make it more recent.) The IIFFMCG is a WP:PRIMARY source. I could likewise point to a report prepared by Russia saying that they are a state. Partisan opinions by diplomats do not carry nearly as much weight as analysis performed by neutral, WP:SECONDARY academic sources, like the one I linked to above or like this:

Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra (2012). Conflict and Peace in Eurasia. Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia formally met the criteria of the Montevideo Convention

Of course their statehood is controversial. If it weren't, their recognition wouldn't be limited and they wouldn't be included here. By definition, the statehood of every entry on this list is controversial. I'm certainly not arguing that there is universal agreement that they are states, but there is certainly a significant academic position that they are, and removing them, as you suggest, would be WP:UNDUE. TDL (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at refs. One of them was link to dating agency. All countries in the list are different. Some of them are recognized by many countries. They are fine. But a few were not recognized by the entire world. They are recognized only by each other and by the country-occupier which created these "countries" at the first place. This is very definition of WP:FRINGE. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And what about all the sources you didn't delete and the new one above?

Recognition does not create states. States exist whether they are recognized or not. See for example:

Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination. ... even the most ardent supporters of this view do not claim that recognition creates the state as is often suggested, since the state must, by way of necessity, exist prior to recognition. What is claimed, however, is that the act of recognition endows the already existing state with a legal personality

Multiple independent and neutral academic sources say these states exist. Following these sources is not FRINGE. So far you have failed to provided any secondary sources that say these entities are not states. Claiming that we should ignore all the academic secondary sources simply because Putin and Obama say so is the real FRINGE here. If the United States and Russia decided to stop recognizing the existence of the sun would you claim that the sun no longer existed? TDL (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I did provide an academic book (see above) telling that recognition of South Ossetia by Russia was illegal, and there are many more sources. I simply do not see any reason to continue this discussion. We both made our points and happen to disagree about these fringe states because there is a disagreement in sources.My very best wishes (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, that isn't a honest representation of the source. The book you referenced only quotes European diplomats as saying that the recognition was illegal. That is not inconsistent with the fact that the states exist. Diplomats are WP:PRIMARY partisan sources which make decisions for political reasons without regard to the facts. Such political posturing does not prevent a state from existing. As such, while they are RS for whether they recognize the state or not, they are not considered RS for whether the state actually exists.

Even if there is a disagreement in the sources, WP:NPOV demands that we do not just ignore those sources which say that they do exist. It says we need to present both pespectives. That is precisely why the unrecognized states are listed separately from the other states. TDL (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Support reordering. I don't see a problem describing all the entries on this list as "states" since RS do. That they are widely unrecognized does not make them not states. TDL (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I noted above, "limited recognition" and "unrecognized" (there is no any recognition by other states) are different things. One might create a separate list of "unrecognized states". Are they really "states"? This is something disputable and should be decided on case to case basis. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "limited" merely means that their recognition is restricted. "unrecognized" is a subset of "limited recognition". I don't see how breaking states with limited but non-zero recognition and unrecognized states into separate articles would be helpful. TDL (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - How can 'unrecognised' be a subset of 'limited recognition'? Is this based on some form of WP:OR whereby zero is a starting point on an "in the real world" value scale? Is 'unrecognised' somehow based on having a functioning infrastructure or a notional sense of justice/injustice? Considering the WP:TITLE of this article, as opposed to the calibre of discussion on this page, it's notable that a substantial number of users POV pushing for unrecognised states to feature here have been blocked from editing areas of Wikipedia subject to sanctions. If this is realistically an article/list of states with limited recognition, it wouldn't be teetering on the brink of OR: RS, not theoretical duels, please. If the article doesn't feature 'theoretical' in its title, or use WP:INLINE attribution, then contentious content does not belong in the body simply because contributors want to spar over theory. I'm sure I don't need to remind regular editors that adherence to policy overrides consensus every time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"limited" literally just means less than some limit, ie "restricted" or "incomplete". The title can literally be read as "list of states which have not been fully recognized". In this case, the question is if a state is recognized by all 193 UN member states. If a state is completely recognized, its recognition is not limited. If it is not completely recognized, its recognition is limited because it is subject to a limit. That being said, perhaps there is a clearer way to title this article that better encompasses the content? Any suggestions? Also note that content isn't dictated by the title, but rather it is the opposite way around. WP:CRITERIA says we chose the title based on the content.

Quite honestly I don't understand what point you are trying to make with respect to "theoretical"/INLINE. Each state on the list has citations supporting that it is either a state or recognized as a state, and has less the full recognition. What other sources would you like?

Finally, I have no idea who you are referring to with regards to editors "blocked from editing areas of Wikipedia subject to sanctions", but if you think someone is violating their sanctions then please report them to the appropriate place. Otherwise, please refrain from the ad hominem and discuss the content, not the contributors. TDL (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would note that this list has always been intended as being based on its current inclusion criteria, i.e. including states with no international recognition. The list is an attempt at a concise description of the criteria listed in the article. This is standard on Wikipedia - all lists' contents are defined by the inclusion criteria in the article, and the title is never more than a description of this. For example, we are never realistically going to call this the List of polities that claim statehood, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and either satisfy the declarative theory of statehood or are recognised as a state by at least one UN member state.

If there is consensus that the current titles fails to accurately describe the list, as per the argument that "limited recognition" excludes no recognition, then that is an argument to change the title. It is not an argument to change the list. Kahastok talk 19:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is explained at WP:LISTNAME. TDL (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Agree with My very best wishes, "(4th category) should NOT be included in the list." A state requires a level of international recognition to be considered a state. I also do not think that it is Wikipedias perogative to decide which groups or administrations controlling territory can be considered states. Definitions of state are dependent on international recognition and the only RS with ANY relevance are the representatives of sovereign states.Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No that is simply not true. States exist whether they are internationally recognized or not. Please read the source I linked to above:

Statehood and the Law of Self-Determination. ... even the most ardent supporters of this view do not claim that recognition creates the state as is often suggested, since the state must, by way of necessity, exist prior to recognition. What is claimed, however, is that the act of recognition endows the already existing state with a legal personality

Of course Wikipedians should not be deciding what should be considered states. That is precisely why only entities which reliable sources say are states are included. Partisan politicians are WP:PRIMARY sources and are not reliable sources for whether a state exists or not, only whether they recognize it. TDL (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I entirely agree that Wikipedians should not be deciding what should be considered states, certainly. Which is why I oppose any attempt to impose a standard such as "[a] state requires a level of international recognition to be considered a state", a statement which is - effectively - an attempt by a Wikipedian to decide what should be considered a state. Kahastok talk 19:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And I would argue that Wikipedians should not be deciding what should be considered states for inclusion where the unrecognised entities are recognised as being on the territory and under the jurisdiction of recognised states. Your argument for "...this list has always been intended as being based on its current inclusion criteria, i.e. including states with no international recognition." falls flat on its face. In the simplest of terms, a state (in terms of requisite needs in the real world) requires physical territory. Are you, then, discussing a virtual/notional state or 'wishlist' state. How is that reconciled with reality? Try splitting off into another list because you're trying to divide by zero. A separate list would serve the navigational needs of WP:LISTNAME in the "see also" section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not recognise your characterisation of this list. If you look down the list - and ignore any non-consensual additions such as Donetsk, Luhansk or ISIS which may have been added and not yet removed again - the only entry that has not both claimed independence and consistently held physical territory on the ground for the last fifteen years is Kosovo (which has done so for six years). There are no unrecognised states on this list that are under the jurisdictional control of any recognised state. That is the whole point of the exercise. We aren't discussing "a virtual/notional state or 'wishlist' state" in any case here. The inclusion criteria we have quite deliberately preclude any such claimed state from being included. Moreover, those criteria come from the two different theories of statehood in international law, i.e. from reliable sources. Kahastok talk 09:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If the intention is to keep the list proscribed, perhaps you can explain to me what "Non-UN members not recognised by any state" means. It certainly sounds 'notional' to me: something of a gaping chasm whereby the theory can/will end up overriding any 'in this world' reality. Rather than using sources to prove that a state in recognised after a fashion, this is opening up the dialogue to having to find sources to disprove the existence of an unrecognised state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

An "unrecognized state" is a geopolitical entity which neutral academic sources describe as meeting the definition of a sovereign state (ie it independently governs a populated territory) but which other governments do not acknowledge. Only functional states which exist in the real word are included, since other proposed/hypothetical geopolitical entities do not meet the definition of a sovereign state. The key point is that "unrecognized states" ARE recognized as states by neutral academics, just not by partisan politicians. Entities like Donetsk, Luhansk and ISIS have not been included because they are unrecognized by BOTH academics and other states.

For example if the People's Republic of China convinced the remaining ~20 states that recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) to withdraw their recognition, that would not stop the Republic of China from existing in the real world. They would continue to govern the island of Taiwan independent of mainland China, whether other governments recognized them or not. If PRC invaded and took control of the island of Taiwan, then the existence of the RoC would cease in the real world and they would stop being a state. The article includes all states that exist "in the real world", whether other governments have chosen to recognize them or not, since the decision to recognize is a political statement, not an assessment of the facts on the ground. The suggestion that we should exclude states which exist in the "real word" simply because other partisan governments do not recognize them is a rejection of reality. TDL (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never supported any proposal to change the text to refer to "Non-UN members not recognised by any state" - my view is actually as per User:Super Nintendo Chalmers above. At the moment the wording is "Non-UN member states not recognised by any state", and I do not believe I have ever expressed an opinion on that either.

My opinion is that states that actually do exist according to reliable sources, but that have not been recognised internationally, should be included per Danlaycock's comment above. How we describe that concept - including what labels and what titles we use - should be secondary to the information we actually want to get across. Kahastok talk 19:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• And no unilateral moves, please. Discuss first. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting just because I didn't ask your permission first is not helpful. WP:BOLD encourages "unilateral" edits. Of course if you have objections, I would be happy to discuss it. But please explain your revert so I can respond to your concerns and attempt to find a compromise. Without any explanation, that's obviously not possible.

Do you believe the current title better describes the contents of this article? Why? Looking at WP:CRITERIA, the proposed title is more concise, natural, recognizable, and more precisely describes the content of the article (since we don't include undisputed states with limited recognition such as Montenegro). TDL (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose such renaming because it's not clear what word "disputed" means in such context and because "disputed states" is not an established terminology. On the other hand, recognition by other countries is something self-explaining. A controversial renaming like this requires an RfC and consensus. Please follow established procedures. BTW, we have List of historical unrecognized states where unrecognized (by any other countries) states belong. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you really trying to suggest that current unrecognized states belong on List of historical unrecognized states? As that article explains, it only lists "extinct geopolitical entities that wished to be recognized as sovereign states". Extinct means "no longer existing". Clearly none of the entries on this list fall within the scope of the subject of that article.

Unlike the current title, "disputed states" is actually frequently used by sources ([15][16][17][18][19]), but I now think the proposal below is better. TDL (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Dan. As he says, "That they are widely unrecognized does not make them not states" I could not agree more with this sound reasoning as we do not take a stand in this article or elsewhere on whether or not the declarative theory is superior to other theories or not. Outback the koala (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic comment, No status, no state. This is a fundamental concept.

There are two theories on the existence of states.

Sovereign state#Constitutive theory presents: "The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised as sovereign by other states..."

Sovereign state#Declarative theory presents: "By contrast, the "declarative" theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states, so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure..."

Either way Wikipedia should be careful in its recognition of states. This is a political issue. If nations do not recognise an administration with the status of being a state then any interpretation of state becomes dubious. Diplomatic relations, in many cases, may not even be considered in various circumstance for reasons such as as aspects of the behaviour of the administration. Recognised states may appoint ambassadors and set up embassies. In the case with many unrecognised administrations we cannot comment on a "capacity to enter into relations with other states" because such attempts have not, for whatever reason, been attempted. In other situations diplomatic relations may be "achieved by force".

Again, in all these issues it is not Wikipedia's place to accredit administrations as being states. My interpretation is that this is a role that is best left to "statesmen". The clue is in the name. gregkaye ✍♪ 04:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a few points to make on this.

First, we should not be in the business of making or recognising states, but we should also not be refusing to recognise them. Just as it is POV to treat Kosovo or Abkhazia or Somaliland as unambiguously states, it is POV to treat them as unambiguously not states. There is dispute on this matter in all the cases listed, to some degree or other. We recognise this dispute on these lists by segregating the limited-recognition states from those with little significant dispute as to their status, and explaining the situations in prose as required.

Second, it is not solely up to states to determine whether a state exist. There is also academia to consider and we must consider it when drawing up our lists. WP:NPOV does not allow us to completely disregard academic opinion on this matter, as you appear to suggest.

Third, I would note that - despite the attempts of many editors here in the recent past - it is clearly not allowed for us to interpret whether a putative state has "capacity to enter into relations with other states". But at the same time, your argument seems to be that no state without recognition can meet that rule because it lacks "capacity to enter into relations with other states". That too is an interpretation of the rule and is no more allowed than an interpretation that holds that a given state has such capacity.

The only way we can determine whether the declarative theory is met is based on whether reliable sources say that it is met. And it would be POV to disregard those sources solely because we don't like or disagree wit their conclusions. Kahastok talk

Kahastok I have suggested that we use a description "Non-UN members" which does not "treat them as unambiguously not states". It simply returns to NPOV and allows readers to make up their own minds. Beyond that I agree with much of what you say. This is why, below, I have suggested the title List of geopolitical administrations with limited international recognition. We can certainly quote sources who refer to an entity as being a state but, all the same, there are limits to the extent that Wikipedia is warranted to declare states in its own voice. Please also see List of sovereign states by date of formation. Should we declare other entities, in Wikipedia's voice, to be states? If so on what grounds?

When I proposed the "List of geopolitical administrations.." title I was mainly thinking of the issue of political recognition. I think that this is the form of recognition that most naturally applies to the term state but independent academic inputs certainly have relevance. We can certainly quote groups and people that consider an administration as being a state. At a different extreme we should also consider statements such when Ban Ki Moon stated that "ISIL – or Da’ish ... should more fittingly be called the “Un-Islamic Non-State”. Obviously this is an extreme example but the principle remains. Wikipedia should be careful in its application of State. We need to be careful when selectively choosing one theory of state recognition and we need to be careful in our interpretation of a "capacity to enter into relations with other states".

In our article on Somaliland we fairly report on a "self-declared independent state" but we also declare Somalia both as being a state and as covering the same geographical area as Somaliland. I also think we need to be careful with in situations of otherwise unrecognised autonomies giving recognition to other otherwise unrecognised autonomies. Legitimacy must be decided in the same way as happened in regard to the states that legitimacy rose from Yugoslavia. gregkaye ✍♪ 11:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am less concerned with names and headings than with the contents of the list. But your proposal does not work for me because of WP:CONCISE.

I would also note that what we have to get across is that we are talking about is the state. The question is whether they are states or not. I'm sure that there are plenty of geographical administrations that have various degrees of recognition. British Columbia is a geographical administration and I doubt that there is a state in the world that would not recognise that it is a province of Canada. In more contentious cases, the point may be more explicitly made. But we are not concerned with those cases. We are concerned with those that claim to be independent sovereign states, and where - based on the views of governments, lawyers and academics - there is some case to be made that that claim has merit. This is why it is important that we refer to the state as our reference point. Kahastok talk 23:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok Not wanting to go too far off topic but, in that case, I would suggest List of internationally disputed states. in searches:

• "unrecognised states" country nation gets "About 351 results" in Google books
• "disputed states" country nation gets "About 1,430 results" in Google books

The only reason that a supposed state is unrecognised is because it is disputed. I added the search terms country and nation in an attempt to filter out references to other definitions of state. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy with that or something like it. List of states subject to international dispute is another option, though it's a bit longer. Kahastok talk 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That works for me as well. Personally I don't see the need for "internationally" (which is why I moved it to the shorter title) but if others think this is necessary then that's fine with me. TDL (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, Your suggestion fails in that it asserts "States" in Wikipedia's voice even though the states are disputed. To do this sides with on POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I would add that I remain strongly opposed to the removal of Somaliland per this edit, given that it meets the inclusion criteria for this list and that consensus on this page does not appear to favour removal. Kahastok talk 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remain opposed as well and do not see a consensus for removal. TDL (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, please see comment by My very best wishes above: "According to the title ("List of states with limited recognition"), states included in this list must have at least a limited official recognition by other states. Therefore, "Non-UN members not recognised by any state" (4th category) should NOT be included in the list." I agree with this and cannot see an argument against.

@Gregkaye: Please do not remove comments made by others as you did here.

As for your point, this has been refuted above. Beyond that, even if we accept the argument that the title excludes unrecognized states (which I do not accept for the reasons explained above) WP:LISTNAME specifically refutes your conclusion: "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject". The title is a brief summary of the subject, not a precise inclusion criteria. It is for the WP:LSC to define the inclusion criteria. If editors do not believe that the title accurately summarizes the subject, then a rename is the appropriate solution. TDL (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

TDL I apologise for the deletion. I was shocked to see what I had done there and am not sure how I managed to do it. It certainly was not my intention to delete the text. Its a welcome jolt to show that I may need to be more careful. I have proposed titles below that make use of the commonly used "disputed state" wording which I argue also fit in better with the ruling of NPOV. The thread here has already drawn a lot of thought and attention. I wouldn't want to push for a move before checking relevant arguments here. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I assume that everyone is conscious of the fact that the search constituting "disputed states" yields a majority of studies of the United States of America and disputes over statehood within that specific nation-state, whereas "unrecognised states" specifically deals with the issue on a contemporary global level. I would understand "disputed" to be shoehorning a recognised term (aka SYNTH). Surely the list is not intended to characterise the evolution of the states of the USA or disputes pertaining to states of the USA? According to Gregkaye's results, the appropriate term is undoubtedly still "unrecognised states" as relating to sovereign nation-states... And which would, incidentally, include Somaliland as as meeting the criteria. (EDIT) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)--Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that since the founding of the United Nations the distinction between "declarative theory" and "constitutive theory" is artificial. This is because of the idea that to be a state, a state has to have "a capacity to enter into relations with other states". As King Charles I pointed out at his treason Trial:

I would know by what power I am called hither. . . . by what Authority, I mean, lawful; there are many unlawful Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but I would know by what Authority I was brought from thence, and carried from place to place, (and I know not what), and when I know what lawful Authority, I shall answer

There are many unlawful powers in the world, who may claim that they have "a capacity to enter into relations with other states" but a claim does not mean that they do have the capacity. Academics can argue wither this capacity exists or does not, and if this were an article then marginal cases could be included and discussed in depth with the views of the various authorities. But this is a list and as such is binary either a state has limited recognition or it does not. So the simplest test of the capacity part of the declarative theory is if they have entered into relations with one or more widely recognised sovereign states, which in practice means a member of the United Nations. So I think that as this is a list and not an article, this list should not encompass:

1. Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members
2. Non-UN member states not recognised by any state

Number 1 can exist as a footnote. Number 2 should be excluded.

• @My very best wishes part of being a state is that the government has monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force so to a large extent it is physical force that give the state the "capacity to enter into relations with other states". For example Germany came into existence as a unified state through the application of physical force, as did many post colonial countries.
• @Khajidha you wrote "An 'administration holding territory' is what a state is." So did the no go areas in Northern Ireland make the PIRA a state?

An article and few books and that discuss this issue [20], [21], [22], and [23]. A quote from the last book "This is a topic in which law and politics are so inextricably interwoven that a separation of one from the other is simply not possible, yet its legal aspects (particularly within the legal systems of foreign States) is such that cannot be ignored." -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I certainly agree with your suggestion about the inclusion criteria ("1" and "2" above). Well explained. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In the years I've been doing lists of states, I've seen a wide number of different definitions of "capacity to enter into relations with other state". This is just another one.

You have just defined capacity to enter into relations as meaning that a state actually has to have relations with a UN member state. This would seem to go directly against the principle of the declarative theory. At the same time, we have editors who argue that the mere fact of fighting a state makes one a state - that the ability to wage war is prima facie evidence of relations with states. Which is it? Or is it something else? Neither interpretation is sourced, and because academics are likely to disagree, whatever we choose will always be open to challenge. Because the whole basis for such a list is - effectively - WP:OR.

When it comes down to it, basing a list on one view of what constitutes "capacity to enter into relations with a UN member state" is a fool's errand. The best way to make any such list is to consider the views of reliable sources as to whether the declarative theory is met (and hence a state exists). It is normally the case on lists that inclusion is binary and you are either on or not, without space for . But this list is quite deliberately structured in such a way

This article is deliberately structured in such a way as to allow a description of the situation in each case, separating the cases into distinct parts so that the user can judge the different situations individually. The idea is precisely so that the sort of discussion you describe can be included in the article, and I do think there's an argument that we can move beyond the binary in-or-out paradigm that is normal for lists, accepting only those entities for which some case is made (hence no ISIS or Donetsk/Luhansk) but allowing for finer distinctions within the list for different situations. Kahastok talk 20:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"This is just another one." no it is not, because it is not defining capacity in the abstract but in fact. Ie the state has the proven capacity because it has entered into relations with another recognised state. "fact of fighting a state makes one a state" who has argued that? Bandits may fight a state, but are not themselves a state, for example the Baader-Meinhof Gang fought the West German state but neither the members of the gang or anyone else claimed they were a state, so clearly the ability to fight a state does not make an individual or a group a state. Indeed there are specific international laws concerning the recruitment of mercenaries to fight against national liberation movements and sovereign states, and as such that definition recognises that national liberation movements may be in armed conflict against the government of a sovereign state without being a state themselves. "and I do think there's an argument that we can move beyond the binary in-or-out paradigm that is normal for lists", this is clearly not the case as shown by the section "Excluded entities".-- PBS (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If "capacity to enter into relations" is only proved by having relations, then there is no real difference between the declarative and constitutive theories. The capacity to enter into relations is a property of governments and exists whether any relations are ever made. As for your question about the PIRA, the possession of a territory with a population by a governing body makes it a state if that body so claims to be. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Kahastok: "hence no ISIS or Donetsk/Luhansk". OK. So, it seems that we all agree that "Non-UN member states not recognized by any state" should not be included? In addition, we agree that Donetsk/Luhansk (which were recognized by South Ossetia, which is an unrecognized state itself) should not be included? My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't all agree to that. Any entity that claims statehood should be eligible. --18:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly do not agree with that first statement. When you say "Non-UN member states not recognized by any state", you're not talking about ISIS, Luhansk or Donetsk. You're talking about Somaliland, which has been a stable de facto state for over twenty years and which is accepted by reliable sources in a way that ISIS, Donetsk and Luhansk simply are not. That Donetsk and Luhansk are recognised by South Ossetia is not relevant for our purposes. Our bar for the constitutive theory is quite low, but it's not that low. Kahastok talk 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Who has argued that in this discussion? No-one. Who has argued that in the discussions surrounding these points more widely? I can think of two off-hand, who seem to have come to this view independently. One of them has made this argument within the last week. Examples, [24], [25]. While neither comment was on this talk page, both relate to the discussion we are having.

The fact remains that you are defining "capacity to enter into relations with other state", without evidence to suggest that this definition is accepted by anyone outside Wikipedia. That you say you're "not defining capacity in the abstract but in fact" seems irrelevant to me. You're still defining it. And it is quite clear that your definition is contradicted by many of the reliable sources we have seen on this page and in similar discussions on Talk:List of sovereign states this year.

The list of excluded entities are common examples of entities that don't meet the criteria at all. The existence of that list does not mean that we cannot distinguish the likes of Somaliland or Nagorno-Karabakh from the likes of Armenia or South Korea, nor that we cannot describe each case individually, allowing the reader to determine for themselves whether they believe a state exists. Kahastok talk 19:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not support the removal of the word "state" from the heading. As another editor said "I am a non-UN member not recognized by any state" too. Legacypac (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Again I suggest the title List of internationally disputed states and this is done on the basis that "disputed states" is by far the most commonly used wording on the topic and on the basic Wikipedia principle of WP:NPOV. The text of this guideline indicates that it "... means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Also: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." We can't state in Wikipedia's voice that administrations are states when significant bodies dispute this. A refusal to recognise is a big deal internationally and dispute is automatically raised. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing here has convinced me that an alternative presentation from the current one would be better or clearer. Somaliland is a very unusual case of a state without recognition. While no country has recognized the current entity as a country it a) was a colony before joining a larger country b) is part of a "failed state" (Somalia is the definition of a failed state) c) long term stable and much safer than the rest of Somalia. d) most importantly it is recognized by academics as some type of state. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion to add ISIS to this article

So, what do you guys think should ISIS be added to this list, they have conquered a signification portion of Iraq and Syria ,they are human beings too right.Please don't argue citing infuriating Koranic verses it causes offense.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.196.115 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are other nations that recognize ISIS as a legitimate state, you cannot include it on this list. SecretName101 (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But,they have proclaimed to establish transactions with their own ancient Islamic dinar currency.The groups wealth is close to 5 Billions now it is now noticed as a significant move.What do you guys think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.196.115 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Discussed extensively before. No reliable sources say they are a country. Don't waste time on it. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

When they establish a state they can be added - they have not done that yet.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, bro Toddy1 they have already established the state and plan to propose their own currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.196.115 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not support your assertion. There is a company in Donetsk that used to hire out Santa Claus impersonators, which has branched out into head-of-state impersonators, maybe ISIS could hire one to make the pretence more believable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Check this out. 193.109.196.115 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPECULATION "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable... Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". We will wait until they have a currency, and it is in use before we accept that they have a currency.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't matter if they did have a currency. There are plenty of examples internationally of independent currencies of entities other than states (e.g. Hong Kong Dollar), and states without independent currencies.

Your wider points are entirely correct, of course. We need evidence that they have actually established a state before we can claim that. At this stage, no independent authority (governmental or academic) has been found that takes that view. Kahastok talk 11:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP user seems to be here to be disruptive, already posted a threat, 4RR'd and managed to get blocked over a BLP, all in the first few hours. No need to take them to seriously. Legacypac (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is recognised neither by academia or within international politics as a state. This discussion is a waste of time. NPOV also demands that we should consider all sides of an argument. Most of the relevant opinion expressing people and groups are emphatic in their statements that it is not a state. GregKaye 15:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jurgen Todenhofer when asked recently if they had established a state, answered in the affermative. I understand this is just one source so we may need to wait and see what sources are saying in the coming months. Mbcap (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarity, Jurgen Todenhofer is a journalist who is sympathetic enough to ISIL that he was able go to ISIL controlled areas, film, and get out with his head. It could be convincing argued his trip was part of ISIL propaganda and anything he says needs to be carefully evaluated. He is not an academic or international law expert with any expertise in international law, nor am I convinced that his passing comment was intended to mean there is a new State or country. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I came here while checking the accusation that you have a single purpose account while going through your page history. Please check the methodologies of pages that you come to and information on the sources that you are citing. This page has consistently made predominant reference to international and academic statements and presentations. Please be aware of potential conflicts of interest and the like and present information in full view of these realities. One sided and unqualified presentations are disruptive. GregKaye 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac that is simply your opinion. Gregkaye thank you for checking the page history. This is obviously the new accusation of the week regarding the single purpose account and I imagine next week we will have a new one, if the trend continues. May I ask who levelled that accusation? What potential conflicts of interest are you referring to? I simply made a statement that was very much related to the discussion at hand. You make a point about the page making reference to relliable statements and presentations. I am in total agreement with making reference to such sources, plus that is how we build the article anyway. That is why this group has not been mentioned in this article because no reliable sources recognise that they are (if they are) an unrecognised state. Mbcap (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap np and, btw, I don't personally see that there is any problem in editors having single topic, focus or theme accounts as long as the result is a neutral application of guidelines. Its mainly just on this that we can have differences of views. I think that some editors go out of their way to add extraneous interests to their editing habits in a pretence of wider interest than is reality. This seems pointless to me as long as people edit in straithtforward ways. GregKaye 22:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics

The Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic are two political entities that hold control of part of internationally recognized territory of Ukraine. Existing for almost one year, they have their administrations, military, media etc. and are very similar to already listed here "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" and "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". My proposal is to include this two entities to the list of "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" as they are recognized as a sovereign countries only by South Ossetia. Predavatel (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussed previously. No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, at least the DPR does now meet the criteria. There are now scholarly sources stating it meets the declarative theory of statehood. See this article in Anthropology Today [[26]] or here [[27]].XavierGreen (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Note, i have been bold and added the DPR to the list since the source is now there, however i have not added the LPR because the source does not clearly state that the LPR meets the declarative theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Where does this source say that the DPR meets the criteria? The closest I see it getting is that "After the referendum, the basic conditions of statehood can be fulfilled." But nowhere does it claim that the criteria has been fulfilled. In fact, it goes on to say "... this is what is now being tested." Also, it states that "The former Soviet Union’s de facto states are Transnistria (Moldova), Abkhazia (Georgia), South Ossetia (Georgia), and Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan)." Notably absent from this list is the DPR. TDL (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am specifically looking at this paragraph here, "The Donetsk People’s Republic declared its inde- pendence on 7 April 2014 and held a referendum scarcely a month later on 11 May 2014. Though the results of this ref-erendum were predictably in favour of independence from Ukraine, the fact that it occurred is what matters. After the referendum, the basic conditions of statehood can be fulfilled."XavierGreen (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points here: firstly, the source talks about the DPR, but not the LPR, as you point out. This is important since most analyses I've read state that the DPR is a much more effective and centralised government than the LPR, whose territory is still de facto split up among a wide range of competing groups. More to the point, User:Danlaycock is quite right to point out that it's ambiguous. Bobick cites one of the criteria of statehood as being the possession of a "political authority that is sovereign", and later states that whether or not the DPR is sovereign is "what is being tested" (though, note again, the "two polities" Bobick refers to are Ukraine and the DPR, not the LPR and the DPR). This corroborates Steven Wheatley, who says that one of the questions that remains to be answered is whether they "have ‘safely and permanently’ managed to exclude the authority of Ukraine" (though the question Wheatley is concerned with is their normative legitimacy, not their statehood). I do tend to agree that the DPR should eventually be listed here sooner or later—whether or not it's been discussed previously is immaterial, contrary to User:Volunteer Marek's dismissal above, since this is a developing situation—but we need to wait until there's a clearer scholarly consensus in favour of it meeting the Montevideo criteria. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the first to declare something a state. So No, until there are multiple RS that clearly call these States without us having to read between the lines. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been sources calling them states since pretty much when they were declared; the discussion is about whether they meet the specific criteria for inclusion here (the declarative theory of statehood), and specifically whether Bobick's cited article says that they do, which isn't immediately obvious. —Nizolan ^(talk) 08:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• However, whether DPR treat itself as an independent state? I know that they had declared independent in middle of 2014, but later, in the Minsk Protocol, they de facto agreed that Donbass is part of Ukraine and they just willed to get a very wide autonomy. Therefore they de facto cancelled their independent declarations (as well as LPR) – similar situation we have had in Azawad. Today we don’t know what kind of entity DPR (as well as LPR) is. Maybe after current Minsk talks we will know little more. Aotearoa (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know this claim was made in a variety of places last autumn, but the fact is they have still been explicitly seeking independence (example), and as I recall they clarified this soon after the Minsk Protocol was issued. —Nizolan ^(talk) 11:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Today’s agreement stated that DPR and LPR will remain (de iure) part of Ukraine (with very wide autonomy of course). And representatives of both Peoples Republics agreed for this (signed document is “stronger” than statement in media). Therefore, the status of the independent declaration is very unclear. Aotearoa (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll see what happens. See this article though—they certainly haven't unequivocally abandoned the aspiration for independence either. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Armenia and sourced info from Pakistan

This has been a recurring topic, but there seems to be no source to support the claim that Pakistan does not recognise Armenia. Supposedly there was a link to Pakistani Senate, but the link is to a bogus non-existent site. Thus the claim remains supported only by an Azeri newspaper that is known to publish false information on Armenia related topics. Shouldn't the entry be removed from the list? GuggiePrg (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a bogus link, it's just dead. You can read an archived version at [28]. See page 10: "Senator Mushahid Hussain stated that Pakistan does not recognize Armenia because it was an aggressor".

There are plenty of other soucrces to support this. Here is an Armenian one: "Pakistan does not recognize Armenia as an independent state, said Pakistani Ambassador in Baku.". TDL (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State in Iraq Infobox

User:Anasaitis insists on re-adding the former country infobox to the Islamic State of Iraq page. The box is hard coded with a link to List_of_historical_unrecognized_states. His rational is posted on my talk page. I think excluding this falls under the same reasoning as not listing ISIL on this page. I'm referring him here because this is the most active place to discuss these issues I know off. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, basically his arguments are the same as those that have been used here in the case of ISIS and rejected.

Complicating matters though, is the fact that the inclusion rule for the list of historical unrecognised states claims to be "similar to that of the list of states with limited recognition", but is in fact quite different as it relies on the original research of editors. The rule currently applied cannot be used there (because some of the "states" may predate the UN). We need a better rule there, and the list needs a fair bit of pruning as it appears to include various groups that appear to fall into our list of excluded entities or otherwise fail the inclusion criteria here. Kahastok talk 12:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed the list there has some pretty questionable entries. Perhaps someone should draft a guideline and run it though an RfC to make it official. In this case though, the ISI version of ISIL was listed by the UN as an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group, not a UN member. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know the difference between the status of Somaliland and the status of Donetsk PR, Lugansk PR and Islamic state. All these entities aren't recognized by any UN member and all are in ongoing wars. in fact Donetsk PR and Lugansk PR have the advantage of the recogntion from a non UN member 3bdulelah (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a reliable source that concludes that Donetsk, Luhansk and ISIS are states according to the standards of international law? Plenty have been asked for this over the past few months and yet no sources have been forthcoming.

The difference is that we have independent sources who believe that Somaliland is a state under international law. There is evidence that there is a body of academic opinion that considers Somaliland to be a state without recognition. There is no such evidence that anyone independent believes this about any of Donetsk, Luhansk or ISIS - other than a few Wikipedia editors conducting WP:OR. Kahastok talk 20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Another major difference is Somaliland is an actual regional government with actual recognized authority that declared independence/succession from a failed state which can't control most of its territory. Somaliland is a scene of calm and good governance at the edge of a cesspool of chaos. The other three are terrorist groups that went forth and took what was not theirs. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes - that's probably why academics have come to different conclusions. The situations are different. But for our purposes, the important thing is not the reasons for the difference (we're not in a position to judge them) but the fact of it. Kahastok talk 21:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you not see what you are doing, User:Legacypac? Your opinion is based on law and politics. Your trying to define an unrecognized state using international law, which does not recognize the existence of such entities. You and I both know that what the law says is going on and what is actually the situation on the ground. There is no difference between Somaliland's status as an unrecognized state and ISIL's status. Both entities have declared themselves independent nations, both control at least part of the territory they claim, including the government institutions in those areas, and both of them are not recognized by any other political entity, recognized or unrecognized. Your arguements is inherently flawed. You could use the same arguement to argue that the Confederate States of America wasn't an unrecognized state, or that the United States didn't exist until it was recognized by treaty. Both are untrue. As for your arguement that they should be excluded because they seized the land by force, let me ask you something. How many of the currently existing nations seized their land by force? Even the United States seized most of it's land from Native Americans or other nations. As such, you can throw that arguement out the window, too. You cannot use international law as a criterion for inclusion as an unrecognized state on a Wikipedia article. It would exclude too many existing entities. I understand your hatred for ISIL. I hate them, too, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't control land just because international law says they don't. This is not a politically affiliated site. We are neutral. Because of this, we are obligated to create unbiased articles that do not reflect our own political views. Anasaitis (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There actually are differences as well as the fact that there have been discussions like this before and again and again, ISIL has been rejected by editors for inclusion as a sovereign state, their ruling stands. - SantiLak (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I am citing international law an political recognition - we are talking about what is a country. Nothing to do with like or dislike. I don't like North Korea's actions but they are a real country under international law. Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh here we have the same old high and mighty Wikipedia editors tooting their horns pretending they matter and have power. The word ISIS has the word state in it and fulfills the declarative theory requirements. It seems completely arbitrary to deny them inclusion when other unrecognized entities are also included. If anything, ISIS exerts more territorial influence than something like Somaliland. There have been sources mentioning it as a state. What are you guys looking for exactly? Thats what frustrates people. "Oh, we dont want to include it because there are no reliable sources." Well, what would reliable sources have to say? Its absurd really that they fulfill all the requirements of a state and are not included.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This article from June last year says they have the makings of a state, but arent there yet. More recent articles have mentioned that they are setting up governance and providing services. I suppose this makes them more of a statelet like Hezbollah-controlled Southern Lebanon.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually have a source stating that they are NOT a state in the Westphalian sense: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/. " The modern international system, born of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, relies on each state’s willingness to recognize borders, however grudgingly. For the Islamic State, that recognition is ideological suicide." Make of this what you will. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You basically restate the constitutive theory - that sovereign status depends on recognition. I've occasionally seen some of the more desperate commenters claiming that ISIS meets the constitutive theory, but it's never really been the thrust of the argument because it fairly obviously fails.

The key point re: Metallurgist's argument is that while s/he says that ISIS "fulfills the declarative theory requirements", s/he does not provide a source for that conclusion. Wikipedia should not be the only independent source to claim that a state exists, as Metallurgist argues. Kahastok talk 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Declarative theory

I should have come earlier but I think there is considerable evidence that it fulfills all four tenets of the theory:

1. a defined territory

As even the Wood piece mentions, ISIL is interested in keeping territory, unlike other non-state groups:

Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)

Foreign Affairs says the same thing:

Terrorist networks, such as al Qaeda, generally have only dozens or hundreds of members, attack civilians, do not hold territory, and cannot directly confront military forces. ISIS, on the other hand, boasts some 30,000 fighters, holds territory in both Iraq and Syria, maintains extensive military capabilities, controls lines of communication, commands infrastructure, funds itself, and engages in sophisticated military operations. If ISIS is purely and simply anything, it is a pseudo-state led by a conventional army. And that is why the counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies that greatly diminished the threat from al Qaeda will not work against ISIS.




2. A permanent population

Mentioned in the other sources.

3. A government

Cross-posting but here are the three articles mentioned:

How ISIS Governs Its Caliphate (Newsweek):

Throughout the captured grounds of Syria and Iraq, ISIS is showing every indication of building a functioning state out of the prevailing chaos.

ISIS: Everything you need to know about the rise of the militant group

ISIS is putting governing structures in place to rule the territories the group conquers once the dust settles on the battlefield. From the cabinet and the governors to the financial and legislative bodies, ISIS' bureaucratic hierarchy looks a lot like those of some of the Western countries whose values it rejects...

Is the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” a Real Country Now? (Salon):

some terrorism experts...suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—the militant group that took over the city, is coming close to actually being the “Islamic State” implied by its name.

4. A capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Despite its official rejection of Westaphalian norms, ISIS has made relations with states like Syria. From the Der Speigle article:

The [Syrian] regime's relationship with Islamic State is...marked by a completely tactical pragmatism. Both sides are trying to use the other in the assumption that it will emerge as the stronger power, able to defeat the discrete collaborator of yesterday. Conversely, IS leaders had no problem receiving assistance from Assad's air force, despite all of the group's pledges to annihilate the apostate Shiites. Starting in January 2014, Syrian jets would regularly -- and exclusively -- bomb rebel positions and headquarters during battles between IS and rebel groups.

...

But a half year later, after IS conquered Mosul and took control of a gigantic weapons depot there, the jihadists felt powerful enough to attack their erstwhile helpers. IS fighters overran Division 17 and slaughtered the [Syrian] soldiers, whom they had only recently protected.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How many times to we have to go through different permutations of "I think it meets the criteria because..."? Are you an RS, or are you CHERRY picking to find sources to shoehorn your opinion? I !vote for the latter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Second what Iryna Harpy said. - SantiLak (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are the RSs, there's an entire Foreign Affairs article called "ISIS Is Not A Terrorist Group" why would this be cherry-picking? As far as I can tell, no one is arguing against them being a state. CartoonDiablo (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What is ISIS' "defined territory"? You say they have territory; no one disputes that. But what is it defined as? What are its borders? Are those borders at all stable, or are they fluid in the face of military movements? --Golbez (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Initially it was areas of Iraq and Syria, but they seem to be increasing their territorial claims throughout the Middle East(and are losing some from the war) of which I can post RSs. Not to be nitpicky but I read it as having any kind of defined physical territory, there are plenty of fluid states (either expansionist or losing ground) but are still considered states. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And this is part of the entire problem. The declarative theory is inherently vague, which is why wikipedia requires RS which make the argument that ISIS meets the declarative theory, and not merely wikipedia editors arguing that they personally believe that it meets the declarative theory based on their WP:original research from sources. None of the quoted material above argues that ISIS meets the declarative theory, hence wikipedia cannot say it meets the declarative theory.

(As a side note, I do not even accept your argument that the sources support the points you claim they do. For instance, all the quotes under point 3 only speak of ISIS working towards establishing a functional government in the future, not that one exists today. And avoiding being bombed really isn't diplomatic relations. The Grand Duchy of Westarctica hasn't been bombed either, that doesn't make it a state. But arguing the merits of your OR is not productive because even if it was valid it would still be OR.) TDL (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I should have just started with addressing the treaty directly; according to the BBC:

"There is little in the Montevideo Convention that would clearly deny statehood to IS, or any other violent group capable of seizing territory and subjugating a population. The Convention has no moral dimension."

It's probably the only RS I could find directly linking the two subjects and argues in favor of it being a state. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article is a strong reliable source for arguing that this entity is an unrecognised state. Mbcap (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's only RS if you're interested in WP:SYNTH. Please present RS which can be cross-referenced for recognition of the unrecognised state malarkey, or has Joseph W. Boyle become an authority on the subject matter at hand while we were sleeping? It's WP:OR at best, or should we go straight to WP:COATRACK without collecting $200? Check the talk page as it currently stands; go through the archives; familiarise yourself with why this has become painfully WP:TEDIOUS. Excuse my lack of tolerance, but I've hit the threashold without any endorphines kicking in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap You say, "The BBC article is a strong reliable source for arguing that this entity is an unrecognised state." Can you please clarify what you know of Joe Boyle, what are his credentials and what is his specialist knowledge? I had a look through various articles that he has produced and it seems to me that they have a broad range of subject topics with no main focus.

CartoonDiablo, Moments before you submitted your lengthy edit as of 23:02, 20 April 2015 above, you made this Revision as of 22:57, 20 April 2015. Did it occur to you to mention fairly fundamental change to article presentation here? I appreciate that you presented related thoughts towards the end of a long running thread at Talk:ISIL as at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Unrecognized state. However, as this was nine days following the previous edit and without pinging editors that had previously been involved in the discussion, my guess is that this may have slipped under the radar. If you haven't already done so please take the advice of Iryna Harpy and "go through the archives; familiarise yourself with" this topic.

Ping also other contributors to this thread: Legacypac, Kahastok, 3bdulelah, Anasaitis, SantiLak, Metallurgist, HighFlyingFish, Golbez, Danlaycock. GregKaye 13:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg I was attesting to the fact that the BBC is a reliable source. I see no reason why we cannot take it into consideration in the course of this discussion. I think rather than to discuss the credentials of Joe Boyle, we should accept that the BBC is a reliable source from which to take information from. Mbcap (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I honestly think that on the issue of ISIL the BBC has lost its way and has forgotten its remit. Even though many British Muslims and politicians reject presentation of "Islamic State", the BBC has embraced this terminology to a notable extent. They even misquote people speaking in Arabic who mention Isil or daesh. In a recent BBC documentary on the funding of "ISIL" / "Islamic State group" in which foreign language interviewees continually used "Daesh" and "ISIL" to which the BBC added subtitles "IS" or "Islamic State". For instance a smuggler who helped the group in a trade in oil repeatedly used "daesh" and the bbc continually represented this as IS. Similar happened with comments of the General of Pershmerga forces (who was not named) who consistently referred to daesh. Abu Hajjar, a former "senior leader of IS" indicated that Abu Abdul Rahman al-Bilawi "is considered to be the number two man in daesh" yet the subtitle was presented "is considered to be the number two man in IS" (26 mins into the programme) GregKaye 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg I would have to disagree with you about the BBC. It is right that they have replaced the other words with 'Islamic State' or 'IS'. This I see as a mark of neutrality. We should not conflate the name with the claim. They are two distinct areas that need to be dealt with separately. The name, 'Islamic State' is the official name and also the common name. I appreciate that you may disagree. In regards to the designation of Islamic State, I would say that I agree with others here that there are not enough reliable sources for us to say that this group is an unrecognised state. The BBC source is just one article. There are numerous articles such as the one in the Washington Post by Quinn Mecham, an associate professor of politics and the article in E-International relations by Hope Lozano Bielat, a phd in political sciences, who say that Islamic State is close to but not yet at a stage where we can call it a State. This is also echoed by Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine. I think for the time being, the BBC source is not enough for us to assert that they are an unrecognised state. My comment above was to allow the BBC source to be taken into consideration. I propose that we should reach consensus here that they are not to be included on this article and we should open a discussion on the ISIL page about how to go forward with the lead. Mbcap (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Can you show me in the BBC article where the claim was made that ISIL is a state? How is it neutral of the BBC to ignore the majority of what their various interviewees say and go their own sweet way? GregKaye 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg CartoonDiablo has provided the quote above but in light of other sources, this solitary article would not be enough for us to say they are a state anyway. The expert written articles say that they are not a state, let alone an unrecognised one. Mbcap (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Mbcap (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies to Mbcap and CartoonDiablo for my incivility. We're all experienced enough to know our policies and guidelines therefore, for the sake of collegial collaboration on contentious areas of Wikipedia, bold changes are predicated by GF assumptions that editors have familiarised themselves with the history of any given article. Resurrecting previously rebutted arguments without fresh RS demonstrating that there has been a change in status regarding a subject is unnecessarily tiring for everyone concerned. The onus of proof lies with providing considerably more than op-ed pieces by unknown quantities implying that the given 'kind of'/'sort of' legitimacy of (in this instance) a state has changed. This is not a reflection of any personal opinions by editors, but that of what reliable secondary sources actually say on the matter. The subject matter of this subject is emphatically black and white. Either a state is officially unrecognised, or is officially recognised by at least one other sovereign state, leaving no room for conjecture dependent on opportunistic use of an unrecognised state by a recognised state. I see absolutely nothing in the BBC article to support the fact of an official change in status for this or any other article related to ISIS/ISIL.

The author of the article is merely tackling the question of what constitutes statehood, much as we are doing in this discussion. The substance of the article is UNDUE as it mimics the same questions constantly posed on Wikipedia article talk pages. We don't take our queue from interpreting questions but from statements by what are recognised as official sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Mbcap and all. It seems that Khestwol took the initiative to make, I think, the needed revert. GregKaye 17:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Should Kurdistan be listed?

Should Kurdistan (or at least Iraqi Kurdistan) be listed? It qualifies as a state though it hasn't declared statehood. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Then it doesn't qualify. A declaration of independence, or a recognition of independence, is absolutely required. --Golbez (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify. Golbez only addresses the declaration of independence issue. Even with a such a declaration, it still doesn't meet with the criteria for this article. If there is no recognition by recognised states, it simply doesn't qualify. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

DPR is recognized by South Ossetia

There's a lot of sources for it. And I see no reason why it's being removed. It's a crystal clear case of "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members".Beaumain (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If you're relying purely on recognition it needs to "be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state" per the inclusion criteria at the top of the article. The currently-listed states meet the other rule in the criteria. Kahastok talk 18:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed to death already, Beaumain. Please have the courtesy to read the talk page +archives carefully before bringing up this issue yet again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a political science journal or other reputable source (such as a book) that states they meet the declarative theory, it probably can be included. I imagine sooner one such article will be published. The case that the DPR meets the declarative theory is likely to be stronger than the LPR, a while back i posted a journal article that hinted that the DPR met the criteria (or as others interpreted was close to doing so).XavierGreen (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Check Archive 11, we had a long conversation there. kazekagetr 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Israel and the State of Palestine

I was thinking of making an edit to the note of Israel not recognising the State of Palestine but thought it may be better to discuss first since I am not as well versed in the diplomatic affairs of that region as I am in others. Correct me if I am wrong, the regions to constitute Palestine are the West Bank, which Israel annexed after expropriating the land from Jordan in the 1967 six-day war, with the same description for non-adjoining Gaza which was previously in Egypt. Since Israel has backed off and allowed areas such as Gaza to govern itself, is the non-recognition merely a refusal to establish proper bilateral relations in the way Pakistan does not wish to do with Armenia? Or is it the case that Israel continues to claim territorial integrity of the lands it has moved away from? If it is the latter then this should be mentioned in the description. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy I am not sure in regard to "bilateral relations" but representatives of both Israel and the Palestinians have certainly shown the capacity to communicate. If there is a relatively reliable source to indicate an absence of recognition then this would seem to me to be notable. GregKaye 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. As things are, the article reports precisely that Israel does not recognise, that is widely known anyhow. If Israel recognised, the world would likely follow suit. What I am interested in is whether Israel continues to claim territorial integrity of the Palestinian territories. This would ultimately be down to its constitution. My feeling is that the section requires fractionally more information but we just need to establish exactly what. I'm aware of the communications between entities, Israel has long recognised the Palestinian Legislative Council as representative of Palestinian people, we also know that Fatah (but not Hamas) recognises Israel in its pre-1967 shape. I'll have to read into this one, then I'll get back. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel did not annex the West Bank. It annexed the Golan Heights and possibly East Jerusalem.

Interesting question about recognition. I'm certain Israel doesn't recognize the state of Palestine, but it does recognize the Palestinian Authority which I think may also have "limited recognition" by most/all of the states that don't recognize Palestine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Somaliland

Somaliland does not belong in this article since its failure to achieve diplomatic recognition means it is not a state pursuant to the title of the article. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Being recognized is not a requirement if the other requirements are met. They satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That's as may be - as far as statehood goes, and for what it's worth, I agree with you totally. Name of article is List of states with limited recognition. Limited recognition is not the same thing as no recognition. Where incidentally is Transdniestr listed? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is the inclusion criteria in the text of the article that define the contents of a list. The title is a description of the list but is not definitive.

Transnistria is (wrongly in my view) listed as "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic". I say wrongly because in my view, the title of the article about the country should in most circumstances be the name used for the entity concerned. Kahastok talk 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Something can be limited to zero. --Golbez (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Now I see your point. I would never have looked at "zero" as limited. Although that is in real terms correct, you need to ask yourself what you would think if someone told you about a new breakaway state which has only received limited recognition from the international community. You'd want to know how many recognitions, and when told "none", you'd feel slightly misled by the original context! Somaliland is a state with no recognition. Maybe then the article name needs to be slightly adjusted (maybe limited or no recognition). Does anyone else agree? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Please read through the archives. We've only just gone through this.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Awdalland

Where does Awdalland belong in this article? Khestwol (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as they do not seem to have declared independence and are not recognized by anyone (and one of these two is required), I don't think it belongs at all. --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Golbez, I'm unaware of Awdalland as fulfilling either criteria. Somaliland makes it in by the skin of its teeth by merit of the period of time it has been self-declared (and has endured as such). This doesn't apply to the former. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it is a region within the territory claimed by Somaliland, but outside of its control. It does not consider itself an independent state, but a part of Somalia (in a similar fashion to Puntland and Galmudug). It probably functions as a de facto independent entity, but it does not qualify for the list since it does not seek recognition as an independent or sovereign state. There are several regions in the world that are outside of the control of the state they are recognized as being part of (such as North Sentinel Island or Kachin State), but this fact alone does not qualify them for inclusion. Ladril (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we even have any sources that Awdalland is outside Somaliland's control? My understanding was that it had been declared, but wasn't necessarily backed up by de facto control on the ground. GeoEvan (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Syrian National Coalition

Does the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces count considering it has been recognized by 20 states and is a member of the Arab League? And if so, should the Syrian Arab Republic be listed as a UN member state not recognized by other UN members? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe they have been recognized as the 'represetantative body of Syria ', not as a different country nor they made a declaration. kazekagetr 08:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That answers the first question. But doesn't wording such as "Sole legitimate representative of Syria" imply an affirmative reply to the second (specifically in the case of the first six countries listed)? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They do not claim that they are a different country, they act more like a government-in-exile. So dissmissing them as a state is ridiclous. kazekagetr 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

They're recognized by some countries as the government of Syria, and have never attempted to represent themselves internationally as anything but "Syria". Syria is a fully-recognized UN member, so doesn't belong on this list. The dispute is just over which is the actual government. GeoEvan (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk

Should the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics of the pro-Russian separatist rebels in Ukraine be included considering that they have declared independence, have effective control over at least some of the areas that they claim, and are recognized as independent by each other and by South Ossetia? --2601:647:1:887:45F4:5439:19BC:455E (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In a word, no. Please read through the archived talk pages regarding this matter. It has been discussed thoroughly, with detailed explanations as to why they do not meet any form of 'limited recognition'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

UN Members unrecognized by UN non-members

I think there should be a new section for nations like these, for example, Mongolia is unrecognized by the Republic of China (Taiwan) as it claims it as part of it's territory. Places like (People's) China and Cyprus would fit here too.

First of all, Mongolia–Taiwan relations disagrees with you. Second of all, Cyprus and China already exist in a separate section, so this section would be unnecessary. --Golbez (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The official status of recognition of Mongolia by Taiwan is somewhat ambiguous. However it seems Taiwan has de facto recognised the reality. AusLondonder (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

I'm wondering if they should be added to this list. IF they truly are recognized by all UN members, why haven't they applied for membership yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.111.124 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Two articles which you may wish to review. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/68986939/cook-islands-push-for-independence-from-nz http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacific/audio/20153831/niue-marks-40-years-of-independence

Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As they are a member of different specialized UN agencies, they have been dejure recognized by the other members of those agencies. For UN member states on this page, the only states that are listed as non-recognizers have explicitly stated that they do not recognize the state in question.XavierGreen (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim that "[a]s they are a member of different specialized UN agencies, they have been dejure recognized by the other members of those agencies" is OR without a source that says so explicitly in the case of the Cook Islands and Niue.

That said, the reworded rule is, as I say, quite badly worded as it has lost a lot of the nuance. We have generally excluded states that are not actively disputed, because it's much harder to source cases where there is no dispute. Montenegro became independent nine years ago, and yet we still list a dozen or so countries for which we cannot demonstrate recognition as per Foreign relations of Montenegro. Kahastok talk 21:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Niue and the Cook islands have signed multiparty international treaties (allowing them to join the UN agencies) is not original research. In the most original sense signing a treaty with a state constitutes recognition of that state.XavierGreen (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

By which argument large portions of this list should disappear. No, if you want to demonstrate that recognition exists, you have to show that recognition exists, in so many words. Anything less than that - such as coming to conclusions based on the contents of treaties that do not refer to recognition, is original research. Kahastok talk 21:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The contents of the treaty are irrelevant, the mere fact that two states have signing a treaty is recognition, and in fact until recently was the primary means of establishing recognition along with acknowledging consuls/ambassadors. For example see here - https://history.state.gov/countries/orange-free-state .XavierGreen (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Doesn't really matter. If you can't find a cite saying in so many words that recognition exists then we cannot claim or suggest or imply that there is recognition. Even if there is a treaty. Because to do so would rely on WP:OR. Kahastok talk 19:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)