Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 5

Cuba
It seems Cuba recognizes Israel (see here:). Why it is listed as not recognizing? It seems non-recognition mconfused with not having diplomatic relations.--Dojarca (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a source that lists Cuba as not recognizing. As for your source, a translation could help, since I'm unable to read Russian. Ladril (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is in English, not Russian. It's page 6 of "Cuba Annual Report, 1989", accessed through Russian Google books. Are you saying you can't see it? — Emil J. 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. For some reason I'm getting a message in Russian which I assume says that I have reached a viewing limit. Strange, since it's right on the first page that opens following the link. I'll try on a different computer later. Ladril (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't really know how the limits in Google Books work. Here's a link through English G. B., in case they have separate limits: . — Emil J. 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see that one. Thanks very much. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland
I was wondering why these two states are listed on this article, when the article should only include states with limited recognition. There are also many other states that have announced dependency, but are still not recognized by any other state. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The intro makes clear that all states that are not universally recognised are meant to be included - thus also states with no recognition. To my knowledge, there are no other states like Somaliland and Nagorno Karabakh, i.e. states that are de facto independent, that have declared independence but which remain completely unrecognised. If you know of any other and if you have sources to confirm it, add them to the list. (Or first bring them up here on the talk page.) sephia karta  |  di mi  15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements? Also, is Greenland still part of Denmark? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very few of those actually control de facto independent states - which have sovereign-like control over a permanently inhabited territory. Most movements do not have any such control.  Of those that do, those that we can verify consider themselves to be independent (unlike Puntland, for example) are listed here.  Greenland may or may not technically be part of Denmark - I'm not quite sure.  But not being part of Denmark is not the same thing as being independent (de facto or de jure) of Denmark.  Greenland is not de facto or de jure independent of Denmark. Pfainuk talk 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty interesting to me...one more question, why aren't the Nagorno-Karabakh and Somaliland rows referenced? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  21:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness knows - they certainly should be. I've added references that should do for now. Pfainuk talk 16:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Somebody with better knowledge may correct me, but as far as I know, Greenland is a political community which constitutes an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It is not legally a sovereign state or a colony. As a separate community, however, it has exercised a limited degree of self-determination (such as when it left the European Union while Denmark proper remained a part, for example). Ladril (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Greenland's home rule has been significantly extended recently, and it seems to be slowly but surely heading towards full sovereignty (see Greenland for start), which may be what the OP alluded to. Nevertheless, you are right that as of now it is still an integral part of Denmark. — Emil J. 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, it has gained more powers since June 2009, and apparently has even been recognized the right to vote for independence. If you need an analogy to understand its status, it could best be described as a 'constituent part' of the Kingdom of Denmark with devolved powers. Ladril (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding to the info: however, the self-rule act identifies Greenlanders as a 'separate people under international law'. This is apparently a unique case and it is likely that Greenland will be regarded by scholars as a 'state in the making'. If that's the case perhaps a clarification could be added to the list of sovereign states in the future. Ladril (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sealand
I'm quite sure this has come up before with the regular editors of this page. However, why does Sealand not qualify to be on this list as is seen in this edit, along with Somaliland? While this state is most likely pushed into the group, micronations, it seems viable enough to exist here. Of course, If I am in error (which I am beginning to feel), I await the flood of reply waiting to correct me. I should note I have read the earlier discussion in the archives, but could not find any clear conclusions then. Outback the koala (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we generally ignore micronations where no other nation seems to care. See: Hutt River. Yes, they have claimed independence; yes, they have territory; but no one else cares, because the issue hasn't come up. I'm sure that if the Australian authorities ever try to do something in Hutt River that the locals disagree with, we might see something happen, but it still probably won't count for inclusion. By that logic, if I'm in a standoff with police from my house and wiki that I'm in an independent country, it would be reason for inclusion (barring lack of third-party sources).
 * Also, there's the fact that Sealand's "territory" is questionable; if someone were on a boat and declared their boat an independent country and no one cared, we wouldn't mention it here. HM Fort Roughs seems to me to be a glorified shipwreck.
 * Finally, there was a poll on this, though admittedly five years ago; it's in archive one. If you'd like to start a second, you're welcome to. --Golbez (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say pretty much the same as Golbez. The consensus - which I agree with - is that countries on this page are entities which have some sort of serious geopolitical claim to existence: Kosovo has created a lot of tensions worlwide, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have caused at least one war, the SADR is a primary interest for Morocco, Taiwan is defended by the USA, etc. On the other hand, micronations like Sealand are for the most part eccentric creations which few people and no governments take seriously. That's why they are included in a separate article. As for Somaliland, the entity has also been taken quite seriously by states. Djibouti even recognized it de facto for a while. Ladril (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. We should distinguish between functioning states as listed here and micronations that are not.  Somaliland, for what it's worth, was separate from Somalia until 1960 (the de facto border between Somalia and Somaliland roughly matches the border between Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland) and was undisputedly independent for five days in 1960 as the State of Somaliland.  It has a de facto government, territory and population, and unofficial contacts with several outside governments. Pfainuk talk 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You for the comments, I don't think there's any need to start a new poll, Golbez, there seems to already be a consensus on this issue, however, perhaps we should link to the list of micronations page in the intro and make a brief distinction? Right in addition to the paragraph,
 * - "See list of historical unrecognized countries for similar entities, that have existed in the past. See list of governments in exile for unrecognized governments without control over the territory claimed." An extra sentence could be placed here to deal with any confusion that might arise. Outback the koala (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Djibouti even recognized it de facto for a while." Could that be included into the Somaliland row? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that recognition by Djibouti was de facto, not de jure (as is the case with other entries on the list). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_recognition#Recognition_of_states_and_governments for details on de facto recognition. Besides, I'm not sure if recognition continues to this day. As for explaining the difference between de facto states and micronations, I certainly wouldn't mind, considering just how often the issue seems to pop up. Ladril (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, here is the ref to the Somaliland-Djibouti thing: http://www.africaintelligence.com/C/modules/login/DetailArt/LoginDetailArt.asp?rub=login&lang=ANG&service=ART&context=HIS&doc_i_id=46070 Ladril (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I regard the concept of "de facto recognition" as fundamentally awkward, as recognition (determining whether a state is legally sovereign) is by definition a legal issue. Per Foreign relations of Somaliland several governments - including the AU - have unofficial contacts of some form with Somaliland. Pfainuk talk 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In a way, it is awkward. Hope this text can shed some light for you: http://books.google.com/books?id=4doebHRhGT8C&pg=PA88&dq=de+facto+recognition#v=onepage&q=de%20facto%20recognition&f=false Ladril (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It says: "where recognition is not express, but implied, there will often be uncertainty as to the intentions of the recognizing state: did it intend to grant de jure recognition, or did it intend to grant de facto recognition".


 * I find it strange that the author does not mention the even greater uncertainty in such cases, as to whether any form of recognition is intended at all. The most obvious example I can think of is the Republic of China.  It is surely not clear that the existence of informal contacts implies "de facto recognition" when the US government's publicly-declared position recognises PRC sovereignty over all ROC-held territory.


 * I would suggest that - for the purposes of this list (dealing with recognition of states as opposed to disputed territory) - the only circumstance under which we can reasonably suggest that recognition is implied is in the case of fellow members of the UN or some other major international organisation where there is no clear indication that there is no recognition. If there is no such common membership, we cannot assume mutual recognition without evidence that it exists. Pfainuk talk 16:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for the time being I think it's better to stick with the current way of doing things (that is, to use the 'recognition' columns to name states which expressly and de jure recognize each country on the list). I also have my doubts about whether Somaliland has been de facto recognized. Though I have more than one source that says so, they are contradicted by some other sources. Until I or somebody else researches the matter more thoroughly, I would not like to press for modification of the Somaliland entry at this point. PS and by the way, you're correct. That a representative office of a country or region exists in another country is not by itself a guarantee of diplomatic recognition. Many cases such as the Taiwan one suggest otherwise. Ladril (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So what has come out of this discussion is the question of whether de jure recognition and de facto recognition constitute inclusion on this list. However it seems that the understanding of the weight each form of recognition is quite muddled. Perhaps if we use both forms of recognition to constitute inclusion to this list, but clarify with each entry the types of recognition they enjoy, then that would satisfy the concerns of Ladril, while expanding inclusion to other nations as other editors seem to be interested in. Could this be a workable option? Outback the koala (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not unless we can adequately agree as to what constitutes de facto recognition, and what to do when it's unclear whether a state de facto recognises another or not. Both Ladril and me seem to agree that the current way of doing things should not change.  That is:
 * Between members of the UN (including the Vatican), recognition is assumed and non-recognition requires proof
 * Where any non-UN is involved, non-recognition is assumed and recognition requires proof
 * This requires that we have to prove the assertions that are most surprising, and that we don't have to prove things that we already know. It means that we don't have to waste time proving that Bhutan recognises Lesotho (for example), while at the same time it means that we don't have to waste time proving that Bhutan does not recognise Nagorno-Karabakh. Pfainuk talk 08:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that approach, with the caveat that it is not clear whether it is possible for a state to not have a position, thus for Bhutan to neither recognise nor not recognise Nagorno-Karabakh. In practice this shouldn't be a problem though for the article.
 * As for 'de facto recognition': apparantly it is a legal concept, per that source up there, but I could well imagine news sources handling the term loosely to indicate that while a state has not officially recognised another state, it more or less treats it as though it had. (E.g. when it accepts travel documents issued by the unrecognised states.) I thus think 'de facto recognition' is a concept too ill defined to be of any use for this article, except perhaps for a disclaimer in the introduction. sephia karta |  di mi  10:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible for a state not to have a position. In these cases, the way a state deals with the authorities in charge defines whether recognition occurs or not.


 * I don't see a problem with listing states which are de facto recognized. However, as said in the source above instances of de facto recognition are rare, and I don't think it applies to any current cases. Ladril (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If we can demonstrate that two states have formal diplomatic relations but do not legally recognise one other, then I think we can fairly call that de facto recognition - but I would be surprised if that actually applies for any pair of states in the world. I can see no other way in which we can objectively distinguish de facto recognition as a distinct category from de jure recognition and non-recognition.  The source you give suggests that de facto recognition exists, and mentions the possibility for confusion between de facto and de jure recognition (though also that the distinction is not particularly significant) but does not appear to deal with how to distinguish de facto recognition from unofficial contact with no recognition (as exists between the United States and the Republic of China).


 * A state either recognises another, or it does not. But in the case where the answer is "not", there is perhaps a distinction between active non-recognition - where a state considers another to be illegally constituted - and passive non-recognition - where a state has not taken an opinion on the legality of the other state.


 * Active non-recognition would be Russia's attitude to Kosovo, Russia having publicly declared that it considers Kosovo's declaration of independence to be illegal. Passive non-recognition would be similar New Zealand's attitude to Kosovo: New Zealand has said that it doesn't actively recognise Kosovo, but also doesn't actively not recognise Kosovo.  Recognising Kosovo would imply that they consider Kosovo's declaration of independence to be legal, whereas they have chosen not to express an opinion on the matter. Pfainuk talk 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. sephia karta |  di mi  18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * De facto recognition as a concept has two dimensions. One of them is the legal one. It is possible for a state to make an explicit statement saying "we recognize the de facto jurisdiction of country X over the following territories: X, Y, Z". What this usually means in practice is: "we do not consider country X to be the legal sovereign of the other territories, but to safeguard our interests we will treat them as the authority in charge". This is the sort of de facto recognition that I believe would fit in the article as it is set up.


 * The other dimension is the - for lack of a better name - academic one. It is possible for several scholars and/or public figures to claim that the interactions of several governments with Taiwan - for instance - constitute de facto recognition. This second dimension is more problematic, because even if thoroughly sourced, is still a perception and usually not consistent with NPOV. It's far easier for our lives if we stick to legal, i.e. formal, i.e. explicit recognition for the purposes of this article. Ladril (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible for a state to be neutral as to whether a certain piece of territory legally pertains to a certain state, while recognising where control lies in practice. This is not uncommon (though they don't generally say it outright), but I would suggest that it's also not entirely relevant in this case either as for the most part this only occurs over part of a given state's territory.  There are arguable cases where it applies to a de facto state's entire territory, but I doubt you'll find confirmation for any of them.


 * I think we both basically agree. If we can demonstrate recognition (or non-recognition where appropriate) then we need a reliable source to say so.  It doesn't matter if it's de facto or de jure provided that it's explicitly the position of the government concerned (as opposed to a position suggested by an academic as implied by the actions of a government). Pfainuk talk 20:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to make my point more clear, here is an example of what might constitute a source for explicit de facto recognition (as opposed to implied recognition):


 * http://latvija90.leta.lv/en/pagatne/1920-the-de-facto-recognition-of-latvia       Ladril (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales recognition of Somaliland, does this qualify for inclusion?
Wales, a Constituent country of the UK, regards Somaliland as independent as per this page, and this page. Although the last source is not credible the other one is. In addition the Politics of Somaliland page already lists these events. I can't tell if the statement on the Politics of Somaliland page, "These moves were approved by the UK Foreign Office and Department for International Development and are seen as an attempt by the UK to encourage and reward the authorities in its former colony while avoiding the issue of formal recognition," counts as de facto recognition by the UK or not. The last discussion made me just a little more confused on its application in this page. Any thoughts on whether this qualifies? Outback the koala (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the status of Wales; see Countries of the United Kingdom. Outback the koala (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the original article. Outback the koala (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that all three links given are the exact same content (and the first two are the same link). I don't think Wales is able to confer diplomatic recognition on others; by virtue of being part of the UK, the UK handles all foreign matters, does it not? Also, Wales is not a member of the UN, nor is it recognized by anyone, UN member or no. I've taken the "recognized by non-UN members only" to mean "recognized by non-UN members who are themselves recognized", which fits for Transnistria. --Golbez (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wales lacks what scholars would call an international legal personality. By definition, if you lack an international legal personality you cannot engage in recognition.  QED.
 * Indeed, if you actually read the linked articles, all that Wales did was extend an official invite to an official within the Somaliland government to attend the opening of their regional assembly. While it's certainly a statement that was intended to be supportive of Somalilanders, that is far from a formal diplomatic move. The Tom (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well seems like a case closed that this "recognition" does not qualify for inclusion on this page. The only thing remaining in question is that, according to the Politics of Somaliland page (and this is all I have to go on currently), In October 2006 the Welsh Assembly approved the establishment of an aid budget for Africa.(this part is at least true as per this ref and this ref)(Neither refs name Somaliland specifically however the Aid package appears to be real) "These moves were approved by the UK Foreign Office and Department for International Development and are seen as an attempt by the UK to encourage and reward the authorities in its former colony while avoiding the issue of formal recognition." My earlier question of whether this second part (if anyone can find a ref for it) constitutes de facto recognition wasn't answered and I am still unsure, and frankly confused about this. Outback the koala (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The kind of recognition this page seems to deal with is diplomatic recognition (whether de jure or de facto). Statements by parties other than nation-state governments do not count as diplomatic recognition, even if they are made by subnational governments, scholars, pundits, journalists or politicians. So no, I don't think this applies. I am being clear? If not I'll try to explain myself better. Ladril (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ladril. Makes sense to me, but in that case why is the Organisation of the Islamic Conference referenced in the North Cyprus/TRNC section? Vizjim (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * International organizations do not have the international legal personality to confer diplomatic recognition on a state. Whether a state is allowed to participate in an organization as such depends on the consensus of the org's members as to whether the entity is in fact a state. As for the Organization of the Islamic Conference, I believe the TNRC participates as a "subnational government" (hence its observer status). Ladril (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. If Somaliland participates in any international organisation, then that can be noted in the article.


 * On Wales/Somaliland, you and others have made good points about Wales' lack of international legal personality. If an entity is not itself at least de facto independent, then we cannot consider its recognition to be valid.


 * That said, what we've seen so far would not, IMO, be sufficient even if it had been a sovereign state taking these actions. What we have here could be taken to imply de facto recognition of Somaliland, which is not a UN member state (or the Vatican).  Welsh officials invited the Speaker of the Somaliland Parliament to the opening of the Senedd, and they may have allocated some of their international aid budget to Somaliland.  But that's all they did.  They didn't say they recognised Somaliland de facto - that's a conclusion drawn by a journalist and that isn't sufficient IMO. Pfainuk talk 18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Sealand and the Basque Country
It has been stated many times before that the so-called Principality of Sealand has, like other "micronations" no place in this article. I will therefore revert its recent addition, as well as the addition of the Basque Country as that region currently does not claim to be independent. MaartenVidal (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Basque Country does not claim independence, and Sealand is a micronation. Pfainuk talk 12:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely Nagorno-Karabakh should be considered a Micronation, though, since it has as much control over it's territory as Sealand does, and like Sealand, it's not recognised by any other nation? Where does one draw the line between a Micro-nation and a Nation-State? Since this is 'List of states with limited recognition', maybe states which don't have any shouldn't be here. Also, would Sealand be placed here if another nation recognized it? What about groups of 'Micronations' which recognize each other? FutureDragon (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except Nagorno Karabakh controls a few million times more territory than Sealand does. Yes, Sealand would be included if another recognized nation recognized it. It doesn't matter if unrecognized micronations recognize each other, as that still confers no legitimacy. I would say the difference between a micronation and a real state is, governments actually care if real states exist, but they'll laugh and nod at micronations. Sealand is a marginal exception because it's existed for so long and has had a marginal diplomatic history. But even Australia barely bats an eye at Hutt River, but I assure you, Azerbaijan is very unhappy about the existence of Nagorno-Karabakh. --Golbez (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But it says that no nation recognizes Nagorno Karabakh in the article.

Besides, when it comes down to it, you can't define a 'real' nation by recognition by other 'real' nations, because if you decided that they were all micronations, none of them would be recognized by any 'real' nations, thus justifying their includion in the micronation category. It's a logical contradiction. FutureDragon (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. No nation recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet it controls territory, and other countries cared enough about it to have a bloody war over it 20 years ago, and are still negotiating over its status. As for the rest you say, it sounds as if you want to put it so that if I declare independence, and recognize my buddy next door who declares independence, he should be listed in the article --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Has the article been changed then, to recognize the fact that someone has recognized Nagorno-Karabakh?

//As for the rest you say, it sounds as if you want to put it so that if I declare independence, and recognize my buddy next door who declares independence, he should be listed in the article// It's only logical. Saying that the existence of a state depends on recognition allows the hypothetical situation of a country, say Britain, losing all international recognition and thus no longer being a state. Defining a 'real' state based on whether another 'real' state recognizes it as such is circular reasoning.

If it fits the criteria of a state, but isn't recognised as such, then I contend that it *is* a state with limited recognition. FutureDragon (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, to repeat: No nation recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh. I'm not sure what your point is. Microstates do not fit the criteria of a state; Nagorno-Karabakh does, it's just that it's unrecognized. No one's saying "you can only be a state if another state recognizes you" -- but it helps. --Golbez (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dragon, I think you need to look at what the differences are between a micronation and a sovereign state. The definitions are important here. (although, admittedly it can be a fine line) Outback the koala (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but Sealand fits the criteria for statehood as well, it's just that it's not recognized. It isn't logical to include Nagorno-Karabakh but neglect Sealand.

I contend - if it looks like a state, acts like a state, and fits the criteria for being a state, then it *is* a state. Abielt one unrecognized by Wikipedia...

\\No one's saying "you can only be a state if another state recognizes you"\\ \\Yes, Sealand would be included if another recognized nation recognized it.\\

Okay, Hypothetical situation - Britain decides to confer 'legitimacy' on Sealand. Then Sealand chooses to recognize other 'micronations', meaning that they have all been recognized by a 'real' nation. Now, say Britain decides that it was a mistake, and decides that Sealand is no longer a state. Does Sealand, then, return to being a micronation? FutureDragon (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of all the micronations, yes, Sealand comes the closest to actually being a country, but I would say it hasn't quite attained it. The only issue that complicates Sealand is the minor diplomatic history. Either it's just some yokel on a boat declaring independence, which doesn't count, or it's some yokel on a platform declaring independence and the home country simply hasn't cared enough to say anything. It's like when the Lakota "declared independence" in the USA a year or two back - the US Government's official response was, "So?"


 * If Britain formally recognized Sealand as an independent country, and Sealand chose to recognize Hutt River, then yes, I suppose we would include Hutt River. If Britain then formally withdrew recognition, and this is quite the hypothetical as no nation has ever gone from recognized to wholly unrecognized that I know of, then I would say that we would still include Hutt River for at least some time... but then again, Britain withdrawing recognition would probably coincide with an occupation of Sealand, in which case, again, keep it around for a while, but after a while it would simply return to a status of a curiosity. Then again, such a situation might warrant a separate table in this article, "States recognized by formerly independent states." --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What about Venezuala, though? They'd be quite happy to recognise Sealand in order to snub Britain... it also poses the question, what if a state such as Nargorno-Karabakh was the one doing the recognizing?


 * Eventually it wold be self sustaining, I suppose, with Sealand being recognised by Hutt River and in turn recognising Hutt River... damn Catch-22s. FutureDragon (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please keep your entire comment indented at the same level. As for Venezuela recognizing them, then we put it up, of course. As for NK or Sealand recognizing, we've been over this, an unrecognized country conferring recognition does not in itself grant legitimacy on the recognizee; they need to have one of the other parts of being a state. Being de facto independent really helps, and would put them on the list anyway. Hutt River is not de facto independent, no micronation is, though Sealand has made the strongest case for that. But back to the original comment: Countries use diplomatic recognition as a weapon all the time, which is part of why Azerbaijan hasn't recognized the TRNC (because Armenia and Greece might turn around and recognize Nagorno-Karabakh), and why Pakistan apparently has withdrawn recognition for Armenia. Which is odd; who do they consider to be the rightful rulers of the former Armenian SSR, then? Russia? --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now we are back to Seland. In what way, exactly, does it lack a) a permanent population, b) a defined territory, c) a government, and d) a diplomatic capability?


 * It has a permanent population; so does my apartment. It has a defined territory; so does my apartment. It has a government; so does my apartment. Does it have diplomatic capability? That is the why I have repeated that Sealand comes closest to being a country; it has had an odd diplomatic history in the past. That, and recognition, and [perhaps?] the ability to defend your claim, are what changes things from an apartment, or a boat, or a seastead, to a state. I can claim my apartment is independent; the fact that the US government has not ousted me does not mean I have succeeded in this endeavor. The British government seems content to let Prince Roy play out his game. --Golbez (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Except the British government has ceded all claim to Sealands territory. Is Luxuberg a nation? It has a perment population; my house does to. It has a territory; so does my house. It has a government; ditto for my house. It has diplomatic capability; same at my house - if a nation wanted to enter intro relations with my house, we'd be open to it. The difference between my house and Luxumberg is that my house is currently in another nations territory. However, Sealand isn't in another countries territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureDragon (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to the court decision that took place before Britain extended its territorial waters to 12 miles; before, Sealand was definitely outside British territory, but now it is inside, and I don't believe any formal decision has been made since then. But either way, it *is* in British territory now, and while Britain may have abandoned claims to bases outside of its territory, it obviously cares what is inside its territory. And responding to your analogy, what gives that nation the right over your territory? What if Italy claimed Luxembourg's territory, would Luxembourg cease to exist? What makes Azerbaijan own Nagorno-Karabakh's territory? Or Somalia own Somaliland's? --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What if France extended it's territorial waters to include the UK? Would that give them the ownership of Britain, because it's now inside their territory? The thing is, Sealand was claimed before Britain chose to expand their territory. Not afterwards. Otherwise, Micronesia could declare that it's territorial waters were 10,000km from shore, and under your concept, that would give them ownership of any land that is within 10,000km of their shore, irrespective of whether there is already nations established on that land. FutureDragon (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But again, merely claiming independence does not make you an independent country, especially if you're just on a boat. My only point was, you can't say Britain has abandoned all claims to it; before, they said they had no jurisdiction because it was outside their waters, which makes perfect sense, but now it is inside their waters, and so far as I know they may claim jurisdiction over it today. I am not aware of any case since the 1987 extension that says Britain has abandoned claims to anything within their territorial waters. --Golbez (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Sealand website - "In its judgment of 25 November 1968, the court declared that it was not competent in Roy of Sealand's case as it could not exert any jurisdiction outside of British national territory.". Meaning that Britain had formally ceded any claim to it, backed uplater by "First they asked England to intervene in the matter, but the British government cited their earlier court decision as evidence that they made no claim to the territory of Sealand.". FutureDragon (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Let's say that you own a house in New Mexico, and that is not part of the United States; the United States would say they have no jurisdiction over you. But then their borders expand and annex New Mexico - a move that is recognized by all parties involved and all nations, and backed up by their ability to enforce laws - and now, they have jurisdiction over you. What they said in 1968 is moot because Sealand is now within their borders, so I would wager that if they revisited this case they would come to a different conclusion. The quote you give was stated long before the 1987 extension of territorial waters. The British government saying that did not necessarily mean they were saying Sealand was independent; they were simply saying, what happens on an islet or shipwreck outside of our territory is not really our business. It was 6 miles outside their jurisdiction before; no difference than if it was 600. But now it's inside their internationally recognized and enforced territory, so the previous court case is moot. I don't think it should be considered to continue to be held as the UK's stance until a court revisits the case, something it seems Prince Bates has not been keen to push. Now, were Sealand an actual country, there would be negotiations and the like as to the nature of where the territorial water boundary would be; there are some very complex sea borders in the world. But there weren't, because obviously the UK doesn't respect Sealand as a country, and apparently Sealand didn't care to bring it up. --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My view on this is that Sealand does not actually control a permanent territory and population, in the sense that the place is controlled by the United Kingdom (not just 'by law', which is up to debate, but in actual fact). sephia karta |  di mi  22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're all throwing out 2 cents in... I take the opposite view. My opinion on this is that Sealand does actually control territory and have a permanent population. The only difference is the way it is viewed, as a micronation, and this is verifiable. Of course my views are a strict interpretation of the Declarative theory, and im a needle in a haystack. Outback the koala (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Either it is a boat (in which case a declaration of independence is irrelevant) or it is an island. If it is an island, then what sets it apart from any yokel in his apartment declaring independence? Or Hutt River, for that matter? --Golbez (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not a boat, but a platform. Think of the immediate area it occupies as similar to something built upon a reef, which is considered land if anything is built upon it. From the Sealand perceptive they have a darn good case, fact wise, for existence. The idea that they occupied terra nullas, could totally hold true in this case and is a legitimate argument. But nobody seems to care because they are so insignificant, their case does not matter for anything and as such it does not even touch the radar of any body of significance. Outback the koala (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right; one way you could put it is, you're only a state if someone else gives a damn. My apartment is not a state. Lakotah is not a state. Nagorno-Karabakh is. San Marino is. --Golbez (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly!!!! And hey Sealand is the closest micronation for inclusion, but I think its the size that kills its chances of being taken seriously. Outback the koala (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Southern Cameroons

 * shouldn't the Southern Cameroons belong here. They have decleared independence from Cameroon but it is unrecognized CK6569 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, the SCNC has no de facto control over their territory. Anyone can declare independence; the entries on this list must be able to demonstrate the ability to actually BE independent. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I would not be in favour of including Ambazania (Southern Cameroons), or whatever you want to call it, I would not exactly phrase the response in the same way Golbez does. Not all entities on the list have de facto control over the territory. The Palestinian National Authority, for example, exercises some authority in the West Bank and Gaza by way of the Middle East Peace Process. The Republic of China, on the other hand, occupies Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu thanks to grey areas in the Peace Treaties of San Francisco and Taipei. Much of the SADR's population is actually living in refuge outside the country, etc.
 * To consider an entity a state, we first have to check all four Montevideo criteria for statehood: 1) a permanent population; 2) a defined territory; 3)a government and 4)a capacity to enter into relations with other states. If the criteria are met, we have next to look at the sovereingty issue. In my view, what differentiates a state with limited recognition from a government in exile is the fact that the former exercises sovereignty (i. e., the powers of government) within a defined territory. I have no indication that Southern Cameroons does exercise sovereignty, so I cannot call it yet a state. Ladril (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be included on this list a state has to have control over at least some of it's terriory and that control has to be stable. Within that territory it must function as a state. E.g. Taiwan only has control over a small percentage of its claimed territory, but within that is very stable and functions as a de facto country.
 * Southern Camerooons has a website of a "government-in-exile" (so they're not in the country) and I have no indication that they have any substantial permanent control over a defined territory. Passportguy (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not technically wrong. However, with no disrespect intended, I would like to point out that these kinds of explanations only make the criteria for list inclusion seem more simplistic than they should be. Do you think, for example, that the SADR would be on the list if it weren't for its partial international recognition? Or do you think that Palestine would be here if the state had been declared without the subsequent Middle East Peace Process having taken place and the Palestinian Authority formed? Does the PNA fulfill all the functions of a state within the West Bank and Gaza?
 * What I would like to stress is that there are complex combinations of factors related to the existence of states with limited recognition. The definitions given here sound to me like forced, as if what happened in certain cases (like Kosovo and Nagorno-Karabakh) was being extrapolated to cover ALL cases of states with limited recognition. This will only decrease our understanding of what is being defined here and will make it more difficult to improve the page in the future. Ladril (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned the Sahrawi Republic is on the list because it does control some territory with a significant number of people in it. And as far as I am concerned, Palestine does not actually belong on the list, because the entity that is partially recognised (the Palestinian State) is not the entity that controls some territory at the moment (the Palestinian Authority). Or to put it differently, no one in the current Palestinian government would claim that at the moment they're running an independent state. That to me is the defining criterium of what constitutes an (unrecognised or (partially) recognised) independent state, that there is a goverment in place that proclaims it is running an independent state. sephia karta |  di mi  00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat in agreement with you. One detail I would like to point out, however: the PNA is not a full government, but foreign diplomatic representations of the State of Palestine represent both the PLO and the PNA, so there is at least some implicit claim that the PNA is an authority within a state. As for the SADR, I'm more inclined to think that if it weren't for its international recognition, its tenuous control over part of Western Sahara would relegate it to the status of "independentist or national liberation movement". Ladril (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah Palestine is really unclear. I wouldn't call the Sahrawi's control over its territory 'tenous'. As far as I know, the Moroccan government does not tread there, and the situation has been like this for how long now? Thirty years? What independentist movement can boast of the same? sephia karta  |  di mi  00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a unique case. The Kashmir Freedom Movement has existed for a longer time than the SADR, and Burma has its share of strong movements as well (not to mention several other cases). Yoy may argue that the Kashmir movement has not set up a state, and that the conflict between India and Pakistan has been a factor, to which I would reply that Mauritania was also a belligerent in the Western Sahara conflict in the past, etc. The point is that somewhat lax criteria are being used to group all these entities together, and I have no objection to that, but we should be clear that the page subject is indeed very complex, since it comprises a number of very complex situations. Ladril (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's exactly as you say "You may argue that the Kashmir movement has not set up a state". That's the whole point of this article, no? That it's about the cases in which a state has been set up. I agree with you that many of these situations are very complex, but I contend that the inclusion criteria are precise. sephia karta |  di mi  01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But the point is (in the case of SADR), if the government for the most part operates from outside the country, and its territory is mostly held thanks to a UN-brokered ceasefire, can you say it is an entity with 'stable control' of its territory, which, as other users are saying, is a requirement for being defined as a state on Wikipedia?


 * Because if 'stable control' of its territory is a requirement to be defined as a state, I can easily point to a dozen of cases which don't fit the mold. Would we then have to cross out Colombia, Pakistan and Somalia (to name a few) from the list of states?


 * What I'm trying to say is that, from an encyclopedic point of view, it is accurate to define something as a state if it is treated and recognized as a state by a number of serious sources (I'm thinking of governments and scholarly texts). This list has been crafted by including entities which are internationally recognized as states, which is correct in my view, even if they do not meet all Montevideo criteria (and if the Montevideo criteria are stressed too strongly, the Holy See would also get crossed out from the list of states, since it has no permanent population). This is why removing either Palestine or the SADR would be incorrect, and why not including the Cook Islands and Niue is wrong.


 * I finish with this: leaving out Cook Islands and Niue because they are in free association with New Zealand would mean also crossing out Micronesia, Palau and Marshall Islands, which are not fully independent but in free association with the United States. The moral of the story is that state formation is a very complex historical, political and sociological issue, and criteria cannot be as fixed as some people seem to think they are. Ladril (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I commend you Ladril for sticking to your own belief and once again the sole point you have (that no one else yet agrees with) on the Cook Islands & Niue situation (which has no bearing in this topic here really). Not sure as why you think those 2 very different types of Free Associations are seen as the same in your context though too. Anyways, to get back on track, the Southern Cameroons are in a situation like many other areas whereas various groups are self-proclaiming independence without substantial control &/or support from the people living within those regions. Situations may change later on, so until it does, then it could be adjusted accordingly. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, I admit we wandered off topic and I'm sorry for that. But I think there is an underlying rationale in that discussion that is related to all cases on the list, and the occasion to bring this up was as good as any. As for Cook Islands / Niue, we should be taking this up in another section/page, but the question I would like to have answered at some time is: why do you think the associated states of the US are sovereign states and the associated states of NZ aren't? To back up my point I have academic studies which are of the opinion that Cook and Niue exercise more sovereignty than the associated states of the USA. Also while both cases are different, in essence they are quite analogous phenomena, both arising out of UN Security Council Resolution 1541 and the post-war decolonization process. Ladril (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to discuss it over at the Associated state section then. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm joining a discussion on that page's talk section. Hope to see you around. Ladril (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to open up old debates, but if you state that the Montevideo criteria for statehood is used for criteria, then why does having control over a defined territory even matter, since that is not one of the criteria needed to be met? If a government-in-exile can meet all four criteria and has substantial support from the people living within the region, should it not be included in the list? CK6569 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't control any territory. All of the examples on here control their territory, or are recognized. If the article says we rely solely on the Montevideo criteria then that needs changing. The Southern Cameroons have no territorial control and no recognition, so they can't get on here because they are neither partially recognized nor de facto independent. Simply being a well-loved government in exile doesn't really matter much if you control nothing and no one recognizes you. --Golbez (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't it also possible to have control over people and not territory? SADR does control some land, but most of its people are dispora in Algeria.CK6569 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if the SADR tried to exercise sovereign control over anyone in Algeria, the Algerian authorities might be unhappy about that. --Golbez (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand the information in Polisario Front, the Algerian authorities do in fact let Polisario/SADR exercise government of Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria. — Emil J. 10:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then is not the SADR exercising sovereign control over a specific territory, in that case? (Though not claiming it as independent, therefore that land doesn't count for this list =p) I don't really see any way to exercise power over people but not land. If they tried doing it to a refugee in Algiers, I very much more think Algerian authorities would be unhappy. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, apart from the camps in Algeria 'governed' by the SADR, it also controls part of Western Sahara, the so-called Free Zone, home to some 30,000 people. That is the territory & people the SADR exercises sovereign control over. sephia karta |  di mi  14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but no one disputes that the SADR controls part of Western Sahara and is recognized; that's why it's on this list. We're using the SADR as an analogy to find out if the Southern Cameroons should be on here. :) and I just don't see it happening; they control no territory and are unrecognized. --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So to be clear hear, governing over refugees is not enough to be understood as a state, There must be land controlled with a population in that land?CK6569 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any way around that, yeah. If you aren't in control of the land that you have declared as part of your independent country, and you aren't recognized by anyone, then how can you be considered a state? --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree on it not being included here as stated above, but is fine where it's located at presently on the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Blue and Orange on the Map
I assume the Republic of Cyprus is colored blue by mistake and should be dark green/yellow. It has "Majority recognition", while blue is not in the key at all.

As for the Orange, I don't entirely understand its function. The key says orange means "Territories whose status is disputed; with a government body that is recognized by at least a few dozen countries". All highlighted states on the map have disputed status, by virtue of them not having full recognition. The SADR is recognized by a minority of UN member states, which means it should be colored pink. Palestine is recognized by either a minority or a majority of UN member states (I see contradictions, so I can't tell) which would make it either dark green/yellow or pink. If the issue is that these countries to not control all their claimed land nor have majority recognition (rather odd), then Somaliland, Transnistria, Taiwan and I think also Nagorno-Karabakh could be included. Under the current definition of orange, all states colored pink would qualify.

Separately, I will reword the infobox for red to read "No recognition by UN member states" to replace "No international recognition". the rest I have not changed and am awaiting feedback.--189.33.2.165 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I have not changed the key as I cannot translate the other languages with any certainty.--189.33.2.165 (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Cyprus colour, it was a leftover from an old version which used a different colour scheme. As for the orange, now that I think about it I admit that I do not understand its purpose either. One potential distinction it could make is for government bodies which do not control their claimed territory, but this contradicts the actual examples on the map: the orange part of Western Sahara shown is the area behind the Wall which is controlled by Polisario, and the Gaza strip is more or less under Palestinian control too. — Emil J.
 * Yes, and neither "Somaliland, Transnistria, Taiwan and I think also Nagorno-Karabakh", as I mentioned, control their entire claimed territory either. And you are right that even if this were the reason they were colored orange it wouldn't make any sense. But what do you think of replacing "'No international recognition'" with "'No recognition by UN member states'"? Transnistria is recognized by Abkhazia and South Ossetia.--189.33.2.165 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the map, why is Transnistria shown as red when it should be in pink. And is the boundaries of Somaliland correct? I think they shoulod be farther to the east. Is it possible to fix this? Outback the koala (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Transnistria, it is only recognized by other phony states, not any UN member. As for Somaliland, there is an ongoing territorial dispute between it and Puntland. Just like with other territories like SADR, our map does not show the territory claimed by Somaliland, but an approximation of territory actually controlled by them. Having said that, the line of control shown on File:Somalia map states regions districts.png is somewhat different, it seems that our map is a bit outdated (the border it shows looks like the one from beginning of 2008). I may try to fix it, but it's dubious whether keeping the boundary exactly up to date is worth the effort, as it seems to change quite often. — Emil J. 11:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me??? "phony states"? I'm shocked at what I'm forced to believe is such ignorance and crass reference to these states. Would you refer to Taiwan in that way? We have to approach this in a neutral way Emil. For Transnistria we have to be unbiased, its not as though it is completely unrecognised like Somaliland, it has international recognition, but only from other non-UN member states. By these facts, the colour red does not apply and it should be changed. Or perhaps creating a new colour, although that might make it look a little too busy.. Outback the koala (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The red colour on the map means and has always meant, ever since the map was created, no recognition by UN member states. That this was not clearly stated in the legend is another issue. There is a very good reason for this restriction, namely to guard against the situation we had before summer 2008: three otherwise unrecognized states had made a deal and recognized each other. If I proclaim my flat to be an independent state, my friend does the same, and then we recognize each other, it won't suddenly make us both "internationally recognized". — Emil J. 12:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one more clarification. I have reapplied the fix to the legend which you reverted because it is a factual correction. That the red colour on the map currently does not denote "no recognition whatsoever" but "no recognition by UN states" is an obvious matter of fact, as witnessed by Transnistria, and it's absurd for you to "disagree" with correcting the legend, especially since it was you who complained that the legend and the map mismatch in the first place. The only thing we can discuss is whether the colour scheme on the map should change (which I disagree with, as explained above). If such a change happens, then the legend should follow suit, but for now it has to accurately describe the current map. — Emil J. 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You leave out conveniently that SO and ABK are recognised by 4 UN states themselves. The importance of this cannot be understated. By changing the wording from international recognition to UN-states, you are changing the caption to be POV against the specific case of Transnistria. You suggest changing the caption to jive with the map. I suggest changing the map to jive with the caption, which is currently NPOV.
 * Also, please stop reverting my edits and discuss your change here on the talk page. To be explicit - I dispute you changing the caption. I hope you cannot ignore that and that you understand. Outback the koala (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The importance of the fact that SO and Abkhazia are recognized by 4 states for their own recognition of Transnistria is negligible. (Think about it like this: the weight of recognition of another state by Abkhazia is proportional to Abkhazia's own level of recognition, which currently stands at 2%.) We have to draw the line somewhere, and then it had better be placed at a meaningful distinction which the readers can appreciate. With respect to international recognition, the difference between the status of Transnistria and South Ossetia is much, much bigger than the difference between the status of Transnistria and Somaliland. To use an argument from the discussion above, the ultimate criterion should be whether the world cares. Now, nobody gives a damn that South Ossetia recognized Transnistria, whereas the recognition of South Ossetia by Russia (or even its recognition by the tiny and otherwise utterly insignificant island of Nauru) made headlines, worldwide. Do you see the difference? It simply makes no sense to put Transnistria in the same group with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while distinguishing it from Karabagh and Somaliland. Pretending that recognition by South Ossetia has the same importance as recognition by fully recognized states like France is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. The only sensible alternative to indicating only recognition by UN states as the current map does would be to introduce yet another colour. — Emil J. 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another thing: you seem to be confused about the meaning of core Wikipedia policies. There is absolutely nothing POV about saying that "Transnistria is not recognized by any UN member states." This is a pure statement of fact. You cannot counter it with "That's only your point of view. In my opinion, some UN states do recognize Transnistria," because that's just false. In fact, basing the map on "international recognition" by arbitrary states as you suggest is POV, because there is no universally accepted and verifiable definition of what should count as a state. See the discussion below on Sealand, for example. If Sealand recognized Somaliland, it would become a matter of opinion (POV) whether Somaliland still has "no international recognition", or whether we should recolour it as "minority recognition". And contrary to what you say, the current image caption is not NPOV. Worse yet, it is not even POV. It is simply wrong, it falsely states that the map depicts something which it really doesn't. — Emil J. 13:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, maybe we got off on the wrong foot, but please dont be putting words in my mouth. You seem to certainly be against lumping them all together to be coloured pink. Thats cool, whatever. BUT, this page does make a clear distinction; the sections separating the different levels of recognition. This is significant, and regarding these states, many really do "give a damn". So I propose changing the file and adjusting the caption to match the file once the change has been made. The file should reflect what is in the page, not the otherway around. A new colour would most likely work best in this case. Outback the koala (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the map currently does not reflect at all the sections in the article. I kind of like that idea though, it would at least ensure that any potential problems with the map are already present in the article, and therefore need to be dealt with anyway. I thus prepared a version of the map which strictly adheres to the sections of the article:




 * (It's uploaded under a different filename so that it does not disrupt other language wikipedias which rely on the current scheme.) Is it OK with you? — Emil J. 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great work!! Wow, I'm impressed, and very pleased with the great work. I suggest we include in the article post-haste!!! Well done Emil. Outback the koala (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, did we find out anything new regarding the border definitions for Somaliland?(I still support the map as it is, but just for clarification). I'm unsure if we should includes its claimed border... any thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Hamas
Should we mention Hamas/Gaza separetly from the PNA/West Bank? The official Palestine government is PNA - for both Gaza and West Bank, but as Hamas has total control in Gaza - the situation is similar to Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc where the "official de-jure" government does NOT CONTROL parts of the territory - TRNC, Karabakh, etc. Alinor (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hamas doesn't claim "statehood" for Gaza, though. I believe their position is that they are the rightful (but usurped) leadership of the PNA, and that the PNA in turn merits full international recognition as sovereign over the West Bank and Gaza (and, depending on how much they feel like riling up their base that day, Israel too.)
 * Having regions of a country under the de facto administration of "rebels" and the like is pretty commonplace. Chunks of Colombia are ruled by FARC, Afghanistan by the Taliban, Puntland in Somalia by Warlord Whateverhisnameis, and so on.  They don't merit inclusion because they aim to assume the authority of an existing state, not start a new one. The Tom (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is there a list of these cases? Alinor (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Government in exile? Like the case of PRC and ROC (both claiming to be the legitimate government of the whole China. Both controlling their parts). But we have PRC and ROC also here (Hamas Gaza would go to be put here)? Alinor (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Number of states recognising Palestine?
On this page it says that 93 UN members recognise Palestine as independent but on the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority page, it says "One-hundred and seven states recognize the State of Palestine, and 25 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition". So is it 93 or 107?

If it's 107 one could argue that Palestine should be under the "UN member states, not recognized by at least one other state".

Also should we mention the 25 states who "fall short of full diplomatic recognition" in the Unoffical relations section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.181.180 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Palestine is not a UN member state. --maxval (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The figure 107 + 25 on the other page you mentioned is sourced, but the source (which is the official website of the PA, and the same source that is used on this page) actually gives the number as 94 + 11. I don't know where the number 107 comes from. The State of Palestine page uses the figure 114 + 17, citing a different source that also gives a figure regarding the recognition of Israel that I know to be outdated. I think it's best to look at each individual case in order to gain the most accurate figure.

On a side note, the maps from the two other pages are also wildly conflicting:
 * 500px|left|thumb States in relation with Palestine (Israel shown in blue, Palestinian territories in red)
 * right|thumb|554px Map showing nations which have recognized or have special diplomatic arrangements with the State of Palestine or other Palestinian delegation.

This source to me is the most authoritative, but the number is probably outdated. Note that Serbia and Montenegro are both included under the name Yugoslavia--both states still recognise the SOP (see here and here). That makes 94.

Additions to that figure include the following: That brings the figure to 101, but the list is probably incomplete; other cases that need reviewing include Azerbaijan, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Central Asian republics, none of which I could find much information on. Night w (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Venezuela
 * Costa Rica
 * South Africa
 * Uzbekistan
 * Syria
 * Kazakhstan
 * Slovakia

Haven't we already established that 110 states have recognised Palestine, not 94? We should revert the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.48.190 (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see this discussion Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority Alinor (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestine is recognized by a majority of UN members. Shouldn't it have its own section?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Any comments? HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovakia
So why is Slovakia still colored on the map ? Eregli bob (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Logically, because no one has changed it. Inform the map creator or do it yourself. --Golbez (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Somaliland
I am having a discussion with another editor, at This Talk Page, regarding whether Somaliland is to be viewed as a region of Somalia or as an unrecognized country. Since it appears on this list, do any editors know if we on Wikipedia treat it as a region of Somalia, or if it is more neutral to approach it as an unrecognized country? Comments would be greatly appreciated. Outback the koala (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutrality requires that we allow both for the interpretation that it is an independent sovereign state and for the interpretation that it is part of Somalia. Excluding it does not allow for the interpretation that the Somaliland Government has it right (and thus is biased against Somaliland), and including it unmarked does not allow for the interpretation that the rest of the world has it right (and thus is biased in favour of Somaliland).  Including it explicitly as an unrecognised state and linking this list allows for both interpretations, and that's how it should be done.


 * Puntland, as you note on that talk page, is deliberately excluded from this list because it does not consider itself independent of Somalia. If and when Puntland declares independence from Somalia - and (more importantly) if and when such declaration is reported by reliable sources - it can go on this list.


 * I would also add that de jure is not a weasel word. Formal recognition, except in the rarest of circumstances (where a state explicitly recognises another's de facto existence), is a reflection only of a state's view of whether another state is legally constituted.  De facto recognition is a minefield that this list tries not to get involved with, simply because it is so open to wide differences in interpretation as to be nigh-on impossible to judge. Pfainuk talk 10:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel this debate will have an impact on the inclusion of Somaliland on this page(and all pages across wikipedia). I strongly encourage editors to participate. Outback the koala (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Waziristan
Waziristan does seem to hold de facto status from Pakistan. Although I am not sure if they have declared independence. Does anyone have information on whether Waziristan belongs on the list or not? CK6569 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we've discussed this, and so far as I know they have not declared independence. Same deal with Tamil Eelam; while it controlled its territory de facto for 25 years, at least as of 2003 it was not seeking independence. To be on here, an area has to either be recognized, or have full control over its area but be partially recognized, or have full control over its area and have declared independence. To have full control but not declared independence is not sufficient, as we do not know their motives; they may not desire to be a separate state. --Golbez (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a doubt, the Tamil Tigers intended to establish a separate sovereign state from Sri Lanka. The situation in Waziristan is different to a degree, since they haven't declared an intention to secede. Ladril (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That may have been their intent, but I am not aware of any actual declaration. It may have been the colonies' intent to be independent from Great Britain, but it didn't become official until July 4, 1776, at which time the revolutionary war had already been going on for 15 months. Before then, I don't think we would have listed them. --Golbez (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tigers officially claimed to be acting in the spirit of the Vaddukoddai Resolution of 1976, in which Tamil organizations declared the intention to establish an independent state of Tamil Eelam, so there is an official document. Would you argue that Miguel Hidalgo intended for Mexico to become independent just because he never wrote his intention down? Ladril (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point remains, we can't assume a group wants to be independent just because they're fighting against against the dominant government in their territory. Some just want autonomy, or want to take over altogether. So I would say he intended it, but we do not report unspoken intent; we can only state what has been proclaimed. I looked around at our articles and I never found any reference to an actual declaration of independence. Of course, now it's moot, since the war's over. --Golbez (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking anyone to make assumptions. My point is that the fact that the Tamil Tigers were an independentist organization is very well documented. On the other hand, I'm not sure about the Waziris. Despite their autonomy, they don't seem to have organized themselves into something that can be called a 'state' in the contemporary legal sense. Update: the text of the Waziristan Accord says they accepted the authority of the state of Pakistan, so I don't see why it's used as evidence of existence of a de facto state in the region. Ladril (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland/Somalia on Africa Template
Hello, I'm having a discussion with a couple editors on how best to group Somalia/Somaliland/Somali States on this template here at Template Talk. Input from other editors would, as always, be welcome.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Lakotah
Is the Republic of Lakotah a micronation? It's not on the list and there are no references to micronations in the article, but it is part of the wikiproject.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * it is a proposed country. It currently does not exist. Outback the koala (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not even a micronation. --Golbez (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At present, it's a secessionist movement. Ladril (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

North Sentinel Island
North_Sentinel_Island is inhabited by uncontacted peoples who resist all attempts at communication and certaintly do not recognize that the Indian government has soveriegnty over them. Should the island be listed as an unrecognized state, the people there have full control over their affairs and soveriegnty, the Indian government makes no attempt to interfere in there affairs.XavierGreen (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think to include them as a sovereign state would require some form of affirmative declaration of independence from them. Since they have willingly no contact with the outside world, such affirmation cannot be made. It's an interesting situation but they are certainly not a state (being a state requires, at the very least, to declare yourself a state), and they certainly are completely unrecognized. At the very very most, it would be something akin to Niue's relationship with New Zealand, except not consensually. --Golbez (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They have 100% control over their own affairs within the territory of the island and most likely dont even understand the concept of statehood as we know it. Perhaps adding them to the noteworthy entities section at the bottom of the list of sovereign states would be better? They are certaintly defacto independent, most likely the best example that exists in the world lol.XavierGreen (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But if we add them, what of all the other possibly isolated tribes in the Amazon and New Guinea? I think it would possibly constitute original research to confer statehood upon them. Maybe a one-sentence mention in noteworthy entities. --Golbez (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's impossible to name all the uncontacted tribes, pretty much by definition.  It's better to leave this list to those who actually claim sovereign status IMO.  Any mention in the noteworthy entities would be best made general (to encompass all uncontacted tribes) - but I think a link to that article under See also would probably be more useful. Pfainuk talk 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The primary difference between the Sentinal Islanders and the other uncontacted peoples is that the sentinal islanders have 100% control over their island while the other tribes independence often comes into conflict with that of the country they live in over mining/logging rights.XavierGreen (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * India allowing them to live their lives isolated does not change the fact that, internationally, that island is considered Indian territory, and should India ever wish to interfere and assert their sovereignty, no other nation on earth would challenge it. If those miners and loggers never went to a particular part of the Amazon, that wouldn't change the fact that those people live in Brazil, at least as far as we're concerned.
 * Yes but the same goes for Somaliland and Nagorno-Karabakh which are listed here but recognized by the rest of the world as being parts of other countries. If the Somalia government attempted to assert its sovereignty over Somaliland, no government would complain either.XavierGreen (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, at least in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, Russia, the USA, and France would probably very unhappy if Azerbaijan asserted its rights, seeing as how they are all parties to the peace talks. But that's moot; Nagorno-Karabakh has de facto control over its territory and has demonstrated an ability to preserve that control, and has declared independence. I suppose you could say the Sentinelese, by firing arrows at a helicopter, have done the above. As for Somaliland, that's assuming a Somali government ever manages to extend to all of Mogadishu, let alone Somalia. :) --Golbez (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They've pretty much killed everyone whos set foot on the place that they didnt want staying, driving off the anthropologists and government workers who survived. Would not that constitute preserving their control?XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is, they are not looking to be recognised as a state in the terms defined by modern international law (see Westphalian sovereignty). They are a tribe. Ladril (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking that that is what they really lack - a government. But since there are so few of them, I guess whoever heads the tribe constitutes the 'government'. sephia karta |  dimmi  10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They do not claim independance, so they do not work on the list.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no way of knowing whether or not they claim independence since no one can understand there language and they refuse contact, but they most definately assert their independence and refuse all outsiders entry and contact with the island.XavierGreen (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point being made by everyone is that their form of political organization is tribal. This means they do not claim to be a state under international law. They do not belong in this article because this is a list of states, not tribes. Ladril (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah but what form of society they have is quite unknown as well. They very well could have a king (and in that case be a state), have some sort of tribal system, or indeed no system at all. There is no way of knowing since no one has ever communicated with them.XavierGreen (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but let's assume ignorance of their social organization for a moment. If we don't know whether they consider themselves to be a state, how can we ascribe the label to them? Ladril (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Other possibilities to discuss are the Burmese minority regions: Shan State and Wa State. Night w (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shan state exists de jure as a part of federal Myanmar. Wa state is an unrecognised state within it. Its situation is somewhat analogous to that of Puntland and Galmudug in Somalia (except that Somalia's transitional government does not consider Somalia a federal state). If Wa (and Puntland and Galmudug) were to be included in a list they would have to be separate from the states that claim a full international personality. Ladril (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've got that the wrong way around. Myanmar is the one that's not considered federal by its "government". Somalia's Transitional Federal Government is in the process of making the switch. But the situation isn't really the same, because Puntland and Galmudug aren't claiming independence, whereas the Shan and Wa are. They control vast swaths of territory, they've defined their borders, and have a population. But they haven't engaged in any foreign relations, and they haven't exactly started stamping out passports or citizenship certificates (so far as I know), so I guess you couldn't really call them "states". Night w (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that none of those jurisdictions mentioned above (Wa, Shan, Galmudug, Puntland) are de facto independent states in the sense of the other entries on this list. The Shan people do have an independentist movement that was militarily defeated in the 1990s, so they don't have the control needed to consider them a de facto state (and legally, they exist as a state of Myanmar). Puntland and Galmudug are de facto autonomous, since the Transitional Government of Somalia does not consider their authorities legitimate nor does their Charter refer to them as divisions of Somalia.


 * As for the Wa state, it exists de facto, but it doesn't seem to claim recognition as a sovereign state separate from Myanmar (indeed, they signed a cease-fire agreement with the military in 1989). They may be a strong separatist/autonomist movement, but a de facto state they are not (yet?). Ladril (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These sources prove that at present the Wa movement is for autonomy, not for independence: http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15085
 * http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=14874 . Ladril (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Armenia not recognized by Pakistan?!
Is there any reliable source other than a statement from a Minister pulished on Azeri web-site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.218.10.158 (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first reference given in the article is an official publication by the Senate of Pakistan. It repeats several times quite unambiguously that Pakistan does not recognize Armenia. — Emil J. 19:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Languedge removal by VolkovBot
Why is VolkovBot removing semingly valid languedge tags and my reverts are bieng reverted?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See the last three sections on User talk:VolkovBot. — Emil J. 13:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Liechtenstein & the Czech Republic
Last year this article said that these two nations did not recognise one another due to some dispute arising from World War II. If this situation has changed, then why is it not mentioned on the list of historical unrecognized countries? (Likewise the Slovak Republic & Liechtenstein.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.197.122 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can read in its intro, the list of historical unrecognized countries contains extinct geopolitical entities, that wished to be recognized as sovereign states, but did not enjoy worldwide diplomatic recognition. Its scope does not cover current geopolitical entities which used to be not fully recognized, that's a different issue.—Emil J. 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, I believe there should be room in that article for entities that still exist today. After all, it's intended to be a historical list. Ladril (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe this (and similar cases) could go in List of denied recognitions (including history section) - or in such section here? Alinor (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the history section, how is your list supposed to be different from this list? I don't see the rationale for creating so many lists on more or less the same topic. If the information is deemed important, it would be better to incorporate it in a separate section either here or in the list of historical unrecognized countries.—Emil J. 11:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a separate section in the list of historical unrecognized countries would be good. Alinor (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... when exactly did the situation supposedly change? I can't find any information stating that ties had ever been restored. 75.154.86.103 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC).
 * 13 July 2009. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As per the two sources provided in hidden text in the article is was December 12 2009., . TDL (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's only for Slovakia, Orange Tuesday's date is correct for the Czech Republic. You can find sources in Foreign relations of the Czech Republic and in Foreign relations of Liechtenstein.—Emil J. 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Transnistria recognized by Nagorno-Karabakh
In the article Disputed status of Transnistria it says that Nagorno-Karabakh recognizes Transnistria, there is a citeation, but I can't follow it.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This citation http://pridnestrovie.net/foreignpolicy_full.html seems to substantiate the idea of mutual recognition. In particular: "In order to maintain the dialogue on the questions of mutual interest and to coordinate activities in the sphere of international relations, Pridnestrovie will continue developing friendly relations with the Republic of Abkhazia, Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Republic of South Ossetia." BTW, I'm adding "Pridnestrovie" as a second name for the country, in order to make the page more informative. Ladril (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Does frendly relations mean recognition? It appears to in the case of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but is it the same kind of frindly relations with Nagorno-Karabakh? If their is mutual recognition we should put it on the list.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't we need a Nagorno-Karabakh source, rather than Transnistrian source, to verify that Nagorno-Karabakh recognizes Transnistria? This source with the "friendly relations" is ambiguous, but at best it can indicate that Transnistria recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh, not the other way round.—Emil J. 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, it strongly implies that Pridnestrovie recognizes NK. It would be very odd to have friendly relations with a republic and also not to recognize it. Ladril (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I say we need better evidence. sephia karta |  dimmi  18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the BBC a source of better evidence than TransDniester's Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Ladril (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Sephia. Outback the koala (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily mean that we need a better source, we need a source that explicitly says that NK recognised Transnistria. sephia karta  |  dimmi  17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that, on this page, recognition of Pridnestrovie is being substantiated with nothing more than a BBC story. On the other hand an official government statement that implies recognition of Karabakh is being questioned more. It's the standards what I find questionable. Ladril (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is how I interpreted your statement. Certainly we need a source that makes it clear that recognition has taken place. Outback the koala (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Recognition is often implied in statements and/or actions. Non-recognition, on the other hand, has to be more explicit. I don't see a problem with assuming from the source that one country recognizes the other. Ladril (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the dead link on that other page and tagged it as unsourced. Tried searching the website, but I couldn't find anything else matching the claim. Night w (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This very interesting news story (in Russian) suggests that N-K has not officially recognised Abkhazia (or presumably SO or TN), but that since NK's President was at Bagapsh's inauguration, the two entities now recognise each other at least de facto. http://abkhasia.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/166218/ sephia karta  |  dimmi  01:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A visit from one head of state to another is a highly symbolic gesture that pretty much signifies recognition. This is the reason why heads of state of unrecognized countries are not allowed to travel to countries that do not recognize them. As for the official position of NK, it's unfortunate that their foreign affairs website is so uninformative. Ladril (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Night W why is the link dead? Also if Transnistria recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh that should be included, not avoided, if it is the case.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the link is dead...the URL just doesn't exist anymore, so the website has either deleted the article or moved it to another URL address. The Russian version of the Nagorno-Karabakh article gives a source which states (in Russian):
 * "'Transnistria acknowledges and recognises the independence of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, in accordance with the will of the people of those states.'"
 * The Russian version also states that NK is recognised by Abkhazia and South Ossetia; I'll follow that up later. Night w (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The four sources provided for recognition by Abkhazia and South Ossetia are here: 1, 2, 3, 4. They're all in Russian. Apparently their prime ministers and foreign ministers have met a few times to discuss stuff. None of them are anywhere near as definitive as the Transnistrian one. Night w (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is everyone okay with this source (adding it would mean moving NKR to the next category)?
 * Seeing as no objections have been raised, I've put the claim of recognition in, added sources (the one above, plus additional), and moved NKR in accordance. Night w (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the recognition mutual?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I don't have anything that explicitly implies recognition. Night w (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: Do we know when this recognition took place? Like in terms of a date? Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No we don't, and we don't know for most states. This is because recognition is not always the product of a formal statement. Ladril (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually for states on this list I kind of think we do. We have a date for every recognition of Kosovo, every recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, every recognition of the PRC or ROC, and every recognition of the SADR. We know the date when Turkey recognized the TRNC, and we know the date when Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognized Transnistria. The exception seems to be this mutual recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. Just strikes me as odd that we can't date (even to the year) such a recent event. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all those dates are referenced, and "states on this list" also includes Armenia, Cyprus, both Koreas, Israel... Ladril (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladril, the vast majority of states we do not know the dates of recognition. Outback the koala (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

On the List of sovereign states it still says that Nagorno-Karabakh is compleatly unrecognized.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Recognition of North Korea
In the article Foreign relations of North Korea it says that France and Estonia do not recognize North Korea.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a source for that the entry here can be fixed. However, i believe there is none. In that case you're free to correct that other page or to put a citation needed tag. Ladril (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The majority of European states normalised relations with North Korea following the Korean convention in 2000. France and Estonia are the only remaining not to do so. They don't have formal diplomatic relations, but whether this constitutes non-recognition is unclear. The French version of France-North Korea relations states that France (and Estonia) does not recognise North Korea, but the references provided don't make that unequivocally clear. These two sources (1, 2) are probably the best to look at. It should certainly be followed up, given that the French version seems to claim that recognition has not yet been extended. Night w (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of France, there seem to be initiatives to begin strengthening relations with North Korea. This does not necessarily imply recognition, but it doesn't look like France really questions or denies the existence of North Korea as a state. Ladril (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Theories and law
This page, in the process of defining its subject, refers to the Montevideo Convention—an international treaty that reflects the declarative theory of statehood in theoretical law. The list of sovereign states bases its criteria for inclusion solely on the same treaty. But why are we drawing our conclusions about "what determines statehood" from that single convention? Firstly, only 19 states are party to the treaty, and all of them are American. The European Union follows a separate (albeit similar) policy, as does the African Union, and in most cases anyway, the definition of external sovereignty remains a matter of individual foreign policy. So why are we picking that particular code to determine the criteria? Personally, I don't have any problems with what polities have/havn't been included; only with the means by which it was done (and is done, for future cases). Night w (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the Montevideo Convention is a widely used reference in academic texts on theory of statehood. If there are other international agreements on the subject they can be referenced as well. Ladril (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In most cases it's a matter of individual policy, and even the policies of the EU or AU are irrelevant. Only treaties implemented within the United Nations can be regarded as international law that can be applied universally. The Montevideo Convention is, at present, just a treaty between these 19 American states—none of which are party to any of the current disputes on this page—and what they (only they) regard as a state. By using Montevideo, we're giving preeminence to one group's view on the subject, which is incredibly biased (it constitutes < 10% of the international community). I don't care how oft-quoted it is; it's not relevant, and shouldn't be applied to areas that are not party to it in the first place.
 * I'm proposing using the declarative theory of statehood instead—which isn't much of a change, as the Montevideo agreement is merely a codified version of that theory. As long as there's no law that is universally applied, we should stick to the two theories widely used in academics. Night w (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, but you have to care, since the Convention is a standard that is used by practically the entire world to agree on a definition of statehood (including the entities listed on this page). The issue is not that only 19 states participated in it, but that it is, for the most part, *the* legal document of reference for both practical and academic use. Referencing it and the United Nations Charter seems to me like more than enough to cover the international legal doctrine on the matter. This seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Ladril (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I don't. There is no universal standard for determining statehood; that's why there are two competing theories (the other being the constitutive theory). Your claim that Montevideo is "used by practically the entire world to agree on a definition of statehood" is unverifiable and it's false to begin with, since as I've said, that's a matter of individual policy for most governments (here is the Swiss definition, for example). The fact that only 19 states participated is an issue if you're going to apply it universally, especially to areas that aren't party to it. States that are not party to a treaty are not legally bound by it, so it is not the legal document of reference, certainly not in a practical sense—unless you've got any ICJ case documents that reference it. The United Nations Charter refers to territorial integrity, something that's certainly relevant, but it doesn't define statehood. As long as there's no law, we should stick to the two theories. Night w (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure you do. The Convention is so much of a world standard that all the following countries - none of them American - invoke it to justify their statehood (and I'm pretty sure the others do as well):

Abkhazia http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7854/76/

Somaliland http://www.unpo.org/content/view/9293/236/ and also http://www.mbali.info/doc86.htm

Pridnestrovie http://pridnestrovie.net/montevideo_convention.html

Nagorno Karabakh http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2008/7.html

Taiwan http://www.gio.gov.tw/unfortaiwan/inun01e.htm

Palestine http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/974/op11.htm


 * It's interesting that your own source paraphrases pretty much the text of the Convention, BTW.
 * The main reason I'm opposing this is practical. If we remove references to the already existing documents, other people will keep putting them back in. This will create more problems than it will solve. Ladril (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, is that where it's paraphrasing from? It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that both policies are derived from the same source... What are all these links meant for? You've just accumulated a bunch of English articles on random websites and then claimed that they were authored by their associated governments. The only one that's even hosted on a government website is the ROC one, which is an opinion article taken from a 2007 issue of The Politico, a newspaper published in the United States. Not that any of that matters, for the reasons I've already been through. If it's not international law, then it can't be applied across the board—and hasn't been (again, unless you have some ICJ casefiles to disprove that). It can only be applied when considering statehood in the areas party to the treaty. I'm not proposing simply removing the reference to Montevideo; I'm proposing replacing it with its origin theory—until that's done, picking one group's policy and applying it universally is violating WP:NPOV. Night w (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to commend Ladril on his new intro. It's a great improvement, and it addresses the issue I was whining about above. Nice one, mate! Night w (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead
Consider this text in the introductory section:

"most times, the existence of these entities is seen by general international community as a consequence of violations of article 11 of the Montevideo Convention[1] and, more generally, of article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations which nowadays corresponds to customary international law.[2]"

Is it just me, or is this incredibly tendentious? References to the "international community" seem to me like political more than encyclopedic stuff, and the whole parapgraph seems to suggest that the existence of these entities is illegal and undesirable. I believe it should be reworded. Ladril (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Montevideo Convention cannot be 'violated' by any party that didn't sign it - its principles can apply or not, that's all. sephia karta |  dimmi  17:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree. I'd also suggest that there are several cases where the "general international community" is split, and thus that even if the point is valid in some cases, "most times" is not necessarily fair. Pfainuk talk 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland?
Some articles on Wikipedia involving Somaliland (including its main article) state that it is recognized by Israel, using a source that this list uses as proof that it is NOT recognized. This is confusing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.49.140.188 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This should not be. I will remove what I can find. Thank You for already editing this page. Outback the koala (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. sephia karta  |  dimmi  11:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy See
Has the Holy See / Vatican City been deliberately missed off this list? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence that any country deliberately does not recognize it? --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a "UN non-member recognized by at least one UN member" and so it should be included on the list.--Reilly616 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.72.9 (talk)
 * ...and this is the consequence of the current table organization. That's why I've been insisting on changing it for a long time, but met with a lot of resistance. To answer the question, this list is about states which are explicitly non-recognized by at least one other state, which to my knowledge, is NOT the case of the Holy See.Ladril (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of table organization would you change it to. I am interested and was not here for any previous proposal. Outback the koala (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Something I've been thinking about is to do away with the UN as an axis for organizing the tables (I argue it leads to confusions, since Palestine, while not officially a member, has a semi-member status at the organization, so to speak). Maybe make a single table with a special label for those states that are UN members or UN observers. The current organization seems to me like it has more categories than is desirable. Ladril (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Exists since" vs. "Disputed since"
As requested, here's the ultra-long series of reasons why I go for the first one:

1. Not all the states with limited recognition belong to the category due to being disputed. Montenegro is a case in point. It simply has not been recognized yet. Thus we need to make the list one where all future cases are going to fit. For example, if Southern Sudan becomes a new state in the near future, it will most likely be in the list with a non-disputed status, at least for a while.

2. A single date listed for a "dispute" is not always going to be accurate, simply because disputes are dynamic not static. For example, Morocco clearly started disputing the SADR since 1976, but other countries only did so later. Ditto for Palestine and other cases. As a result, the "disputed since" label serves little purpose. I certainly see no other way around this.

Ladril (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a huge fan of either term quite honestly. You make some good points against using "disputed".  However, "existed" has it's own set of issues.  For instance, what is your definition of existence?  Montenegro clearly existed pre-2006 as a distinct, albeit non-sovereign, political entity.  Taiwan is even more complicated.  Do we use the date of when the political entity (ROC) was founded or when Taiwan and the mainland split?  I'd argue that using "exists" isn't a NPOV either, since it's the very existence which is being disputed.  How about using "declared" or "claimed" or something along those lines.  It's easy to pinpoint a date, and all countries have necessarily claimed independence in order to warrant being on the list.  And it has the added advantage of being blind to the reasons why full recognition has yet to be achieved.  TDL (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Declared" - what if a country comes into existence through a peace treaty or a Compact of Free Association or some other situation?


 * "Claimed" - by whom? The column's purpose would not be clear.


 * "Do we use the date of when the political entity (ROC) was founded or when Taiwan and the mainland split?" The date of foundation, without a doubt. One could just as easily argue that it started being "disputed" as soon as the Chinese Revolution of 1927 began. See the point?


 * "Exists" is as clear as anything can be. Note that the term refers to modern versions of states. There are historical lists for older incarnations of Poland, Serbia, etc. Another solution, if no consensus can be found, would be to get rid of the dates altogether.Ladril (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ask some Azeris if Nagorno-Karabakh exists and you'll quickly find out that they have a very different impression of the term than you do. --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It exists. That some people have an issue with that is another matter entirely. Or are you saying this is a list of things that don't exist? Ladril (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I would wager that many Azeris would actually simply say it does not exist. That it's a figment in the imagination of Armenians. --Golbez (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides Golbez, you can ask the UN and many states whether Taiwan is disputed and the response will be "there is no such dispute". Ladril (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is disputed. It's claimed by two governments. --Golbez (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else wants to comment? Ladril (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem is this list combines legitimately unrecognized countries (Montenegro; some countries are lazy, and I'm not even sure we should be listing it) with ones that have been disputed for decades; Taiwan, South Korea, etc. If it were a list of disputed areas, "Disputed" would be fine. But the only other verb that seems to make sense in this case is "Exists", i.e. when did said country proclaim/achieve de facto independence. But maybe a re-evaluation of the scope of the list is in order. --Golbez (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Up until recently the page has been managed as a "list of disputed states", which it isn't. As you said, that's where the problem is coming from. Montenegro has to be kept because we don't know the motives (if any) for non-recognition by every country (thus we can't assume it is necessarily indolence). And as a side note, I suspect Serbia is in a similar situation (though I have not listed it due to a lack of sources). Ladril (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just keep it simple & say "Since" and the year it was first observed in the modern era (not in the past/historical era as said above before). This situation we have here isn't actually "disputed", but really not in acceptance to the states involved. All have differing reasons, but whatever they may be, a starting year in when it first occurred (as sourced too) is needed within the timeline. Hopefully this would be an easier compromise without arguing what 'other' word should be added before it. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Too confusing for the non-expert reader to understand. Here is an alternate idea: do away with the dates column altogether and replace with a short historical note for each entry, detailing how the state came to exist. That would probably be more helpful. Ideally the note would be a part of the already existing "Recognition" column. Ladril (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example:


 * I like it; over-reliance on tables dumbs the data down. We need not be afraid of full sentences. Though, and this is orthogonal to this discussion, but I think the third cell there could lose the parenths and just go with a full sentence. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Golbez and Ladril. The dates and parenthesis should go.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome idea. Any comments from Stevanb? Night w (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Query Will this be applied to all the tables or the first only? As Danlaycock said at the beginning, neither descriptor is very good, but we should indicate the time period that the state's sovereignty has been contested. I understand that we can't be too descriptive here, but I do not feel like this change would be an improvement to the page, at this time. I am open to being convinced otherwise, pending further discussion, I may change my position. Outback the koala (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in the proposal that says the time period of dispute wouldn't be mentioned... --Golbez (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if anything this proposal will help make the time period more clear to the reader. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Using full sentences to describe what are always complex nuances is vastly superior to simply setting aside a table cell for an unelaborated year. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the tables sortable by name only? Ladril (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Add "class=unsortable", I think, to the other column heads. But I don't see much use to that; I see zero usefulness in allowing it to simply be sorted alphabetically. That doesn't enhance anyone's knowledge of the subject. Maybe makes it marginally easier to browse, but that's it. Especially since it's already alphabetically sorted (though Taiwan is an edge case).
 * No big deal if it isn't sortable. Ladril (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh
Two questions: Its independence was voted on in 1991 (and Dec 10 1991 seems to be an important date to them), but only proclaimed in January 1992; which date should be mentioned? Secondly, should we mention the event that cemented their current status? I was thinking something like, "Nagorno-Karabakh declared its independence in 1992, and its de facto control over its territory was established in the Bishkek Protocol following the Nagorno-Karabakh War." --Golbez (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To 1) The date of proclamation.
 * To 2) Don't see much use to it, any more than citing the Korean War Armistice. Ladril (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Commas
Tiny issue, I know, but it really seems to be more of a sentence than a mere inventory if we use commas rather than colons. And we keep missing some when we hop back and forth. :P --Golbez (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I do see the utility in using parenths for issues like South Ossetia, since the important part is "four UN members", not necessarily who they are. --Golbez (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be extremely uniform. The style problem is that when you say "two UN members, Japan and South Korea", you're actually implying there's four countries not recognizing. If only one country is being mentioned either the colon or the comma are O.K. Ladril (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Abkhazia
Okay, so while we're rewriting things, this one's a bit more complicated than the page currently lets on. Abkhazia unilaterally readopted the 1925 Constitution of the Abkhazian SSR on 23 July 1992, attained de facto independence from Georgia during the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993), adopted its present constitution on 26 November 1994, and had an independence referendum on 3 October 1999. But the actual formal declaration of independence didn't come until 12 October 1999. How much of this information does the reader need, and what's the best way to get it across? How many of those dates should we include? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say nothing more is needed than perhaps changing the date to 1999 (and I say perhaps because I'm not entirely sure even of this). However, the articles on Abkhazia and History of Abkhazia are undeveloped in this respect. My suggestion would be to improve them with reliable citations and after that Abkhazia's entry can be fixed if necessary. Ladril (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the 1999 referendum was on the constitution, and the 1999 declaration said that Abkhazia had been de jure independent since the 1992-1993 war. And 30 September is independence day - the war ended 30 september 1993. So fixing a single date really is very difficult, but I would go for 30 September 1993. sephia karta  |  dimmi  16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Order of Malta
Explaining the last edit: specifying that SMOM participates in the UN as an international organization is important, in order to distinguish it from the observer state, the Holy See. Source http://www.un.org/en/members/intergovorg.shtml Ladril (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so an observer organization, similar to Palestine in the UN? Outback the koala (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to add special cases to this, then you also would most likely have to add other areas with soveriegnty that do not declare themselves to be states such as CERN and North Sentinel Island.XavierGreen (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Do they claim to be sovereign under international law? Are there any sources? Ladril (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sentinal Islanders assert their soveriegnty over a defined territory independently fromthe influence of any other power. It is impossible to determine what kind of structure their society posseses (a cheifdom, tribal, or rudimentary state) because they repell all influence from the outside world and speak an unknown language. They posses soveriegnty in the truest sense, and have never ceded it to any other power (though India claims the island as well). As for CERN and similar groups, they do not claim to be independent states but non the less they posses soveriegnty over the small bits of territory that they have extraterritoriallity over.XavierGreen (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * CERN should not be included on this list because it does not claim to be sovereign or independent. If this is the case then a source would be helpful to clarify this. Outback the koala (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the SMOM is included on this list since they don't claim to be a state. Clearly they claim to be sovereign, but this is a List of states, not sovereign entities.  Also, are there any sources which support the claim that they are partially unrecognized?  The article currently states "The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a non-state subject of international law which is currently recognized as such by 110 UN member states and the Holy See, through the establishment of diplomatic or "official" relations"."  But the establishment of diplomatic relations is not the same thing as recognition.  Most states don't have formal diplomatic relations with every state they recognize, so a lack of formal relations doesn't imply a lack of recognition.  TDL (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So if we put the clarifier of 'at least' would that perhaps solve the issue, at least temporarily? Outback the koala (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with TDL, this is a list of states not sovereign entities.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I said at the beginning this was a can of worms. Clarifying:

1. SMOM is listed as a special case because it is not a state. It is, however, a sovereign entity and other states treat it as if it were a state. This is why it is also mentioned in List of sovereign states.

2. In the case of SMOM only, diplomatic recognition is equivalent to the establishment of diplomatic relations because the entity does not exercise sovereignty over any territory. Its sovereign status is in fact asserted by governments establishing relations with it. It must be noted that the order operates in many countries with which it does not have official relations.

As for sources, the very first one given under 'references' in the tables explicitly states that 99 states (at the time) had recognized the order by establishing relations with it. At least one of the other sources confirms it. Ladril (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but then you have North Sentinal Island which has the characteristics of an independent sovieregn entity, yet is unknown what manner of government the inhabitants govern themselves with. They have territory yet last thing they want is to have relatons with anyone from the outside, where as the SMOM has no territory yet has relations with other states.XavierGreen (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is that there exists a world system of nation-states under modern international law. North Sentinel island do not participate in it, and neither do the Amazon tribes, the aboriginal nations of the United States, the Zapatista municipalities, the South African kings, the non-self governing territories, etc. If the Sentinelese were to approach the government of India or of any other state and ask to be recognized as one, the matter would be a different one altogether. Ladril (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between North Sentinal and the other examples you mention is that these other entities have states that actively assert some level of soveriegnty over them. No one has been able to assert any type of authority over the Sentielese in any manner. Japan did not for most of it's history participate in the Nation-State world system you speak of, yet was still a soviergen entity under international law. Isolation does not disavow soveriegnty or independenceXavierGreen (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's far from a unique case. The US government, for example, has never exercised any authority over the Mohawk (the arrangements between the US and Canadian governments and the Mohawk have taken place in the form of treaties, as in Canada). But that doesn't stop the states concerned from considering the entire territory, Indian lands included, as part of them. As for Japan, no one denies it was a sovereign entity before the nineteenth century, but before then the Western powers did not recognize it, so it couldn't have participated before at least 1888 (and since 1638 the country had outlawed any contact with foreigners). Ladril (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The United States does exercise authority over the Mohawk, if a Mohawk violates federal law he is subject to prosecution under that law. No outside nation excersises any authority on North Sentinel Island, if someone were to break an Indian law on North Sentinal island the indian government has no authority to exercise that law. The Mohawk do not exercise complete soveriegnty over any piece of territory on earth, while the Sentinalese control their island with absolute authority.XavierGreen (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "if someone were to break an Indian law on North Sentinal island the indian government has no authority to exercise that law."
 * The authority under international law they have, since no other state contests their sovereign claim to North Sentinel island. That they tacitly choose to leave a tribal people alone is another matter entirely. And as has happened in the case of the Mohawk, if India were to try to build a golf course or whatever on Sentinelese land, they would use their sovereignty claim to argue the legality of the action. Ladril (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sentinelese do not recognize the indian soveriegnty claim, the mohawk recognize that canada and the united states are the ultimate soveriegn powers over them. Your arguement is akin to saying that Somaliland is not a soveriegn state because no other country recognizes it as such and that Somalia is really in control there because the world recogizes them as the real soveriegns there.XavierGreen (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "the mohawk recognize that canada and the united states are the ultimate soveriegn powers over them." According to which document? Ladril (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the treaties in which they ceded their land to the united states and the treaties establishing their indian reservations in the US and Canada. The fact that the mohawk participate in canadian and american government functions (such as elections) can be used as proof that they accept American soveriegnty, but i think the treaties they signed are the best evidence.XavierGreen (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to research the matter further. The Mohawk were never conquered militarily, never surrendered their sovereignty, and have conducted relations on a nation-to-nation basis with states such as Great Britain. Here is an example of the treaties they have signed: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/six0034.htm . Ladril (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heres one where they ceded all of their land claims in New York, []XavierGreen (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? Did France stop being a nation because it relinquished Alsace-Loraine? Ladril (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The mohawk do not exercise complete soveriegnty over any land, the north sentinel islander exercise absolute soveriegnty over their island.XavierGreen (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's not Westphalian sovereignty, which is a central concept in modern international law. Ladril (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is why the North Sentinal Island are a special case not a UN non member with no international recognition.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No no no. Only entities which claim Westphalian sovereignty belong on this page. If it's not listed on List of sovereign states it cannot be here. Ladril (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah but this article makes no mention of Westphalian soverienty and states in its introduction that states can be soveriegn under the Declarative theory of statehood. Also the SMOM does not have a defined territory as is stated as a requirement of the Westphalian sovereignty page. Both the SMOM and North Sentinal island do satisfy the exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures and North Sentinal does have a defined territory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

¤
 * Both the declarative and constitutive theories are based on Westphalian sovereignty, which is the modern arrangement between nation-states. The SMOM does not have a territory but since it does have diplomatic recognition from other states, its sovereignty is Westphalian. In any case, whether North Sentinel qualifies as a state with Westphalian sovereignty should be discussed in List of sovereign states, and if it does, then it can be considered for inclusion on this page as well. Ladril (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is true that article makes no mention of Westphalian sovereignty, however we could not include North Sentinal Island, only exclude SMOM. Of course, this would be a poor choose because it is an exception or 'special case and should be included. Outback the koala (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't we include North Sentinal Island? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My thiHnking is for NSI is that they have not organized themselves like a state, and if they have, we would have no way of knowing, since they reject all outside contact. They may claim to be independent, but likely we will never know (and by extension, there will be no source that know the answer either). Outback the koala (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are an independent people, no one is denying that. But they are not a state established under the modern Westphalian system. This is why they cannot be included in a list of sovereign states - it would be like mixing apples and oranges. The modern notion of state involves mutual treatment between states as equal persons. As a result, indigenous peoples who do not desire contact with the outside world are understood as wanting no part in this world arrangement and thus they cannot be included here. The sole facts that they will not venture out of their territory and they will kill any foreigner on sight is not enough to establish statehood in the modern, Westphalian sense. Ladril (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would not this status then be considered special, that they act as defacto independent soveriegns in their own unceded territory, yet it unknown in what capacity they actually claim governthemselves under? This source states they maintain an independent status from the outside world, [].XavierGreen (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I would think of as a requirement in order to consider it a special case is the existence of legal and academic studies discussing the status of the entity in question under international law. For the SMOM there are several, for Sentinel Island I'm not aware of any. Not doing so would be equivalent to crossing the line into original research. Ladril (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a list contaning only entities which claim Westphalian sovereignty? If so then why isn't it mentioned anywhere? If not then I don't see the problem with including the North Sentinal Island.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladril on SMOM. As for the North Sentinal Island, as per the above discussion we cannot asign them the lable of a state however they do behave like a Sovereign entity.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the North Sentinal Island are definatly a special case and if we are going to have a "special cases" section they should be mentioned there.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In reply, 1) I agree that most states treat the SMOM LIKE a state, but no one recognizes it as a state. (Nor does SMOM even claim to be a state). It's a state-like entity, not a state. If we want to go down this road, there are many state-like entites which could be included. 2) I don't understand your position Ladril. Why couldn't a government recognize the SMOM as a sovereign entity under international law without formally establishing diplomatic relations? TDL (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "I agree that most states treat the SMOM LIKE a state, but no one recognizes it as a state."


 * But it claims to be an entity with functional sovereignty, and many states of the world give it diplomatic recognition (i. e., they afford to it the same treatment given to states). Since the topic of this page is diplomatic recognition, it would be incomplete without a mention of all diplomatically recognized entities.


 * "If we want to go down this road, there are many state-like entites which could be included."


 * There are other state-like entities which are already included, such as the Holy See.


 * "Why couldn't a government recognize the SMOM as a sovereign entity under international law without formally establishing diplomatic relations?"


 * This is not what I was trying to argue, so apologies if I didn't explain myself correctly. It is possible for a state to recognize the sovereignty of the SMOM without having full diplomatic relations (six states currently do this). But the situation is that the SMOM, not having territorial sovereignty, has been gradually gaining recognition from other states as a functionally sovereign entity, and this is expressed through the establishment of relations with other states. It is like a new entrant, a situation that results from their special status. Ladril (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are confusing two different but related concepts here, that of a sovereign state as a independent authority under international law and that of a state as a type of polity as opposed to a tribe, anarchist commune, or some other type of polity.XavierGreen (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus section
The detail on Cyprus states: "Cyprus ... is currently not recognized by one UN member (Turkey) and one UN non-member (Northern Cyprus), as they do not accept that the Turkish military presence on Cyprus is an 'occupying force'." Never mind that this seems a bit harsh on the POV, is that actually the reason behind Turkey's non-recognition? Isn't it just because the north wants to secede and Turkey supports it...? Either way, the claim needs a reference, and I didn't get that from any of the sources currently provided. Anyone know what Turkey's official position is? Night w (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no doubt that's one of the main reasons, since the Turkish do not accept their army is an occupying force on Cyprus. Maybe it can be made a bit more neutral, though. I've added a new source that might be helpful. Ladril (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Case-Cases edit war
The reson I belive it should be cases is because new enteries could always be added by community discusion. Declaring a section "closed to new enteries" would be taking ownership of that section.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is warring. Leave it plural if you want. On the other hand, no one is going to argue the plural heading if another special case appears. However I insist that leaving it open from the beginning will throw the doors open to all sorts of claims. The page really doesn't need any more trouble than it already has.


 * As for the ownership issue, don't worry: I'm considering leaving the page alone for good. Nothing against you honest editors, but I'm getting tired of working so much only to see it repeatedly turn into a battleground for all sorts of political irredentists (especially those with axes to grind in the Serbia/Kosovo and Palestine/Israel conflicts). Ladril (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You stated in the edit summery that North Sentinal island should not be included because it is not subject to international law, but by that logic Somaliland should also be excluded from the page since it to is not recognized by anyone as subject to international law.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you're confused with regards to the terminology. Subjects of modern international law are sovereign states (and, under some modern interpretations, international organizations). Peoples that do not have contact with other civilizations cannot be said to be de facto states, because the Westphalian notion of 'state' (which forms the basis of international law) is not relevant to them. Ladril (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Somaliland is not included under this new "special case" section. It's under the main headings because it is a de facto state, regardless of recognition. Night w (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or clearer still: Somaliland is on the page because it aspires to become a separate subject of international law. Sentinel Island is not because it doesn't. Ladril (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladril; leaving it plural will bring many Sealand supporters down upon us. Outback the koala (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Artifical structures are not soveriegnable under international law so we dont have to worry about those clowns.XavierGreen (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's arguable. frankly, most of them don't care to visit the talk page for discussion anyway. Outback the koala (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point on leving it singuler. New additions can still be discssed hear and when we add one we will make it plural. As for Sealand "Artifical structures are not soveriegnable under international law ", however since Britan expanded its territorial waters to include Sealand I do not see how it is special anymore. Just another micronation with no control over its territory.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Artifical structures are not soveriegnable under international law " XavierGreen is correct about this. Several juries have ruled that you can't just build an artificial island or platform and claim it as a state out of nowhere. Ladril (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Law of the sea treaty states it i believeXavierGreen (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)