Talk:Foreign relations of Artsakh

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508223356/http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/08/3916420/capitol-alert-california-assembly.html to http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/05/08/3916420/capitol-alert-california-assembly.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2017
Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh → Foreign relations of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic – current naming refers to the geographic region Nagorno-Karabakh, whereas obviously the reference is to the Republic with limited recognition. This comes in line with 2013 discussion at Asia topic page and many existing articles such as President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Prime Minister of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, National Assembly (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), Elections in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, etc.GreyShark (dibra) 06:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - a parallel proposal was filed at Talk:Constitution of Nagorno-Karabakh.GreyShark (dibra) 06:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The proposal at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to remove it to Republic of Artsakh might render this RM moot, so it's better put on hold. No such user (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign relations of Artsakh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314141244/http://parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansTrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20121025?open&refNavID=LC6_5 to http://parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/HansTrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20121025?open&refNavID=LC6_5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sub-national bodies (e.g., states etc.) "recognising" Artsakh
If you read the text of these symbolic declarations, they normally say something like "we support and encourage Artsakh" (see e.g., California's AJR 32). The same thing goes for the symbolic pronouncements of sub-national bodies in support of Azerbaijan. None of them is a recognition per se, and indeed none of these sub-national bodies is even capable of recognising Artsakh or expressing meaningful support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. I propose to edit the section about sub-national bodies to emphasise that these are symbolic declarations of support, not formal recognitions of the position of any party. FOARP (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree with moving them into their own section so they aren't conflated with actual recognition. Per your wording it could be titled "Declarations of support". CMD (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, seems like a good way to organize the article as well. Archives908 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should be particularly wary where regional Armenian/Azerbaijan sources are reporting something as being said by (eg) a US or Australian state when no-one in the US/Australia is reporting it that way. For example the thing about New South Wales - looking at the text of the actual motion it appears to have been a call on the Australian federal government to recognise Artsakh, not recognition per se, and otherwise just a declaration of support. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect the majority of subnational resolutions will be worded similarly, as as you note they have no competencies regarding foreign affairs and thus no powers of formal diplomatic recognition. However, those resolutions do provide recognition in other senses of the word, so I wouldn't be surprised if the term is used here and there. CMD (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)