Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue

Cook Islands and Niue
The last time we had this discussion, the consensus was that this statement, made to the UN in 1965, essentially defined the Cook Islands as not claiming sovereignty. Here was the specific sentence:
 * The Cook Islands people, because of their many natural links with New Zealand, have determined to exercise their right of self-government or self-rule or independence -- call it what you will -- but not at this time as a separate, sovereign State.

However, on the talk page for List of states with limited recognition, this document from 2001 was recently posted. It's apparently a joint declaration of the governments of the Cook Islands and New Zealand which defines the nature of their relationship. It contains the following statement, which seems to indicate a new stance:
 * In the conduct of its foreign affairs, the Cook Islands interacts with the international community as a sovereign and independent state. Responsibility at international law rests with the Cook Islands in terms of its actions and the exercise of its international rights and fulfilment of its international obligations.

This is pretty strongly-worded evidence, and it was signed by the then prime ministers of the two countries. Should we re-evaluate our stance on New Zealand's associated states? Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The cook islands remains an associated state of New Zealand. It does conduct itself as an independent state, as it has its own government. However, it remains under New Zealands oversight, and I believe the citizens are new Zealand citizens. In other news, why is tokelau considered separately? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And Palau remains an associated state of the United States. That fact alone isn't a sufficient reason for exclusion from the list, we have to examine the nature of the free association. There are also historical examples of sovereign states not having their own citizenship. Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster in 1942 but its citizens were British subjects until 1948. And Tokelau is considered separately because it has a different status. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the strong evidence there were the words "as a...". I see this more as an affirmation by New Zealand that the Cook Islands internal politics are not meddled with by the New Zealand government. Furthermore, the relation between New Zealand and the Cook Islands is different from the relationship of Palau and the USA. It is probably more like the relationship between American Samoa and the USA. As it is, the Cook Islands have made no declaration of independence, and indeed are against it (as is tokelau, much to the annoyance of bankimoon). They are not completely sovereign. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If the status had changed fundamentally, there would be a significant amount of media coverage. The document also reaffirms (3.2) that the Cook Islands is part of the Realm of New Zealand, i.e. the domain of the Queen of New Zealand. Night w (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's an argument to be made here. And these two are probably the two cases where our criteria are least clear-cut. I rather read the text as saying that the Cook Islands interact as a sovereign independent state rather than that they are a sovereign independent.

While I accept Night w's point that if their status had changed fundamentally there would be a significant amount of media coverage, I would suggest that practical change has in some cases historically occurred over a long period of time without fanfare - particularly in the history of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. For example, Canada's relative independence changed markedly between the 1931 Statute of Westminster and the constitution of 1982, but there was little change in Canada's formal relationship with the UK in that time. In 1935, we may well have felt that Canada would not have belonged on a list such as this. In 1980, it certainly would have done. With the sort of historical hindsight that we don't currently have, it may be clear in the future that the Cook Islands are going through the same process. Pfainuk talk 16:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is the case then we should leave the list as the status quo. Pfainuk sees the key distinction, and I still dont think there is strong evidence here for inclusion at this time. Since we don't know their own opinion, we still must not include them unless something significantly changes. Outback the koala (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think that Niue and the Cook i. must must be included, simply because we don't have their clear declaration of independence from New zealand.--79.54.154.62 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My two pence: See source. It states the following position from a court in the Cook Islands (see page 262):

"It is necessary that I start by referring to the status of the Cook Islands as a sovereign state. The constutional relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand is that of associated statehood. (snip) The Cook Islands also has international capacity... (snip) In short, the Cook Islands is a sovereign state with full internal self-government."

On the same page, a ruling by a New Zealand court:

"...the Court was invited to and does approach this issue on the basis that the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent state and that the special relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand does not affect this issue." Ladril (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See also this previous discussion. So, it seems that we have a confirmation that the NZ associated states are like the US associated states, eg. sovereign, etc. - and thus should be included in the list not under NZ, but on their own? Alinor (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of sovereign states (featured) on the German Wikipedia includes the UN members, the associated states of New Zealand and the unrecognised states on a single table. If that feels uncomfortable here, a solution may be to create a separate table for the "states in free association with New Zealand" and leave the references in the New Zealand entry as they are. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be more inclined to call them "Associated States without general international recognition" or somesuch, allowing for hypothetical future states in a similar situation.


 * With these new sources, I'm inclined to change my view. Whereas previously I have argued that these two do not belong, I would now be willing to accept them in a separate section or by some similar arrangement.  I would prefer a clearer indication from the CI/Niue government but accept that there is a reasonable case.


 * I think the split we have is needed to ensure a clear distinction between states that are generally accepted to be sovereign and states where there is significant dispute. I feel that this is needed to keep us neutral. Pfainuk talk 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is, in the political sphere it isn't easy to ask for a clear-cut statement on the part of Niue and the Cook Islands saying, "we're independent", because this could be interpreted as an intention to sever the constitutional link of free association with New Zealand. Yet, free association is understood by New Zealand and the United Nations to be a form of decolonization and a recognition of self-determination, and this is what they want to stress. Ladril (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I generally agree, but they are not without recognition - on the contrary, you can see in the previous discussion (link in my post above) that they both have established diplomatic relations with many states and have joined multiple international organizations (1, 2). As implied in the previous discussion (but there weren't sound sources) they are sovereign and independent, freely associated with NZ, and they can join the UN whenever they wish, but still haven't done this yet - their status is similar to Palau/Marshall/Micronesia when they had already signed CFAs with the USA (thus become independent), but still haven't joined the UN.
 * I think that if we list Vatican City along the UN members, then we should list CI/Niue there too (it now seems that all three are "Internationally recognized sovereign states"). Of course with a note like for "no UN membership" and for association (like the Palau CFA-USA note). Alinor (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more with Pfainuk's proposal above for a separate section, because only a minority of states have separate diplomatic relations with CK/Niue, and thus it isn't that easy to assert they are "generally recognized". Ladril (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So the list would have one section for generally recognized sovereign states (193 entries), one section for states with limited recognition (10 entries), and one section for the associated states of New Zealand (2 entries)? This strikes me as a somewhat haphazard way to organize things. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to divide the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" into multiple sections - I would propose two: "UN members", "UN non-members" (Vatican/CI/Niue). But I think any such division would be wrong and arbitrary. Alinor (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Only minority of states have relations with them, because the CI/Niue are very "tiny" (mostly in regards population and economy). Nauru also has relations only with a minority of states - because of the same reason. Many other small countries in the world do not have relations with all other states. Even some bigger countries have limited relations - becouse of no interest or other reasons (isolationist policy, lack of capability/resources, etc.), but not because their independence is disputed by the rest of the world. Please see this discussion about a similar topic.
 * My point is that they are not less recognised than Nauru/Vatican City/etc., eg. there is no dispute (like PRC-Taiwan/etc.) and no DENIAL of recognition (like Israel-Arab) - or if it is we should mention it. Alinor (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Another issue that needs addressing is the apparent conflict between the notion of a "Realm of New Zealand" and the existence of three sovereign states within the realm. See here:

"By the late 1950s it would have been accurate to say that New Zealand, including the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency, was a realm, called 'New Zealand'. But things have changed. There is now a Realm of New Zealand, of which New Zealand itself is only one element. This subtle but significant reframing of New Zealand's macroconstitutional arrangements has taken root in the Interpretation Act 1999 (NZ)" (snip)

"One aspect of Cook Islands and Niuean self-government is that their legislatures have full and exclusive power to make laws.[68] Another aspect is that their Governments have plenary powers in respect of Cook Islands and Niuean matters. Put another way, the Crown in right of New Zealand (in the sense of the executive, rather than the Sovereign) is a divisible one.

In the federal realms of Australia and Canada, the Crown as executive is divisible among the States or Provinces.[69] 'The Crown' in South Australia is a different legal entity from 'the Crown' in New South Wales, and 'the Crown' in Saskatchewan a different legal entity from 'the Crown' in Nova Scotia. Unlike Australia and Canada, the Realm of New Zealand is not a State. But its basic structure is otherwise essentially the same: an association of States and Territories recognising a single sovereign as Head of State,[70] and in which the Crown as executive is divisible among those States and Territories.[71] There is only one Queen in right of (the Realm of) New Zealand, and in Realm matters she or her Governor-General is advised by the Executive Council.[72] But in matters relating to any one State within the Realm she is advised separately by her Ministers in that State.[73] Hence, while it would be inappropriate to refer to the Queen in right of the Cook Islands (because the Cook Islands is not a realm), it is possible to speak of the Crown in right of the Cook Islands, or the Crown in right of the Government of the Cook Islands.[74]" Ladril (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See now that source pretty much sums up my own position on the matter, which is that while there may be three separate executive governments, sovereignty is indivisable, and lies with the Queen of New Zealand. With regards to the other sources you've provided, however, it should be made clear that you cannot use bilateral relations as a token of recognition as a sovereign state. So quanification of recognition is still an issue. Night w (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, according to various sources here and in the previous discussion - the "sovereign" is also divisible - the CI "Queen of NZ" is different from Niue "Queen of NZ" and NZ "Queen of NZ". It just happens that the person holding these is the same and that their official titles are the same "Queen of NZ" (plus "in right of CI/Niue" remarks) - but the NZ in "Queen of NZ" is just a name (it could be "Queen of the Pacific") and is different from the NZ as a sovereign state. Anyway, I think that the court sources here above show that CI/Niue sovereignity and independence is undisputed. The proces that they go trough is similar to Australia/NZ/Canada/etc. "gradual independence" and their current status is similar to Palau/Marshall/Micronesia after-CFA-but-before-UN-membership. Alinor (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the "queen sharing" - the case with Commonwealth queen is the same - same person holding multiple "sovereignities" (of Australia, of UK, etc.). Alinor (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladril and Nightw. They do have their own authority, and can enter relations with countries by themselves, but that is not enough to make them a sovereign state, the states of Germany can enter into international agreements (though they don't usually). Furthermore they are part of NZ like the Netherlands Antilles is part of the Netherlands. Shared citizenship, different governments. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true for Tokelau, but not for CI/Niue - please look at the previous discussion I mention above and most importantly the link provided by Ladril about the court decision. Alinor (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're replying to me Alinor, you're confusing me, as I left my comment before you left your first one. I think its important to note that it is true for all of them. I read the previous discussion. The fact is they share a common nationality, and while CI/Niue operate as separate entities, they nominally remain under the sovereignty of New Zealand. What they are is autonomous regions to the greatest extent of the word. The fact is, neither has claimed to be an independent state from New Zealand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, the point made by the source is not being understood. What is being said is that the Realm of New Zealand is not a state, unlike Australia or Canada. The divisibility of the Crown means the Realm is different from the three states within the Realm. Even the Commonwealth regards Cook Islands as a sovereign state here.

"Under the 1965 constitution, Cook Islands is a sovereign state with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and a unicameral legislature, which has exhaustive and (since 1981) exclusive legislative powers (including constitutional reform); the New Zealand House of Representatives cannot legislate under any circumstances in respect of the Cook Islands." Ladril (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The point being made in the first source is that, if New Zealand were to become a republic - and thus stop having the British Queen as the head of state - New Zealand and Tokelau would leave the Realm, but the Realm itself would continue to exist with Cook Islands and Niue within it. It means the relationship of CK and Niue to the British Crown is direct and that they are not subordinated to the sovereignty of NZ. Ladril (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ladril, can you give us a preview of how and where you propose to add this information? Night w (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is no consensus on the best way to include it on the page. We will have to discuss it further. Ladril (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that what we can all agree on is that they are very sui generis under international law. I would be happy if they were added into the Other States section, or if the New Zealand entry was redone to look like the Netherlands entry Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It cannot be done just like Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, because these two are not in an associated statehood relationship with the Netherlands. It's a very different arrangement. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not sui generis, they are regular states that are not members of the UN (like many other Pacific states during the second half of the 20th century), that happen to have associated status with another state (like CFA of Micronesia with the USA) and shared monarch (like the numerous Commonwealth states). Alinor (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we are having two separate issues mixed here: 1. "Are CI/Niue independent sovereign states?" 2. "If yes, where to list them?" (here it is clear that: "if not, the current list is OK"). Alinor (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are CI/Niue independent sovereign states?
The above discussion plus the previous one deal with this and I will try to summurize the problematic points (for sources/elaboration see the discussions):
 * 1) CI/Niue/Tokelau are dependencies of NZ, just like Gibraltar/etc. are dependencies of the UK. No, only Tokelau is such. CI/Niue link with NZ is of "voluntary" type, association - like US-Palau/Marshall/Micronesia CFA.
 * 2) NZ head of state ("sovereign") is head of state of CI/Niue. No, regardless of same naming of the title and same person holding them, there are separate - like the monarchs of the Commonwealth countries UK/Australia/Canada/etc. (also, Andorra has for head of state the head of state of France (and a bishop from Spain), but this does not diminish its independence or sovereignity.)
 * 3) CI/Niue go on the same path of "creeping/gradual independence" as NZ/Australia/Canada have gone in the 20th century (no clear "independence day"), that's why depending on the time of the source in the first periods we see many NZ linkages, but later they get "independent" and "sovereign".
 * 4) CI/Niue are not (yet) members of the UN, but not because of non-independence or non-sovereignity. Unitl recently many independent and sovereign countries were UN non-members: Switzerland (UN observer up to 2002), Vatican (still UN observer), Marshall/Micronesia (not UN members, 1986-1991), San Marino/Monaco/Liechtenstein/Andorra (not UN members up to 1990/1993), Kiribati/Nauru/Tonga/Tuvalu (not UN members from 1968/1979 to 1999/2000).
 * 5) CI/Niue do not have "general" international recognition. No, just like the other small states (Nauru/Tuvalu/Palau/etc.) they don't maintain "wide" network of diplomatic relations, but this is related mostly to their size and not because of lack-of-recognition by third states (they are already members of many international organizations/conventions where membership is reserved for states only - no HK/Macao, no other dependencies).
 * 6) All of the above proofs of "independence and sovereignity" would be a moot points/OR/POV/etc. without a source (that we lacked the last time), but now we have the court decisions (links by Ladril above) clearly stating that.
 * I will reply to this here I guess, for lack of anywhere else:
 * The subtle but important difference between the CFA countries and CI/Niue is that the CFA countries claim their independence and sovereignty. CI/Niue are not claiming sovereignty, and could be said not to want it (here is a book summary which states this)
 * The gradual independence is important, but it should be noted that this was mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Many territories and dependencies nowadays do not seek independence, and in fact in cases like Mayotte, are beginning to reverse the path to autonomy. They find benefits of being part of a larger state. Although the parallels to creeping independence are there, they are not exactly the same.
 * CI/Niue are different from other pacific states in terms of recognition. Every country and government will acknowledge Nauru/Tuvalu/Palau as independent. However, they do not recognize the CI/Niue as such, although they may allow them entry as an equal to other states, due to their completely independent government. The US government lists CI/Niue as a subnational entity with places like American Samoa and the Faeroes. (1) This is the same government that recognizes Palau/Marshall/Micronesia as independent. This is because the relationships are slightly different.
 * I think the strongest argument is that CI/Niue do not want to be fully independent and sovereign states. Their current constitutions call for Homerule. This means that they are fully autonomous of the New Zealand government. As autonomous states they can enter into agreements internationally, as can places like Bermuda (which accepted Guantanamo Bay prisoners without consulting the UK). They also have their own government. However, they are citizens of NZ, and part of the Realm of New Zealand (For now, unless something dramatic happens). We have to be careful not to cause WP:CRYSTAL here, and portray them as fully sovereign states equivalent to the others on the list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Chipmunkdavis:
 * 1. Actually, Cook Islands claims its sovereignty. See this statement by its Prime Minister [] (not edited by Night w). "There is no question that the potential exists for greater cooperation, collaboration and integration with our Pacific brothers which, in my opinion, can only lead to improved benefits in future for each of us as small island developing sovereign states”" I would also be careful with saying that Micronesia/Palau/Marshall are sovereign and CK/Niue are not, as that could be construed as being biased towards the position of the US and against that of New Zealand. As for the source, likewise we should not give too much weight to the point of view of a single scholar. If under a widely held point of view the Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign states, this should be reported in the encyclopedia, even if there is another widely held view that they are not. Taiwan and Palestine are in the same situation - some majoritarian views consider them states, others do not.
 * 2. That's a good point, however we should not assume that all countries have moved in the same direction in the path to decolonization. Some countries have continued to pursue increases in their self-determination. Others, as you say, have tried to move backwards and still others are pursuing intermediate situations like free association. In the case of the Cook, a scholar has called their status "inchoate independence", meaning that indeed they are an entity that aims to be recognized as an independent state while retaining an association with New Zealand. [] (not edited by Night w, you may need to right click and save to your hard drive to get the document).
 * 3. This point may be verging on original research, and as for the second part, again gives too much weight to the point of view of the US against others.
 * 4. Autonomy is one thing, free association is another. This merits further discussion but the sources suggest CK and Niue are in the second case. As for relations, let's keep in mind that diplomatic relations are relations between two entities that recognize each other as states (i. e., equals under international law). Bermuda and other dependent territories do not have diplomatic relations with anybody. Cook Islands and Niue do have those relations with several countries, including New Zealand. And before I'm pelted, see this [] on Bermuda. Ladril (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Ladril. First let me say how amazed I am to be accused of Pro-US bias. I'm actually well known for having been very antiUS before, though I'm trying to eliminate that. Anyway, back on topic.
 * 1. I agree it should be reported, the problem would be whether to list it. In the grey area that international relations is, such black and whites are sometimes hard to apply, which is the problem here. In terms of independence, the document you sourced off in your point 3 of the above reply states "Those letters emphasised the autonomy of each of the states and also the expectations of a partnership which was founded on the sharing of New Zealand citizenship with the people of the Cook Islands." In my opinion this points to autonomy rather than total sovereignty.
 * 2. Once again, complicated international politics is the issue here. Wish it was easier.
 * 3. Apologies for any type of original research. I merely thought it would be useful to get the opinion of the country that issued the CFA to what we consider fully independent countries.
 * 4. Autonomy and free association are linked, and no doubt there is no fine line. The quote I took states that the free association is based on autonomy. No desire to pelt anyone *amused chuckle*
 * -Well, I think that this conversation is nearing a conclusion. I have no desire to create a conflict and bring this to mediation and such. From what the discussion seems to be saying is that CI/Niue are charting new territory diplomatically, which we are having trouble categorizing. I recognize that momentum is moving to including them fully on the list, so I will not oppose. I do think that we need to hash out the addition on the talk page before it is added to the main page though, which I'm sure everyone will agree with. Oh well. Thanks for the responses Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks Ladril it just gets difficult to follow if you have http's everywhere. It's probably mostly pickiness. Night w (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, I don't agree with anything you've said, most importantly the last point, where you've claimed that sources have been provided for what you've argued.

There is a huge difference between the U.S. and NZ associations. The U.S. Compact recognises its signatories' separate sovereign status (as noted in the preamble). It confirms that the citizens of a signatory state shall not be citizens of the United States, and vise versa (see § 142 and 172). In Article I, it defers to the respective constitutions of the signatories. In the constitutions of the Federated States of Micronesia (Article X: § 3), and of the Marshall Islands (Article V: § 3), it notes that the President is the head of state.

Conversely, there has been no Act or treaty to speak of recognising the independence of Niue or CI. The Joint Centenary Declaration between NZ and CI (dated 2001) confirmed that the people of the Cook Islands are New Zealand citizens, and neither Niue nor the Cook Islands issue their own passports. The three states share a common head of state (i.e., The Queen in right of New Zealand), which cannot be said for Australia and Canada and the UK, which all have separate heads of state. Neither, for that matter, can one draw parallels between this situation and Andorra; Nicolas Sarkozy holds two distinct offices that don't overlap. As the journal quoted by Ladril states, whilst the executive may be divisable, the sovereign is not.

The establishment of foreign relations, as I've said numerous times before, does not bestow recognition as a sovereign state, and I'm baffled at how anyone has been able to draw that conclusion. Hong Kong, Macau, Québec, Alberta, and New Brunswick (there's plenty more) all have diplomatic relations overseas. It doesn't mean that their partners recognise them as sovereign states, nor does it imply that the PRC recognises Niue as anything other than an associated state of New Zealand whose independent foreign ministry is guaranteed by legislation.

As to which states may have extended recognition, this doesn't seem to be clear cut, as arguably neither of the two claim to be independent in the first place. I've seen one provided from Belgium that looks pretty explicit. Perhaps, should the change be made, it would be better not to mention recognition at all, as this doesn't seem to be clear at the present stage. Having said all that, I have no problem with their addition to the list, as long as these limitations and differences are made clear, and that they are not treated in the same respect as the others. One source I found to be thorough on the subject of the Cook Islands' relationship with New Zealand was this report by Nicolaus Lange (see page 7 onwards). Night w (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you insist I could again go trough both discussions and take out the links, but please, give a list of claims that you dispute. Alinor (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "shared" head of state is divisible. "The Queen in right of New Zealand" means "...of the Realm of New Zealand" and inside this realm there are three (not four or more) states: CI, Niue, NZ proper with its dependencies/special territories). Alinor (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In general (my last point of the initial list) - as I remeber the previous discussion ended with the decision to wait/not make any changes until/if a source is found showing clearly CI/Niue independence and sovereignity. Ladril supplied it here with the court statement: "...the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent state...". What else do we need? (keeping in mind that all arguments to the contrary are partial, just like the partial proofs that we have before this quote, eg. disputing here, between ourselfs, goes much more in POV/OR direction, regardless if the aim is to say "CI/Niue are not independent" or "CI/Niue are independent") Alinor (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be out for a social event today, so my extended response will be delayed. For the moment: it's not true that dependencies have diplomatic relations. Diplomatic relations are relations of the highest level between entities that have recognized each other as sovereign states. None of the Canadian provinces have them; you may recall that Charles de Gaulle created quite a row with Ottawa in the sixties when he did so much as insinuate that France might have direct relations with Quebec. Hong Kong and Macau certainly don't; the consulates they have are subordinated to the embassies in Beijing and there are legal documents that give all sorts of limits to the external relations they might have. If diplomatic relations were such a trivial matter that anyone can have them, why would mainland China insist on other countries not having relations with Taiwan? As for the source given by Night w, it is an essay that argues my same point: that CK should be seen as a sovereign state. More to follow. Ladril (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quebec has direct diplomatic relations with several foreign states, including France. . Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. The French consulate in Quebec City is a delegation to the Quebec government, not the Canadian government as would normally be the case.  Both Quebec and New Brunswick are independent members of La Francophonie alongside Canada, and I believe Alberta has a diplomatic office in Washington. Pfainuk talk 13:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever told you guys that was lying. The Quebec office in Paris is a delegation (in order to be a diplomatic office, it would have to be at least a consulate), with no more diplomatic standing than the Taiwan offices in countries that have no relations with it. The French consulate in Quebec is subordinated to the embassy in Ottawa, and the Francophonie is not an organization reserved for sovereign states (unlike many of the organizations which Cook and Niue have joined). Ladril (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very rigid and simplistic view of diplomacy. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's substantiated by reading. Ladril (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Subnational entities have had diplomatic relations in the past, most notably Bavaria in the German Empire held diplomatic relations with many foriegn states maintaining consulates overseas and the like despite the fact that it had acceded to the German Empire. Diplomatic relations does not nessesarily imply independence, only autonomy. XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that bit about Bavaria, Xavier? Also be careful about using the word "autonomy" for historical contexts before the twentieth century. Ladril (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course India, Ukraine and Belarus (and I believe some others) were UN members before they became independent. Long before, in the cases of Ukraine and Belarus. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it has anything to do with the present discussion, but Ukraine and Belarus joined the UN as sovereign states. Ladril (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * uh, Ukraine and Belarus were integral parts of the Soviet Union in 1945. They weren't sovereign states by the definition we're using here and they certainly would not have been listed on the hypothetical 1945 version of this list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When the time came to determine whether the Soviet Union would join the United Nations, Stalin asked for fifteen votes in the General Assembly, arguing that the USSR was a confederation and that each of the fifteen republics was externally sovereign. A compromise was reached with the Western Allies that there would be a seat for the Union and one each for Belarus and Ukraine (presumably because these two were among the founding republics of the Union). Ladril (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ethiopia has a consulate in Somaliland, overseen by an official with the rank of ambassador, despite the fact that the government recognises it as a region of Somalia. Night w (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know they have a trade office in Hargeisa []. That doesn't mean diplomatic relations. Help me find info about the consulate. Ladril (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's now a consulate. The post, however, had always enjoyed the rank of ambassador. Night w (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if the post is an ambassador the office would have to be an embassy (and it would have to be in Mogadishu, not in Hargeisa, simply because Ethiopia recognizes Somalia as sovereign over the territory of Somaliland). More likely, the person in charge works as an ambassador without officially being one (which is the only way around it, since Ethiopia has no diplomatic relations with Somaliland; as a matter of fact, no country has them). Ladril (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we have someone with such insight. Who needs reputable sources when we've got Ladril? Night w (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation in Somaliland is another good example of diplomatic relations without recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't believe me. But Ethiopia is one of the worst enemies of Somaliland's independence. It's practically impossible they would be willing to validate its regime by having diplomatic relations with it. Ladril (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. It would seem everyone else has got it wrong then. You'd better write a letter to them explaining the situation. Night w (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Ladril (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of opinion, Nightw, and flinging webpages is enough, here is a webpage with which I very much agree explaining why Ethiopia is an enemy of Somaliland's independence (note I didn't say Ethiopia are an enemy of Somaliland, which is an entirely different matter). [] You may remember Taiwan has very good relations with the US, yet it's not inaccurate to say that the US has been an enemy of their independence. And to wrap it up, Nightw, Somaliland does not have diplomatic relations with anybody. As specified in the textbook I posted below, diplomatic relations only take part between sovereign states that diplomatically recognize each other. If there are any exceptions, they are few and far between, and neither Somaliland nor the Cook Islands are among them. Ladril (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point I was making is that you've repeatedly made assertions that you can't seem to verify. You overlook reputable sources (either you ignore them or dismiss them as false) that explicitly state the very opposite of what you then subsequently claim. And now you've cited an opinion piece (and I'll add: written by a blatant antagonist of the Ethiopian nation, whose writing is borderline racist) which, whether reliable or not, doesn't at all make the arguments you might've wanted it to. It argues, among other things, that Ethiopia is witholding its recognition of Somaliland because it's in the country's best interest. It doesn't say Ethiopia doesn't have diplomatic relations with Somaliland. It doesn't say Somaliland has no diplomatic relations to speak of, as you claim. I don't care what you think you know on the subject. It doesn't help to repeatedly make unverified claims. Night w (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If yes, where to list them?
(if not, the current list is OK)
 * 1) In the main "Internationally recognized sovereign states" category, under "C" and "N", not as notes for NZ. I think that since we list Vatican City along the UN members, then we should list CI/Niue there too (it now seems that all three are "Internationally recognized sovereign states"). Of course with a note like for "no UN membership" and for association (like the Palau CFA-USA note).
 * 2) In new category "Internationally recognized sovereign states, not members of the UN". If the consensus is to divide the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" into multiple sections - I would propose two: "UN members", "UN non-members" (Vatican/CI/Niue). But I think any such division would be wrong and arbitrary (the UN is "just" an international organization. Many pacific states between 1980-2000 were "Internationally recognized sovereign states" without having UN membership).
 * 3) other arrangement?

Above was risen the point that only minority of states have relations with them, but this is because the CI/Niue are very "tiny" (mostly in regards population and economy). Nauru also has relations only with a minority of states - because of the same reason. Many other small countries in the world do not have relations with all other states. Even some bigger countries have limited relations - becouse of no interest or other reasons (isolationist policy, lack of capability/resources, etc.), but not because their independence is disputed by the rest of the world. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_5#Croatia.2C_Montenegro.2C_etc. this discussion] about a similar topic.

My point is that they are not less recognised than Nauru/Vatican City/etc., eg. there is no dispute (like PRC-Taiwan/etc.) and no DENIAL of recognition (like Israel-Arab) - or if it is we should mention it. Alinor (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are dependent (by choice) but sovereign states, they should be listed in the main body. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I'd say main body is fine, provided by the "extent" section has a clear enough explanation in it. I think listing them along with the 10 "other states" would probably just confuse the reader, and making a new section just for them (or just for them + vatican) wouldn't really make for a well organized list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe they need their own entry, but I insist on keeping the notes in the New Zealand entry, in order to explain to the reader the special relationship they have with this country. Also, the United States entry should explain that Palau, Micronesia and Marshall Islands are in a relationship of free association with that country. Ladril (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be enough if the "notes" sections of CI/Niue contain note about their NZ association link? Because currently Palau/Marshall/Micronesia entries have CFA notes, but there is no mention on the USA entry. This looks like a compromise - there is no allusion that these states are USA "dependencies" (eg. no note in the USA entry), but still this type of bilateral relationship is deemed important enough to be mentioned on their own entries notes. Alinor (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If CI/Niue were UN members the things would be clear. But during 1980-2000 many pacific states were still outside the UN, regardless of having full sovereignty and independence for over 20 years (see examples above), so I don't think that we should use the UN membership as the only criteria here (see below). Alinor (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
The entries in the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" section to be changed as follows:


 * Well, if this was to go in, saying widely recognized at the start would be ridiculously wrong. Both the sources you cite give no recognition of wide recognition, in fact, your interwiki link source to the foreign relations of Niue (bad by itself as interwiki references are not good references) states that Niue does not conduct relations as a sovereign state. Additionally, although the complicated relationship of the CI/Niue with the commonwealth exists, they are nominally part of the realm of New Zealand, and are not independent realms (Commonwealth Realms). Lastly, the UN does not consider it a non member state. The UN does not consider it at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Niue page is not updated.
 * About the "widely recognized" see here below and this discussion - there is no need for 50%+1 recognition (as many other states would not qualify in this case) - just for "general", "undisputed" recognition. Both CI/Niue have emabssies (not consulates or offices, but regular embassies) abroad (including in NZ), and even more states have diplomatic relations with them; without any opposing states/disputes.
 * It is not written that CI/Niue are Commonwealth realms, but that: 1. they are realms in the Realm of New Zealand, and 2. the Realm of New Zealand is realm in the Commonwealth Realm. Maybe the wording should be changed to be more clear, such as: "... in free association with New Zealand. Cook Islands shares the Realm of New Zealand, one of the Commonwealth realms, with Niue and New Zealand." (the same note to be applied to NZ/Niue too, of course)
 * The UN link points to a UN map (dated May 2010), where the world is all covered in 5 colors: blue - "Member States of the United Nations", red - Non-Self-Governing Territories, green - "Non-Member States of the United Nations", yellow - "Observer Non-Member States of the United Nations", gray - "Occupied Palestinian Territory". Vatican is yellow, CI/Niue are green. See if the link above is broken. See  for 1945 status, when CI/Niue were not yet independent and when there were much more "UN non-member states". Alinor (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That conversation below pretty much agreed that generally recognized meant the UN+Vatican. Also the Croatia and Montenegro one is different. Of course states don't need to have relations with all. The problem is CI/Niue must be recognized as a State by other countries. We cannot assume that all other countries recognize them as sovereign states, and in fact they probably don't, as in terms of security for entering countries people from the CI/Niue are considered to be people from New Zealand, due to their New Zealand passport. The
 * The "itself a commonwealth realm" is factually incorrect, although the way you rewrote it is much better. I think that should be added to the extant of the Current New Zealand entry regardless, we should probably put it in, whether or not CI/Niue make the list.
 * Note that the list underneath the map of the UN places the CI/Niue as states that moved out of the list for reasons other than independence.
 * Side note: Please stop marking your edits to the talk page as minor? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The citizenship/visa issue has nothing to do with recognition. For list of recognitions look at Foreign relations of the Cook Islands.
 * I am glad that you find the Realm-rephrasing is acceptably corrected and I hope nobody disagrees with the new version?


 * What do you mean about the map? Yes, the process of independence was gradual, just like for NZ/Canada/etc., so CI/Niue were removed from the list for reasons other than independence, but now, years later, they are already independent (as confirmed by the court source link above). And this is also confirmed doubly on the UN map - 1. green coloring for non-member STATES, not for TERRITORIES; 2. No "initials in parenthesis refering to administering Power or Power involved in a special treaty relationship" (eg. in contrast to the "(N.Z.)" on Tokelau).
 * For comment on the 50%+1 recognitions see below. Alinor (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's part of the Realm of New Zealand, sharing with the other two. It isn't a Realm of New Zealand. Von Kornberg (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I'd love to get into a semantic debate, saying "It's part of the Realm of New Zealand...It isn't a Realm of New Zealand" seems to defeat itself, as well as not address the point. It is part of the realm of New Zealand, not its own realm. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at rephrasing suggestion above. Alinor (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alinor, what do you mean by there is no need for 50%+1 recognition (as many other states would not qualify in this case). Every state on the list marked as having general recognition satisfys 50% +1. There are no states on the list that have less than that many number of states recognizing. There are no sources so far stating that a majority of states recognize either niue or cook islands. To the contrary it is easy to find sources which indicate that they are not recognized, for example the cia world factbook lists them both as dependencies indicating that the US Government does not see them as independent states.XavierGreen (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see above, the CI/Niue/Vatican are the three "Non-Member States" (additionaly, Vatican is observer, CI/Niue are not observers) - in contrast to "Member States" and "Non-Self-Governing Territories". It seems very arbitrary to split the "Non-Member States" in two groups, based on the number of recognitions some of the states has formally received. I think that if we don't have a statement from some third state that it DOESN'T recognise CI/Niue or claims to be their sovereign/protector/whatever - then, keeping in mind the other confirmed recognitions, we should consider CI/Niue "generaly recognised" - without waiting for 50%+1 or whatever limit.
 * Anyway, the 50%+1 (or any other number-based) rule is fundamentally flawed, because many of the smaller "Member States" do not cover it (for example Nauru is formally recognised by ~50 countries, thus it has only around 25%).
 * So, lack of recognition-denial/disputes by third states, very small size, classification as "Non-Member State" by the UN (in contrast to entity/territory/organization/etc.), classification without "administring Power" by the UN, a number of full formal diplomatic recognitions (~25 for CI), a number of received accredited ambassadors and a few ambassadors send abroad in full fledged embassies - all this shows "general recognition". Alinor (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two very different concepts. Nauru only has diplomatic relations with 50 or so countries, it is recognized by every united nations member. In order for a state to acceed the united nations it has to be recognized as a state by at least two thirds of the general assembly in a vote for admission. Thus when Nauru was admitted at least two thirds of the states in the world recognized it as an equal peer when it was admitted. As stated above diplomatic relations does not equate with diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Belarus, Ukraine, India, and the Philippines? They had UN membership without recognition as sovereign states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes thats correct, in effect they were recognized as independent peers with international personality. The reality was however that they were used simply as puppets so that their respective administrators could have more seats under their control in the un. Those four entities however did not go through the same process that nauru went through because they were charter members. In otherwords there was no vote on whether or not to include any of the charter members to my knowledge.XavierGreen (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Alinor, we do have a source where a country does not recognize CI/Niue as a sovereign state. The US state department, as we have said, classifies them as dependencies of New Zealand, thus stating that they do not consider them countries.
 * In reference to Belarus/Ukraine, they were claimed to be sovereign be the Soviet Union, whom claimed that it was 15 sovereign states united under a common goal. Of course they were not sovereign, but puppets of Moscow, but the Soviet Union wanted 15 seats in the UN. Belarus/Ukraine being in was a compromise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Xavier, I think you missed my point. Your claim is that if a state votes to grant another state UN membership, then the former state is effectively recognizing the latter state. But those votes aren't explicitly about granting diplomatic recognition, they're about UN membership. So in order for what you're saying to make sense, UN membership would have to be reserved for sovereign states. Right? Because if Country X says "I think Country Y should be a UN member", then that doesn't carry with it a recognition of Country Y's sovereignty unless only sovereign states can be UN members. And we have four historical examples of non-sovereign UN members.
 * Also, the resolution admitting Nauru to the UN was adopted without a vote in the General Assembly. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually does imply recognition. For example when the security council voted on whether or not tuvalu should become a un member, the prc abstained due to the fact that that country did not recognize the prc as soveriegn. The original charter members did not undergo the same procedure as later members did. The charter members simply had to sign the charter in order to join the general assembly. Nations wishing to join afterwords have to go through a process laid out in the charter. Since the four non-state areas you refer to were charter members they were not subject to the strict requirements that the later states were. Nauru was subject to a decision made by the general assembly the charter states that States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Thus nauru cannot have joined the un without a vote by the general assembly.XavierGreen (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Look it up in UNBISnet if you like. A/RES/54/2. Adopted without a vote. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, this seems to be standard practice for admission. There have only been fourteen countries admitted with a vote in the general assembly: Belize, Angola, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Mauritania, Malaya, Ghana, Japan, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, and Israel. All the rest had, at most, a vote in the security council. (And there were plenty that didn't even have that. Montenegro, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Kiribati, and Andorra, Eritrea, Monaco, San Marino, Marshall Islands, Liechtenstein, and most -- if not all -- of the former Yugoslav and Soviet republics passed the security council without a vote. And that's only in the last 20 years.) Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What reaction is probable if CI/Niue apply for UN membership? They are already considered independent sovereign states. So, I think that there would not be any opposition to their membership (of course this can't be confirmed without real UN vote - it can only be proved wrong if we find a statements from UN members that they are AGAINST CI/Niue membership). The problem in the previous discussion was that we didn't have proper link citing "independent and sovereign state" (or not) - we were putting arguments if/if-not they are such, the general conclusion was that they are, but we didn't have source, so no changes were made (as per OR policy). Now there is such a source. Alinor (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Note debate

 * It seems that the last remaining issue with the text is the wording of the notes "Widely recognized sovereign state" and "Considered as non-member state by the UN"? I wrote it so in the first place, just by copy-paste (for the first quote; with little modification for the second quote) from the Vatican City entry and here is why: in the article so far we distinguish between two main types of states/such notes (additionally we have 3 other entries that do not use letter-for-letter these 2 notes):
 * 1) "Widely recognized member of the UN." (for generally recognized, UN Member States)
 * 2) "De facto independent state recognised by xx countries" (for the limited recognition, UN Non-Member States).

The additionals are:
 * 1) "Widely recognized sovereign state" (for generally recognized, UN Non-Member State, but Observer - Vatican)
 * 2) "A state competing for recognition ... recognised by xx countries" (for the limited recognition, UN Non-Member State - Taiwan)
 * 3) "...description of facts... recognised by xx countries" (for the limited recognition, UN Non-Member Entity, but Observer - Palestine)

The "limited recognition" entries are not considered as independent sovereign states by the UN (they are considered either as part of some UN Member State, or as some non-state Territory - whether "occupied" or "non-self governing"), and have opposing claims against them by other States (UN Members). The CI/Niue in contrast share much more similarity with the Vatican - they are considered as "UN Non-Member States" (see image) - not as entity/territory; they have no claims against them by other States (including NZ, their former "ruler", see court source above); they have full diplomatic relations with a number of other States (UN Members) - of course, much smaller network than the Vatican (after all, they are remote small island states, not the Holy See/Catholic Church...); they are Full Members of multiple international organizations and conventions, including many of the UN System organizations, where membership is restricted to States (sometimes explicit restrictions like that: "any independent sovereign state can join, even if it is not member of the UN, but no sub-national entities or any other organizations are allowed").

That's why I propose the "Widely recognized sovereign state" instead of "De facto independent state recognised by xx countries" - CI/Niue are the only other UN Non-Member States besides the Vatican (and not some of the internationally disputed/"limited recognition" states). Here "Widely" means that there are no opposing claims/denials-of-recognition, not that there is a 50%+1 formally declared recognitions (as said before - many UN members have not get such number too).

Then, in order to be clear that CI/Niue are not UN members like the most of the states, comes the second quote that I propose here: "Classified as "Non-member State" by the UN". Alinor (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the united nations daughter organizations you refer to do allow membership for nonstates, for example a un daughter organization the Universal Postal Union allows several dependent territories full membership. The other thing that has yet to have been proven is the number of states that actually do recognize the two associated states as independent. I can provide specific examples of nations that do not recognize them, but have still yet to see any evidence that they possess general recognition by the states of the world. Stating that they would be admitted if voted on cannot be used as evidence of recognition, since it is a synthsised arguement (no vote has occured thus the results cannot be concluded).XavierGreen (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * About organizations membership - yes, some allow non-state members, but others don't allow (I don't say ALL). See UNFCCC "accession by States and by regional economic integration organizations." (CI/Niue are not regional organizations, but States); UNESCO - I have not found its founding document, but looking at the list you see that CI/Niue are Full members in contrast to associate/observer like Aruba/Macao/Cayman/Palestine/Vatican/Tokelau/Faroe, and also here you see how there are remarks on every non-full member or other special-type participant, but CI/Niue are listed just like any other regular State - Samoa/Tuvalu/etc.; FAO, list - again, no founding document unlike for the UNFCCC, but CI/Niue are full members in contrast to Faroe


 * About the synthsised arguement - yes! that's what I said: "of course this can't be confirmed without real UN vote". This is not evidence of recognition, but just an attempt to show that no UN members are AGAINST CI/Niue membership (what country besides NZ could have reasons to be against? And, NZ, as seen in the links/articles above, already recognized CI/Niue).


 * The number of states that have formally declared that they recognize CI/Niue can be seen on their Foreign relations/diplomatic missions pages (this number may need to be updated, but anyway it would be in the same range). Of course this number is less than 50%+1, I think we all see this. But in "genereal recognition" are included also those, that have not yet formally declared, the undeclared recognitions. Without a UN vote the only way to get such number is to find statements from all these countries... With the UN members it is easy, because we assume that they couldn't get UN membership if there was a substantial opposition (what is "substantial" and even whether this assumption is true doesn't matter here). That's why I asked if somebody expects that there would be any opposition in such a case, and where this opposition could came from. If we insist on getting a "number of recognitions" (declared and undeclared) we could never add a UN Non-Member State to the list (Vatican has very big declared component, so we could ignore the undeclared and still have a very big number. But nobody could expect from a small island state to get the attention the Holy See gets) - this looks like putting artificial rule for "sovereignity" - the membership in a particular international organization (the UN). Not so long time ago there were many "generally recognized" States that were not members (examples above). In fact, they became UN members, because their numbers were big enough (GA vote, etc.), but these numbers had very very big undeclared component - as can be seen today, because most of these still have a small number of declared recognitions (formal statements/etc.).


 * So, I think that it is not needed and not possible to get such a number. What is possible is to find opposing States (such as PRC/Taiwan, Morocco/SADR, etc.). If there are such - then we should move CI/Niue to the "Other states" section with the limited recognition.Alinor (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Alinor, we have a source from the US government website which lists CI/Niue as dependent states, not independent. That is a denial of the independent sovereign status. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is such USA opposition we could move CI/Niue to the "other states" section, and in the note we could write "De jure independent state recognized by formal recognitions number of states, including former administering power New Zealand, ...association note..., ...realm note..., ...UN-note..., whose independence is disputed by the USA" (de-jure instead of de-facto like the rest of the "other states", because the statement from the relevant court that we have confirming CI/Niue independence).
 * I missed this US government website source, but is it a clear statement "The USA considers CI/Niue a non-sovereign territory of NZ" or just a generic list/note that may be overlooked/not updated?
 * In any case, even if on some US site CI/Niue are listed along dependent states, this doesn't amount to "opposition" to CI/Niue independence, but just shows that CI/Niue have not yet asked the USA for recognition (or most probably that the page is not updated to take into account the process of gradual independence undertaken by CI/Niue as we already have links proving that CI/Niue have "taken over" external affairs page10, and from the court about "fully sovereign independent state").
 * Because here - the US Ambassador to NZ says "... been privileged to be accredited to Samoa and the Cook Islands. Gail and I have visited both several times." (Gail is his wife...) - he can't be accredited ambassador to an entity that is considered to be non-sovereign non-independent territory instead of equal-status state... Alinor (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also here is a border delimitation treaty signed between USA and Niue. Alinor (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with moving it to other states, though for different reasons, with different notes.
 * Arguing something may not be updated is not really an argument at all. Its an official government website listing it as a nonsovereign dependency. You may as well argue that everything could be not updated.
 * The court was asked to treat it as a sovereign and independent state.
 * The USA has diplomats in places like Bermuda, doesn't make Bermuda a sovereign state.
 * The treaty signed between them doesn't mean they recognize Niue as independent. I mean, they made a deal with (once again, sorry) Bermuda about Guantanamo prisoners. Once again, not a recognition of independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What reasons and notes - for the "other states" section?
 * Can you please put the US site link again - it seems that I missed it.
 * I don't argue that it is not updated (I have't even seen it) - I just say that I could be outdated, especially if it is not a firm statement, but a circumstantial minor listing/note issue.
 * It would be strange for the US to not recognize (in the sense of "oppose"/"deny", eg. active and formally) when NZ does, but anyway if it does - we can move them to "limited recognition"/"other states".
 * Border delimitation treaty is of very different nature (external affairs and more importantly a sovereignty core issue) than some prisoner transfer agreement (internal affairs/home rule/justice and police matter - maybe with security/external affairs component - not yet confirmed). Anyway, I don't state that this amounts to recognition (it could at MOST be considered recognition of the undeclared type discussed above), I was just giving it as additional example of USA-CI/Niue interaction in field relevant to recognition.
 * The USA has no accredited ambassador to Bermuda, unlike the Cook Islands. Ambassador is the highest possible rank representative, send exclusively to foreign states, not to other types of entities (such as Bermuda). Unlike consuls that can be send in multiple numbers to a single state in addition to the ambassador (like US ambassador to Beijing with consuls to Wuhan, Hong Kong, Shanhai, etc.). Alinor (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that CI/Niue have definitely moved beyond dependencies, however, as you can see from this whole debate whether they are independent sovereign states is debatable. Thus other states would be appropriate, with the note under New Zealand staying.
 * Here is the link, regarding CI/Niue as areas of special sovereignty, updated 2007. http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm
 * The question is what NZ recognizes it as. It treats it as another sovereign state, but whether it recognizes it as that is debatable. It acknowledges the complications of its relationship.
 * The USA does not have an accredited ambassador to the CI. Its relations with the CI take place through a consulate, responsible to the ambassador to New Zealand. Interestingly enough, the Cook Islands own foreign affairs website lists no diplomatic relations with the USA. (http://www.mfai.gov.ck/index.php/foreign-affairs.html) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Court decide based on law and facts. Regardless what it is "invited to" by the sides (of course each side invites it to arguments in its advantage). In page 262 "the High Court of Cook Islands held ... Cook Islands is a sovereign state with full internal-government" and "the Court of Appeal of NZ held ... the Cook Islands is a fully sovereign independent State". Regarding "external affairs" it is also stated "CI has international capacity and the authority of the common head-of-state ... in external affairs and defense is ... exercised on the advice of the CI ministers". This corresponds to [that about NZ declaration and subsequent UN recognized the full treaty-making capacity of CI/Niue, and all other sources showing external affiars independence, like here: "Cook Islands has full constitutional capacity to conduct its own external affairs". In any case, the authority of the shared head-of-state in foreign/defense activities, could be executed in relation to CI/Niue only when their governments agree. So, neighter NZ, nor UK, could unilateraly take action related to CI/Niue. That is normal for independent sovereign states. [[User:Alinor|Alinor]] (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the link of the US State department. Its source is "Office of The Geographer and Global Issues". It is a general list of all "special territories" around the world. It contradicts a direct quote of US Ambassador accredited to CI. This makes me think, that the list is simply not updated.
 * What do you mean by "The USA does not have an accredited ambassador to the CI." - the link I provided contains a clear statement by US ambassador who says that he is "accredited to CI".
 * I agree, that the real question is if NZ recognizes CI/Niue as sovereign and independent states (I have note that multiple times in connection with general vs. limited issue). We have such statement from NZ court. Additionally, we have the full set of High Commissions (CI in NZ, Niue in NZ, NZ in CI, NZ in Niue). High Commissions are not exchanged with dependent territories, right? Alinor (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As a conciliatory note I would say, that it seems that in relation to third states CI/Niue are fully sovereign/independent, but between NZ and CI/Niue it is only in practice, without formal declaration as it is implied that this may jeopardise the "special relationship". I don't know if the court statement overrides this reluctance (eg. counts as such declaration regardless) or not. Alinor (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

General recognition note
My point is, that here "wide/general recognition" means that there are no opposing claims/denials-of-recognition (and so it includes both declared and undeclared components). It should be contrasted with the "limited recognition". This is just the generic note for the whole section "Internationally recognized sovereign states", again in contrast to the note for "Other states" section.

Maybe, we should clarify the meaning of "general recognition" in the head of the article, in order to avoid confusion. My proposal:

--- The list is divided into two parts. It is arranged alphabetically, and contains 205 entries, : --- Alinor (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The internationally recognized sovereign states section lists all 195 widely recognized sovereign states, which means either a Member State of the United Nations, or Non-Member State, whose independence is not in dispute by the rest of the generally recognized states.
 * 2) The other states section lists ten states which are not widely recognized diplomatically, despite having de facto sovereignty or independence, as these are disputed by other states.
 * Well, since the independence of the two proposed additions is very much in dispute, I don't see how they'd fit under that description. Night w (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont see how general recognition is confusing, either a state is recognized by a majority of states or its not.XavierGreen (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there is one fairly important distinction here. All of the current "other states" got there due to a unilateral declaration of independence and/or a sovereignty dispute with another state. The status of the Cook Islands isn't disputed, exactly. I mean, NZ and the associated states seem to be agreed on the de jure terms of the associated statehood. And there's no other claimant. Aside from their level of recognition (and I still don't think that's exactly clear), they don't really have anything in common with the other ten states at all.
 * I guess what I'm saying is, our current division makes sense as a way of organizing the 203-entity list, but I'm not sure it's the most logical way of arranging the hypothetical 205-entity list. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with CI/Niue is that they are trying to become independent without becoming independent, if that makes any sense. On the note of other states, it includes Taiwan, which never once gave a unilateral declaration of independence. Its situation is similarly unique, yet it is lumped there. I'm sure with minimal rewording CI/Niue could fit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right but the ROC has a pretty significant sovereignty dispute with the PRC. There's nothing equivalent for CI or Niue. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't necessarily disclude them from being in the other states list. While there is no dispute per se about the sovereignty of the CI/Niue, there is dispute over what that sovereignty is. This is exemplified by this ridiculously long and multiple thread discussion. With a reword I'm sure they could be worked in. Additionally, I am loath to create a third list, as I feel that would just make this article messy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes we're having a dispute right now but there's no corresponding diplomatic dispute. There's no one who doesn't recognize the government of the Cook Islands as legitimate. There are some states which apparently don't interpret the associated statehood status as giving them sovereignty, but I don't think there's anyone disputing the de jure status of the islands. It's just that the de jure status we're talking about is kind of vaguely defined.
 * And I agree that the lack of a dispute doesn't technically disclude them from the other states list, as it stands. But I'm thinking that the current structure of the list doesn't really make sense when we include these two states. I think a disputed vs. not disputed division would actually be more meaningful for the reader. It would certainly be more in keeping with the spirit of the list as it currently stands, wouldn't it? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that there is a dispute about what the de jure status entails, sovereignty or not. I mean, at the moment, quite honestly, the CI/Niue are the opposite of SMOM, having a defined territory, but there is no CI/Niue citizenships. Their citizens are new zealand citizens. As a second note disputed/nondisputed opens its own can of worms. I think we have to remember that associated state of NZ is different from an associated state of the USA Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But a dispute over how to interpret an associated statehood status is fundamentally different than the other sovereignty disputes we're talking about. Georgia doesn't recognize Abkhazia and claims sovereignty over its territory. Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo and claims sovereignty over its territory. The PRC doesn't recognize the ROC and claims sovereignty over its territory. These disputes are what set the 10 "other states" apart from the 193 at the top of the list. There is no equivalent situation in the Cook Islands at all. Nothing even close. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no equivalent situation. I'm simply arguing that under the circumstances if they are not put in the sovereign independent entity table the only other option is the broader Other States section. The alternative I proposed, putting them in by dividing the New Zealand Row into 3 after New Zealand was rejected by Alinor. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think that proposal is really workable. If they're going to be in a section they should be listed alphabetically. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean putting them in under New Zealand, I mean including their information in the New Zealand box. Alternatively expanding the extant of New Zealand, or changing New Zealand to the Realm of New Zealand and placing all 3 in as constituent parts. Just throwing ideas out there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative
A considerable number, if not the majority, of both mainstream and foreign government sources refer to our two proposed additions as "associated states of New Zealand". I doubt that this reference is disputed, as this is what they are. In an attempt to curb further debate over the matter —as sources are clearly conflicting, and the situation does not seem to be clear at the present time, I'm going to propose to add them to the list of "sovereign states with general recognition", but refrain from describing them in too much detail.

"Associated state of New Zealand. The Cook Islands is part of the Realm of New Zealand, which is a Commonwealth realm."
 * Cook Islands and Niue:

Widely recognised member of the UN. New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm and shares the Realm of New Zealand with the associated states of the Cook Islands and Niue. It has the dependent territories of: ... It is not our duty to interpret primary sources, and since secondary sources are clearly conflicting, we should allow for both views: the idea that they are sovereign states is represented in their inclusion on this list, but they should be described as associated states. Night w (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * New Zealand
 * I don't get it. In the initial proposal it is written "...sovereign-note..., in free association with New Zealand, ...realms-note - see second revision bolded in the comments..., ...non-UN note...".
 * You say "but they should be described as associated states" and I think the initial proposal already does this with a direct quote of the wording from here: "The ...CI/Niue... are formally said to be "in free association" with New Zealand."(emphasis mine). Is something missing?
 * I think that all parts of the note are important - the free association (all other such cases have a note), the realm/head-of-state (all other such cases have a note), the UN-note (all entries have their UN-status noted), the sovereignty-note (all entries have similar note, but it is even more important in our case, because of the non-member UN status). Is something unnecessary? Alinor (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could place them both under New Zealand somehow. I would suggest dividing the entry on New Zealand into three rows apart from the first box. That would give CI/Niue recognition but also acknowledge their association with New Zealand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree - this would deviate abruptly from the general list format and would not be different from the current situation, that we try to change to implement the recent info.
 * I think that we have almost reached agreement how to do this change (the proposal plus corrections discussed after it). The only remaining point is the general/limited recognition note - I wait for feedback on the proposed head clarification phrasing, and for clarification if something is missing/unnecessary in the extant. Alinor (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be different from the current situation. We have definitely NOT almost reached an agreement, please don't presume so. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried multiple times to summarize the points of disagreement. The last time is 2 lines above. What else in a disagreement? Alinor (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Debate is still ongoing about whether they are even going on the list! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What we do agree?
I try to put here as much consensus points as possible, but excuse me if something goes too far. General sources:, , , , - these apply almost to all points below:
 * Crown in right of New Zealand (in the sense of the executive, rather than the Sovereign) is a divisible one - shared by three sovereign states within the realm (CI, NZ, Niue).
 * "In short, the Cook Islands is a sovereign state with full internal self government."
 * full legislative powers, including constitiutional changes; fully separated for legislation purposes
 * has the right at any time to move to full independence by unilateral action Art.41
 * judicary separation - Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council
 * NZ assists the associated states in external affiars, defense and law enforcement, budgetary, administrative and other matters - after mutual agreement and only on request of the CI/Niue governments
 * external and defense affairs - NZ responsibilities in the name of the shared head-of-state, on behalf of CI/Niue government, only at request and with consent of the CI/Niue government - NZ responsibilities confer no rights of control for NZ over CI/Niue - "This and other earlier agreements clearly reflected the fact that control over both external affairs and defence rests entirely with the Cook Islands government" -
 * relations with third states- "the Cook Islands interacts with the international community as a sovereign and independent state.", ,


 * citizenship - citizens of CI/Niue have only NZ citizenship; no CI/Niue citizenship
 * "Buried in the roots of Cook Islands’ diplomacy is Government’s major initiative - the long-term goal to gain membership to the United Nations. Each successive Government however, has so far failed to determine and fund a strategy to get beyond ‘talks’ with New Zealand over the question of ‘citizenship’. (Cook Islands Herald 11 September 2002); In the long term the present Cook Islands Government, like those before it, hopes it can get United Nations membership while still keeping New Zealand citizenship for Cook Islanders – like other countries (Byelorussia and Ukraine became original members of the UN in 1945 while retaining Soviet citizenship for their respective citizens) have already done." - my personal opinion here is that it is reasonable to accomplish this.
 * The maturity of CI' international personality does not mean that CI is, in constitutional terms, an independent sovereign state. In NZ's view, a constitutional change of that signicance would have implications in terms of Cook Islanders' eligibility for NZ citizenship, and would require formal constitutional acts including a referendum and changes to the CI Constitution.
 * relations with NZ - sovereign and independent in all but name - Vienna conventions, diplomatic immunities, High Commissions

I think that our discussion on this page would be good to be put in something like Political status of the Cook Islands and Political status of Niue. Alinor (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we agree on most of these, thank you for compiling a list, very well done. My only qualm would be "In short, the Cook Islands is a sovereign state with full internal self government" as it seems like an oversimplification of the situation, and leads to a circular argument. The rest of the points, however, are a good outline on the complexity of the situation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was a quote from a text about "international capacity" (page1 of the link) - to desimplify ... - so it goes along the eight point here above. Alinor (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be worth creating a note similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Kosovo-note ? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Alinor (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The extant section below could be a start, but I am not sure if it isn't "too big"... Alinor (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could put a proposal/request on some WikiProject page for Cook Islands/Niue/New Zealand about the creation of "Political Status" articles, with link to this page? I am not very familiar with the WikiProjects/etc., and where/how to put such proposals... Alinor (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 26July
---Head section---

...

The list is divided into two parts. It is arranged alphabetically, and contains 205 entries, :
 * 1) The internationally recognized sovereign states section lists all 195 widely recognized sovereign states, which means either a Member State of the United Nations, or Non-Member State, whose independence is not in dispute with the rest of the generally recognized states.
 * 2) The other states section lists ten states which are not widely recognized diplomatically, despite having de facto sovereignty or independence, as these are disputed with other states.

...

---The entries in the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" section to be changed as follows---

What do you think? Alinor (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly thorough. First note, as I've pointed out in your last proposal, is that the two additions won't fit under that altered description. Their independence is very much in dispute, as evinced by foreign government and mainstream media sources. As for the extent column, I believe information in that column should simply give a brief statement. This is simply a list, after all. If further elaboration is required, a footnote linking to an article with further information is preferable (as with China). I think your suggestion about a "Political status of Niue and the Cook Islands" article was a good idea. Night w (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we just make an Political status of states associated with New Zealand article, then link to that from the New Zealand extant? I'm sure that just be selectively taking from this conversation the article could be created to an appropriate level. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * About the "very much in dispute". That's why I propose to change the descriptions on the top - to clarify that "limited recognition"/"other states" mean states, whose independence/sovereinity and territory is disputed with other state (eg. claimed by it) and to solve the problem with Nauru and other UN members that Orange Tuesday show to be admitted without vote - that have very low declared recognitions number. About CI/Niue - their declared+undeclared recognitions number is very high (about 193) as it seems that there are only 2 states reluctant to recognise them. And this reluctance is not because of dispute/claim, but because of the citizenship link with the NZ, that the NZ itself does not consider to be a problem for the international relations (as shown by its many references to "sovereign and independent"). So, CI/Niue do not fit in the category of Taiwan/Somaliland/etc.
 * Maybe an additional rewording of the head descriptions would help? Alinor (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be preferred if we kept the definition of other states out of this discussion for the moment. As it stands the Other States list only contains states with a territorial dispute, however, that is because those were the only countries on there, not because that is the way the list is stated to have been designed. Otherwise it would be better to change the title to Disputed States or something similar.
 * We in no way have a CI/Niue recognitions at 193. Saying undeclared counts is just avoiding the main point of contention here, whether they are recognized as equals to the other countries.
 * PS Indented Alinors post Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We do have many confirmations that CI/Niue are recognized as equals to the other countries (of course less than 193). In fact, the only statements to the contrary that we have are two (JP, KR) and a weak ones at that (eg. nothing as substantial as the PRC/Taiwan and the other disputes of the "limited recognition"-type)
 * I would agree to leave the "limited recognition" discussion aside for the moment, but I'm not sure if this is practical/possible...
 * Yes, "disputed states" instead of "limited recognition" may work. Could you elaborate your idea?
 * In any case, the JP/KR issue has more common with the Greece/Macedonia naming dispute than the limited recognition cases. And as in the Macedonia case - there is the respective note on the CI/Niue entries in the proposal 26July here.
 * I could also do an additional rewording of the head descriptions, stressing on whole-territory-claims-dispute as the differential factor.Alinor (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that CI/Niue present a special case, where was cannot assume that countries that haven't given official recognition recognize them as a country, due to their unique status.
 * Disputed States would simply be states whose independence/sovereignty is disputed in some manner, to be elaborated in the extant.
 * The JP/KR issue has nothing to do with the macedonia/FYROM dispute. One is an objection to the states sovereignty, the other is simply an objection to the name of an indisputably sovereign state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just done the math for declared numbers - ~33% for Nauru (entered the UN without voting), ~25% for Cook Islands (UN non-member state), I don't have source for Tuvalu (in both cases I count EU recognition as 27 recognitions and do not add individual EU members to the count. EU takes unanimous the decisions for foreign relations - as seen in Kosovo, who doesn't have EU recognition despite having the majority of EU members recognize it, the EULEX mission, etc.).
 * I object that the CI/Niue status is so unique - we have statements from NZ, CI, Niue, UN that for international relations they are independent and sovereign. Of course individual states could disagree, as do JP/KR. Other ~25% of the states gave explicit recognition. Assuming that some other states reject without having any indication for that is inappropriate, especially when we consider that regular UN member state (without disputes like Israel/Arab) has declared recognition in the same range. My point is, that having only 2 non-recognizers just confirms the classification as "widely recognized".
 * "states whose independence/sovereignty is disputed in some manner" - the problem is, where do CI/Niue fall? I certainly don't see them along Taiwan/Somaliland/etc.
 * I pointed the macedonia/FYROM dispute as an example of dispute of much smaller gravity level compared to the "other states" - macedonia/FYROM is much closer to the JP/KR-CI/Niue than to Taiwan/PRC. Of course, if we have to scale these macedonia/FYROM would go even lower than JP/KR-CI/Niue (albeit macedonians waiting for greek approval on EU/NATO applications may disagree), but in any case the distance between Taiwan/PRC and JP/KR-CI/Niue issues is huge. Alinor (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nauru and CI are incomparable. One is indisputably recognised as a state, the other not. Also, you're mixing up recognition with diplomatic relations. As a side not, are the EU and the European Communities exactly the same? (Referring to CI page)
 * They are so unique. There political position is different from anything else in modern politics. We do have indication for rejection. JP/Korea, plus the fact that although the USA has an ambassador visiting it, it still in some departments lists it as an area of special sovereignty. 2 non recognizers does not confirm the classification as widely recognized. We should not treat these like we treat the others.
 * The FYROM dispute is completely unrelated, so comparisons of gravity is pointless. Greece recognizes that there is an independent sovereign state located directly to its north. What it doesn't recognize is its name. In no case does it dispute the independence or sovereignty. PRC/ROC and JP/CI are very different situations, but more relatable to each other than to the FYROM, due to their both being issues of ultimate sovereignty. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides the bilateral NZ-CI/Niue relationship (that as shown in the sources does not affect the international representation of CI/Niue), the only other difference between Nauru and CI is UN membership. Both are classified as States by the UN, but CI is not a member. As seen in the archive (first three comment-sections in the archive) - membership in a particular international organization could not be required criteria for a neutral list (unless it is a list of its members).
 * The FYROM-Greece is related to JP/RK-CI/Niue in that in both cases there is no claim over the other party. Unlike PRC/ROC where there are such. It is one thing to have doubt if somebody is sovereign-enough and a completely different to claim that you have sovereign rights over the other party.
 * EU and EC in this sense are the same. Up to the Treaty of Lisbon the entity that conducted international relations was the European Community. Now, after ToL, the European Union gained legal personality and thus assumed these functions.
 * The USA department listing could not negate the fact that there is "accredited ambassador" (not just visiting). It could not be "accredited" if the state to which he is accredited (CI) is not recognized by the state that accredits him (USA).
 * About the uniqueness - I tried to reflect it, as much as possible, in the big extant section - I put as much aspects of the NZ-CI/Niue relationship as I could, including the JP/KR issue. Is something missing/wrong? Alinor (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add, if it is not obvious, that I agree for creation of Political status of states associated with New Zealand article. Alinor (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are large differences between Nauru and the Cook Island (and Niue)! Nauru declared its independence, Nauru has its own citizenship, Nauru is internationally recognized as a sovereign independent state. Nothing to do with UN membership.
 * JP/KR don't claim sovereignty over the CI, they claim that New Zealand has sovereignty over it. Its still a dispute over whether or not its an independent sovereign state.
 * The USA department listing and the ambassadors statement show the complexity of the situation, neither negates the other.
 * The problem is many of your arguments (like the ambassador one) ignore the uniqueness of the situation, and are argued based off the position that the Cook Islands is a sovereign state. Additionally, a big extant section is unwieldy, and if something like that is necessary to justify the inclusion of a country in this list maybe the country shouldn't be there.
 * As for the new article, a better name might be Associated States of New Zealand where it is elaborated or something. A good title is going to be difficult. In the meantime I'm going to edit the Associated states page a bit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But what evidence exactly do we have for Nauru's international recognition? I mean, we say it's internationally recognized, but how many states have explicitly recognized it as independent or maintain diplomatic relations with it? It seems like less than a majority of states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no objections to its addition to the UN, and it was accepted into the Asian group, which shows recognition, as member states of regional groupings can decide not to let countries in (with the Asian groups muslim members rejecting Israels membership). As Alinor said, we cannot postulate as to what would happen if CI/Niue apply, so until then, we cannot make similar assumptions. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't use UN membership as evidence for recognition. There were no objections to Liechtenstein's UN membership in 1990, for example, but at that time it was not recognized by Czechoslovakia. Same with North Korea, which was not recognized by Japan when it became a member. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot use it for unanimous recognition, but you can use it for majority recognition. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And how do you determine which states comprise that majority? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orange Tuesday. Majority is not guaranteed, as shown by his list (much above) of states admitted without a vote.
 * I think, that from the sources we have so far, it seems that Nauru and CI have a comparable number declared recognitions and that CI has a negligible number of non-recognitions. It this case how could we assume that CI is much less recognized than Nauru?
 * CI/Niue are also declared independent in international relations (their only non-independence is for bilateral relations with NZ in regard of NZ citizenship). They also are internationally recognized - by UN, ~25% of its members, and other organizations. In comparision to Nauru, in terms of international status, they only lack their own citizenship.
 * Either somebody in the USA department haven't done their homework (eg. corrected the list) or their ambassador doesn't know to what country he is ambassadaor... The ambassador statement is much more explicit than the list assumption.
 * Yes, the extant section is unwieldy, as it tries to cover the uniqueness. It is based on the sources we found, but if you find something wrong/missing, please correct it.
 * If you think that there is a more suitable/justifiable place/note for CI/Niue entries, please propose it.
 * Don't object Associated States of New Zealand as the new article name. Any suitable place for this content is welcome, so that we can link there instead of having all descriptions in the list here. Alinor (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here, I've got the counter example: Montenegro. When it joined the UN on 28 June 2008 (without a vote), it was only recognized by 59 states. Not even close to a majority. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that state was listed as limited recognition until it gained general recognition, and was listed on the soveriegn states with limited recognition page as well until it recieved general recognition. No state other state claimed soveriegnty over montenegro after it declared independence, but it was still listed as a state with limited recognition. That case is similar to the cook islands and niuie situtation in the matter of recognition. Citizenship is one of the things that make states states, without citizens there is no soveriengty. Its easy to state that Nauru is more recognized than the cook islands because Nauru is a member of the General Assembly while the Cook Islands is not.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a vote in the general assembly on the admission of Montenegro, as there is for every state that applies. See []. The vote was by acclamation. No state can be admitted to the general assembly without a vote.XavierGreen (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Montenegro has always been listed in the main body of this list, and it was not listed on the List of states with limited recognition back on 28 June 2006. . But if it did indeed have limited recognition back in 2006 then that just backs up what I'm saying. You can't possibly use UN admission as an indicator of general recognition. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also you can have a sovereign state without Citizens. Australia ratified Westminster in 1942 but there was no such thing as an Australian citizen until 1949. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The admittance to a UN regional group has as I have said indicates a large percentage of that group acknowledge the other states existence as a sovereign state. For example, Israel's entry into the Asian Group has been consistently blocked by the Arab members within the group, as they do not recognize it. However, Nauru made it into the group, thus showing that the members of the Asian Group accept Nauru as an equal sovereign state.
 * Montenegro declared unilateral independence from Serbia and Montenegro, and although formal diplomatic relations were slow to establish, noone disputed its claim to being independent.
 * Don't use historical examples in this, as although relevant, they are not completely analogous. International law has moved on since then, and although they was not an Australian citizenship, people from Australia did not have UK citizenship. Lets not forget that the current British dependencies only obtained UK citizenship very recently, 1993 or something. The definition of Sovereign State used on wikipedia and backed up by 3 citations is "a political association with effective internal and external sovereignty over a geographic area and population which is not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state". People from CI/Niue are subject to the New Zealand government, being NZ citizens. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if you were to accept that Nauru's membership in the Asian Group indicates recognition by all members of that group (and I don't think we should. To give an example of where that wasn't true: Guatemala and Belize are both members of the Latin American and Caribbean Group but Guatemela didn't recognize Belize until 1991.), that's still only 53 members, which is far shy of a majority.
 * Also, you're wrong about Australia. Prior to 1949, residents of Australia and the UK (and South Africa and New Zealand for that matter) all had the status of "British subject". A set of acts in 1949 created separate citizenships for all those countries. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all, I said a majority. Notably North Korea and South Korea are both also in the Asian Group and do not recognize each other (wow this asian group gets around politically). And as stated, no country opposed their entry, which probably makes it more recognized than places like North Korea and Israel.
 * The status of British subject was not synonymous with British. Also, the CI/Niue governments have stated that they want to keep the New Zealand citizenship, so the idea they'll get their own citizenship later is a moot point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so a majority of 53 states, but not all 53. So somewhere between 27 and 52 states recognize Nauru, then? Is that what we're saying? How is that anywhere near enough to give Nauru "general international recognition"? And which of these states exactly form that majority? Do you have any way of knowing? If not, how can you say for certain that it's a majority? And again, how does acceptance into a regional group in the UN translate into diplomatic recognition? The two things are not the same, and you haven't provided any evidence yet that they're linked.
 * And I never said the status of "British subject" was synonymous with British. What I said was, Australia and the United Kingdom shared the same citizenship until 1949. The legal name for that status was "British subject". The British Nationality Act 1948 created the status "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" for the UK and the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 created the status of "Australian Citizen" for Australia. That's a clear precedent for two sovereign states sharing the same citizenship. Having a distinct citizenship is not one of the criteria we use to determine whether something a sovereign state and it never has been. To suggest otherwise is OR. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Being in a regional group means that they are accepted as a state by other members in that grouping as a state, as shown by the counterexample I gave many times with Israel. Additionally, it was accepted into the UN, and no country objected, and no country denies it to be a sovereign state.
 * Apologies for the British subject misunderstanding, however do not accuse me or OR. Having a people is the sourced definition of a sovereign state as given in the wikipedia article Sovereign States. Saying its not part of the definition is much more OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a permanent population is the sourced definition of a sovereign state we use on this list. Having a distinct citizenship is not and has never been part of the criteria. The Cook Islands clearly has a permanent population, and its constitution even provides for a legal status ("permanent resident of the Cook Islands" ) that differentiates residents of New Zealand from residents of the Cook Islands. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Montenegro was on the limited recognition list, see here [].XavierGreen (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So Alinor, for your calculations of the number of CI recognitions, I presume that you are using the countries listed on Foreign relations of the Cook Islands which is sourced from ? I just don't agree that the establisment of diplomatic relations implies that the two states recognize each other as sovereign.  Several examples have been provided above of non-sovereign states establishing diplomatic relations.  More importantly, many of the states with which the CI claim to have established diplomatic relations with don't seem to view them as sovereign.  I only checked a few, but none of Israel, Italy , France  or Bosnia  list the CI as one of the states with which they have diplomatic relations.  Some of the states listed by the CI seem to view them as sovereign, however I don't believe that it's justifiable to jump to the conclusion that all such states necessarily do.  Also, New Zealand's foreign afairs website claims that the CI aren't independent.  "Free association is a status distinct from that of full independence..." .  So there definitely seems to be a "dispute" over CI's degree of independence, even by NZ.
 * There are no doubt some "undeclared" recognizers amongst the states which have yet to formally establish diplomatic relations, however without any evidence for their existance (or quantity) we can't assume that they are "widely recognized". For UN member states, as discussed above we do have such evidence since UN membership requires approval by the GA.  Your point that there was not a vote for some states doesn't invalidate this argument.  In fact, it only makes the case stronger.  The applications are discussed in the GA, and if there is any opposition a vote is forced.  However, in the case of Kiribati, Nauru and Tonga all had widespread support from the UN member states and their application was approved by an acclamation (ie no vote was necessary) .  An acclamation is equivalant to a unanimous vote in favour.
 * That all said, while I opposed their inclusion the last time we had this debate I think enough sources have been found to justify their inclusion now. However,  I certainly don't think that there are any sources which support the claim that they are a "widely recognized" sovereign state.  I'd say the best option is to put them in the main list on the basis of their UN non-member state status.  The inclusion criteria should be modified to remove the "widely recognised" and simply state that "The internationally recognized sovereign states section lists all 195 member and non-member sovereign states of the United Nations."  This would be much more verifiable, and we could elimiate all of the OR discussion trying to decide what constitutes "widely recognized".  Otherwise, this issue will keep coming up.  (For example, it seems plausable that as a result of the recent ICJ ruling Kosovo will get to %50+1 recognition but will be kept out of the UN by a Russian veto.)  TDL (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is one main problem with your proposal, though i do appreciate the fact that you have read the entire discussion above in formulating it. One thing not previously mentioned is that the UN itself states that it does not determine what is and what is not a state worthy of recognition, in otherwords it cannot legally consider a polity a state unless it has been declared so by the members of the general assembly. Before the additon of the cook islands and niue to the page, the only reason why the Vatican was listed on the un page as a non member state was because it had a standing invitation from the general assembly to join. I am not aware of any standing invitation given by the general assembly to niue or the cook islands, though i may be mistaken. Note, i would agree to their inclusion to the page if they were listed in the same manner as the other entities with limited recognition (the issue will come up on kosovo regardless of what is discussed here i think).XavierGreen (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to know what process the UN uses to officially designate a country as a non-member state. If this was something that requires GA approval, then such a vote could be evidence for recognition by the member states.  TDL (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all that information and for reading the discussion TDL. The thing is, I don't see why they should be added to the list (currently 193) of sovereign states if their sovereignty is in a status of dispute. Based on your quote by the NZ government, that CI/Niue are not independent makes me feel they should not be on this list, as I think this list uses sovereign as a synonym of independent. This is common usage of sovereign, backed up by Alinors note that Japan and Korea object to the Cook Islands status as a sovereign state.
 * As for the UN, while countries in the UN are widely recognized, I don't think we can use that to say countries outside of the UN are not. I don't know whether there was a general vote on CI/Niue being a state (but I doubt it), but they were removed from the official UN list of colonies, if that means anything. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * about the UN process: so far we have found that in the 1990s, after receiving declaration by New Zealand and the gradual evolution of the CI/Niue responsibility for its own foreign affairs, the UN the Secretariat recognized the full treaty-making capacity of the Cook Islands, and since that it is classified as non-member state -,.
 * about the quote by the NZ government see below - I don't think there is a contradiction, it is already reflected in the extant. Alinor (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * About Montenegro, if I read correctly the wiki history:
 * it was removed from the "limited recognition" list almost immediatlly after the link by XavierGreen -.
 * On the "list of sovereign states" Montenegro had a "no recognition" note for a brief period: -, and the note was removed right after its first recognition by Iceland - . Alinor (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to TDL post:
 * Diplomatic relations are not established with non-sovereign states - other types of relations, practicaly having the same functions - yes.
 * CI/Niue have a duality in their relations. In international relations with third states, other than NZ, they are fully independent and sovereign states (as aways, some countries might disagree - so far we have only 2 such cases). In bilateral relations with NZ, in constitutional terms, with regards to NZ citizenship, they are not independent, but "states in free association". I think the extant section above tries to reflect that duality. And I don't see contradiction in the NZ MFA page.
 * About the undeclared. They COULD be non-recognizers. They COULD be recognizers. Assumption both ways. But, looking at declared we have as recognizers the very relevant NZ (with all notes about duality for bilateral/third countries, citizenship, etc.) and UN, plus ~25% of the other states vs. 2 non-recognizers. If this is not wide, then at least it is general recognition. And the article, as it currently is, uses both terms interchangably.
 * About the UN voting. As said above, PRC abstained when Tuvalu, that it didn't recognize gained UN membership. It didn't vetoed (PRC has a veto right in contrast to Japan), it didn't vote "against", it abstained. And in this case the non-recognition by PRC is becouse Tuvalu recognizes the sovereignity of another state (ROC) over the PRC. The Japan non-recognition is based on much less grave reason. CI/Niue do not regard Japan as a non-sovereign territory of another state. They just have citzenship of another UN member and Japan has difficulties with their bilateral arrangement. But as shown above, there are multiple examples of UN members without their own citizenship - having the same citizenship as another UN member.
 * The point is, that we have many examples of "widely recognized UN member" (as per the artile) that has a few declared non-recognitions from some other UN members (PRC, Israel, Cyprus, the Koreas, Armenia) - and the proposed note for CI/Niue (about Japan/South Korea) looks much like the notes on Armenia and the Koreas (PRC, Israel, Cyprus also have notes, but not so explicit of the type "xxx does not recognize yyy" or "xx countries do not recognize yyy" - maybe we should unify the practice for these cases?). As a side, irrelevant note - North Korea has the same non-recognizers as CI/Niue - Japan and South Korea.
 * I agree that we should change the heading descriptions. There were multiple proposals so far. I propose that first we add the CI/NZ/Niue entries as per this proposal (any modifications needed?), do some initial modification to the heading descriptions - and then, if needed, start separate discussion (I think this was also already suggested multiple times) about the heading.Alinor (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * XavierGreen, I really don't see how CI/Niue could possibly fit in the "limited recognition" section - I think that the multiple examples above show their wide or general recognition (not total of course) - comparable to that of some of the others with the respective note.
 * Let's deal with Kosovo when we have to (currently it seems OK to me). There are similarities, but also differences. Kosovo has a very small undeclared number (the International recognition of Kosovo page has over 450 sources, a big part of these show explicit "recognition" and "non-recognition"), so we will not argue/discuss it as much as this case here. Also, we have the difference of the most vocal non-recognizer, Serbia, claiming the whole of Kosovo - where Japan doesn't have claims over CI/Niue. Alinor (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alinor, the problem with all your evidence is that you treat it from the approach that the CI/Niue are sovereign states. Of course as you said there are recognizers and nonrecognizers, the fact is, in this case there cannot be an implicit assumption that others recognize them, due to their status (and their lack in the UN, which gives an indication of acceptance). General is not the same as wide, and the CI get neither. There is additionally no duality in relations, all countries recognize them as associated states of New Zealand. And as stated, countries that the Cook Islands have diplomatic relations with do not list the Cook Islands as a country that they have diplomatic relations with, which could be taken as an indicator of nonrecognition.
 * In reference to your point about UN states, yes there are some detractors, but by their very presence in the UN, we can assume they are generally recognized. The CI/Niue are not in the UN, so a similar assumption is meaningless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not true. I treat it from the approach of the sources that we have found so far. I make no assumptions in the proposed revisions text. Only in the elaborate comments here I give examples why it seems this way or that way.
 * I entierly object that there is no duality - the sources clearly show "sovereign and independent" for third country relations and "in free association" for bilateral NZ-CI/Niue relations. The sources also show why this is so (citizenship). The sources show the declared recognizers and non-recognizers. As I state numerous time - I think all of this is reflected in the extant; if you find something missing/wrong - please give us the respective correction...
 * Some of the lists given above, that do not include CI/Niue, are not lists of diplomatic relations, but lists of diplomatic missions (Italy), sometimes even only localy resident diplomatic missions. Other lists (USA) contradict explicit statement of the US Ambassador accredited to the Cook Islands. And as you see in the statement, he didn't say "to Samoa, CI and Niue" or "to Samoa, CI, Niue and Tokelau" or "to Samoa and the associated states of NZ" - he said "to Samoa and CI"... so this is not some generic regional figurative speach on his side.
 * About the UN - I think that it is bending enough that we use UN membership as one of the possible justifications for filling an entry in the first section (albeit I don't object this - it is reasonable of course), but you imply that we should use an assumption as requirement (in contrast to one of the possible justifications). (again pointing to )
 * And, about the seemingly most disagreeable point - you say that general is different from wide, then we again go to the issue of "what is limited", "what is general", "what is wide". Alinor (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about arguments like "soandso countries have diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands, and therefore recognize it as a sovereign state." They definitely recognize that it has an independent executive and legislative body, but whether they recognize it as a sovereign state on par with others is debatable.
 * I believe that New Zealand treats the CI/Niue as sovereign and independent states aswell. All countries with relations to the CI/Niue recognize their independent administrative capabilities, no doubt also recognizing their link with New Zealand.
 * Diplomatic missions are key to diplomatic relations. Also, the idea that the US ambassador is infallible seems weak. Surely its more likely that he either made a mistake or simplified a complex relationship in his statement, rather than the US government website no doubt overseen by many people be wrong. Personally, I believe he simplified it. If I was him, I wouldn't want to bother explaining a huge amount in a short interview.
 * I am not using UN membership as criteria for its entry. I simply state that UN membership is a good qualifier for putting generally/widely recognized in the extant. (although de facto right now it is a requirement, accepting that Observers also count)
 * As just states, I believe membership (or observer-ship) into the UN is a good way to positively identify general/wide recognition. We cannot use this for CI/Niue (that is not to say that their not being in the UN means that they are not widely recognized, just that we cannot use the same approach for Ci/Niue) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * you can't have diplomatic relations with somebody that you don't recognize as sovereign and independent. If you could all countries over the world would have made diplomatic relations with Taiwan. And Japan would have made with CI. Instead they have "trade", "culture", "tourist", "liasion" and other offices, but not "accredited ambassadors".
 * And we get back to things I thought that we agreed - CI relations with third states - "the Cook Islands interacts with the international community as a sovereign and independent state." Joint CI-NZ declaration; page3 - I don't see what more direct and explicit quote do we need in this regard (eg. the third country-relations other that NZ-CI/Niue relations)? We have of course this "In short, the Cook Islands is a sovereign state with full internal self government." [17], again about the "international capacity" - confirmed by NZ courts (but it is the same as the first).
 * About the US ambassador. If "he simplified it" and "don't bother explaining" - he would have used some of the example quotes I gave above (for example "to Samoa and the associated states of NZ") and wouldn't say I am accredited ambassador to, but would use some vague term like I am responsible for or similar. I can't imagine ambassador throwing away terms like "accredited" so lightly, especially in relation to its own accreditations.
 * Limited/General/Wide. So, if UN membership is not requirement for "general" and "wide", the question remains what are the criteria for limited/general/wide. Alinor (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just found out this, yet another discussion. If someone wants to read even more debates on the topic - take a look... Alinor (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a false analogy. Countries don't create relations with Taiwan because if they do the PRC gets mad, and when the PRC gets mad, there goes your economy.
 * I agree they interact with others in a sovereign manner, I just don't see the difference between that and how they interact with New Zealand.
 * Far be it from you to assume that the US ambassador thinks the way you do, but it doesn't matter. There is no reason per se that the USA could not accredit an ambassador to the Cook Islands, in recognition that it had moved beyond diplomacy status. As I said before, the two sources do not necessarily conflict, but augment to the complexity of the relationship.
 * Well I think that general is no doubt above 50%, although personally I would place it more around 66%-75%, but that's debatable.
 * The point still stands that if a country needs an extant that big to justify its inclusion, maybe it shouldn't be included. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You said "Diplomatic missions are key to diplomatic relations". Yes, but in order to have a diplomatic mission you have to establish relations. Also, there are many cases, where you have established relations, but do not have a mission. If I am not mistaken the order is the following: recognition, relations, honorary consulate(s) with honorary consul(s), consulate(s) with consul(s), consulate(s)-general with consul(s)-general, embassy with ambassador (in contrast to consuls-types this can be only 1 and only in the capital). These steps are cumulative, eg. you can have 1 embassy in the capital and many consulates elsewhere in the country. Also, simultaneously with the steps "relations-consulates" you can have non-resident/accredited ambassador (only 1). So, if you comment was in regards to my comment for Italy's list - yes, diplomatic missions are key to diplomatic relations, but if we look at the list of missions, and there is no mission to country X - this shows us NOTHING about the status of relations with country X (could be recognition, could be diplomatic relations, could be accredited non-resident ambassador, could be non-recognition). Alinor (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The analogy is not false. PRC gets mad because "diplomatic relations with ROC" means "recognizing ROC sovereignity" and PRC is very opposed to that. Trade/Economic/Culture/Tourism/Liasion/etc. relations/offices (in contrast to diplomatic) DOES NOT mean "recognizing sovereinity", that's why PRC tolerates these in Taiwan. IF diplomatic relations were possible with non-sovereign states/entities, then PRC would not get mad - and many countries would have made all their "Taiwan culture" offices (diplomatic missions in disguise) just a diplomatic missions. My analogy is just an example showing that the IF is not correct.
 * The difference between 'CI/Niue relations with third countries' and 'CI/Niue relations with NZ' is that for third countries they are 'equal partners, sovereign and independent state', and for relations with NZ the term used formally (as per the separate CI/NZ/Niue constitutions) for them is 'state in free association with NZ with full self-government'. As explained in the sources, this is because they still retain one constitutional link with NZ related to citizenship. This does not diminish their independence and sovereignity, it just makes it impossible for CI/NZ/Niue governments to use this term for their relationship.
 * Also, as suggested in the sources and by the comments here above, there are precedents of UN members without their own citizenship (Australia, Belarus, etc.), so even retaining this citizenship-constitutional-link is not so unthinkable. Additionaly we have the examples of countries sharing a head-of-state and sharing judicary systems (eg. Brunei/Tuvalu/Trinidad/etc. appeals to UK Privy council), so constitutional links between equal partners is nothing new. They could also decide to break this link entierly and resolve the citizenship issue around terms similar to US CFAs.
 * The extant is so big, because it tries to describe the whole Political status of states in free association with New Zealand. If we had such an article it would be much shorter. The same is with China/Israel/Kosovo/etc. - if you have to cramp all info with references, etc. in the extant it would become TOO BIG, but in these cases there are many articles dealing with the specific details.
 * If "general" is 75%, what is "wide"? And what "limited"? What does count in this number - declared, undeclared or both? Alinor (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I, in principle disagree with puting a numerical barriers. I would prefer some "quality" instead of "quantity" criteria. Even better if it avoids undeclared features. For example:


 * "limited" = whole territory, independence or sovereignity is claimed by another state as its own (claims, by their nature are declared)
 * "general" = no claims against it as a whole, but independence or sovereignity is disputed/non-recognized by another state (disputes, by their nature are declared)
 * "wide" = independence or sovereignity are undisputed (there are no declared claims or disputes)
 * UN member states get a waivier for at least "general" status, but UN membership per se is not a requirement for any of the levels.
 * I think that this is mostly in line with the criteria here. It also avoids using UN membership as requirement. I will try to reword it so, that even the UN waivier is not required.
 * Of course, if such description are to be adopted, I would prefer "general" and "wide"-noted entries to remain in section1, and "limited"-noted entires - in section2. It would not be good idea to add third section. Alinor (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to move a bunch of text you had inserted before my previous comment to your new comment. Only add to a discussion at the bottom please.
 * It is false. If a country was to create diplomatic relations with Taiwan, that would be a recognition of the legitimacy of the ROC. In a counterexample, the Hong Kong government is recognized by the PRC as legitimate, and has been able to join, for example, APEC.
 * Why are we debating this? We both agree they act in an independent capacity from New Zealand. I've actually agreed with a bunch of your points here. As a side point, self-government does not immediately translate to independence.
 * We've talked about this before. Historical situations are not exactly analogous, international diplomacy having evolved since then (and whether you can consider Australia and Belarus independent is slightly debatable, Australia's military was treated as an extension of British ones, and the GovernorGeneral remained British for years more. Belarus was definitely not independent). And of course constitutional links between equal partners are possible. The question is over this exact constitutional link, and what it entails.
 * I don't think that it could be reduced with an article that said that, as information needs to be given for all countries relating to their sovereignty, and in this case it is quite complex. The problem is that we have to balance both sides of the argument, that CI/Niue act independently, and that they are not completely independent/sovereign. Putting them on the list in equal capacity to others would be taking a side. Disincluding them would be taking the other side (although they are noted on New Zealands entry).
 * The problem with your written definitions is that they are filled with words that could be interpreted in multiple ways. Although I admit numbers aren't always the best definers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point Alinor that diplomatic relations are a special type of relations exclusively between sovereign states. However, this position is contradicted by the states which CI claim to have established diplomatic relations.  You are missinterpreting the Italy source.  All diplomats are listed, including non-resident and full diplomatic missions.  (See for example CAMBOGIA: Italy does not have an embassy in: CAMBOGIA - Please contact our mission in: BANGKOK (Thailandia) AMBASCIATORE: PIPAN MICHELANGELO; CAPO VERDE: Italy does not have an embassy in: CAPO VERDE - Please contact our mission in: DAKAR (Senegal) AMBASCIATORE: CALVETTA GIUSEPPE; etc).  So while I agree that the lack of a diplomatic mission in CI doesn't mean relations don't exist, I think an accredited diplomat is necessairy for diplomatic relations (even if non-resident).  Perhaps the CI are embellishing the scope of the relations it has, to CI they are "diplomatic relations" and to the other states they aresomething less than bilateral relations between two sovereign states, but regardless of the reason it seems clear that many (if not most) of the states which CI claims to have diplomatic relations with don't seem to view them as sovereign.
 * And I think you are putting far to much weight on the quote by the NC/CI government that "The Cook Islands interacts with the international community as a sovereign and independent state." Maybe that's what their position is, but it takes two to tango.  If the remaining 192 states of the world see CI as subordinate to NZ than it doesn't matter what the NZ/CI position is.  TDL (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that having diplomatic relations automatically means having accredited ambassador. Also, when one ambassador/consul resigns, there is a time of "post vacant", an in many cases such unimportant partners like CI/Niue are the last to get (if ever) all the paperwork done by the new ambassador. I don't suggest that this happens to Italy-CI relations, but that, in principle, the link is not direct, so we could only assume, but not be sure, what is happening, unless we have a direct statement.
 * Yes, it takes two to tango. It seems that all consider the said quote. As even JP/KR, the non-recognizers, do not establish relations with CI exactly because of this quote - they find it somehow unacceptable. But these are exceptions, we didn't found any other declared non-recognizers. Alinor (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Chipmunkdavis post.
 * It is not false. Your next sentence is saying exactly what I am saying - "If a country was to create diplomatic relations with Taiwan, that would be a recognition of the legitimacy of the ROC." (you); "diplomatic relations with ROC" means "recognizing ROC sovereignity" (me). Again, you could not have diplomatic realtions with a partner that you don't recognize as sovereign entity. That's why PRC are opposed to any state having diplomatic relations with Taiwan. They don't oppose Taiwan membership in the WTO, as it is defined there as customs territory and trade relations are different from diplomatic relations.
 * Hong Kong has membership in various organizations, but nowhere as a state, nowhere if only state are allowed. Hong Kong has no diplomatic relations with states. It has no diplomatic missions abroad. It hosts no embassies, but only consulates - just like any other chinese city could host a consulate (of course hong kong missions are more "important", etc., but still no state recognizes Hong Kong as independent of China, as sovereign, or as "a state" if you wish). Anyway, APEC in particular has as member Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) and China (PRC) too.
 * Yes, "self-government does not immediately translate to independence.", but as we seen in the sources, in the case of CI/Niue they gradually achieved independence. "Independent" and "Sovereign" are directly quoted in multiple sources.
 * The constitutional link. The sources already describe what it entails - NZ citizenship, using the name "state in free association with full self-government" instead of "independent state" for bilateral NZ-CI/Niue relations only.
 * Why do we need the positions of all countries?? We don't have it for Nauru, Tuvalu and others. Again with the UN membership?
 * "Putting them on the list in equal capacity to others" would reflect all sources that we have (quoting "independent and sovereign state in relations to other countries"). This would reflect the positions of NZ, UN, CI, Niue and ~25% of the UN member states.
 * Disincluding them from the list would be in direct contradiction to all of the above. It would reflect only the Japan POV.
 * I think that the proposal-26July reflects all nuances and is a balanced description. Besides the term "widely", do you disagree with something else in it?
 * The Limited/General/Wide. What could be interpreted in multiple ways? Let's correct it so that it couldn't.
 * What about this proposal: "first we add the CI/NZ/Niue entries as per this proposal (any modifications needed?), do some initial modification to the heading descriptions (in line with the later added 4-points) and then, if needed (you say it is interpretable in multiple ways, so it will be needed) start separate discussion about the heading." ? Alinor (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I am saying something different. The PRC disputes the legitimacy of the ROC as a government. No country disputes the legitimacy of the CI/Niue governments. As for whether you can have diplomatic relations with a political body that is not a state is debatable, and falls into the realms of semantics. The Hong Kong point was simply to illustrate my point about recognition of legitimacy. Additionally, APEC does not allow the delegation of the ROC into its annual meetings.
 * The sources we have no doubt claim independence, but whether they are seems to be a matter of opinion, rather than fact at the moment. Other sources claim they aren't.
 * It entails much more than NZ citizenship. It represents a strong bilateral agreement that fosters cooperation on numerous fronts. The CFA doesn't even share citizenship, yet you claimed it has a huge impact on sovereignty in the short discussion below.
 * We need the positions of many countries because we cannot assume that the Cook Islands and Niue are recognized as independent and sovereign states by default. That is a point that has been posted to you repeatedly. And putting them on the list would not reflect all our sources. Additionally, as shown, the 25% number is debatable, with the Cook Islands not even appearing on their websites.
 * The problem is correcting it may border on, or be OR.
 * I disagree with their basic inclusion on the list, but that's the point of this entire debate.
 * Do not add anything into this list until debate is done. That would be bashing your point through. Which heading descriptions do you want to change? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:18, 27 July

2010 (UTC)
 * Alinor you state that you can't have diplomatic relations with somebody that you don't recognize as sovereign and independent. There are several examples of nations maintaining diplomatic relations with entities that are not considered soveriegn states. The united states, sweden, france, the uk, and virtually every european nation had diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Vilayets of Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers well into the 1820's and 30's. Similarly Bavaria held diplomatic relations with several independent nations, posting its own cosulates overseas and the like despite the fact that it had surrendered its soveriegnty to the German empire. As for changing the definition of the terms used, it is quite easy to see how your definitions can be easily misunderstood as there are already different definitions present for them within the article. There are dozens of articles that use the current definitions of general and limited recognition. A state still has limited recognition even if its territory is not claimed by another state. For example Lichtenstien for years did not maintain recognition of slovakia even though it possesed no claims to slovak soveriegnty. Likewise Pakistan does not recognize Armenia even though that nation has no claim over Armenian territory. It also was a fact that in the past several nations with general recognition and without other states claiming soveriegnty over their territory were not members of the un, nor were observers as was indonesia after its withdrawl from the un. If France for example withdrew from the UN would that make the state widely recognized? General recognition and widely recognized are simply two terms for the same concept, the first is merely a noun and the second an adjective.XavierGreen (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Chipmunkdavis post.
 * Your PRC/ROC argument is much more near "semantics", than the statement that "diplomatic relations mean recognition as sovereign"... I don't see the relevance of the Hong Kong issue, as there dobody claims to be sovereignity or diplomatic relations. Also, PRC does not dispute the legitimacy of the ROC as a government - it even concudes treaties with it (yes, polarising, but nevertheless treaty), they have relations, but trade relations, not diplomatic relations.
 * I haven't see a strong source (besides JP/KR) claiming that CI/Niue are not independent and sovereign in relation to third countries. If there are such sources we should reflect them in the note (regardless if in the NZ entry or in individual CI/Niue entries). So, please propose the appropriate revisions/notes?
 * "It entails much more than NZ citizenship" - in relation to constitutional, independence and sovereignity issues - I don't see what more it entails than citizenship. All other activities are done at request of CI/Niue, as equal partners of NZ - just like the EU gives assistance, development funds, and support in many areas to many countries around the world, including such with "association agreement" with the EU.
 * CFA. If you mean this discussion - I actually supported your view much more, but see this comment from Ladril: "Japan, for example, was at first very reluctant to recognize Micronesia as a sovereign state, and several clarifications were needed.". Does it ring a bell? Back then, I considered it just a quirk in JP-Micronesia-US relations, but take a look at |this; page 17: "Although New Zealand does help to explain our constitutional link" (explain to Japan), and then "Japan has great difficulty with our claim to sovereignty" (additional quote that CI claims sovereignity). So, it seems Micronesia was in the situation of CI/Niue with regards to JP recognition (reluctance and explanations). Of course, after the said clarifications it finaly got it.
 * How many declared countries do we need? So far, we have only 2 non-recognizers in contrast to the recognizers.
 * I don't agree with leaving the list as it is. This would mean to disregard all the sources that we have that show quite the opposite. Basically that means to represent the Japan POV.
 * In the proposal-26july, I think that all quirks of the status are reflected. Do you find something wrong/missing there? Alinor (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how these 1830s relations were exactly structured. Maybe these were consulates in the current sense, with additional embassy in Istanbul? I don't get your point - CI/Niue claims sovereignty in relation to third states, it establishes diplomatic relations with third states WHEN they recognize it as a sovereign state, it didn't establish diplomatic relations WHEN the state didn't recognize it (Japan). So, it seems diplomatic relations contains reciprocal recognition of sovereignty.
 * In the proposed definition there is distinguishing between "general" and "wide" as the argument of Chipmunkdavis was that these are different (if they are not, we have to use another word of course).
 * You rise multiple points about the 4point-definitions, I will try to go trough them below:
 * "A state still has limited recognition even if its territory is not claimed by another state." - according to the 4points - yes, this case covered by "...or sovereignty or independence is claimed..." (don't know example, may never be used - I tried to make the definitions to be as generic as possible, without bending them to current situations/etc.)
 * "For example Lichtenstien for years did not maintain recognition of slovakia even though it possesed no claims to slovak soveriegnty." - according to the 4points - this would come as "dispute", thus would put the countries (one or both, depending on if both non-recognize each other, or only one of them objects) in "general recognition" (or if the 'general' term is equal to 'wide' - then with another name for the level of recognition fitting the middle description) instead of "wide recognition"
 * "Likewise Pakistan does not recognize Armenia even though that nation has no claim over Armenian territory." - according to the 4points - again "dispute", would put Armenia in "general recognition". Pakistan will remain "wide recognition" as Armenia does not withhold its recognition of Pakistan.
 * "It also was a fact that in the past several nations with general recognition and without other states claiming soveriegnty over their territory were not members of the un, nor were observers as was indonesia after its withdrawl from the un." - I was trying to rise this point multiple times - that UN membership was not so universal as it is today, that Liechtenstein/Kiribati/etc. and espicially Marshall/Micronesia were in similar situation to CI/Niue...; so, - according to the 4points - such historical-Indonesia-like cases would go into whatever of limited/general/wide is suitable depending on the description criteria, (eg. non-UN membership is not a problem for the 4points - it is used only in the fourth, "waiver" point, not in the regular classification descriptions), and for Indonesia, if it didn't have claims/disputes against it in its non-UN period, then it would go as "wide recognition"
 * "If France for example withdrew from the UN would that make the state widely recognized?" - according to the 4points - since it doesn't have claims/disputed sovereignty - it will remain "wide recognition" as before UN withdrawal.
 * In the real situation - according to the 4points - recognition level1 (provisional name "limited") would get the 10 current "other states" (in their own section); recognition level2 (provisional name "general") would get Armenia, China, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Israel, Niue, North Korea, South Korea (in the big section with the appropriate notes for each); recognition level3 (provisional name "wide") would get all the rest, including Vatican (in the big section, as they currently are). Alinor (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hong Kong issue has no relevance outside of my argument about legitimacy. Furthering that argument, just because you conclude deals with a political body doesn't mean you recognize its legitimacy. Israel makes deals with Hamas (like the recent prisoner swap), and in no way does Israel recognize Hamas as anything but terrorists.
 * Besides the Cook Islands source, not many of the other sources explicitly state that they are fully recognized sovereign states, equal in capacity to the others. Furthermore, this Cook Islands source is not backed up by the websites of other countries, which do not list the Cook Islands. About the diplomatic relations/ambassador question, to have diplomatic relations with a country both countries need an accredited person in the other country, whether a full fledged ambassador or simply a consul.
 * I support expanding the current New Zealand entry somehow, but not adding the Cook Islands and Niue, for both aesthetic and logic reasons. If you want to add to the current New Zealand entry you should feel free.
 * Putting aside the fact that having the same citizenship has its own large amount of ramifications, the associated status gives CI/Niue a unique relationship with NZ. It is notable that in the letters exchanged where administrative independence was asserted the Cook Islands pledged to make laws upholding the norms of New Zealand, and the same standards. Yes CFA I meant, thanks. Japans an interesting country. Anyway, in the source you provided it stated Japan has an issue with Cook Islanders having New Zealand citizenship. Micronesians have their own citizenship.
 * The status of the explicit recognizers has been thrown in some doubt by their own websites. As for a number, I cannot say, sorry. Leaving the list as it is does not reflect Japan POV, but an accurate and factual (if not detailed) representation of the two countries in question, that they are associated states of New Zealand. Furthermore, to take from your source again, the writer calls the Cook Islands sovereignty its "own unique brand". This suggests to me that the sovereignty of CI/Niue is not the same as that of other states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are only 2 explicit non-recognizers, but how many explicit recognizers are there? You haven't provided any definitive statements of recognition, and I've provided sources which call into question the accuracy of the list of states CI claims to have diplomatic relations with.  Even if we ignore Italy, both the Bosnian and Israeli page explicitly list all states which they have recognized as sovereign and the CI aren't listed.  (And that's ignoring the fact that I'm not convinced the term "diplomatic relations" refers exclusively to bilateral relations between sovereign states).  I only checked about 7 state's foreign affairs websites, and of those the 4 that I listed + the USA did not list the CI while the others listed the CI but also listed other known non-sovereign states (such as Hong Kong) and made no mention of "diplomatic relations" or recognition.
 * Here's an interesting blurb on how the CI view their constitutional status as per their foreign affairs website in 2005 (pg3) : "The maturity of the Cook Islands' international personality does not mean that the Cook Islands is, in constitutional terms, an independent sovereign state. In New Zealand's view a constitutional change of that significance would have implications in terms of Cook Islander's eligibility for New Zealand citizenship, and would require formal constitutional acts including a referendum and changes to the Cook Island Constitution."  If even the CI/NZ don't think they are an independent sovereign state, how can you claim they are widely/generally recognized?
 * As per your point about France leaving the UN and still deserving to be on the list, that's why I included the non-member states (both observers and non-observers). If France left the UN (ignoring the fact that there is no legal provisions in the charter allowing for a state to withdraw from the UN) they would still be considered a non-member state and thus would be included by my criteria.  Clearly there are problems with using a UN generated list, but much less so than your criteria.  What is the threshold for transitioning from general to wide recognition?  50%?  2/3 (required for UN membership)?  What if Kosovo gets everybody but China, India and Russia?  They'd have nearly every state but almost half the worlds population would live in countries which didn't recognize them, hardly wide/general recognition.  The problem is, without a verifiable metric terms like generally/widely are unverifiable and don't belong in an encyclopedia.  As per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  Thus an verifiable, but imperfect, criteria should be used over a perfect, but unverifiable, criteria.  If you have a verifiable criteria that doesn't depend on a UN generated lists, I'd be happy to consider that.  TDL (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah as for your statement regarding if kosovo were recognized by all but 3 countries yet not the majority of the worlds population, in international relations the opinions of individuals citizens and people do not matter. Only soveriegn entities have international personality and thus are considered within international "people". In otherwords only the viewpoints of the majority of soveriegn nations matter in this regard, the individual persons that live within them matter not at all. Welcome to the strange and wonderous world of International Relations and Political Science :) XavierGreen (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to both Chipmunkdavis and TDL posts.
 * I don't see the HK example proving that there are "diplomatic relations without recognition of sovereignty", quite the contrary.
 * "to have diplomatic relations with a country both countries need an accredited person in the other country," - I am not sure about that. Isn't it possible for two countries to have diplomatic relations, one of them accredits some ambassador, but the other still doesn't accredit annyone?
 * "If you want to add to the current New Zealand entry you should feel free." - I will try to formulate such proposal.
 * "how many explicit recognizers are there?" and website/sources contradiction/doubt - I still think that when we have an CI source explicitly stating about CI relations "diplomatic relations with" and distinguishing between "diplomatic" and "trade/tourism" relations (as some entries in the list are marked as diplomatic, but others as only trade/tourism) - this is more trustable than the "lists" on the websites (as shown by the US website list that contradicts their own US ambassador).
 * "the associated status gives CI/Niue a unique relationship with NZ." and "Cook Islands sovereignty its "own unique brand"." - yes, that's why the sources make the clear distinguishing between "relations with NZ" (unique, associated, full self-government, constitutional, citizenship) and all other (international third country) "relations of CI/Niue" (sovereign and independent state). CI/Niue are "unique" only in respect to NZ (and only in name and citizenship). In respect to all other states they are regular, equal, etc. states.
 * "the Cook Islands pledged to make laws upholding the norms of New Zealand, and the same standards. " - Yes, EU associated states also make such pledges in their agreements, nothing special or unique here. Of course the developing country would try to follow the norms and standards of the developed, money-lending/giving partner and supporter.
 * Japan-Micronesia/CI/Niue - the similarity is that: in Micronesia case Japan required "clarifications" before granting recognition. It currently is reluctant to give recognition to CI/Niue, and they are getting "explanations".
 * "Leaving the list as it is...is accurate and factual (if not detailed) representation of the two countries in question, they are associated states of New Zealand" - as shown in the sources, (rephrasing) "in international aspect, it is incorrect to call them associated state" (International Legal Adviser, CI MFAI). Of course, in NZ aspect it is accurate, this is noted, etc. Alinor (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm not convinced the term "diplomatic relations" refers exclusively to bilateral relations between sovereign states" - why? any examples of diplomatic relations with sub-state entity
 * TDL, the quote you provide: "2005 (pg3) [19]:", was already listed in point 10 of "what we do agree?" above. It relates to bilateral NZ-CI/Niue relations, not to the international thrid-country relations of CI/Niue, where "sovereign and independent state" are claimed clearly in the sources.
 * "If even the CI/NZ don't think they are an independent sovereign state, how can you claim they are widely/generally recognized?" - no, both CI and NZ claim that CI is "sovereign and independent state" (in relation to third countries). And that this is unrelated to their bilateral constitutional link of citizenship. Again it comes to the "uniqueness" - that of differentiation between bilateral relations with NZ, and relations with the rest of the world. I think the proposal-26july extant section does describe it. Should we change something inside it and how?
 * "that's why I included the non-member states (both observers and non-observers)" - I could agree with this, but you see how we are currently disputing "non-member non-observer states" - after having sources showing that CI/Niue are classified by the UN as "non-member non-observer states" - we still argue about undelcared recognizers and even question the validity of sources showing declared recognizers. I would imagine that France will not be a problem in any case, but what about Nauru, Tuvalu and similar potential "non-member non-observer states" with big undeclared numbers?
 * Kosovo - I agree, that in case of Serbia+Russia+UN non-recognizing and all others recognizing, it would be a hard fit for any criteria... I agree that the criterias should cover as wide a range of variations as possible, but we should be practical and have some criteria, even if imperfect.
 * " What is the threshold for transitioning from general to wide recognition? 50%? 2/3 (required for UN membership)? " - that's why I proposed the 4points "quality" instead of "quantity" criteria, trying to also avoid undeclared features. - I will try to formulate a proposal with a full-text version of the 4points (as here above I have just marked the idea). Alinor (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong is never used as an example of diplomatic recognition without sovereignty, so don't twist around others arguments.
 * I'm not sure either way, but lets say that is possible, it still requires someone to be accredited to somewhere.
 * We cannot simply throw out sources that we don't like. There are apparent contradictions yes, but are they contradictions or simply two sides of a complex situation? The US ambassador we have gone over many times, and if you claim lists are untrustworthy, why keep referring to the Cook Islands list? That would in my opinion be the least reliable, as no doubt the Cook Islands seek to try and portray themselves as a state completely accepted as an equal by others. If they are not on other countries websites, there is a problem with their list.
 * At any rate, most of your arguments hinge on this diplomatic relations only being between two equal and sovereign states, which I'm still not sure about.
 * The EU is a supranational organization. Related, but not equivalent.
 * You continue to go on about the duality, but there is no doubt that other countries would recognize that the CI/Niue are associated states of New Zealand. It's what they are. No arguments can be made about that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not twisting the HK argument - I just don't see what it is about (since, it seems that it is not about what I understood).
 * I find the CI list more reliable, because it clearly makes distinction between diplomatic and other types of relationships. I agree that CI "is most interested" in the topic, but this just adds credibility to their list - their official follow very closely the issue, and it could be expected that if someone makes mistake in such a list that would be somebody more "detached" from the facts. This is also shown in the US case - at one side we have the "local" ambassador, on the other side we have the "detached" department of the cartographer. Do you, in contrary, suggest that CI officials somehow "twist" the facts, and "put wrong words in the mouths" of foreign states? I don't see how it would help the CI government if it starts claiming lies about such basic facts regarding their international relations...
 * Duality. One of its parts is the "free association" (for NZ), the other is the "independent and sovereign" (for third states). What don't you agree? Alinor (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for saying you twisted it, will drop it for now, it's become irrelevant.
 * Detached people are usually more objective, so I don't see that helps your argument at all. I believe that the Cook Islands has established relations with countries, which they call diplomatic relations. Other countries do obviously do not treat the diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands as they do those with other countries.
 * I think that all countries treat the Cook Islands and Niue the same way. Other countries treat them like associated states of New Zealand. New Zealand treats them as associated states of New Zealand. Whether their treat them as sovereign is beside the point, they both treat them as associated states of New Zealand. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As Chipmunkdavis points out, primary sources are unreliable because they have an strong incentive to exagerate the facts. See WP:PRIMARY: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."  Interpreting a list of states the CI claim to have diplomatic relations with to imply that all such states recognize the CI as a sovereign state is a clear violation of the first policy.  Ignoring the fact that the other states don't list the CI as a state they have diplomatic relations with is a violation of the second.
 * How do you interpret the statement I provided to be referring exclusively to bilateral relations with NZ? The statement is pretty clear and direct with no qualifications.
 * The reason I proposed basing the list on UN members+non-members was percisely to avoid this debate. The reason there is disagreement here is because the concept of sovereignty is not percise and the CI fall into a grey area with no clear interpretation.    Many contradictory sources have been found, and the situation is changing constantly.  (Not to mention the fact that the CI are a tiny country so sources are few and far between.)  Trying to interpret all of this and come to a conclusion is WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  The mere fact that you can find several pages in the archives full of debate on the CI is evidence of this.  The list needes to be based on a precise criteria so that it can be properly sourced.  If we use UN members+nonmembers, percent recognition, or some other critera is not particularly important to me.  TDL (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * About detached people - yes, it could be also seen in the opposite way.
 * I have not looked at all ~25% states, but came by this "The Holy See has Diplomatic Relations with the following States: ... Cook Islands ..." (in contrast to Relations of a special nature).
 * "Whether their treat them as sovereign is beside the point" - no, if they do, this should be mentioned.
 * the sources are not only primary, there also secondary.
 * About the statement TDL refers to - it has the qualification "in constitutional terms" - in reference to the NZ-CI constitutional link of citizenship (as seen in the same statement). For third-country relations we have the NZ-CI JCD statement about independence and sovereignity. Alinor (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, in the second link that you provided, the VC claims to have "Diplomatic Relations" with the "European Comunities". By you logic this means that the VC recognizes the EC as a sovereign state?
 * How does the qualification "in constitutional terms" restrict the statement to NZ-CI relations? My interpretation is that this restricts the statement to the de jure status as opposed to the de facto status.
 * Maybe I just missed it, but if they exist can you repost secondary sources confirming recognition of CI by other states? TDL (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Detached people are hardly likely to be less objective. They're... detached, they have no leaning. That's the essence of objectiveness.
 * I agree with TDL, New Zealand no doubt treats the Cook Islands the same as any other country does. They are treated as a separate entity. Whether they actually are is a matter of debate. Personally I view the CI/Niue are completely autonomous states.
 * As for sources, most of them are primary, and the primary sources seem to conflict. Here's a secondary source saying that they are pseudosovereign. Here is one  (admittedly from 1998) that claims that the Cook Islands do not want their independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have any sources been found that state that the cook islands have been given diplomatic recogniton by any state at all? Diplomatic relations does not equate with recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are sources. However Xavier, as a side note, keep in mind that diplomatic relations are indeed a proxy of recognition. I have not seen a single source by you or anyone else providing one example of a non-sovereign entity having diplomatic relations. Belgium recognizes Cook Islands here: [], Germany here [] German original here [], and France here: []. Ladril (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a source stating that Bavaria and the Holy See had diplomatic relations with each other in the early 1900's []. Here is a source explaining that every consituent state of the german empire retained the right to conduct diplomatic relations with other countries, though i am not aware of any other state but Bavaria that actually did so. []XavierGreen (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Additonally here is a source regarding the business of the american consol to Tripoli, who describes the relations he had with the government of Tripoli, a Vilayet of the Ottoman empire.[] The United States recognized that tripoli was a subject of the ottoman empire yet still conducted diplomatic relations with it as if it were an independent state. As for recognition it appears that Germany has indeed recognized. The French source does not specifically mention diplomatic recognition, and the belgian source for some reason will not translate. There still is no evidence that a majority of states recognize the cook islands as independent, and i think the case for niue is quite worse off than the cook islands matter.XavierGreen (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, I'm having a very hard time with your sources. The first one is a Google book with no preview available (at least to me), so I can't read anything from it. The second one provides a view from which I can spot maybe ten words, so I couldn't learn much from that one either. The third one is also without a preview. Conclusion: I'm not much wiser.

It should be noted that textbooks in international law [] (see page 109) explicitly state that diplomatic relations, under current conventions, are the prerogative of sovereign states. It's not Ladril's crazy idea. Ladril (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The European Union claims to have "diplomatic relations" with sovereign states: "The EU and the USA established diplomatic relations as early as 1953", "The EU and Brazil established diplomatic relations in 1960" , "The EU and Egypt began diplomatic relations in 1966" , etc, etc, etc ....
 * The German source only states that "Germany recognizes the Cook Islands as a self-governing state". The fact that the CI are self-governing isn't in dispute.  I don't think this source is sufficient to support the claim that Germany recognizes the CI as a sovereign state.  TDL (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, but the EU is a very sui generis case which is intended to emulate the functions of a state at the supranational level. Besides, no matter what the websites might say, the formulation of diplomatic practice between the EU and individual states is still a very incipient affair. Ladril (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * About the Vatican list - EC. Yes, but as you see all "states" are in separate list from EU/SMOM/PLO/Russia (that in 2007 didn't had diplomatic relations with it). CI is in the regular states list, not in the special list. I agree with Ladril on the EU issue.
 * About Ottoman empire consuls, etc. There is no contradiction of US consul to any city in the Ottoman empire (just like current consuls around the world). There is no contradiction of the said consul having some relations with the local authorities of the city/region/villayet/whatever. It would be contradiction if they have diplomatic relations in the current sense and if the said consul is not agreed with the capital-city central Ottoman authorities.
 * Germany. "selbstständigen" translation is "independent" |en|selbstst%C3%A4ndigen. Of course, it would not be very productive to start arguing about such things here.
 * "My interpretation is that this restricts the statement to the de jure status as opposed to the de facto status." - No, "sovereign and independent state" is also de-jure (see NZ-CI JCD, court statements, many other sources), there is no de-facto here - this is the duality - both de jure - one for NZ relations and one for third-country relations.
 * More links for recognition/diplomatic relations. Sources are put in the wiki pages for foreign relations/missions in/missions of (links in note13 of proposal26-july). Also, individual state links: China,  Spain,  Thailand,  Turkey.
 * As you can see in the Spain link - they establish diplomatic relations without accrediting ambassadors first, so this is a response to my question above (I suspected this answer, but haven't got confirmation until now) - you can have diplomatic relations without one or both parties to have accredited ambassadors (relate trough the MFAs instead of ambassadors?).
 * Do we agree, that established diplomatic relations means recognition, that accrediting ambassadors means having established diplomatic relations and recognition, that accrediting diplomatic representative of the lesser ranks (consul-general, consul, honorary consul) also means having established diplomatic relations and recognition?
 * Detached vs. local issue. I already agreed that it could be seen both ways. But I still insist, that in this particular case there is no issue of "objectiveness.", but of this to be "aware of the facts". I think that it is more reasonable for a person maintaining a list on a government webpage to miss some obscure statement about relations with CI, than for a US ambassador to throw around bogus statements about his own accreditations. As I said, the CI has nothing to gain if their list "is not objective", and in fact there is nothing to be objective/not objective here - they either have diplomatic relations with a said state - or don't have. I can't see any reason to accuse CI MFA of "lies", I don't see any claims by the governments concerned accusing it of false statements or similar (like "State XXX does not recognize CI as equal partner and sovereign state, and thus the MFA of XXX objects the inclusion of XXX in the list of states established diplomatic relations with the CI, published by the CI MFA"). I could imagine that Japan would issue similar statement - if it was wrongly included in such list.
 * I will try to formulate one proposal (hopefully to be consensus), so that we can at least implement the changes that were already agreed - and focus a new debate only on the rest of the issues. Alinor (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I agree that established diplomatic relations means recognition? No. You certainly haven't convinced me of that. Night w (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we discussing recognition? Does that need mentioning on this list? I don't see why it can't be left out if it's not clear at the moment. Night w (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Night: The list is currently sorted by degree of recognition. The question is does CI belong in the "widely recognized" or "other" section (or should we resort the list using a new criteria).  I think there are enough sources to justify the CI/Niue being included on the list with seperate entries from NZ, I just don't think the evidence is nearly conclusive enough to include them in the "widely recognised" section of the list as currently organized.
 * Ladril: Right, and the CI are a very sui generis case which is intended to emulate the functions of a state at the subnational level without full sovereignty from their colonial power.
 * The point is that despite what the formal definition of "diplomatic relations" might be, the term is often used (missused?) in a less rigid sense. If we agree that there are exceptions to the rule (ie the EU has diplomatic relations and is not sovereign) then simple logic says we can't use the fact that the CI claim to have formal "diplomatic relations" with ~25 states to prove that this implies recognition, especially considering the evidence suggests that many of the other states don't view the relationship as a formal diplomatic relationship.  I'm not arguing that NO states recognize CI as sovereign, just that we shouldn't assume ALL of the CI's claimed diplomatic relations are genuine, full fledged relationships, without secondary sources to back this up.
 * Alinor: I strongly disagree with your points on the reliablility of sources. You put so much weight in a single statement by a former ambassador, and dismiss regularly updated official department of foreign affairs websites.  As to your point about "awareness of facts", why are the CI more aware than the US foreign affairs department?  The US certainly seemed to be aware when the decided to recognize Montenegro/Kosovo in the last few years.  And yet they aren't aware that the US recognized the CI in 1994 (as per the CI)?  I find it hard to accept that in 16 years not a single person has noticed this "error".  And the issue of primary/secondary sources has nothing to do with me accusing the CI of "lying".  But in spite of your denials they the do have something to gain by overstating the scope of their foreign relations.  More relations = more legitimacy.  Why do you think partially recognized states put so much effort into establishing foreign relationships?  This is merely a journalistic issues.  Primary sources are notoriously unreliable, since they have an inherent POV.  The more removed a source is the more likely it is to be neutreal.  If Somaliland posted a note on their website tomorrow claiming that they had established diplomatic relations with Somalia, don't you think we would be wise to take that with a grain of salt until confirming sources could be found?
 * You still haven't explained how "in constitutional terms" restricts the sovereignty statement to NZ-CI affairs. The statement falls under the "International personality" heading and states that the CI would need to make constitutional changes to be fully sovereign.  TDL (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to Dan, if we're sticking to numbers, it'll need to be a fair bit greater than 110, or else it wouldn't make sense to then keep Palestine in the second section. The problem I see is that I don't think recognition in this case is practically quantifiable, and the quantity certainly doesn't seem to be verifiable. I don't see why they wouldn't automatically go in the "Other states" section. Neither is a member of the UN, and their statuses as sovereign states is certainly disputed (as shown in foreign government sources). Night w (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ladril: Right, and the CI are a very sui generis case which is intended to emulate the functions of a state at the subnational level without full sovereignty from their colonial power."

No, that's not true. It's a decolonized territory which has achieved sovereignty through a free association agreement. It's a very sui generis case I agree, but worthy of inclusion in a list of states. And the EU does not have diplomatic relations with states in the same manner states themselves do, if that's what you're insinuating. it doesn't appoint ambassadors, consuls, etc., and it doesn't exercise all the diplomatic prerogatives of states. Also, you and several other users are making a crass mistake when you state that subnational entities have diplomatic relations, or that states that do not recognize each other have them. Ladril (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Do I agree that established diplomatic relations means recognition? No. You certainly haven't convinced me of that."

Yes, Nightw, you agree. According to this text [] diplomatic relations require diplomatic recognition as a prerequisite. Quote from page 109: "The establishment of diplomatic relations and permanent diplomatic missions requires the consent of both states. They must be sovereign states and recognize each other as such." Ladril (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick response to TDL post.
 * "CI are a very sui generis case which is intended to emulate the functions of a state at the subnational level without full sovereignty from their colonial power.". As Ladril said above this is not true. I would add that the opposite formulation is more correct - "CI is a special case, intended to emulate the functions of a state at international level, without breaking the citizenship constitutional link to their former colonial power". It seems, that exactly this fact is causing us trouble here for finding agreement- even NZ recognizes CI/Niue sovereignty and independence, in international aspect. In bilateral, NZ-CI/Niue, they could not, because of the citizenship constitutional link.
 * "shouldn't assume ALL of the CI's claimed diplomatic relations are genuine, full fledged relationships, without secondary sources" - there are secondary sources (the various analysis papers and lists), but I would assume that this is not sufficiently convincing for you.
 * "why are the CI more aware than the US foreign affairs department? " - I said that US ambassador to CI is more aware of CI than the US department of the geographer (excuse me if this is the same as foreign affairs department - I don't know who belongs where). I don't claim that "US is unaware" - I claim that between US ambassador to CI and some list on US website we should put more weight on the ambassador quote.
 * "partially recognized states put so much effort into establishing foreign relationships", "If Somaliland posted a note ..." and proposals to list CI/Niue in "other states". CI/Niue have nothing in common with Abkhazia/South Ossetia/Transinistria/Nagorno Karabkah/Somaliland/Taiwan/SADR/TRNC/Kosovo/Palestine (the "other states"). The "other states" compete for recogntion with regular UN members. Their territory is claimed by regular UN members. They stage wars-for-independence/civil wars/whatever wars/armed conflicts with regular UN members. In contrast nobody claims CI/Niue. Even the former administring power, the NZ, recognizes their international sovereignity and independence. The UN has removed them form the list of non-self governing territories long ago (1965/1974 - as "associated state of NZ"), but later, after their gradual evolution, in 1992/1994 they get recognition as independent sovereign states, and the UN now classifies them as "non-member states" (without any administring power). This has nothing in common with the "other states". Of them, only PLO/Palestine gets UN recognition, but only as "representative of the palestinian people", and some UN members the recognize PLO/State of Palestine as sovereign 'government-in-exile' (or similar, having in mind the partially not-in-exile trough the PNA). The CI/Niue are entierly independent, unrestricted by any administring power (they could denounce the citizenship link with NZ/change their constitutions - if they decide so - they don't require NZ approval for this).
 * "their statuses as sovereign states is certainly disputed" - No, it is disputed only here, by us - wikipedia users. We have sources showing CI/Niue sovereinity dispute only by JP/KR. We have sources showing NZ, UN, and others recognizing, not disputing - here I speak about explicit statements by MFAs and the like. Then, of course, there are some lists on foreign websites that list CI/Niue under one section or another, in contradiction to the previous group of sources. I can't understand, if it was soooooo disputed, why don't we have any statements by the disputing states like "We, XXXX, do not recognize the independence of CI/Niue. We treat them as part of NZ". If Japan can clearly indicate their non-recognition, and even give the reasons for it (citizenship), I would expect that other states that some users here claim to not recognize CI/Niue would be equaly straigt about that. Alinor (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regular states have internal self-government for all policies, international sovereinity and independence, and are not subordinated to any external power.
 * The "self-governing countries/territories", like Bermuda/Aruba/Tokelau/etc. have internal self-government for most policies, international representation by the administring power UK/NL/NZ/etc., and are subordinated to the administring power (these subordination powers may be used very rarely by administring powers, but we have examples as recently the UK sacked the whole Turks and Caicos government).
 * In contrast, CI/Niue have full international sovereingity and independence, internal self-government for all policies besides citizenship (CI has also 'de facto' nationality regulation), and are not subordinated to NZ(or any other state) in any way, besides citizenship.
 * The sui-generis aspect for CI/Niue is that, because of the citizenship, in the constitutions of CI/Niue/NZ is retained the wording from the times, before the sovereignity and independece was achieved. That's why in bilateral relations they are not using the term "sovereign and independent" (albeit they conduct relations in just this way - High Commissions, diplomatic immunity acts, etc.). That's why there are statements both ways from NZ - depending if "internationally" or "constitutionally/bilaterally".
 * Of course, it is up to the third countries to decide if they find CI/Niue, with this sui-generis arrangement, as sovereign and independent states, equal to all third countries (as NZ/CI/Niue claim). As with any other claim - third countries could agree or disagree. So far, we have found that only Japan/South Korea disagree (and ~25% and the UN agree). Alinor (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, consensus is best established through persuading other editors to agree with you — not through telling them whether they agree. Secondly, as I've pointed out before, you seem to be unable to verify your statements. You are arguing that every state with diplomatic relations with the Cook Islands, or Niue, has recognised them as independent sovereign states, yet you can't seem to verify that claim without resorting to synthesis. The statements from Germany and Belgium are sound, but in the absence of official statements from the remainder, you're now using an unrelated source to put two and two together. Exceptional claims, like those you've made, require exceptional sources. Finally, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is the law you are basing your position on, has been ratified by 186 states; not all, and not by either of the 2 states we're discussing. Night w (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I entierlly disagree with the assumption that there could be diplomatic relations with 'non-sovereign entity'/'entity not recognized as sovereign'. Such statement is a paradox/contradiction in itself. I don't think that it is 'exceptional' to claim that "diplomatic relations=mutual recognition of sovereignity". On the contrary, that is the natural meaning.
 * About the various states. I have also provided a few additional links. We have also the primary sources (and some secondary ones).
 * But this number-counting seems entierly out-of-place, when we have the NZ/CI/Niue/UN statements. In such a situation we should count mainly the "opposers"/"non-recognizers", like JP/KR. Alinor (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a treaty signed between the united states and the Vilayet of Tripoli [], if signing treaties is not diplomatic relations than what is? Here is another source that states that bavaria maintained diplomatic relations with foreigns states after it joined the german empire. []. Diplomatic relations are not limited to soveriegn states.XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bavaria source is clear. I am not so sure about the Tripoli source (there are many uncertainities, such as - what is the position of the Ottoman Empire? Consulted and allowed, opposes, don't care? What was the status of Tripoli in regards the Ottoman empire? Is this treaty about establishing full diplomatic relations or just about friendship/etc. and appointment of counsul (not ambassador, but I don't know in these times if there were ambassadors at all), under the umbrella of diplomatic relations between the US and the Ottoman empire?
 * Anyway, I am not sure of the relevance of these examples from 100 to 200 years ago - for todays diplomacy ... Alinor (talk)
 * Xavier, several comments:


 * 1. I may be wrong, but I recall reading that the German Empire under Bismarck was - nominally, at least - a confederation. As such, its constituent states would be perfectly able to have diplomatic relations with other countries.


 * 2. I may be a pain in the donkey, but there is indeed a difference between engaging in treaties and having diplomatic relations. Your suspicion under modern international law only states engage in treaties is correct. To my knowledge, the only current instances of subnational entites being legally allowed by the nation-state government to sign treaties with sovereign states are the Communities and Regions of Belgium. However, in Belgium the conduct of diplomatic relations is still constitutionally reserved to the federal government.


 * 3. As to the US-Tripoli source, it is interesting but not entirely convincing. I'm in no way an expert in the matter, but the US seems to interpret its own ability to make treaties as a relationship not only with other sovereign states but also with "nations". Its government has signed treaties with American Indian nations, after all. Still, this is a good point that merits further studying. Ladril (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Without replying to everything, I'd just like to bring back to the given Germany source . Here it states that "Germany recognized the Cook Islands as a self-governing state". That is self-governing, not independent or sovereign. Furthermore, it states that "The German ambassador in Wellington/New Zealand is also accredited to the Cook Islands." I think this is a strong point that an ambassador can be accredited to something recognized only as self governing (or autonomous). It is no doubt similar to the US ambassador, who was also the ambassador to Wellington and thus accredited to the Cook Islands. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See the original text []. "selbstständigen" translation is "independent" |en|selbstst%C3%A4ndigen. Of course, it would not be very productive to start arguing about such things here.
 * And, I have missed the "ambassador accredited to CI" part - it only confirms that the english translation is wrong on the source and that we should read the original german text. Alinor (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't go around saying that translations are wrong! I have no doubt that the subtleties in each language are different, and also no doubt that the German translators are perfectly good at what they do. Nothing confirms the english translation is wrong, you can't simply say that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "it would not be very productive to start arguing about such things". But you can see the translation yourself and make your conclusions. Anyway, the ambassador accreditation stands. Alinor (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I recognize the German people as smart enough to get their message across in multiple languages, especially in something like international diplomacy. And what does the ambassador accreditation stand as? The source states that they accredited an ambassador to a place in which they recognized self-government. What do you want it to stand as? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, having "accredited ambassador" stands to show us that Germany recognizes CI as sovereign and independent state. The source is not the official formal letter for recognition/establishing diplomatic relations/ambassador accreditation/whatever between Germany and CI. Since I see that we disagree on how to interpret the text as it is, then we should check in the official document what relations are formulated and how. Alinor (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Another example of gradual path to independence, but Faroe/Greenland have not yet reached it. Alinor (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't recognize that the source is accurate about one thing but inaccurate about another. Germany has, as per source, accredited an ambassador to a country it recognizes only as selfgoverning.
 * Furthermore, the Vatican source you used notes that the Vatican has diplomatic relations with the EU and the SMOM. Neither on this list is a sovereign state.
 * I don't really see what the Faroes/Greenland have to do with it. Greenland recently achieved self-governance aswell, if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Germany. It is not written "only self-governing", but just "self-governing" (without "only"). CI/Niue are of course self-governing, but their are also more than that. Also, the word in the german text translates to "independent", but of course we can't argue about translation semantics here.
 * Vatican lists the states in a different place from EU/SMOM and CI is in the list of states. Also, SMOM is a sovereign entity and of course has diplomatic relations. EU is a sui-generis case of pooled sovereignty for some matters, etc. Nothing here proves that a state could have diplomatic relations with a 'territory' of another state.
 * The Denmark realm-like example is relevant, because it shows the territories of Faroe/Greenland on the same gradual, evolutionary path to independence that CI/Niue have already passed. Here Faroe is more ahead (as CI) and Greenland is a few steps behind it (as Niue). Alinor (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

New Suggestion
Keeping them in the same box

Just throwing it out there. Responses? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Multiple users have explained that "the Realm of NZ is not a state". Structuring the entry in such a way would imply exactly that. Alinor (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm more with Alinor's original proposal. I believe it reflects the current situation. This proposal would have portrayed the situation as it was in the 1960s accurately. Ladril (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

proposal-30july
In relation to this discussion.

---Head section---

This is a list of sovereign states, giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty.

The list is divided into two parts. It is arranged alphabetically, and contains 205 entries :
 * The internationally recognized sovereign states section lists:
 * the widely recognized states, whose independence or sovereignty are undisputed by another states (187 in total)
 * the mostly recognized states, whose independence or sovereignty is disputed and not recognized by another state, but there are no claims against the state as a whole, or such occupation (8 in total)
 * The other states section lists:
 * the states (unless they are a member of the United Nations and thus belonging to the above group), whose whole territory, independence or sovereignty is claimed as its own or occupied by another state (10 in total)

Compiling a list such as this can be a difficult and controversial process, as there is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations concerning the criteria for statehood. For more information on the criteria used to determine the contents of this list, please see the "criteria for inclusion" section below.

---The entries in the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" section to be changed as follows---

---The entries in the "other states" section to be changed as follows---

This annex lists states that claim sovereignty and have control over (part of) their claimed territories, achieving de facto sovereignty or independence, but due to disputes over their legitimacy, do not have normal diplomatic relations with many of the sovereign states. None of the states in this annex list are UN member states. Entities considered to be micronations are not included.

---criteria section changed as follows---

...

On the basis of the above criteria, this list includes the following 205 entities:
 * 195 internationally recognized sovereign states:
 * 186 states, widely recognized internationally, Member States of the United Nations
 * one state, widely recognized internationally, governed by the Holy See (a United Nations permanent observer in the category "Non-member states" ): Vatican City
 * 6 states, mostly recognized internationally, Member States of the United Nations: Armenia, People's Republic of China, Cyprus, Israel, North Korea and South Korea
 * 2 states, mostly recognized internationally, Non-Member States of the United Nations: Cook Islands and Niue
 * 10 sovereign states with limited international recognition, of which none are members of the United Nations:

...

Regarding the widely/mostly/other "recognition levels" in the head:
 * for the middle level I put "mostly" as "general" was considered inappropriate (same as "wide"). Other options not selected (?): "substantial", "significant". Other options: .... ???
 * The "unless a UN" note is required currently because of South and North Korea that are UN members, but also claimed (each by the other). In case Kosovo joins the UN, without Serbia lifting its claim - it would also "fall under" this UN-note (eg. move from "other" to "mostly").

I found in the article the following note: "Cyprus is recognized by the Holy See and all UN member states except Turkey" - are we sure that no other state has taken Turkey side 'formally'?

Also, maybe in the beginning of the "Internationally recognized sovereign states" section we could put a note that inside are all UN Member States and UN Non-Member States. (but this will be redundant with the sub-listing in the criteria section).

And, please see below another proposal for combo NZ-CI-Niue entry to replace their three in this proposal-30july (I prefer not to do this). Alinor (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it if we kept this thread to what's being proposed, and refrain from proposing extraneous alterations to entries like Kosovo, etcetera. I'm also against creating a new classification all for the sake of fitting in two new entries. They're not "mostly recognised" either —what's the maximum hypothetial number? 20? 30? Furthermore, creating that as a classification would require the addition of Palestine to the main list. But Palestine, of course, is categorised under "Other states", and these two new additions are no different; they fit best under the second section. Night w (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've created 3 lists and then combined 2 of them into one. Doesn't make much sense to me. Also, what's Australia doing there? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that they should be placed in the other states section as exists on the current page, thats how the german version (one of the few thats as developed as this one) of the page handels the issue.XavierGreen (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the extraneous alterations were per a separate discussion below, the rest - related. Of course we can ignore these at first, but I don't find them so controversial, so maybe nobody will object these anyway.
 * The new classification is not "for the sake of fitting in two new entries", but because in this discussion it was revealed that the classification itself is disputed. As you see, it affects more of the current entries than the new 2.
 * There is no numbers. The criteria are qualitative, not quantitative. Of course the words "widely" and "mostly" could be replaced with such that better match the criteria as described. Proposals?
 * Palestine is under occupation of Israel. So Palestine falls into "other states" (as currently) - as per "whose whole territory, ... is ... or occupied by another state".
 * Australia is just the next state after Armenia, no changes there. Just left following copy-paste.
 * 2 lists are combined into 1, because both types come under the same heading "Internationally recognized sovereign states", albeit with different degree of this recognition. If there is consensus we could easily split this, but I don't think a split is a good idea.
 * I don't agree with CI/Niue going into "other states". Based on what criteria? They have nothing in common with the "other states" (as already talked much over above). "Other states" is not a place where we put any entity that we, wikipedia editors, somewhat disagree over. I would not object only if there is a reasonable explanation to put them there, based on the current criteria, this proposed criteria or some other criteria. Alinor (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They may not have much in common with the other states, but they certainly fit into the category of Other states. Why don't we change the criterion for Other states to "Countries with major sovereignty issues", where having the citizenship of another country would no doubt apply, as well as foreign occupation/claim. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposal. But so far we know only JP/KR as having any problem/issue with CI/Niue sovereignty. It doesn't seem reasonable to arrange the entities according to Japan POV.... we came again to the same issue we argue about above... - IF they have such issues or not (Some would not see a the single Japan position as "major issue" as they accept the sources showing ~25%, UN and NZ "not having issues". But other editors question the validity/meaning of some of these sources and consider CI/Niue to have "major issues"). I think that we need more detailed criteria than "major issues with sovereignty" that leaves little-to-no room for interpretation (I tried this with the proposal-30july criteria). Would you make it more detailed? Alinor (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think most editors have questioned whether sources are valid, they have merely questioned certain interpretations. A single nonrecognition would not be a major issue in my opinion, it probably wouldn't impede a country greatly. How is this:
 * Other states: The states whose status as an independent and sovereign state is called into question by other states.
 * I like the word status here, as it acknowledges they may otherwise function as sovereign state (such as ROC), but not achieving the position as one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This will basically make 'other' equal to 'mostly'. As a consequence of this, the UN-"bonus/wavier"-note would become instead a "requirement" for 'mostly', and as explained in another discussion linked above - such requirement is not good for the criteria/article. If we then remove the UN-note, then Armenia/etc. should go into "other states"... Alinor (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis is correct. I've not questioned the validity of the sources, just tried to point out that you are drawing conclusions from the sources which aren't explicily stated.  Also, other reliable sources contradict these claims.  If just JP/KR objected to CI/Niue sovereignty then they would deserve to be listed in the main section.  However, you are assuming the default position of the remaining states is to recognize their sovereignty when there is no justification for such a position.
 * I agree with Night that the criteria proposed above seems designed to shoehorn the CI/Niue into the main list. Ci/Niue belong in the "Other states" section by the current criteria not because WE disagree over their status, but because the international community seems to disagree over their status.  (Or at least we can't find sources which demonstrate widespread agreement).  TDL (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will propose changing the criteria (in some way), regardless where CI/Niue finally goes - as the current criteria are open to much interpretations.
 * The only "aren't explicily stated" assumption that I draw from the sources are based on the following: 'diplomatic relations requires recognizing each-other as equal, sovereign and independent', 'accrediting consuls/ambassador requires diplomatic relations'. I haven't seen something that proves these two statements wrong.
 * Again the issue of the undeclared number We have as declared recognizers the UN, NZ, CI, Niue, ~25% of UN members, and as declared non-recognizers JP, KR. The undeclared are maybe in the one or the other direction. Both ways is assuming. If we stick to declared this leaves only JP/KR as opposing. Also, we have the cases of Nauru and others that also have very low declared numbers (~33% of UN members). Anyway, this is connected to the above issue of questioning the sources (OK, their interpretation)...
 * And since the issue came again to number-arguing - please propose some quantity-defined criteria (if you think that proposal-30july is biased somehow)? Alinor (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See BWC and some of the rest of the arms control agreements, that are "open" only to UN members+CI+Niue+Vatican. Alinor (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake Alinor, we've shown that the term diplomatic relations is more widely used than that! The Holy See website (which claims CI is a state) says that it has diplomatic relations with the EU. The German website stated that they accredited an ambassador to a state they only recognized as selfgoverning. You cant just ignore those sources.
 * As for undeclared, the Nauru issue is a moot point, as Nauru made it into the UN, and therefore has the acceptance as a state by at least 2/3 of UN members. In fact, as there was not even a move for a vote, it is probably accepted by even more, perhaps 100%. This was explained earlier, I think by XavierGreen (sorry if that's wrong).
 * I proposed a new criterion for Other states earlier. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The acceptance thing is total WP:SYNTH. There's been no evidence presented that shows that accepting a state's membership in the UN is the same as recognizing that state. And even if we assume that it is, the claim that Nauru is recognized by 2/3 of UN members is not verifiable, because there was no vote, which means we have no way of determining which states make up that 2/3. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:SYNTH. Here's the official UN website stating "The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations." So recognition of a state into the UN is recognition of the states existence. As has been said many times before, this is a two thirds vote. Furthermore, the website states "At each session, the General Assembly considers the credentials of all representatives of Member States participating in that session. During such consideration, which routinely takes place first in the nine-member Credentials Committee but can also arise at other times, the issue can be raised whether a particular representative has been accredited by the Government actually in power. This issue is ultimately decided by a majority vote in the Assembly. It should be noted that the normal change of Governments, as through a democratic election, does not raise any issues concerning the credentials of the representative of the State concerned." So if there are any issues with countries in the UN, they can be raised, and a vote taken about it, so a government could actually be removed from the UN by a popular vote. And  suggest to me that there was some debate or a statement by Nauru, so I guess if there were objections they would have been raised there and a vote forced.
 * In regards to how important UN membership can be, includes an interview with a Kosovo official who states that being accepted into the UN means that a majority of UN members recognize you as a state. So by this acceptance does mean recognition. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are completely misinterpreting that UN source. Here's the full quote:
 * How does a country become a Member of the United Nations?
 * Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
 * How does a new State or Government obtain recognition by the United Nations?
 * The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.
 * The page clearly and specifically differentiates between membership in the UN and recognition by the member states of the UN. It at no point says that one leads to the other, or that one is required for the other, or that one implies the other. All of those conclusions are being drawn by people in this discussion thread, not taken from reliable sources. That is WP:SYNTH.
 * That second quote you raised is about government changes within member states, not about membership status itself. So if there's a coup in Fiji (for example) and a new regime takes power, the Credentials Committee has the power to check and make sure that the representative from Fiji actually represents the government in power. It would not have the power to kick out Fiji.
 * And the lack of a vote doesn't indicate anything, since we have clear and recent counter-examples in the cases of North Korea (which did not have a vote despite not being recognized by Japan) and Liechtenstein (which did not have a vote despite not being recognized by Czechoslovakia).
 * In general, this point of view just does not hold up to scrutiny. If most UN members recognized Montenegro automatically when it joined the UN in 2006, then why did so many states continue recognizing it after it got its membership? Kuwait only recognized it last week! Was that just a formal confirmation of the recognition that came in 2006 or was Kuwait part of of that undefined 1/3 that didn't recognize Montenegro when it joined? How do you distinguish between the two? How do you verify those claims? Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Alinor, as I've pointed out before, the source you quote from is the law of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which has not been ratified by all members, nor by the Cook Islands, nor by Niue; hence it is questionable as to whether it counts in this case. Hypothetically, should it count, what is the maximum number extending recognition? 20? Even then, do we know the level of those relations? Is the French consulate genenral to the Cook Islands subordinate to its counterpart in Wellington? The answer is probably irrelevant, as we cannot presume that the majority of states recognise either of the two proposed additions as independent sovereign states. Because the situation is unclear at present, it would be best to add them as "Other states". Notes on explicit extensions and denials of recognition by foreign governments can be added alongside. Night w (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of declared recognitions is around 25% of UN members. In contrast to Nauru's 33%. So, the whole number/majority issue is a moot point. That's why I made this proposal for the criteria - so that we use a qualities instead of quantities (as quantities are unprovable for many small UN members - and we want to avoid using UN membership as requirement for the list).
 * In all this debate I have seen no statements from any country besides JP/KR that says "we don't recognize CI/Niue"... If the majority of states were non-recognizers, we could expect at least some of them to make such statements (as we have in the cases of Armenia, Israel, Koreas, etc.). Instead we have only the other statements, confirming recognition. Totaly different situation from the "other states" - I can't see how CI/Niue would fit in "other states"... Would you provide proposal for criteria+CI/Niue/other-relevant entries that would make them fit in "other states"? Alinor (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to Chipmunkdavis post.
 * You proposed a new definition of "other states", but as I said it doesn't match well with the proposed definition of 'mostly' - "This will basically make 'other' equal to 'mostly'. As a consequence of this, the UN-"bonus/wavier"-note would become instead a "requirement" for 'mostly', and as explained in another discussion linked above - such requirement is not good for the criteria/article. If we then remove the UN-note, then Armenia/etc. should go into "other states"... ". Could you reflect this in your proposal (it is better when proposals for these criteria are made for all three levels-of-recognition at once, as they are interrelated).
 * " we've shown that the term diplomatic relations is more widely used " - no, the Germnay and Holy See notes are not explicit statements as "we do diplomatic relations with entities that we deem to be not independent and not equal to ourself in terms of sovereignty" - the websites offer circumstansial evidence at best (or none at all), and I can't see how could you accept such things as prooving the 'diplomatic relations requires recognizing each-other as equal, sovereign and independent' statement wrong ...
 * Nauru is not a moot point as explained by Orange Tuesday. Alinor (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know where you got 25% from (by my calculations that's approximately 48); have you a reference? And remembering that's a hypothetical anyway, as I haven't seen a reference stating that this Convention applies in this instance. Why would we expect non-recognition to be announced, if independence has not been declared in the first place? Conversely, I'd persoanlly expect more statements of recognition than I've seen (I've seen 3). Night w (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nauru is a moot point. Orange Tuesday is wrong, there has been a vote in the general assembly on every admission to occur after the charter. The was a vote by acclamation in the General Assembly to admit Nauru, when the issue was brought forth in the general assembly there were no votes in opposition, so the matter was considered passed unanimously and every government accepted the state as an equal peer.XavierGreen (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The calculations for Nauru and Cook Islands are in the comments below proposal-26july.
 * As explained already - no independence, in bilateral relations with NZ, in constitutional terms is declared, because of the citizenship link. In international realtions with thrid states sovereignty, independence and statehood, are declared (one of the sources: NZ-CI JCD). I was making the contrast with "self-governing" territories above - the common case of dependency/autonomy/self-governing countries have "self-government" for internal, but their "mainland" handles international affairs (in addition the "mainland" retains the ultimate control even of internal affairs, in exceptional cases, etc. - after all the dependency is under the sovereignity of the "mainland"). In the case here, international affairs fall under full sovereignity of CI, nothing impedes their independence (NZ has no 'control powers' over it). The unusal thing, in contrast to all states around the world, is that, in regard to NZ-CI bilateral relations, they retain NZ citizenship, and thus have to resort to special arrangements for their independence (eg. nothing of the usual "declaration of independence"/etc., but special acts, NZ-CI JCD, etc.)
 * As I understand the Orange Tuesday argument, this acclamation does not allow us to get a firm number. He gave the example of North Korea, getting membership in the same way, regardless of South Korea/Japan non-recognition. So, maybe some states do not recognize Nauru. Maybe not. But we can't get a number. The declared number that we have is the ~33%. Of course we assume that it is 100% (as we have no sources showing non-recognition), but this remains our assumption, not a declared position of all and every of the states.
 * For CI/Niue, besides NZ described above, we have their acceptance and recognition as State by the UN. And in contrast to all dependencies/special territories/etc. (regardless if self-govening or non-self-governing) CI/Niue are treated as entierly separate from NZ and NZ explitly declared that its actions have nothing to do with CI/Niue (unless asked by their governments). Of course, JP/KR have the right to disagree as they do. Just like they disagree on North Korea (for different reasons, but anyway). And UN treats all three (CI, Niue and North Korea) as sovereign and independent states - regardless of individual non-recognition by some member states (we have also the Israel and China cases of ~10% non-recognition that does not change their UN status).
 * My position is, that IF we have to assume where the undeclared number of CI/Niue goes (as we have no sources for it) - it is unreasonable to assume that it goes in the non-recognition direction, as so far we have only 2 such declared positions. In contrast to the declared recognitions of the NZ, UN and others (I will not use quantifier number here, so that we don't get into arguments again - but more than 2 in any case).
 * In any case, I would prefer that we don't make ANY assumptions, and just stick to verifiable things. That's why I propose changing the criteria. Alinor (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the areas of concern within the current criteria wording? Night w (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The other states section lists ten states which have de facto sovereignty or independence, but are not widely recognised diplomatically by other states.
 * This annex lists states that claim sovereignty and have control over (part of) their claimed territories, but due to disputes over their legitimacy, do not have normal diplomatic relations with the majority of sovereign states. None of the states in this annex list are UN member states. Entities considered to be micronations are not included.
 * 10 sovereign states lacking general international recognition, none of which are members of the United Nations.
 * To this should be added the rest of the criteria:


 * The internationally recognized sovereign states section lists all 193 widely recognised sovereign states, including all member states of the United Nations, and Vatican City.
 * So, the criteria as they stand, state: "if widely recognized - section1; if not - section2". The only thing, that can be considered as criteria for "widely" is the text "including all member states of the United Nations, and Vatican City." - so we get to the "UN requirement" issue. This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of UN members/observers/whatever. We have many examples from the recent past of independent states that were neighter UN members nor UN observers. And if we apply UN requirement for inclusion this compromises the meaning of the list itself.
 * If we stick to this definitions (and somehow lessen the UN-wording so that it does not constitute a requirement) - then we have to take the 'quantity' route, then we have do define a number-limits for the recognition-levels. Putting such limits is very arbitrary. But it is also prone to assumptions and thus disagreements, disputes, etc. if it has to include undeclared part. If it has to include only declared part - it will have the same drawbacks - as we see in this discussion - even the declared part is subject to interpretations, assumptions, disagreement and dispute.
 * That is why I proposed the change in the definitions, that would base them on 'quality' criteria, that are not so arbitrary and much more verifiable. Alinor (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you asked me to propose a alternative wording to the "Other states" criteria, because you felt that the current wording did not allow for the addition of the two proposed states. I was asking you to identify specific points in particular, because in my opinion they fit perfectly fine. Here's a quality: what names are normally found on a list of sovereign states? One, two, three, an atlas under my desk (The Times Atlas of the World, 12th ed.), not Cook Islands and Niue. I've already expressed my opposition to changing the whole criteria simply to fit in some new entries that may or may not be independent depending on how you look at it. Objectively speaking, neither of them fulfill the Declarative theory of statehood since, without citizens, they haven't defined their populations. On the other hand, recognition seems impossible to verify, so their status is not yet defined. Therefore → "Other states". Night w (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, the requirement isn't to have a defined population, it is to have a permanent population. The Cook Islands and Niue unambiguously fulfill this requirement. Secondly, even if we were using the "defined population" definition (and we very clearly are not), there is in fact a legally defined status for permanent residents of the Cook Islands which is distinct from NZ citizenship. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. And of course they have permanent population. And it is clearly defined. Yes, this population has NZ citizenship, but that does not mean that NZ, CI and Niue (and Tokelau and whatever other) people are "undefined". And as Orange Tuesday said - CI even develops its distinct legislation, applicable to its population only (wheter called nationals, citizens or whatever).
 * "recognition seems impossible to verify" - no, it is verified by multiple sources. The problem is just here, between us the wikipedia users - you claim that there could be 'diplomatic relations without recognition' and 'diplomatic missions without recognition'. These claims were not supported by direct source/reference/quote stating such things, but by looking at web page lists and similar and not finding there one or another state. I haven't seen any source for any state (besides JP/KR) stating that they don't recognize CI/Niue. And in any case pushing this non-recognition argument goes along with ignoring the official CI/Niue sources - with claims like "they have something to gain", etc. - that would be applicable to your regular other/separatist-conflict entity/state, but how could you apply such logic to a state that has been de-jure recognized as sovereign and independent in international relations by its former administrative power (NZ)? This is like Serbia recognizing Kosovo, and then, if it is still not a UN member to claim that "only 60 states recognize it, and even some of these only have ambassadors there without actually recognizing it [???], and others do not list it on their websites, so let's assume that these and all undeclared do not recognize it, and finally, without having a definition of the number limit for "widely", let's assume that it is not widely recognized"...
 * Even with the current criteria - CI/Niue do not fall into "other states", as they have broad enough diplomatic recognition.
 * But anyway, the problem with the criteria is unrelated to CI/Niue - the problem is that in the current form the criteria contain "UN requirement" and also they are undefined (what is "widely") and unverifiable (even if defined, "widely" could not be checked for some states). Alinor (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Opened separate section for the criteria. Alinor (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What I claimed was that you were using assumptions and unrelated precedents to assert your statements. You used a Vienna Convention, which has not been ratified by the states in question, to assert that diplomatic relations = recognition, and in most cases assuming that the level of diplomacy maintained was not subordinated to Wellington. You say you don't want to make assumptions, but those seem like pretty massive ones to me.
 * You now claim that recognition has been verified by multiple sources (which apparently I've missed). You stated previously that the recognition level is around 25% —but I've only seen documents from 3 states for the Cook Islands (none for Niue), and identified diplomatic relations with 9 states for the Cook Islands, and 2 for Niue. That's a maximum of 4.6%, pretty dismal despite the fact that you've applied an inapplicable precedent in order to get it.
 * Point is, without the ability to verify recognition from each state, we're arguable forced to make assumptions, or to take a look at similar lists in atlases and websites to see whether they appear in those. If they don't, it becomes apparent that you may be making an exceptional claim, and without the quality level of sources required, the page then becomes an entire piece of original research relying on (poorly applied) synthesis. The fact of the matter is, until you concede that it may be too early to portray this situation on a level equal with that of others on the main list, your proposal won't go ahead. Night w (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The list as it stands is rife with assumptions on that level, unfortunately, and I think this discussion is highlighting how shaky the concept of "general recognition" really is once you start to scrutinize it. We have as much evidence that Bhutan recognizes the Cook Islands as we do that it recognizes Vatican City -- which is to say, no evidence at all -- yet we basically construct the list as if it recognizes the latter and does not recognize the former. Why, exactly? I don't think there's really a satisfactory explanation here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some Vienna convention ratification does not define CI/Niue recognition or diplomatic relations. It is up to the individual states to decide to recognize/not-recognize each other.
 * Of course CI/Niue-accredited diplomats would be "subordinated to Wellington", but subordinated to the "mission of state XXX in Wellington, accredited to NZ, CI and Samoa" - not "subordinated to NZ". It is common practice around the world for "major" capitals to have mission of foreign countries accredited to their neighbooring states (eg. mission in Moscow accredited to Kazakhstan). And this is different from "mission of state XXX to NZ, responsible for Tokelau" - where the relations are between XXX-NZ, and Tokelau is considered by both as subordinated to NZ.
 * Yes, if you disregard the CI/Niue official sources, and other secondary sources, etc. - you can get the number as low as zero. And there is no "precedent" applicable - just the meaning of "diplomatic relations" and "ambassador accreditation".
 * What quality level of sources? Apperantly official CI/Niue government sources are of inferior quality on the subject of their own diplomatic relations and recognition?
 * The situation is not "equal", it has its specifics - just like some of the other entries in the list have theirs. Alinor (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And from what source are you drawing this "meaning" of "diplomatic relations" and "ambassador accreditation"? Night w (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can draw the meanings even from the Vienna Conventions. There are multiple states that have not ratified the conventions, besides CI/Niue: Brunei, Palau, Solomon Islands, etc. That does not diminish the "meaning" of the conventions. We are not a court, but even the ICJ considers as law in its cases not only the conventions ratified by the two sides of its case, but other relevant conventions, regardless if in force or just signed, etc. Anyway, for our purpose of discovering the menaing of "diplomatic relations" I think that the conventions are a good starting point. Alinor (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of a state being legally bound to a convention it hasn't ratified or even signed. Even if this were the case, it would still be synthesis. Using a source that states "Niue is recognised by X number of states" would fulfill the quality level I spoke of before, as it wouldn't require a reader to put two-and-two together. Night w (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Add that to the fact that we have found that the term diplomatic relations is used in other contexts and I don't think the argument states. And personally Nightw, I'd like "Niue is recognized by X number of states as a sovereign state", as I'm sure many countries recognize it as selfgoverning, somewhere between a dependency and a sovereign state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course states are not bound by conventions that they didn't sign. But in ICJ/etc. cases, where the court has to draw the "law" from various sources, etc. (there is no central depository or "Exclusive Worldwide Official Journal") some "general norms" are derived from such conventions and similar instruments, declarations, etc. - even if some of the sides in the court case have not ratified/signed them. This is not my logic/synthesis - I read a while ago an analysis of the US position in relation to UNCLOS. US does not ratify, because of "clauses in UNCLOS restricting the sovereignty of state parties to the convention" and some politicians (it seems a majority) in the US don't agree with this. But in the analysis it was said, that regardless of not ratifying and even if they "de-sign", the convention has reached such stage in the international legal order that would be still considered by the international courts, with less effect, but still - and that staying outside of the various UNCLOS institutions the US loses influence - without gaining substantial "shielding" from the sovereignty restrictions of UNCLOS. Of course I don't claim that this is correct, etc. - just explaining what I readed.
 * As I said, we are not a court, so ratification of Vienna has nothing to do with the meaning. And most (if not all) countries in the ~25% of CI have ratified the convention anyway, so even if CI itself has not - its partners are. And here we argue about recognition by the partners - so they have ratified and thus they agree with the definitions in the convention - so, this is where we can look for the meaning of "diplomatic relations", etc.
 * What other contexts? the 18th, 19th century cases or some web-site lists? For CI/Niue we have in some cases the official letters exchanged between the states. Primary sources, yes. But since we are so deep in the arguments here (we question the meaning of basic terms) - I think that we should stick as close to the subject as possible, eg. when we argue if Germany recognizes CI we should look at the official documents exchanged between the states and not at some secondary news-announcements (where the subtle meanings we argue so much about, are put trough additional distortions, rewording and rephrasing - and thus can not support either side in the dispute).
 * "many countries recognize it as selfgoverning, somewhere between a dependency and a sovereign state." - the NZ is not one of those states. Since NZ considers CI/Niue as sovereign and independent in relation to third countries - I can't see how you claim that "many" of these third countries don't do this. Of course some of them could disagree with NZ/CI/Niue position (as JP/KR did). But the UN has already agreed. This should be enough by your logic about Nauru, but anyway - some other states have declared this too. We have the official CI/Niue lists. We have some of the individual official documents. On the opposite side - we don't have any individual official document of relations between a third country and CI/Niue where they are not treated as equal partners. We don't have any official document for establishing "some" relations with CI/Niue where it is stated "The government of XXX has the honor to establish whatever relations with the self-governing territory of NZ, the CI". We have only the JP/KR as rejecters - and for Japan we have the example of Micronesia, where they were reluctant to recognize even a CFA state with its own citizenship. OK, JP/KR hold a rigid position on this subject. But we don't have any sources showing such positions by any other state. On the contrary - we have many sources showing that the rest of the states support the NZ/CI/Niue position. And this is the position accepted by the UN. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind creating a new section heading below and adding the links to all these fabulous sources you speak of? It'd be really helpful, because you keep saying you've given sources that show this and that, and I keep saying they're not good enough. I think this is what's really my issue is here; that either I haven't seen the sources you're citing, or I don't believe that the ones I have seen do what you say they do. Just a brief list, please? Night w (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources about what of the many disagreements? Anyway, all of these sources were mentioned multiple times above, are present in the proposals, are present on the Foreign relations pages... There aren't any "new" sources that I found - only these already mentioned here. Anyway, I'm sure you have seen them - as we have argued about most of them after their mentioning here... and it seems that you don't think they are trustworthy.
 * If you mean source about list of countries having diplomatic relations with CI - . For individual country documents - see China,  Spain,  Thailand,  Turkey (you can see in some of these explicit references to the Vienna conventions - so they are applicable). For general sources see the "what we do agree" section and of course the proposal extant notes. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm asking if you could list them again, please. For whatever reason, they've become lost in the chaos of this long-winded discussion. Night w (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm as lost as you are :), but here is the "what we do agree?" section for what it helps... Alinor (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some users - with good intention no doubt, but misguided - are approaching the editing of this page as if they were lawyers, which is not the way to go (even in the hypothetical case that you have a degree in law). What should be in the article is not your legal opinion, or mine, or that of any other editor, but the legal opinions of third party scholars who have written about the subject. This is the point they fail to realize. I agree with Alinor that ample third-party evidence of the statehood of CK and Niue has been provided. Ladril (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Combo-NZ-entry-for-proposal-30july
And to add redirects at 'C' Cook Islands and 'N' Niue --> New Zealand. Alinor (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The combo thing is something proposed earlier, seems like an interesting compromise. Why did you start this in a new section? Shouldn't it be included in the previous discussion? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I "replied" at the bottom of the page, because it is getting too big. I just added this combo as subsection at the end of the proposal-30july. There are differences with the previous combo, but I don't object, whatever the section, to move it if you think some other place is more approriate. What I ask is for opinions on the proposal-30july, about wheter to use combo or not, etc. Alinor (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This layout is not really in keeping with the current format, and I believe it would be significantly damaging to the New Zealand entry. Night w (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal does not jive with the current page setup. It should not be used. Outback the koala (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't prefer it, but some editors here disagree with having a separate CI/Niue entries, so I assumed that they would want some type of combo-entry. Alinor (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also don't think that this hybrid proposal fits within the current page setup. TDL (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I endorse exactly this, but what is inside it that doesn't fit? Yes, the alphabetical order is not exactly followed, but there will be links at 'C'ook Islands and 'N'iue to the New Zealand (as currently there are such as 'H'oly see --> see 'V'atican City). As said above - the reason for this box, was to find compromise with those that want CI/Niue to be part of the NZ entry. Alinor (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a compromise this will make no one happy. Either these two states belong on the list, in which case they should have their own entries, or they do not, in which case they should be entirely within New Zealand's entry. The layout of this proposal is just going to confuse readers. Also, the explanation in the box is waaaaay too long and pretty poorly written. We don't need to sum up the entire debate in the article itself. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the extant is on the big side. As discussed above it would be preferable if we had an article like Political status of the Cook Islands, Political status of Niue, Political status of states in free association with New Zealand to point to instead. I was optimistic that such article could be done by using sources/content from this very discussion (and the previous discussions on the same subject) - when I wrote the Agreed section here. Maybe a request for such article(s) should be put in the relevant CI/Niue/NZ wikiprojects. Alinor (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting document
Much ado has been place in the map that lists Niue and Cook Islands as indpendent states, ive found a current un map that lists them as dependencies [].XavierGreen (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So that's the map of the cartographic department. Anyone know where the other map is from? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both maps are from "department of field support, cartographic section" and are dated "May 2010".
 * The map linked above(1) is titled "The World" and is missing some of the dependent territories in the Caribbean (and maybe others).
 * The other map(2) is titled "The World Today" - in contrast to That map(3) titled "The World in 1945", related to that page about the Special Committee on Decolonization and the List of non-self-governing territories.
 * Maps 2 and 3 are colored according to the status of the territories. Map 1 is colored gray only. The shapes on Map 1 are much more reflecting the physical properties of the territories - in contrast to the rectangular shapes on Map 2 that allow coloring to be better distinguished (no coloring in Map 1) and that are more reflecting the political status of the territories.
 * The only thing that hints about dependent status of CI/Niue in Map 1 is the "(N.Z.)" after their names. There is no such note on Map 2.
 * So, I think that in relation to political status map 2 is more reliable than map 1.
 * Regarding CI/Niue status we have offical statements (by UN and others) and all the other sources - in addition to the maps 2 and 3.
 * Regarding "non-member states of the UN" (option 14 of the sorting criteria proposals above) we have the UN statements for Vatican, CI, Niue, but map 2 is really the only thing similar to "UN list of non-members" and if we are going to put an argument of map 1 vs. map 2 - then we will have to drop using map 2 as such and thus 14.1/14.3/14.4 sub-options, so option 14 will become 14.2 only. Alinor (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More proof that these two entities do NOT belong in the main part of the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The status of these two entities is sui generis; they are treated as independent states for some purposes and as associated with New Zealand for others. For example, they are listed in the latest United Nations terminology bulletin on country names, which includes only independent States (the entities listed are the 191 Member States, the Holy See, and the Cook Islands and Niue), and the introduction to the most recent compilation of Treaties as to which the Secretary-General performs depository functions reflects that the Cook Islands and Niue are deemed to have independent treaty-making capacity. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that in other respects, the Cook Islands and Niue do not function as fully independent entities, and the U.S. State Department lists them on its list of dependencies and places of special sovereignty, rather than as independent countries. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice try Xavier, but the arguments in favour of CK and Niue's statehood reside in much more than a single map. They range from academic books on Associated statehood in international law to U.N. documents considering them as states under the "All states" formula.

"On the other hand, there is ample evidence that in other respects, the Cook Islands and Niue do not function as fully independent entities, and the U.S. State Department lists them on its list of dependencies and places of special sovereignty, rather than as independent countries."

The U.S. has stated it does not consider the Cook Islands an independent state, but if you read the documentation you'll find it does not call it a dependent territory either, but a state in free association. In any case, that's the position of a single state and not an argument against statehood. As for functioning as fully independent entities, I suppose that's open to interpretation. Liechtenstein does not function as fully independent from Switzerland, for example. Ladril (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not listed as soveriegn nations on the map in question, for example the Marshall islands a state in association with the US is not listed with us under it as the cook islands is. In what manner is lichtenstein not fully soveriegn? The house of lichtenstien has existed as a soveriegn entity long before switzerland was even formed.XavierGreen (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, and Taiwan isn't listed as a sovereign state on that map either. Even if CI/Niue aren't UN recognized non-member states, that doesn't mean they don't belong on our list.  We have numerous such entities on the list (Somaliland, Palestine, Kosovo, etc).  That's a question of the inclusion criteria, not the sorting criteria which we are currently discussing.    And I think that the map you provided doesn't necessarily prove that they aren't non-member states, as it doesn't attempt to classify the states using that that criteria.  They could be dependencies and non-member states at the same time.  Clearly CI/Niue are MORE dependent than the Marshall Islands.
 * As for Lichtenstein, they have handed over significant control over many areas (including border control and defence) to Switzerland. TDL (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how can something be a dependency and a state at the same time? I always thought the two were clearcut mutually exclusive, with no overlap in meanings. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there are degrees of dependency. The Compact of Free Association states are dependent on the USA, but are considered sovereign states.  The problem is that CI/Niue are somewhere between these cases and a completely "dependent territory" such as Greenland, and it's not completely obvious which category they fall into.  Historically, it was clearly the second, but as they have achieved more and more autonomy they have approached (or possibly crossed) the fuzzy line dividing associated states and dependent states.  TDL (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the fine print of the map provided states: "The initials in parentheses refer to the administering Power or the Power involved in a special treaty relationship". I think it's clear that CI/Niue have a "special treaty relationship" with NZ, but this doesn't preclude CI/Niue from being sovereign.  TDL (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Compact states have special treaty relationships as well yet do not have U.S. beneath in the manner that the cook islands and niue have nz beneath them.XavierGreen (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Lichtenstien it has no defense agreement with Switzerland, it has no military agreements of any kind with any nation.XavierGreen (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lichtenstien has a great national anthem though :) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cook Islands have a quite lovely national athem as well. . What's your point?
 * If I'm not mistaken, he was making a quip about the anthem's association with the British one, which I found pretty funny.  Night w   15:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My appologies, I mistakenly thought BritishWatcher was trying to use the existance of a national anthem as justification for inclusion. TDL (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i couldnt resist mentioning it because i was watching a football match they were in the night before and heard it get played. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Lichtenstien, I never claimed they have a military agreement with Switzerland, I was stating that the Swiss are in charge of Lichtenstein's border defences. The Swiss-Lichtenstien border is considered internal to Switzerland, there is no border control between the two states.  However, Swiss border guards are stationed at the Austrian-Lichtenstien border and treat this as their external border.
 * As for the map, I have no idea what methodogy they used to decide when to include the power in brackets underneath, and neither do you. All we can go by is that they say that states with bracketed powers beneath them have a "special treaty relationship" with them.  This doesn't preclude a speacial treaty relationship between two sovereign states.  You can't just assume otherwise, you need to find sources which actually support your claim.  TDL (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Clearly CI/Niue are MORE dependent than the Marshall Islands."
 * This is an idea many people here have, but as argued by at least one author, the opposite is actually true. NZ has practically no rights of control over the affairs of CK and Niue, while the US has a lot of control over the territorial waters of its associated states. Don't let preconceptions fool you. Ladril (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"In what manner is lichtenstein not fully soveriegn?"
 * If you read history, you'll find that Liechtenstein, like practically all the other European microstates, has always depended on the protection of a larger power (until 1919 Austria, after 1919 Switzerland). Liechtenstein is bound by treaty to the postal and economic regulations of Switzerland and Swiss law applies there as well. Its existence as a sovereign state was questioned because of this and it wasn't universally regarded as a state until it was accepted as a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice in 1949 (I think). Likewise, Monaco was bound by treaty until 2002 to align its foreign policy with French interests. Ladril (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you know anything about the history of Liechtenstein you'll know that at one time it was one of the most powerful soveriegn houses in Germany, Liechtenstien as a soveriegn entity has existed for much longer than Switzerland has. Liechtenstien has always been regarded as a fully soveriegn state under international law. In fact thats why the house of Lichtenstien purchased it in the first place to have territory free from any obligation to the Holy Roman Emperor. Liechtenstien has always made its own foriegn policy decisions, it just so happens that they have decided to align these decisions in modern times quite closely with Switzerland but for most of its history that was not the case at all.XavierGreen (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment was not meant to sound arrogant. My point is that historical fact states that Liechtenstein has not always been universally accepted as a sovereign state, as stated several times here . Most of the European microstates do not fit exactly into the classic definition of sovereignty, because they have arrangements where other states intervene in their affairs. This is something that is sourced, and your objections to the sovereignty of associated states are not the only ones that exist. Ladril (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"The Swiss-Lichtenstien border is considered internal to Switzerland, there is no border control between the two states."

I think this is erroneus. There is a customs union, meaning the border is not economically closed. But it exists as a political border. Still, all that has been argued goes to show that a definition of a "sovereign state" and a "dependency" is not the same from the point of view of all states. Ladril (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's more than an open border between the two states, since there are Swiss guards patrolling the Austrian-Lichtenstien border. I'm not suggesting there is no political border between the two states, just that there is no border control here.  Switzerland's border control encompasses both Switzerland and Lichtenstein.  That being said, this point isn't important to the current debate, so there's not any point agonizing over it.
 * As for CFA versus CI/Niue status, perhaps I shouldn't have been so definitive. But the point stands.  There are many types of dependencies, and none are the same.  TDL (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"there are Swiss guards patrolling the Austrian-Lichtenstien border."

My understanding is that this happens because part of the arrangements between Switzerland and Liechtenstein mean that the former takes charge of the defense of the latter. In this respect and others you may argue that in reality Liechtenstein exists as an associated state of Switzerland, but this is original research. Ladril (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no defense agreement with Switzerland, you wont be able to find any government documents about it because it doesn't exist although some encyclopedias and factbooks may state otherwise.XavierGreen (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe there is no written agreement, but it does seem indeed that Switzerland provides defense of the borders. Liechtenstein does not have an army of its own. Ladril (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As I tried to show in my initial response - there is another map showing the opposite thing (e.g. that CI/Niue are independent). Even if we consider both maps equally trustworthy - then we have a "tie" and we should look at other sources (we have plenty in the previous CI/Niue discussions). But the maps are not equal - as I had explained in my initial comment - and I provided multiple examples why the map showing CI/Niue as independent is more trustworthy. I would not object to call both maps "equal" (thus ignoring both of them), but nobody has provided explanation why should we consider the map showing CI/Niue as "(N.Z.)" should be considered more trustworthy than the other.

About the topic itself - some people say "ample evidence that in other respects, the Cook Islands and Niue do not function as fully independent entities" - what other respects? I haven't seen in the sources any (besides shared citizenship) fields of non-independence. Could somebody show us in what other policies the CI/Niue are non-independent? Alinor (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About the CFA treaties vs. CI/Niue independence. CI/Niue independence is established in their constitutions, in acts of CI/Niue/NZ parliaments, in other official documents and agreements signed between CI/Niue/NZ governments (the Joint Centenial Declaration between CI and NZ is one example). So the situation seems very similar if not the same. Alinor (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My entire point of showing the map i posted was to prove that the UN is quite often contradictory in its statements, and cannot be regarded as a purely reliable source. The UN itself states that it cannot recognize a state, yet many here have used evidence of the page showing the two associated states as non-member states as evidence that the UN somehow recognizes them as states.XavierGreen (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The map you posted proves only that CI/Niue have a special relationship with NZ, nothing more, nothing less. You can't draw conclusions which aren't explicitly stated in your sources.  That's a textbook example of OR.  The other map states that CI/Niue are Non-member states (a claim which is backed up by numerous other documents).  Thus, there is no contradiction between the sources.

The UN can't recognize states, but they can decide which entities to treat as states. CI is invited to sign treaties by the UN open only to sovereign states, while disputed/dependent territories such as Taiwan, Somaliland, Greenland, Puerto Rico are not. There is a distinction made. TDL (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, where does it say they are only open to sovereign states?Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xavier, let's communicate. First of all, both of the maps being mentioned explicitly state that their designations should not be used as endorsements or official positions about the political status of any entity. The first map should not be used as proof that CK and Niue are states. It, however, lead us to investigate why a UN document would label them as states, and so we researched and found the rest of the information. What is a fact, as proven by at least two sources on this page, is that the UN regards them as states capable of entering into relations with other states (this is, BTW, they don't belong in a "de facto states" section, as some are arguing). This is referenced in statements by the Secretary-General of the UN. Different maps can indeed be contradictory (I have worked for UN agencies and know that they outsource a lot of their work, this is why inconsistencies can creep in from document to document). However as evidence of the UN's position we have unambiguous statements by one the UN's highest authorities. Ladril (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of determining statehood, the UN's highest authorities are not always accurate. For example Belarus and Ukraine were treated for most of the UN's history as soveriegn states, but in reality no country on earth recognized them as such.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xavier, for starters, membership of the UN is open "to peace-loving states...". Being a member means the UN system considers you a state. As said many times before, the USSR was a Confederation, which meant its constituent republics had the nominal right to an international personality. Ladril (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominal being the key word ;) They all recognized each other I believe. Additionally, some Commonwealth dominions were allowed in, when they may not have been completely sovereign. Really grey area here. Anyway, being a member of the UN means you are a state, but the entire system? Red Cross is a member of the UN system. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "UN system" refers to organizations part of the UN. Includes the General Assembly, the Security Council, UNESCO, the IMF, the International Labour Organization, the World Bank, etc. The International Commitee of the Red Cross is a private organization incorporated in Switzerland and not part of the system. As an organization it participates in the General Assembly as an observer but is not a UN organization. Ladril (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I replied hastily and did not reflect on the essence of your (Xavier's) argument. Your appreciation may be correct in terms of diplomatic recognition, but both Byelorussia and Ukraine, while being Soviet republics, interacted as sovereign states by means of multilateral treaties (see here and,  for example). Even though I personally think they were little but puppets of the Soviet regime, legally they participated in the international system as states. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually two ways a polity could become a member of the United Nations, the first was simply to be a founding member of the charter, something which did not require statehood. For example British India and the Phillipines were both members of the UN before becoming independent. The second process and the one currently used is the one you described. It might be also interesting to note that not all states meet the prerequisits for Un membership. As you stated above, blatently exapansionist states are not allowed membership in the UN. That would mean that several soveriegn entities extant in the past would not be allowed membership regardless of their recogniton status. Statehood and UN membership are not the same thing, though i think much of the conversation here has alluded to the fact that you must be recognized by the UN to be a state.XavierGreen (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has tried to make the claim that statehood and UN membership are the same thing, or that a state needs to be "recognized" by the UN to become a state. Clearly this is not the case.  However, that is the position taken by the status quo criteria, by restricting the main list to UN members and observers.  As you point out above, this is not a good criteria since sovereign states could be kept out for political reasons.  Hence, the need to find a better alternative.  TDL (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Being a UN member has always meant you get state treatment by the international community (and that goes for British India and the Commonwealth of the Philippines as well). But that's a digression from the original discussion. What is being discussed is whether the UN's point of view on statehood is valid. Well, for starters, whether one state or entity regards another as a state is a matter of policy, not of scientific truth. True, the UN and their policies only represent one point of view in this debate, but it is a significant viewpoint described in reliable sources, and as such is encyclopedic material. Ladril (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

More information about Niue's statehood
In this article, Niue is referred to as a sovereign state:.

And China states that Niue was "formerly a dependency of New Zealand". . Ladril (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

NZ-CI relations
here NZ submits note to a UN continental shelf commission about potential overlap of its zone (Tokelau part) with that of CI. Clearly Tokelau is "part of NZ" and CI is "foreign entity" (at least in the topic of borders - one of the defining features of the states). If both Tokelau and CI were part of NZ - they would resolve the border issue "internally" (like border issues between different US states). Alinor (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

More Cook Islands background
A source: [] 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Ladril (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue info
Niue's government refers to itself as a "sovereign nation" here:. Ladril (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooooh...  Night w   09:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But here is something supporting your argument.  Night w   14:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to the archiver - please put this in the CI and Niue section. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands was a state participant in UN Conferences according to this source:. Ladril (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Niue has full control over its domestic and external affairs according to this source:. Ladril (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why CI and Niue are not included is beyond me. This discussion has been going on for about as long as the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a DUCK! Stop calling it a platypus. Name one thing that any commonly accepted country can do that the Cook Islands and Niue cannot. The only sticking point with the UN appears to be the lack of citizenship. The fact that New Zealand itself recognizes the monarch of another country complicates things. Both the Cook Islands and Niue title her the Queen of New Zealand, not the Queen of CI/Niue. The associated states of the US did not have this problem. They all had definitive heads of state. A lot of this however is semantics. Both entities function as independent countries in every way. Hell, New Zealand has said this. You'd think more people would listen to them, seeing as they're the ones who owned the islands in the first place. Someone I think very aptly compared it to Serbia recognizing Kosovo. Diplomatically, NZ treats both as seperate countries. Not that we didn't already have a crapload of official documents supporting the view of CI/Niue as independent countries, but the EU's interinstitutional style guide treats then as such . Territories are listed but are highlighted in gray and italicized. But you'll note that neither CI nor Niue is highlighted. Niue is in fact given the official title of "Republic of Niue". In the notes section, both are referred to as "self-governing in free association with New Zealand". While the term "self-governing" is somewhat ambiguous, they aren't referred to as territories of, but in free-association with (not of) NZ. And to be honest, it there was such a thing as Cook Islands or Niuean citizenship, I don't think there'd even be a debate. -- Watch  For Storm Surge ! § eb 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a precision: the UN Assembly regards CK and Niue as sovereign states and many of the specialized agencies (which are international organizations in their own right) do the same. Ladril (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ACP group of states lists both the Cook Islands and Niue as member states:. Ladril (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue statehood
http://www.una.org.uk/mun/index20.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.49.93 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A seminal document about the Cook Islands
http://www.cookislands.de/files/ci_voyage_to_statehood.pdf

Comparison between CK/Niue and Aruba
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/11003/12/05.pdf

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/11003/14/03.pdf

niue and cook islands
the article itself under new zealand says that they are sovereign, i beg that you include them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.88.127 (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about that here, but it's on hold until the other discussion about sorting criteria is finalized here. Alinor (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue described as sovereign here
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34086.pdf Ladril (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

More info
[] Ladril (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

More info on the constitutional relationship
Ladril (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Niue discussed as a state here
(click on expand under "John Quigley"). Ladril (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands described as an independent state here
Ladril (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue RFC
The Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing associated states in free association with New Zealand. Over the last few years they have developed their own international personality and have diplomatic relations with several states. They participate as full members in several international organizations, treaties and conventions.

Should they be added as full entries to the List of sovereign states? Ladril (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would suggest that the key question here is with respect to the inclusion criteria. For anyone unfamiliar, these are that an entity to be included must either:
 * Have declared independence and be often regarded (by reliable sources) as having control over a permanently populated territory, or
 * Be recognised as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state (and presumably there must at least be a chain back to one that meets the first criterion).
 * A few years ago, I said that I felt that I was not clear as to whether the criteria in place at the time were met or not. Clearly, this doesn't necessarily apply now as the criteria themselves have changed.


 * The former, I believe, is not met because these two have never declared independence (unless the situation has dramatically changed since I last looked). Neither has New Zealand, France or China, but they all meet the second criterion.  In this case, I am unclear about that, but the point does not seem difficult to confirm either way: either they have been formally diplomatically recognised as sovereign states by an entity that meets the criteria or they have not.  If they have, they must go in.  I have not been paying a lot of attention to this discussion, so I can't remember: are there any reliable sources that confirm the point either way? Pfainuk talk 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly those factors must be looked at, but we should not overlook that the reliable sources guidelines, which state that information must come from reliable third-party sources. Statements by primary actors involved in international relations are valuable, but they are not third-party sources, and as such must be treated with care. What qualifies as a reliable third-party source? A document by a third-party academic or scholar, analyzing the case and providing a reasoned conclusion. Ladril (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been archiving all the stuff you've collected on this to /Cook Islands and Niue, for anyone interested in reading over it.  Night w   01:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that our inclusion criteria are quite narrowly worded on these two points and do not leave scope for such analysis. There is, I believe, good reason for this - to avoid grey areas for one thing.  If consensus arises that the inclusion criteria should be changed then that's one thing.  But in my view, a line has to be drawn somewhere and that somewhere should be at the inclusion criteria stated by the article: this to avoid these two becoming precedents for other entities that we would agree (but others might not) are inappropriate.  That said, I will leave this here so as to avoid discouraging input from those less involved.  (FWIW the page Night w helpfully provides contains the string "recogni" 576 times, and I haven't sifted through them looking for references.) Pfainuk talk 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here through the RFC & Feedback request service - I agree with Pfainuk. If he hadn't commented, I would have just said that the summary argument by Ladril presents no sources to evaluate. II  | (t - c) 03:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True to your name, sir, you are misinformed. Here is the link to the depository of sources that Ladril has been collecting over this past year. Thanks,  Night w   05:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does any of this mean that there is somewhere I can vote on whether CI and Niue get on the list? I did read the long historical disns. around the point and I take it that there will have to be a vote before they go on the list. Thanks for putting the archive together. Its a good source on the topic and I would like to essentially "vote". NelsonSudan (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, WHAT?
The Cook Islands is a member of 7 specialized agencies, Niue of 5. Kosovo is a member of 2. I'm not disputing sovereignty here - indicative is that no country claims sovereignty over the Cook Islands and Niue, most obviously not New Zealand - but what is this silly distinction if Kosovo is a non-member state member of specialized agencies, when the Cook Islands and Niue are explicitly recognized as (non-member) states by the UN and are full sovereign members of several more specialized agencies than Kosovo (itself a member only of agencies which group economies, not sovereign states, as full members)? It's an awful, artificial distinction with overt political aims. Why has it remained for so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.169.174 (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cook Islands and Niue do not claim to be independent states, kosovo does.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the CIA, Niue is independent, but the Cook Islands are not. Independence on October 19 1974.  Even the UN recognizes them as non-UN member states (THEREFORE, Independent states not a member of the UN. 72.229.142.10 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anon IP, until you have built a consensus for including either or both Niue and Cook Islands, do not add them to the article. This has been the subject of much discussion and no consensus has ever been definitively reached.  Build your consensus before adding the material.  And a consensus does not consist of you making a comment, waiting a few minutes, and adding the material since no one said anything.  --Taivo (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * CI and Niue haven't declared independence but are recognized as such by NZ and some other sovereign states, if there isn't a consensus, we must include Niue and CI in a special section as many wikipedians as well as some sovereign states recognize them as such, the section must include notes why CI and Niue should or shouldn't be considered sovereign states Captain armenia (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the requirements for a state to be listed on this page is for it to consider itself independent. Enities such as Hamas controlled Gaza, Puntland, and Tamil Elam have never been included because they did not claim to be independent, even though they acted like and for all purposes were defacto indepednent states. If a polity does not claim indepenence it cannot be added to the list, even if it is defacto independent.XavierGreen (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do remember Tamil Elam being included at one time. But you're right of course - since Niue and CI do not consider themselves independent, they should not be included on the list (at least, not under the current criteria).Evzob (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 184.144.169.174: the Cook Islands and Niue are associated states of New Zealand with full international personality (i.e. the capacity to enter into international treaties and to conduct diplomatic relations with other states). They are special cases of sovereignty which definitely deserve a place on the list, despite insistence to the contrary by users who do not understand their status. Ladril (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Capacity to enter into international treaties is not part of the currently stated criteria for inclusion of this list. I can understand the argument that a list such as this should include states such as Niue and the Cook Islands; however, then we must first change the criteria for inclusion, which have presumably been agreed upon based on long-term consensus. Evzob (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because that part of the article is badly made, but good luck trying to get the regular patrons to listen to reasons. Ladril (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Capacity to enter international treaties (as opposed to the fact of actually having entered into one) is near-impossible to judge objectively in the general case. I was not party to the discussion that changed the inclusion criteria a little while ago (at least so far as I recall), but I would consider this to be a major flaw.
 * That said, Ladril did point me to these sources which demonstrate formal diplomatic recognition of the Cook Islands as a sovereign state by Japan and the Netherlands. Here is one that I found for Japan.  So far as I am concerned, these sources are sufficient to demonstrate that the Cook Islands meet inclusion criterion (b). Pfainuk talk 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cook Islands are state which comply with the criteria (b). It is evident. I don´t understand, that Cook Islands are not on page list. Cook Islands are de iure recognized as sovereign and independent state by number of states. For example, also Czech Republic de iure recognized Cook Islands as independent state (on 12.5.2008). I asked to be sure Czech Embassy in Canberra, if on 12.5.2008 (when was signed Joint statement on establishment of diplomatic relations between Czech Republic and Cook Islands) Czech Republic recognized Cook Islands (by this statement). Czech Embassy answered me in writing (by e-mail), YES, Czech Republic de iure RECOGNIZED on 12.5.2008 Cook Islands as INDEPENDENT state. Again, Cook Islands comply with the criteria (b). Jan CZ (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Capacity to enter international treaties (as opposed to the fact of actually having entered into one) is near-impossible to judge objectively in the general case." No, it is fully verifiable. The depositary of a treaty usually screens entities who submit instruments of accession to treaties and conventions. The Cook Islands and Niue have passed this litmus test in the past; other entities (such as Palestine) have been rejected. Ladril (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is something official from the CK government if you need still more: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/32/44442250.pdf Ladril (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Niue and Cook Islands
Okay, we have been going on waaay to long about this, we have mixed.sources, that's okay. I know Google says Niue is independent, and other sources say its part of NZ, we should have a vote on whether we add Niue and the Cook Islands, or not. I highly recommended we do so. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not sovergein states by definition; I oppose their inclusion. (I was once open to CI's inclusion, but I now see both cases are nearly the same, if this is to start again, it'll be another long road). Outback the koala (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am against inclusion of Niue and Cook Islands. Reason: they do not define themselves as independendent countries. It is impossible to be an independent country without having at least its own citizenship, and neither Niue nor Cook Islands have their own citizenship, residents of both territories are NZ citizens. Please note that in all other similar cases when a country de facto doesnt have its own foreign and military policy, there is an own citizenship. For example Palau, Marshall Islands and the Federation of Micronesia de facto are under the power of the USA in matters of foreign diplomacy and defense, yet these countries have their own citizenships, residents are not US citizens. I think that the presence or lack of a separate citizenship is a sure sign whether a country is independent or not. Note that all "unrecognized countries" (Kosovo, Abhazia, etc.) all have their own separate citizenship. --maxval (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What the sources we have say is that statehood does not require full independence. A state can exist in a relationship of association to another state and remain a separate subject of international law. This is what the concept of 'free association' implies in the case of Cook and Niue. Separate citizenship is not a requirement either: the states of the French Union were associated to France and did not have their own separate citizenship, yet none argued they were not states. Ladril (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a list of states; nor is it a list of countries; nor is it a list of entities that claim "sovereignty", but do not exercise independence. The Native American tribes of the U.S. are legally "sovereign nations", but they do not exercise independence.  Scotland and Wales are legally "countries", but they do not exercise independence.  You have mentioned other entities that are legally "sovereign", but nevertheless do not exercise independence.  Were we to make the issue of "sovereignty" slippery, then this list loses its meaning.  One of the primary requirements for inclusion in this list is the concept of independence.  That is what this list is about--regions that claim sovereign independence from all other regions of the world.  That independence includes the notion of separate citizenship.  If a region's people are citizens of a larger, superordinate unit, then you cannot make the argument that they are independent.  --Taivo (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it is easier to reason with the Emirate of Abyan than it is with several editors here, but I'll still say what needs to be said.


 * That the Cook Islands and Niue have some peculiar characteristics does not disqualify them from being considered indepedent states. This is what is said here []. "Citizenship used to mean an allegiance to the head of state, which would conflict with the idea of establishing a separate state, but this appears to be an outdated view. Anyway, it did not prevent the UN from welcoming several former French and British colonies as members during the 1950s and 1960s while they did not have a separate nationality". And here: "Thus, as far as the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands is concerned, the Cook Islands seems to have been recognized as a fully sovereign independent state" [].


 * I do have the academic sources to back my claims up. This is verifiability, not hearsay. Ladril (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there were only 4 countries accepted to the UN without their own citizenship: India was accepted 2 years before becoming independent from the UK, the Phillipines was accepted 1 year before becoming independent from the US, and the weird cases of Ukraine and Belarus. --maxval (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. The French Union countries had only French citizenship, and even then they were admitted into the UN. Ladril (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot these cases! You are right. So one possible conclusion is: not all members of the UN were at all times independent countries. Other possible conclusion: own citizenship is not a requirement for being an independent country. --maxval (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I've read political theorists say (you don't have to take it at face value) is: citizenship is a consequence, not a prerequisite of statehood. Ladril (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Indians and Filipinos did not have full citizenship of their controlling country? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the digression necessary at this point? Ladril (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cook Islands and Niue belong in the list if, and only if, in each case it can be demonstrated that they:
 * "have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory", or
 * "are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".
 * Because those are stated the inclusion criteria for this list. Questions of citizenship and other matters unrelated to those two criteria are irrelevant. Pfainuk talk 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think it is a good idea to discuss the points being raised by others. We are all here to learn something, and the issue is complex. Ladril (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just skip the independence question and focus on recognition. You do have sources that show they have been recognised as independent, sovereign states, don't you?  Night w   02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear to most users that CK and Niue are recognized as independent states by several others. The question being asked at this point is "why is a state which is usually described as not independent recognized as such?". This is the question we're trying to engage here. Ladril (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue inclusion
Given their status as separate subjects of international law, should Cook Islands and Niue be included in the list of sovereign states? Ladril (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion began in a previous section but can be continued here. Ladril (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources which back up the claim that Cook Islands and Niue can be regarded as independent states:

1. Masahiro Igarashi. "Associated Statehood under International Law". Ladril (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 2. Andrew Townend. "The Strange Death of the Realm of New Zealand". Ladril (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC) You can find a pdf version here 3. Statement by the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. Ladril (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 4. Tony Angelo. "The Cook Islands/New Zealand". Ladril (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 5. S. Hillebrink. "Different modes of political decolonization". Ladril (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 6. Niue Annual Abstract of Statistics. Ladril (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 7. Summary of Practice of the United Nations (p. 24). Ladril (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Another version here: Ladril (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC) 8. The Cook Islands: A Voyage to Statehood. Ladril (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 9. Some diplomatic recognitions of the Cook Islands. . Ladril (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC) 10. The Cook Islands Unique International and Constitutional Status Ladril (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I have noted before, all of this is irrelevant except inasmuch as it demonstrates that they meet the inclusion criteria stated in the article. In other words, that:
 * the Cook Islands or Niue "have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory", or
 * the Cook Islands or Niue "are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".
 * So far as I can see, none of those sources do this.


 * If we're deciding that even we aren't going to follow the inclusion criteria, it seems to me that we have no basis on which to suggest that others shouldn't also ignore them. There are plenty of cases out there that fail our criteria that others might want to include (even though we might all agree that they don't belong).  If we're ignoring the criteria for the Cook Islands and Niue, why on earth shouldn't we also ignore the criteria for Sealand?


 * That said, so far as I'm concerned, the case for including the Cook Islands has already been proven based on the inclusion criteria. I await with interest similar proof for Niue. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out why I see the criteria different than you do. This is a social science topic. It cannot be approached in the same way you would a physics topic: "in order to be called something, body X must have the following properties: a, b, c and d". What social sciences do is to describe practices of human beings. Reality is that, even though entities such as the Holy See and Palestine may not meet the criteria for statehood as set out in a document, they have been treated as states at least by a subset of the international community and thus meet the encyclopedic definition of what a state is. This is why a discussion of whether Cook and Niue can be considered states must take into account the practices of other states in relation to them. This is what the sources above do. Ladril (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfainuk, It's a tough call to go one and not the other as I have found with my own reasoning. The case for the Cook Islands and the case for Nuie is so similar, because of their legal position with regards to NZ and the Realm of NZ, that to separate them into different issue would be both problematic and senseless. If we put CI on the list then it is a very slipery slope to keep Nuie off it as well, regardless of proof. I do not beleive there is proof to show that Nuie is a sovereign state (whether it is "independent" or not). Outback the koala (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Been treated as states at least by a subset of the international community " is also a hard criteria once you decide what constitutes a sufficient subset, and of course avoid bootstrapping, by defining the international community to exclude micronations which would probably be glad to mutually recognise each other. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm uncomfortable with the definition of "micronation" adopted by Wikipedia. I prefer the terms "eccentric states" and "Internet states". But there does seem to be a consensus in the literature as to what states can be considered serious (the ones on this list) and what states are nothing more than eccentric claims. Ladril (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that yes, for the most part those criteria you ennumerate may be helpful in identifying the majority of states, even the vast majority of them. But the correct way to do things in an encyclopedia is to let reliable, third party sources tell us that international actors have viewed certain entities as states. That should be the guiding principle, not our own original research. Ladril (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ladril is correct. Unfortuenetly our opinion, even if based on original research does not matter. So if we can find sources using your criteria that would work.MilkStraw532 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't my criteria, and it's not my opinion. Both those criteria are direct quotes from the article: they are the criteria that define the list.  We can't announce, this is how we define what entities belong on the list and which don't - and then say, oh by the way, we've decided we want these two in as well even though we've just defined them as not belonging.  That's where the opinions and original research are coming in here: in the proposal that our opinions should trump the inclusion criteria stated in the article. Pfainuk talk 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria in the article aren't original research, but are based on one common model of statehood (can't remember which one). As I recall from previous discussions, the other major model is much more difficult to verify, so we have consistently used this one.  --Taivo (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria are not "research" at all. They are rules chosen and defined by Wikipedians. I presume they are inspired by common models of statehood, but the fact remains that, as Pfainuk says, they are the criteria; which means that if our definition is flawed, then we need to revise the criteria, not make additions to the list in contravention to it. All that said, would it be acceptable for us to put a separate section at the end of the article for "Cases whose compliance with the criteria is questionable" (or hopefully something that sounds cooler than that)? I think that would be nearly a win-win solution in regards to this debate, and I think it makes good sense from an encyclopedic point of view - users will want to know if there are some cases that are left out of the list because they are in a gray area in respect to the criteria. Evzob (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria are the Declarative theory of statehood and the Constitutive theory of statehood, without any deviation whatsoever.  Night w   11:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is original research when an editor chooses to determine by herself, based on chosen criteria, whether an entity fulfills the requirements to be a state. But the reality is, if one day some states decide to recognize the Islamic religion as a state - as they have already done for the Catholic Church, calling it the Holy See - then we would have to add it to the article, criteria or not. We cannot impose our criteria on reality; since we're dealing with human topics here, we have to think like historians, not engineers. But let's get back to the topic of Cook Islands and Niue, please. Ladril (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion that we include "questionable" category was made with Cook Islands and Niue specifically in mind, since there does not seem to be any consensus on whether they meet the criteria. Evzob (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a list of sovereign states. Sovereign means "having supreme, independent authority". Since NZ has the ability (not always exercised, but still potential) to conduct foreign relations for them, CI and Niue are not sovereign and should not be on this list. --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not unique in international relations. Switzerland conducts many of Liechtenstein's diplomatic relations, for example. A state can agree to have some prerogatives delegated to another without ceasing to be a state. Also, a treaty signed by NZ does not apply to Cook and Niue if not ratified by their respective legislatures. Ladril (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that there are several states which can have parts of their affairs under the responsibility of other states but they do not lose their status under international law because of it (Monaco, Bhutan, Liechtenstein, the Associated States of the USA). So as discussed in several of the texts being presented, the responsibilities of New Zealand regarding its associated states would not constitute a limit on their statehood. Ladril (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Evzob: there is no rush to add them as separate entries to the article. What worries me is that there seems to be too much emphasis on them as if they were colonies of New Zealand, which they are not. This is the view I'm trying to challenge here. Ladril (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity (I have no strong feelings about this), if this debate is not about whether to include them on the list, then why are we having it here? Also, I think you have exaggerated a bit in describing the positions of other contributors. I don't think anyone is saying that Niue and CI are colonies - only that they lack complete de jure, and perhaps de facto, independence (this may make them "dependent territories" of NZ in a small sense, but that's a long shot from "colonies". Evzob (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I say there is no rush, I mean we should be focusing on making it as clear as possible why CK and Niue fit the definition of "sovereign state", not just on adding them ASAP. The reason for this is that we can agree to add them here, but since there are hundreds or thousands of pages which depend on having a clear list of sovereign states, there won't be much point in adding them here if their addition is going to cause confusion in other parts of the encyclopedia. This is why we must try to reach a common understanding about the issue that will be acceptable to the project as a whole.


 * Regarding your second issue, I don't think the definition you are presenting does not describe the status of the Cook Islands and Niue adequately. It may describe accurately an entity like Puerto Rico, which has an ambiguous "not a colony, not a state" status, but CK and Niue are much closer to independent statehood. Most users are getting entangled in the peculiarities of the legal language adopted by NZ, Cook Islands and Niue to describe their own relationship. But the facts remain that:

::::::::2. All the entities in question have agreed that the free association relationship grants New Zealand no rights of control and is not a qualification of CI and Niue's statehood. ::::::::3. That New Zealand has not executive, legislative or judicial authority whatsoever in its associated states. ::::::::4. With the full consent of New Zealand, CI and Niue have developed their own international personalities so that they engage in diplomatic relations and sign international treaties and conventions in their own right. ::::::::5. Relations between New Zealand and its associated states are conducted according to diplomatic practice, and ambassadors are exchanged between New Zealand and its associated states. ::::::::6. The Cook Islands and Niue have been accepted as full members of UN Specialized Agencies, such as the WHO and UNESCO. The UN Secretary-General considered their membership amounts to acceptance as states by the international community and permits them to sign multilateral treaties. ::::::::7. That other states treat them on a basis of equality. See for example. ::::::::8. That according to the Joint Communiqué, "Responsibility at international law rests with the Cook Islands in terms of its actions and the exercise of its international rights and fulfillment of its international obligations". .


 * When you take all the above evidence into account, plus the analysis of their status in international law available in external sources, it is clear that the "free association" relationship does not mean that these two polities are subordinated to New Zealand, but that it is a sui generis arrangement that in practice means the Cook Islands and Niue enjoy, so to speak, assisted independence. It is a self-determination arrangement that works for small territories that do not have the resources to function in a fully independent way. It's not a protectorate or colonial relationship. They deserve to be in the list of states because they are sovereign. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You argue that:


 * "It is original research when an editor chooses to determine by herself, based on chosen criteria, whether an entity fulfills the requirements to be a state."


 * Maybe. But it seems to me that such a statement describes your arguments far better than it describes mine.  I am deliberately not making any direct comment about whether the Cook Islands and Niue fulfil the requirements of statehood - though that is what you seem to be doing.  I consider that question to be resolved by the inclusion criteria by which we have chosen to define the list.  If the inclusion criteria need changing, fine - but note that WP:SAL requires that they be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources".


 * Given that the list is defined by inclusion criteria that are largely unambiguous and objective, it seems to me that it is not credible to suggest that it is original research to request sources that demonstrate that those criteria are met for any prospective entry. Asking for a source that demonstrates the claim that you wish the article to make (that the Cook Islands and Niue either have declared independence and control permanently populated territory, or are diplomatically recognised by another sovereign state) would seem to be a reasonably basic part of Wikipedia policy - no more OR than asking for a reference in an article.  And because the inclusion criteria are unambiguous and objective, anyone can look at any source and verify whether it demonstrates that the criteria are met. Pfainuk talk 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not make the observation about the inclusion criteria to criticize your position. The point was that, even when an entity seems to fit the set criteria, it may require an additional understanding of the historical context to determine whether it really is a state or not. What some other users are saying is that we should go beyond saying: "if it is recognized, just add it". I understand their reservations, and this is why we're trying to determine why the Cook Islands and Niue, which have been perceived as under the aegis of NZ, are being recognized as sovereign by several governments in the world. That's what I think is not clear to most editors yet. Ladril (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see evidence in the case of Niue for the statement that it is "recognized as sovereign by several governments in the world". I would be very interested in seeing such evidence. Pfainuk talk 14:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I am still against inclusion of CI and Niue. My reason is still the same: they have no own citizenship. It is true that in the past there were independent countries without their own citizenship, but now all UN members have their own citizenship. Why Niue and CI are not in the UN? Actually Niue and CI are something between an independent country and a dependent territory. --maxval (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Both arguments are slippery.


 * 1. The states in question have argued that they have the intention of joining the UN in the future. This statement of intention means they regard themselves as sovereign. Also, unlike the states in the "other states" section, they are considered full-fledged states in a plethora of UN documents.


 * 2.The citizenship question is also difficult to use as a counter-argument, because there are states that previously did not recognize these two because they did not have a separate citizenship, and now they do (Japan is a case in point).


 * The problem in relation to the article is that, despite the fact that the free association relationship means something between full independence and dependent status in legal terms, the Cook Islands and Niue have attained a sufficient degree of both internal and external sovereignty to be considered independent states in international law. The question then remains: how to deal with them in the article? Ladril (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what my answer to that question is, so I won't detail it again.


 * What I would however note is that another issue with using citizenship as a defining quality of a sovereign state is the existence of European citizenship - and to a lesser extent Commonwealth citizenship. Neither the EU nor the Commonwealth, I would suggest, belong on this list. Pfainuk talk 14:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * European citizenship is an "added" citizenship that gives a standard European issue of rights, it does not take away from natonal citizenship but suppliments it . The issueing of national citizenship that is recognised on an international level would show that one or more soveriegn states recognises that the issueing nation exists and therefore coud be used .Murry1975 (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A lack of citizenship is a very common factor among absolute monarchies, where the monarch is essentially the state and thus his people are subjects rather than citizens. In some middle eastern monarchies one can live their entire life in the state without ever being a citizen or having the rights of a citizen.XavierGreen (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Would Canada, Australia and NZ be qualifed between 1931 and 1982/1986? Although the Statute of Westminster Act of 1931, the three parliaments aren't fully sovereign until 1982/1986. And no separate citizenships were created until decades after 1931. 119.237.249.129 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The problem is that it is very difficult to find an exact list of prerequisites for statehood that all states could have fulfilled at all times, even if there are users who think that such a list exists. This is why international law deals with what states have done in practice, i. e. if Palestine and the Cook Islands have been treated as states they deserve a place on the list, in spite of not meeting all the usual characteristics of statehood. Ladril (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: it is usually considered that Canada became a sovereign state in 1931 (though the British Parliament retained considerable authority in the country) but there was not a separate Canadian citizenship until the Citizenship Act of 1947. Ladril (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think most of us by now have a pretty clear idea of the specifics of Niue and CI's situation. I suggest that the next steps should be to (1) ensure that the articles for Niue and CI describe the nuances of their situations and include any verifiable information that we have discussed as relevant here; and (2) discuss whether or not the two entities qualify for the inclusion criteria of this list. That is the end goal of this discussion, and I think we've gotten as far as we can discussing their actual sovereignty situation without making the connection to our list criteria. Evzob (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So do we add them or not? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 05:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't seem to have a consensus on that - but should at least be discussing whether they meet the criteria rather than whether they're sovereign states according to some other criteria. Evzob (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Time for common points. As a summary for statelike attributes, are we all agreed they have ambassadorial relationships, full political independence, and have signed on to many state conventions? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a 90% agreement about your point, Chipmunkdavis. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 05:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So are having a discussion about the criteria for Niue and the CI or not? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 17:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Niue described as sovereign here
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/13026/v7n1-155-159-politicalrev.pdf?sequence=1 Ladril (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Niue and Cook Islands
Ok, are we adding them or not? We just stopped the discussion because of a territorial dispute! People, are we going to discuss a problem that is 1+ years, or are we going to wait undecided again? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion kinda ran out of steam with no clear consensus for inclusion. Sometimes discussions here do this.


 * If it can be demonstrated that the Cook Islands and Niue each individually pass the inclusion criteria specified by the article, then they should go on the list. If it cannot be so demonstrated, then they must not go on the list.  The inclusion criteria are not ambiguous and should not be difficult to source, and there's no reason why we should not follow them. Pfainuk talk 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen a few sources showing the recognition of the Cook Islands as a state. So... to not add it would be going against the inclusion criteria. There's a lot to figure out before adding it though, such as what the dispute column would show — I think I also saw some sources posted that showed explicit non-recognition. Perhaps someone can repost them right here for reference? I don't know about Niue.  Night w   22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Either way, I agree that there is no consensus to add them to the list at this time. @Nightw - I also would like to see those sources. Outback the koala (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How about a "Level of Sovereignty Disputed" section?--Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * China recognized sovereignty od Niue. Jan CZ (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The source says Cook Islands, so I moved it. Is there another?  Night w   19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For Niue http://lt.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t391353.htm. Ladril (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this source from Pacnews, quoting Toke Talagi (current Premier of Niue), is also relevant because it refers explicitly to diplomatic recognition. Given both, and also given that the lack of controversy is likely to mean that recognition wouldn't necessarily be picked up by the global media, I think the case is demonstrated per the inclusion criteria.  They both belong, in the second part of the list, with "None" in the sovereignty dispute column (because they are not "claimed in whole by another sovereign state") but with appropriate notes in the notes column. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also one for Niue from India:  Ladril (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I don't see any way around including Cook Islands on the list, since it seems clearly to meet criterion (b). I support adding it. But I do think it would be good if we could work in a note about its unusual situation of not having declared independence. As for Niue, I just looked at the sources you guys posted, and I don't see any explicit mention of recognition other than in the future tense. I'll keep my eye out though. Evzob (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is an issue with two of these sources: this refers to a decided future exchange of ambassadors, which implies but does not state recognition. On the Indian side, this states that Niue is a "sovereign country" but doesn't ascribe that position to any government.


 * This is why I posted the Pacnews one, which quotes Toke Talagi as saying "History will note though that China is the first country to recognise Niue diplomatically formally and I thank the Chinese Government for that honour." I've also found this.  Both prove that the exchange of ambassadors between Niue and China did in fact occur, and both cite Talagi (and note that the latter is a Chinese government source).


 * IMO, we have the Chinese government doing the sorts of things that seem to imply recognition and perfectly happy to cite the Premier of Niue as saying that China formally diplomatically recognises Niue. Neither text use the word "sovereign", but I'm rather inclined to say that this is a technicality, not something that should stand in our way. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. De jure recognition is by nature based on technicalities, and in a list with carefully defined criteria such as this, those technicalities matter. What about Palestine, whose governing body (the PLO) holds officially acknowledged relations with the U.S. and other countries that do not recognize Palestine as a state? I think diplomatic relations do not by themselves imply official recognition. A similar principle was also at work during the recent Libyan uprising, when several major international players established diplomatic relations with the rebel National Transitional Council without officially recognizing it as the legitimate government of the country. Or what about the countries that recognize each other but haven't gotten around to setting up actual relations? What I'm saying is, relations and recognition are independent of each other, even if they typically come together. Evzob (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I say, I would agree in general. But the reason why I cited Pacnews was not to prove that the exchange of ambassadors occurred but because it cites the Premier of Niue outright referring to formal diplomatic recognition of Niue by China.  I'm not saying that evidence of diplomatic relations is enough.  It isn't.  But here we have an clear reference to formal diplomatic recognition.


 * If this reference was made by the government where there was an active dispute such as South Ossetia or Kosovo, I still wouldn't be convinced by this. But this is Niue, where there is no such dispute and no reason for the Premier of Niue to refer to diplomatic recognition where it does not exist.


 * The technicality I refer to is not a lack of a reference to recognition. As I say, we can now reference formal diplomatic recognition of Niue by China.  It's that that the reference to recognition does not refer to Niuean "sovereignty" (though it's worth mentioning that the source that discusses establishment of diplomatic relations does).  To my mind, this omission is not significant. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So the fact that Cook Islands are proven sovereign, what category whould we put it in? I think the limited recognition one because I see maps that say they are part of NZ, but others that show the kind of font that shows they are independent.  We need to find sources for every country. So adding Cook Islands, may I do so? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Isn't it clearly an example of "States with no membership to the UN"? And I think we better wait for the others to chime in before we claim consensus on this. Evzob (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Chiming in: It's still really annoying that all sources jump around the point. The problem here is that there is no clear right answer, and I don't think there is one in real life either. This is all deliberately ambiguous because in real life it is kept ambiguous (I would OR that this is because of the citizenship issue). We have sources noting they are diplomatically recognised, but then again so is SMOM... I wish there was something official clearly saying they were "recognised as states". If they do go in (and frankly there's no point putting in the CI and not Niue), they'd go in nonUN. If they don't, I say we add an explanation in the inclusion criteria section, as this is a truly ambiguous case. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Something from pt.85 of that original source might be ideal for that, marking the point at which it was deemed a state by the UN (there's a more official-looking version here).   Night w   01:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chip, its very annoying that these sources jump around the issue. I want to see clear proof as well that makes the situation seem straight-forward, but the fact is, it is not. And as Chip says, this is deliberately so, and I would agree on this point as well. But why deliberately so? Because Niue is not truely a full sovereign state. The evidence is constantly shifting this way and that - making it so hard to make a determination as to whether inclusion is warrented. The SMOM is extremely troubling in light of this discussion as well. Frankly because of the citizenship, the shared Realm situation, and the obscurity of CI+Niue, I doubt that we will find solid sources ever. We have to go with what we have, which, I do not think is enough for inclusion right now. I'm open to one at a time as new sources come; CI is in a better position as far as proof through sourcing goes, therefore it could be put on the list until clear sources regarding Niue come up. They would be in the NonUN cat. Outback the koala (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that neither polity posseses its own citizenship prevents them from being considered a sovieregn state under any definition. How can a polity claim to be soveriegn when its people are not even citizens or subjects of the state (in this case they are citizens of new zealand and thus subject to new zealand law). Even the SMOM is more of a state in this regard in that it actually does have a limited number of citizens.XavierGreen (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) The question of citizenship, we solved in the past. I have to quote Ladril: "It is usually considered that Canada became a sovereign state in 1931..., but there was not a separate Canadian citizenship until the Citizenship Act of 1947". There is no CI citizenship, it is unusual for a sovereign State, but it does not alter the fact that the CI + N meet the criteria.


 * 2) Japan no looked CI like any sovereign State in the past, because there is no CI citizenship. Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Puna said (after receiving the recognition from Japan), that it was a long work to explain to Japan today status of the Cook Islands (an independent State in a special relationship with the NZ). Japan recognized CI as an independent State rather than from their own reasons, but because the CI time explained the situation and asked for recognition.


 * 3) SMOM is not a State, since it has not its own territory. CI + N are States. If they have sovereignty, they are sovereign states.


 * 4) Some of the anomalies are found, or the limitations of sovereignty exist or existed in various cases, States such as Andorra, Monaco, Bhutan or Palau. It no change the fact, that they meet the criteria. CI + N are special cases. But I think it is clear now that CI + N are "sovereign states with special relationship with NZ", not "states under NZ sovereignty".


 * 5) Sources indicate that the CI + N comply with the criteria. Therefore I´m for the start-up of discussions where on the list and how to describe the CI + N. Jan CZ (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Soveriegnty is not akin to statehood. An individual, a tribe, a non-state actor, a band of nomads can all be soveriegn. For example the various Mediatisated monarchs in the 1800's had no states but were considered to be soveriegn. The Holy See possesed no territory from 1870 to 1929 yet remained a sovierign body in international law. A truely stateless person who is neither a citizen of any country nor the subject of a monarch is also soveriegn under international law. Niue and the Cook Islands have no right to conduct external affairs outside of the authority of the Queen of New Zealand, its stated as such in their constitutions. The relationship between the two polities is therefore that of suzerainty to the Queen of New Zealand.XavierGreen (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The list should be based on the inclusion criteria that define it. Because it is the inclusion criteria that define what belongs on the list and what does not list, any consideration that is unrelated to those inclusion criteria is irrelevant to any discussion on inclusion.  That includes your argument here.


 * On a practical level, if we refuse to include entries that pass the inclusion criteria, we have no right to complain if others then remove other entries that pass the inclusion criteria.


 * If you feel that the inclusion criteria need changing, then by all means start that discussion - though bear in mind that WP:LSC requires that list inclusion criteria be unambiguous, objective and backed up by reliable sources. But while we have the current inclusion criteria, we need to use them. Pfainuk talk 21:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Pfainuk. We can't have an inclusion criteria and then just ignore it when it doesn't agree with our POV.  The only relevant question here is has Cook Islands been "recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".  The evidence seems clear that they have.
 * Also, the Commonwealth itself seems to dispute XavierGreen's argument: "Under the 1965 constitution, Cook Islands is a sovereign state with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state" and "Cook Islands has full constitutional capacity to conduct its own external affairs".   TDL (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Going to this link, in the history section, it states that Cook Islands is a sovereign state. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am much less opposed to the inclusion of the cook islands on the list as i am to Niue, the constitution of Niue states ""Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue", basically granting the queen of new zealand absolute soveriegn power in the regard of niues foriegn affairs.XavierGreen (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "In recognition of constraints imposed by its size and isolation, the Niue Constitution states that New Zealand would retain responsibility for the external affairs and defence of Niue. By convention, these responsibilities confer no rights to the New Zealand Government and can only be acted on at the request of and on behalf of the Government of Niue. The Niue Constitution also commits New Zealand to provide "necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue". Ladril (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The existing criteria are valid, the CI + N are the meet criteria. If someone is against the inclusion of the CI + N on the list, occurs when the discussion about the change in criteria. Can we start-up of discussions where on the list and how to describe the CI + N? Jan CZ (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Japanese source was quite compelling, it's recent and it's form a law school, so one hopes they know what they are talking about. If it does go in Jan CZ, it will go in the Non-UN section (similar to Kosovo). Per norms of our description we would note the shared head of state and free association, although I suppose in this case we would not only note shared persona but shared office, as well as citizenship. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On page 3, there is a comment about Niue being a sovereign state, monarchy, and democracy:  --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The sovereign state comment is basically made through the support of the fact it participates in bilateral treaties and "its description as such in the Letters Patent, constituting the Governor-General of New Zealand (SR 1983/225)". That would be a good letter to see a copy of, if anyone can find it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Xavier that I am much less opposed to the inclusion of CI than Niue. What Pfainuk and Dan says is true. If the sources show it meets critrea than thats it. So include CI - but there are no sources here that show me Niue is a sovereign state, or is recognised as one; and the evidence to the contrary is also clear. They don't seem to be is so similar situations as I has previously beleived. And yes, Jan, CI would be under the nonUN section. Outback the koala (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that strictly based on the inclusion criteria (which as Pfainuk said, we must follow, regardless of external issues), we have a consensus that CI should be included (but not a consensus so far on Niue). I am in favor of adding some kind of special note to explain the situation, as that would an appropriate way to acknowledge the ambiguity of the situation while complying with the criteria. And the reason the SMOM is not included here is because it neither is nor claims to be any type of state, sovereign or not. From the criteria: "For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either..." Evzob (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The assertion that there are no sources supporting that Niue is a sovereign state is false.
 * Read this source . Under "The Nature of the Relationship Between New Zealand and Niue" it states: "Niue is self-governing nation in free association with New Zealand. The United Nations accepted that the choice of the status of free association with another state was an acceptable form of self-determination and equivalent to independence for international law purposes".
 * On pages CRS-25 and CRS-26 of this document Niue is described as an "independent state in free association with New Zealand". Ladril (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Niue is described as an independent state here (p. 23) Ladril (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Constitution of niue states "Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue" so regardless of how many sources you provide there is no possible way under the current law in niue that it can be considered a fully independent state. At best it is suzerain to New Zealand.XavierGreen (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From "The Strange Death of the Realm of New Zealand": "Another term of the free association relationships relates to defence and foreign affairs. Both the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 and the Niue Constitution Act 1974 state that nothing in them or in the Constitutions shall affect "the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand" for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands and Niue.[83] Despite the implication in the word 'responsibilities' that these matters might be beyond the control of the Cook Islands and Niue Governments, the prevailing view is that external affairs and defence powers can only be exercised by New Zealand at their request and on their behalf." Ladril (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you have provided a source stating that it is in the cook islands constitution as well, i now am opposed to including the cook islands inclusion on the same grounds that i oppose niue, that they are merely suzerian states and not fully independent ones. Their constitutions specifically state that the queen of new zealand can do as she pleases with their external affairs and that nothing in the constitution can affect that right. I dont see how it can get any plainer than that.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not so unusual. The constitution of Australia states "Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".  Are you suggesting that Australia should be removed because they're "merely suzerian states and not fully independent ones"?  The constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source.  You need to find WP:RS which make these arguments or else they're merely WP:OR.  TDL (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I don't see much relevance there regardless. Given that there is no declaration of independence, the relevant inclusion criterion is international recognition.  The Cook Islands constitution is only relevant inasmuch as it affects international recognition. Pfainuk talk 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Australian situation is entirely irellevent, a personal union (Australia) is not the same as suzerainty (Niue and the Cook Islands). Australia has the right under international law to conduct its own foriegn affairs, Niue and the Cook Islands do not. The constitution also states "The Executive Authority of Niue is vested in Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand", meaning that their is no personal union rather that Niue is subordinate to the Queen of New Zealand. There are various sources that state that New Zealand is responsible for the foriegn affairs of Niue, such as page 206 of this []XavierGreen (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's entirely relevant. While Australia is in a personal union with the UK today, when the constituion was signed in 1900 Australia was still legally a colony of the UK.  It wasn't until decades later that this transition occurred.  The fact that the constitution has retained some of the wording from this time claiming that they are subordinate to "the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", as opposed to under the crown of Australia in a personal union, hasn't precluded them from developing their own distinct international personality.  Nor should it prevent CI.  However, as Pfainuk stated, none of this is relevant since CI qualify under the international recognition clause of the inclusion criteria.  TDL (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * regardless, the situation today is not relevant so we are mearly speculating. Outback the koala (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the exact opposite of what the text I quoted from the source says, Xavier. Ladril (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) There is a consensus that the Cook Islands meet the criteria. Will therefore be included in the list. The specificities of the relation between CI + NZ does not alter on compliance with the criteria and therefore on the right to inclusion. Discussions about these variations are interesting, but in relation to the inclusion are irrelevant. In the case of CI now prove about the exact wording of the text of CI in the list.


 * 2) For Niue consensus is not yet. The relevant question is: Is Niue recognized at least one other State? In my opinion, Yes. Some editors has said that China no recognized the sovereignty of Niue. But in the official text on the establishment of diplomatic relations clearly writes: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity..." . Therefore, the Prime Minister of Niue declared that China was the first State that diplomatically recognized Niue . I think that the sources are reliable and relevant. Yes, the Cook Islands are recognized at least three States, Niue is only one. But according to the criteria the only one recognition is enough for inclusion in the list. Therefore, I'm for the inclusion of Niue to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Including CI but not Niue when they both have an identical legal status is going to be confusing for readers that haven't been following the talk page. Can we not just change the inclusion criteria to unambiguously include associated states? Surely that's a simpler solution than trawling through news releases and quibbling over semantics. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because the status of associated state is semantic. I think that if we take CI we should take Niue too, on the basis of equal relationships with NZ. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A polity can have diplomatic relations without being a soveriegn state. Even embassadors can be accredited without according recognition (Bavaria after the Unification of Germany, ect). I have already stated above that i do not agree that either the cook islands or niue should be included on the list, given the fact that their own constitutions state that they are not independent in their external affairs and are both subordinate to new zealand.XavierGreen (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that anyone is claiming that having diplomatic relations makes a polity sovereign. Certainly not based on what I've read here.  On the contrary, we're looking for evidence that the Cook Islands and Niue pass the inclusion criteria that define the list - specifically that each is "recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".


 * Remember that it is the inclusion criteria of the list, not the title of the list or ad hoc criteria created by editors, that define the list's contents (ref: WP:SAL). Your arguments on the Cook Islands constitution are totally irrelevant.  I'm not going to argue the substance of the point because even if you're entirely right it doesn't make a jot of difference.  We can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Cook Islands pass the criteria laid down.  Therefore the Cook Islands must go on the list.


 * For Niue, the sources are a bit vaguer (referring to "diplomatic recognition" and "mutual respect for sovereignty"). But the question still has nothing to do with the constitution of Niue.  The question is whether we consider that those two points (taken apart or together) are sufficient evidence that Niue is "recognized as a sovereign state". Pfainuk talk 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with Pfainuk. Jan CZ (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A polity should be required to consider itself an independent state in order for it to be listed. For example we never listed tamil elam or the emirate of abyan despite the fact that they act like independent states.XavierGreen (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria require a declaration of independence or outside recognition. Tamil Eelam (as was) and the Emirate of Abyan are not (to my knowledge) recognised as sovereign states by any outside sovereign states, so the question of whether they have declared independence is significant.  If they have been recognised (as with the Cook Islands), it isn't.


 * If you want to propose a change to the inclusion criteria, then that's one thing. But while we have the current inclusion criteria, I see no reason why we should be allowed to add our own ad-hoc criteria to them.  The inclusion criteria are chosen to be objective and unambiguous, as required by guidelines.  Refusing to include polities that pass the criteria because they don't meet unspecified additional criteria entirely undermines that objectivity in a way that does our readers a significant disservice.


 * That's not, of course, that we should not explain the situation in detail in the notes section. On the contrary, we should. Pfainuk talk 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say Xavier, although I too would not include them on a list of sovereign states, the sources collected do show the CI and to an extent Niue to have passed the criteria of recognition as independent states. It's hard to defend their being kept off the list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Although I am willing to say CI meets our criteria, Niue does not appear to as of yet. I too would not include CI on this list either because I don't beleive its sovereign, yet the sources say otherwise. Who am I? Not a source. Alas, we must allow CI on this for now - but certainly not Niue. Outback the koala (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if the Cook Islands do go on the list then their are two other polities that may have to as well due to recognition. Azad Kashmir is recognized as a state by pakistan and the Sultanate of Sulu is considered to be soveriegn by Malaysia and the united states as well. Now Azad Kashmir like the cook islands does not have any right to conduct foriegn relations with any other state, but yet it is recognized as being a state by the pakistani government.XavierGreen (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely familiar with the whole Pakistan in Kashmir situation, but I assure you Malaysia definitely does not consider the Sulu Sultanate sovereign, and neither does the USA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sultan of Sulu is a pretender. Outback the koala (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pakistan does not consider Azad Kashmir to be a sovereign state, and neither does any other country. It does not even define itself as such. Ladril (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malaysia and the United States consider the majority of Sabah to be leased from the Sultanate of Sulu which actually possesses the soveriegnty of the region. The government of Malaysia continues to this day to pay rental payments to the Sultan of Sulu as stipulated by the original lease for Sabah. As for Azad Kasmir, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that it is an indepdent country. There were several sources regarding this provided by someone (perhaps Ladril though i am not certain) either here or on the Azad Kashmir page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this, so I don't know what on earth this has to do with Niue and the Cook Islands, but no it doesn't. First of all, the lease was terminated by the sultan in 1957 when he transferred sovereignty over the territory to the Philippines. Any incoming payments would be going to the Philippines, and that may be what should be happening (legally speaking), but it isn't. It certainly doesn't recognise Sulu sovereignty. And Pakistan does not consider Azad Kashmir a sovereign state. It just doesn't consider it part of Pakistan, and argues that Kashmir (all of it) should be a sovereign state (or part of Pakistan) if its people choose to.  Night w   18:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic, perhaps?  Night w   18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The government of Malaya still pays the lease payments to the Sultan of Sulu, it does not recognize the philipine claim only the Sultanate of Sulus. The lease terms of the lease stipulate that the Sultanate of Sulu retains soveriegnty over the land.XavierGreen (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As for Azad Kashmir, here is a source proving that the Pakistani government recognizes it as a soveriegn state. []. If recognition is all that matters for inclusion, than if the Cook Islands are included Azad Kashmir must be included as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your source does not prove that Pakistan recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state.


 * Please, can we fix the issue of whether China recognized Niue as a sovereign state or not? That's the key question for the decision of inclusion/non-inclusion of Niue to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We do have to distinguish between "recognized as a sovereign state" and being described as a sovereign state in a federal context. US states are formally sovereign under US law, for example, but they're clearly not what we're dealing with here.  There is a problem with any inclusion criteria here if taken overly literally - I've also seen it argued that the fact that the UK calls its constituent parts "countries" is equivalent to diplomatic recognition.


 * The context does not make it clear that this is not what is happening here (unlike in the case of the Cook Islands), and I would also raise doubts as to the source's reliability.


 * As to Jan's question, the sources refer to diplomatic recognition, and mutual respect between China and Niue for one another's sovereignty. In both cases they are primary sources, which means that we can't draw interpretations from them without original research.  My view is that the Pacnews source is sufficient, given context, to pass our inclusion criteria.  I can see where those who disagree with me on that judgement are coming from and their objection is not unreasonable.


 * All in all I think it fair to suggest that there is consensus to include the Cook Islands at this time, but no consensus to include Niue. If clearer sources can be found on Niue then obviously this would clarify matters (either improving or disproving the case for inclusion). Pfainuk talk 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Attorney General of Pakistan, which is the supreme representative of pakistan in judical matters stated that "AJK is a sovereign state". The article also contends that this is the official position of the Pakistani government.XavierGreen (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a primary source that the judgement of a lawsuit that was dismissed by the United States Supreme Court on the basis that it violated Florida's sovereign immunity. It starts of from the position that [t]he Eleventh Amendment presupposes that each State is a sovereign entity.  In searching for the precise term "sovereign state", I find that the source quotes another judgement that states that there is a "rule which exempts a sovereign State from prosecution in a court of justice at the suit of individuals" - and it is clear from the context of the document that the "sovereign State" concerned is one of the US states.  US states are sovereign according to the Supreme Court of the United States' interpretation of the United States Constitution.  I would, as an aside, suggest that the local Supreme Court is a far greater authority on the meanings and implications of a country's constitutions than we are as Wikipedia editors.


 * I note that this is a primary source per WP:PSTS, but it is clear enough that no interpretation is required to come to this conclusion. And the word of the Supreme Court is clearly a reliable source for a Supreme Court ruling.  Your source is Zimbio, an online publisher that "publishes a blend of professionally written featured stories, user contributed articles, videos and high resolution photography".  It could be reliable.  But its reliability is certainly in question.


 * I would suggest that our rule is such that we require more than just someone saying "X is a sovereign state", particularly in this position (when it is a description used by a state to describe one or more of its constituent parts). We require actual diplomatic recognition of an entity as a sovereign state.  We get that for the Cook Islands.  We may well have that for Niue.  I don't yet see it for Azad Kashmir.  But I agree with Jan.  If there's a case to add Azad Kashmir, or to change the inclusion criteria, it needs to go in its own section. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Would those be good for CI and Niue? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 06:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, if anyone thinks that Azad Kashmir or any other entity meets the criteria, either start a new section. This section is about inclusion/non-inclusion of Cook Islands and Niue in the list.


 * The second proposal for discussion is here:

Poll
Just to confirm consensus before I add anything. Given that the inclusion criteria for this list are:

"all states that either: (a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory or (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state"

Pfainuk talk 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources in the table, and the inclusion criteria noted:
 * 1) Do you believe that the Cook Islands pass these criteria and thus should be included?
 * 2) Do you believe that Niue passes these criteria and thus should be included?

Support
80.00%
 * 1) Support inclusion. The sources make it obvious that the Cook Islands are recognised by Japan and the Netherlands. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inclusion. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support inclusion Meets the inclusion criteria we've created, whether I like that or not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support inclusion. There is source CI considers itself independent, and there is a source showing one country, Japan, recognizes CI as a country. Personally I think CI is not sovereign because of lack of own citizenship, but it obviously meets the inclusion criterias of the article. --maxval (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support inclusion There is a criteria, the Cook Islands meets at least 1/2 criteria. Add it. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support inclusion Exactly what Chip said. There's no choice about it. Outback the koala (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support inclusion Sources indicate that the Cook Islands comply with the criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support inclusion CI seems to clearly meet the recognition criteria, though I do think we should insist on a thorough explanation (perhaps mentioning Niue's slightly different situation if it is not added too). Evzob (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose
20.00%
 * 1) Oppose inclusion For my reasons mentioned above, i can recognize a mouse as a state that doesnt mean that it is one.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion Title „free associated state” (as Puerto Rico) or „sovereign state” (as Oklahoma or Bashkortostan) is only title. Cook Islands is not independent state yet. Aotearoa (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support
64.29%
 * 1) Support inclusion. I believe that the sources make the case sufficiently well, but accept that they are not as explicit as would be desirable. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support inclusion. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I'd also add that including CI but not Niue when they have an identical legal status would be highly counter-intuitive for readers. If the inclusion criteria really require that we do this (and I don't think they do) then they need to be changed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support inclusion Same status as the CI, including relationship to NZ, and apparently state to state communication with China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support inclusion There is a criteria, Niue meets at least 1/2 criteria. Add it. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support inclusion Sources indicate that Niue comply with the criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Any responsibility given to New Zealand is done voluntarily. Niue retains its sovereignty even if it doesn't exercise it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 7) Support I support if Cook Islands are counted as a sovereign state as it appears that they have have the same status and they should either both be included or both not included for the sake of consistency. Eopsid (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support The sources show that Niue satisfies our inclusion criteria by being recognized by China. TDL (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support According to sources, Niue is considered to be a state by a sizable number of the world's states, hence it fulfills criteria number 2. See . "In the circumstances, the Secretary-General felt that the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative by the World Health Assembly, whose membership was fully representative of the international community...The same solution was adopted by the Secretary-General following the approval of Niue's application for membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO in 1993 and of the World Health Organization in 1994." Ladril (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
35.71%
 * 1) Oppose inclusion For my reasons mentioned above, i can recognize a mouse as a state that doesnt mean that it is one.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose inclusion. Sources show only establishment of diplomatic relations, however no source Niue is recognized as a country. SMOM has diplomatic relations with much more countries, so by the same logic SMOM needs to be included too. --maxval (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inclusion I don't beleive we have sources that make  a clear case. It might be  a 'nation' but its no sovereign state. Outback the koala  (talk) 21:16,  6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inclusion Very mildly opposition here, because I just don't feel like I can say in good conscience that this is well enough supported by the sources. Confusion on the part of the readers is not in itself a reason to bypass questionable sourcing, and there are other ways to remedy possible confusion, such as mentioning Niue in the footnotes.  Evzob (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inclusion Title „free associated state” (as Puerto Rico) or „sovereign state” (as Oklahoma or Bashkortostan) is only title. Niue is not independent state yet. Aotearoa (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands
I say we have support for the Cook Islands, may I add it? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you going to use the box for CI that you proposed above or the other one? Do any further changes need to be made? I think we could do away with the claimed bit. Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The third proposal for discussion is here: Jan CZ (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've taken that proposal, significantly shortened it, and rewrote it so it doesn't sound like a collection of bullet points. We don't need a list of all the UN agencies the CI are members of, nor a list of countries which have recognised them (which would be a terrible list anyway as it is based off google searches for individual points). It now has (slightly customised) shared head of state information, a concise note on international position (member of some organisations and can sign treaties), and the associated state note which are present on current entries. The only addition to this is the shared citizenship note, which is unique and definitely notable enough to be included. I've wikilinked it to New Zealand nationality law. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Chip, that is probably what we should put, and add how many states it is recognized by. 3rd proposal. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But we don't know how many states it's recognised by. We have some sources noting explicit recognition, that's it. Do others recognise? We don't know, but creating a list would imply they don't. Considering the ambiguity, it's best to just not mention it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right Chip, that the list of States that have recognised would not be complete. For example, I know that the Cook Islands have been recognised by the Czech Republic. Confirmed it to me on my query Czech Embassy by e-mail. From public sources, but cannot substantiate. On the other hand, the recognition by those three States to decide on the inclusion. Without informations about it is not at all clear why we joined the Cook Islands, but not Niue. Therefore, I think that those States must be provided with a note that these States recognize the CI proven, but that we aren't claiming that the list of the recognizing States is complete. Jan CZ (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think misleading readers that only 3 countries recognise the CI will be worse than the minor inconsistency. I did support Niue going in by the end, and we have a Niue source below. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as with Kosovo, we did not include states unless recognition was explict. If we don't know, we don't know. I say include the number 3, we can change it if more sources are found on the topic. Outback the koala (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it very confusing that the fact that there is no source of New Zealand recognizing the CI or Niue, yet we say there sovereignty dispute is none. Any thoughts on this? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The footnote for the sovereignty dispute column says that we only mention it if the state "is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states that are claimed in whole by another sovereign state are mentioned."


 * My understanding is that so far as New Zealand are concerned, the Cook Islands and Niue can have whatever status they want. I would suggest that their current status is probably universally recognised (at least among those that have thought about it) - but there is a difference of opinion as to which side of the legal-sovereign-indepedence line that status technically falls on. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do I have the ability to add the third proposal of the Cook Islands now, that we have an 80% support for inclusion? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 02:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest the elimination of "at least" in the description. Outback the koala (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest the elimination of that totally wikipedia made up list. Far too simple for this complex case. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify, your meaning is not clear. Outback the koala (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We have no idea who sees the CI as a sovereign state. We just have a few sources about individual countries. As we all acknowledge, many countries could easily recognise it, without a published statement. We're not sure of this list, and our sources aren't particularly the strongest. Most countries probably don't even care. To say then in our short description of the country that three countries recognise it would provide an implication that it has less support to be independent than Abkhazia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Niue
What are we going to do with Niue? I know as of this message, the support for addition is 6 to 5, but when are we going to make the final decision? I know Cook Islands and Niue in text have the same level of sovereignty, but this decision needs to be finalized. I know 5 other people and I have said to add it, 5 others have opposed. What is the decision? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 16:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The poll (which has been open 11 days now, which is plenty of time for people to express an opinion) seems to me to suggest that there is no consensus. This would mean that Niue does not get included.  If we want to include it, the best thing to do would be to get better sources or wait until the situation re: recognition clarifies itself. Pfainuk talk 18:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the poll still seems to be open, even after 1 month and 26 days, but as of now, there is a 58% support for Niue conclusion, it seems a concensus would be to add it. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 02:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked one of best experts of international law in Czech Republic, Associate Professor Doc. PhDr. Zdeněk Koudelka, Ph.D. if establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Niue China-Niue means that China recognized Niue? Prof. Koudelka answered, YES, China de jure recognized the independence of Niue. I think it's time to move Niue to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 58% is a narrow majority, not a consensus. Evzob (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if someone asks an admin for a close, but I do not believe that consensus is sufficiently clear at this time. As to the professor, the rules do not allow us to accept this on individual editors' say-so: we would need a proper reliable source. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It almost seems as if we are extending the first vote to include a second vote, if that means anything. I know when wiktionarians voted for a logo, we used 60% as the percentage for a yes or no. I say we give this 5 more days, unless an admin. closes the vote. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus on this issue is not achieved because of the ignorance.
 * 1) "Niue is not recognised as a country and therefore that the same case as SMOM". The text of China-Niuesays: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression...". Niue is not certified as sovereign non-State entity, Niue is recognised as a sovereign country (i.e.State).
 * 2) "Niue is like Puerto Rico or Oklahoma". Puerto Rico is not like the Palau and Niue the sovereign State, it is a country entirely under the jurisdiction of the United States. New Zealand has no sovereignty over Niue (only vested competence). Oklahoma is a State member of the Federation, is part of the US. Niue is not part of New Zealand. Niue is State since 1974, it is quite clear from many sources. The question is whether this State recognized as sovereign. If the two States establish diplomatic relations, it means their mutual de jure recognition. Niue is recognised at least by China.
 * 3) The fact that two States are members of the same international organization doesn't necessarily constitute recognition of statehood. However, when other states vote to admit an entity like Palestine (or Niue) as a full member, that does constitute recognition of statehood. See for example The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 204 Reporters Note 2 on "Express or Implied Recognition" and the consequences of voting in favor of membership in an international organization that is only open to membership by States. Only States are eligible for full membership in accordance with Article II of the UNESCO Constitution. . See also Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine. Many of the UN member states voted for the adoption of Niue to UNESCO and recognised him by it. Niue is full member of UNESCO.
 * 4) I hope some editors in the light of these facts will reevaluate their opinion and finally, we reach consensus. Jan CZ (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In case we do have the concensus to include (which seems to be 61% support), I have created a Niue section. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Niue - further sourcing
"On 19 October New Zealand and Niue will end their relationship of administering Power and non-Self-Governing Territory; we will enter a new period of partnership on a basis of equality." Ladril (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (p. 3) "Niue is a sovereign state in free association with New Zealand". Ladril (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)