Talk:Annexation

Meaning of "annexation"
This article says "annexation" of one country by another refers only to coercive actions. It therefore would not include the addition of Texas to the United States, which was the result of a voluntary agreement negotiated between the two countries. Yet the article on that event is called Texas annexation and right in its first sentence it links to this article. This is a direct contradiction. I suggest that "annexation" does not in fact always imply coercion, in which case this article needs to be retitled or else expanded to cover both meanings. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was called an “annexation”
 * That was in 1844.
 * This article is about 20th and 21st century use of the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because a population of a territory wants the territory to be annexed, does not mean it is non-coercive. What matters is the attitude of the state that previously possessed the territory. If the previous state accepts the transfer of the territory then it is not an annexation but a cession. Although the Texas Republic was de facto independent, as far as I can tell from the article "Texas annexation" this was not recognised as de jure by Mexico (see Unilateral Declaration of Independence and Rhodesia as another example of a state created by UDI {Texas should probably be added to the UDI examples list}). But two other considerations: Wikipedia articles are named by what is commonly used in reliable sources not the legal position; and the acquisition of the territories by the United states was a prolonged one so the process started out as a clear cut request for annexation, even if it were debatable that it was still an annexation when the United states acquired the territory. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In North America, the word seems to have a more neutral meaning (adding new territory) than the one described above. Hence "Texas annexation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFEA:170:E43F:3A29:8D81:6095 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why limit the description to those two centuries?
 * Why not explain the development instead, including colonialism? Or do you think that that sort of content will be deleted because then the USA is on the list of annexxing countries? And that is not due to Texas only, but also includes Hawaii, which was (illegally) annexed offically (source: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/joint-resolution-for-annexing-the-hawaiian-islands). 2A02:810D:AEBF:F8FC:1936:784A:940A:9709 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement here. All English dictionaries list Annexation as simply the addition of territory to one's own sometimes in different words and some explicitly highlight that it is generally meant by forceful means. But as shown with Texas Annexation or Austrian Anschluss this can be rather complex.
 * It would be wise to not just use the International Law definition and adding some nuance would be better. 85.145.216.238 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring over Tibet
and 82.73.99.163 please discuss your issues here on the talk page. The block is a week now but if you both continue to edit after the block without a consensus you will be blocked further. If needed, please look at the dispute resolution process. Woody (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If you look back, there was a proper discussion back in 2018. That Tibet was never a recognised sovereign state is a fact, not an opinion. The entry is dishonest, but you have allowed the lie to stand.


 * You let the offender win the Edit War, upsetting the previous consensus.


 * Your choice. I have other things to be doing.--GwydionM (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Organizing sections
I'm not really sure why the article organized by the annexed territory in some parts and by annexation authority in other parts. The structure lacks consistency and it's so confusing. If no one's objecting, I will move the West Bank paragraphs concerning Israel under the "By Israel" section and add another sub-title called "Golan Heights", and create a section titled "By Jordan" for the Jordanian part of West Bank annexation. --Crazyketchupguy (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Anschluss (German for annexation)
Hello, I'm very new to Wikipedia and I wanted to ask why the so-called "Anschluss" from 1938 is not listed. Is it because it was not a voluntary annexation on the part of Austria? Adrianolusius (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Split
The article is trying to cover both annexations prior to modern international law, when the Right of conquest was accepted, and modern illegal annexations. It does not manage either topic well, because they are so entirely different. For most of history the right of conquest was the norm, and so there have been thousands of such annexations. Since the settling of modern international law, there have been very few and each one comes with a complex legal history. The story of the change in international law is best kept at our right of conquest article, leaving us with two distinct topics – legal annexation through history, and modern illegal annexation. I have some ideas on good titles, and how best to disambiguate. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem with too many examples arises from putting them in. I don't like the idea of splitting as you (I think) suggest because the evolution over time is essential for understanding the present. There is no clear-cut division between right-of-conquest and illegality. I propose instead one article with limited examples that follows the same multi-part periodisation as the Max-Planck article (let me know if you no longer have it; the current version was updated 2020). It can be expanded with legal issues such as the rights of an aggressor and subsequent treaties. Other articles could include a more expanded list of examples from different periods. If I have misunderstood your proposal, please spell it out in more detail. Zerotalk 13:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, problems are caused by making definitive statements about things that do not have codified definitions and whose subtleties are debated. For example, Rothwell says "annexation occurs when the acquiring State asserts that it now holds the territory" and Kohen agrees, whereas Hofmann (para 2) calls that "previous international law" and instead prefers "effective occupation of the territory in question and the clear intention to appropriate it permanently". (You and I know two examples where the first is argued and the second is beyond argument.) An article without so many examples would have room to mention such disagreements. The definition of "conquest" misses the essential ingredient of military defeat of an enemy (I assume that is just an editing mistake). Zerotalk 13:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Zero, I don’t agree with your reading of Hofmann (albeit I don’t have the 2020 version). Hofmann says in his first paragraph “Annexation means the forcible acquisition of territory by one State at the expense of another State… Under present international law, annexation no longer constitutes a legally admissible mode of acquisition of territory“, which is exactly what Rothwell and Kohen are saying. The previous international law point is that annexation was previously a possible route of acquiring territory under international law; again this is consistent with what the others are saying. Again I think the nuance comes down to annexation under local law vs annexation under international law – I don’t believe the scholars have different positions. Hofmann just doesn’t comment on the local law point. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it will be more clear when you read the new article. The distinction that Hofmann makes that I am highlighting is not between the previous legality and the current illegality (on which point he agrees with the other sources). It is about whether annexation requires the acquiring state to make a unilateral declaration. Rothwell says it does, but Hofmann only requires "the clear intention to appropriate it permanently". There is no declaration mentioned in Hofmann's definition of annexation in current law. Hofmann's definition avoids a loophole. Whereas annexations that were legal under old law were only considered to have happened once a declaration was made, under Hofmann's definition modern states cannot avoid the illegality just by omitting the declaration. Zerotalk 03:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Both sources do say that (modern day) annexation is generally considered illegal (by virtue of the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force).
 * I would have thought the second case divides in two, clear intention with and without some administrative/legal act (mentioned also in the first source), the first being de facto annexation and the second de jure (by law of the occupier) and illegal in both cases under international law.
 * Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had in mind the following:
 * Right of conquest, as existing, improved with better sources, and explaining per Rothwell that “ annexation of territory is essentially the administrative action associated with conquest”. The article would explain how international law has evolved.
 * Illegal annexation, which would focus on the complexities of unilateral annexations under modern international law
 * Annexation prior to modern international law would explain how annexations were done under historical international law (and before) per Hofmann. Ideally it would include statistics to explain how common this once was
 * Annexation (disambiguation) would distinguish the above, as well as Municipal annexation
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Illegal annexations" is not a good name as some annexations were considered illegal pre-UN. It would be better to be consistent and use Annexation in modern international law. But it seems to me that these three articles will each need to contain a lot about the others in order to be comprehensible and for that reason I don't much like this split. If we omit examples other than seminal ones, the whole history of annexation can be presented just fine in one article. I think that there should be a parent article Acquisition of territory that has child articles Annexation, Cessation, etc. This does not prohibit articles like List of annexations since World War I if someone wants to write them. Zerotalk 04:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Re your last sentence, objected to such a list article I created five years ago. I have looked back in the archives here and I remember that I didn't contest the AfD because I was so annoyed about the way it had come about. I don't mind people taking a different view, but they should discuss first, and if they wish to be difficult they should step in and improve the article themselves.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is mostly a list. On the other hand, it gives more details for many of the examples than one expects from a "List of ..." article. So I modify my suggestion to Annexations since World War I (or similar, choosing which periodisation works best). Zerotalk 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from the list type article, I think Zero is right in that it might be better to concentrate on improving this article, specifically by expanding and improving on the evolution section, which could then be reflected in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To focus on the evolution section, how do you envisage the relevant scope here vs at right of conquest? I think of the right of conquest article as being the main article for that topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess its a question of POV, to me the most relevant evolution is the more recent evolution, I am not that concerned about the prior evolution because firstly its mostly historical and can mainly go in the conquest article if you think that is best and secondly, there is not that much of it compared to the recent evolution of which there has been a quite a lot and that can go in here where it is of direct and current interest. My 2 cents.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As for recent/prior, my own preference is to take the founding of the League of and United Nations as relevant dates. A main idea of the League was to avoid annexations, thus mandates, although the project failed in the end. Of course, any date seems arbitrary, idk if there are any sources who follow such a schema.Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No split, but remove the list before 1949. They serve no purpose in explaining what annexation is. Post 1949 help explain the difficulties with international law, and states adherence to it, and complexities of some disputed annexations.

There are far to many cases before 1949, for it to be a useful list, and inevitably such a list will contain systemic bias (in favour of Annexations in Europe or by European states elsewhere).

The further one goes back in history the hazier and more frequent annexation gets as many cases will be missed out and others will become contriversial. This is particularly true before the concepts of military occupation as a legal concept was developed.

Did the English annex Calais? Did the French annex Calais? What about Berwick-on-Tweed which changed hands 12 times? In most of these cases there will be treaties that recognise the annexation, but not until after the annexation has already occured for a time (possession is 9/10 of the law just ask Israel).

It is particularly those of colonial expansion which will be problematic. Was the Zulu Kingdom annexed by the British Empire? (Did the Zulus annex teritory from neiboughing kingdoms?) What about the territory of the Hottentot? What about Australia? Did the Americans annex First Nations territory?

A list like this has lots of possiblities for OR, and even if one insists on sources like the List of events named massacres. All one will end up with is a list of little use to anyone, full of systemic bias, or poorly sourced examples. I was involved in the moving of List of massacres to List of events named massacres, to try to reduce the POV after failing to have the list deleted outright, but it was only partially successfull and today it is yet again a mess.

I used to spend a lot of time on contriversial subjects like Genocide. In those sorts of articles, we tended to move the lists out of the main article into list articles because it prevented the main article becomming the focus for edit wars. However keeping such lists at good list level is a neverending task with little appreciation or help from other editors, so most concentious editors, realising it is Sisyphus type existance, eventually move on and spend their time in a more collegiate atmosphere. The list then deteriorates.

Personally I do not think text about the legal develpments that predatee World War II text is needed. And I opposed its inclusion in this article. However if it the consensus is to keep such text in the article, then only keep annexation examples priorto World War II if thye illuminate the legal developments and appear in the text, not in a list.

I am opposed to moving the article to "illegal Annexation" there will be people searching for Annexation right now with regards to Russia's annexation of Crimea, and its current ongoing attempt to Annex Ukraine. What is need is an article explaining that Annexation in the 21st century is illegal, not an article about the good old days (pre 1949) when it was not unlawful. If we do have an article post 49 called "illegal Annexation" then cut and past the EB1911 article back into the article "Annexation", and have people concluding that Annexation of Ukraine by Russia is probably lawful, because they can not know in advance Annexation is unlawful unless they already know about developments post World War II. This comes down to WT:AT and not breaking most of the bullet points in the introductory section WP:CRITERIA.

— PBS (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this thoughtful and constructive post. There is rough consensus in this discussion across a few points, so I have implemented those. There is still some way to go to make this article clear; hopefully it is now easier to visualize. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will have a go at the occupation/defacto/dejure conundrum, as you have said elsewhere, there are only 4 cases extant (soon 5, possibly) and two of them are Israel related.Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)