Talk:Saudi Arabian–Iraqi neutral zone

Old discussion
This article leaves the reader wondering why, if the Neutral Zone was partitioned in 1983, did it take ISO until 1993 to withdraw the corresponding ISO 3166 code - and leads to the suspicion that one of these years might be a typo. So I think we need to explain this, but I'm not very clear on the details. My understanding is that the 1983 agreement was not officially recognised internationally, simply because the relevant paperwork was never submitted. I've seen it suggested that it still isn't recognised - but date of withdrawal from ISO 3166 suggests that the matter was settled in the aftermath of the Gulf War, which would make sense. Does anyone know for certain? --Zundark, 2001 Nov 14

I don't know; that's the year the U.S. State Department gave. One possibility is that the ISO 3166-MA was just slow. What do you mean by it not being recognized internationally because the "relevant paperwork was never submitted"? Agreements to divide territory don't need to submit "relevant paperwork" AFAIK. Member States of the United Nations have to register all treaties with the United Nations Secretary-General; but failure to register doesn't make the treaty invalid, or deny it international recognition. Secret agreements aren't recognized by the United Nations, but it doesn't sound like the 1983 agreement was secret. And in any event, unless the international community had some substantive objection to the partition, they would recognize it even in the absence of proper formalities. -- SJK

As I said, the situation isn't clear to me. See the bottom half of http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_304.html for some discussion of the matter. I'm not doubting that the years 1983 and 1993 are correct, but I can't believe ISO was that slow - other changes to ISO 3166 were made in the intervening period. If the treaty wasn't registered with the UN, that would probably be enough to prevent ISO withdrawing the code, since ISO 3166 is largely based on UN data. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 15

Zundark: Okay based on the link you gave me, I'd say the situation is probably this: Saudi Arabia and Iraq divided the neutral zone. The rest of the world would have no problem recognizing it officially, except that Iraq and Saudi Arabia won't (or haven't bothered to) tell them the co-ordinates of the new border. As a result, they held off on recognizing officially, until they were provided with the co-ordinates. Eventually however they gave up, and just accepted that it was divided without knowing exactly where. Since ISO 3166-MA in normal circumstances is driven by the UN Statistical Division, ISO 3166-MA wouldn't have given up waiting until the UNSD had. -- SJK

1991 CIA factbook info.
Project Gutenberg has the 1991 CIA World Factbook online. I managed to find the entry for this place. I have copied it below if anyone wants to use it to improve this article:

 Iraq - Saudi Arabia Neutral Zone 

 Geography 

 Total area: 3,520 km2; land area: 3,520 km2 

 Comparative area: slightly larger than Rhode Island 

 Land boundaries: 389 km total; 191 km Iraq, 198 km Saudi Arabia 

 Coastline: none--landlocked 

 Maritime claims: none--landlocked 

 Climate: harsh, dry desert 

<tt> Terrain: sandy desert </tt>

<tt> Natural resources: none </tt>

<tt> Land use: arable land 0%; permanent crops 0%; meadows and pastures 0%; forest and woodland 0%; other (sandy desert) 100% </tt>

<tt> Environment: harsh, inhospitable </tt>

<tt> Note: landlocked; located west of quadripoint with Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia </tt>

<tt> People </tt>

<tt> Population: uninhabited </tt>

<tt> Government </tt>

<tt> Long-form name: none </tt>

<tt> Type: joint administration by Iraq and Saudi Arabia; in December 1981, Iraq and Saudi Arabia signed a boundary agreement that divides the zone between them, but the agreement must be ratified before it becomes effective </tt>

<tt> Economy </tt>

<tt> Overview: no economic activity </tt>

<tt> Communications </tt>

<tt> Highways: none; some secondary roads </tt>

<tt> Defense Forces </tt>

<tt> Note: defense is the joint responsibility of Iraq and Saudi Arabia </tt>

I hope this helps. - Hoshie | 19:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Poorly written
This article is extremely poorly written as it leaves the reader with the most important question of all: What is the current status of the Neutral Zone?Loomis51 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, what is the current status ???  --Jor70 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wahabi state
"...the first instance in which the Wahhabi state had deposited territorial instruments at this institution..."? I doubt that "the Wahabi state" is NPOV, and how many times does any state "deposit territorial instruments" anywhere?. Chopped. --Snori 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What treaty?
Notes 2, 4, and 5 doesn't cite the name of the treaty between Iraq and Saudi Arabia that settled the border. Name of treaty should be indicated. --Mistakefinder (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Straight Dope
Way too much in this article depends on "The Straight Dope", which itself is like Wikipedia, in that it's a pretty good source from which to find sources, in many cases. But Adams didn't include any here; I'd think we could do a lot better. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hover Box
The hover box on it's hyperlink does not show text(it still shows an image). Can someone who knows how it works fix it? Viral weirdo (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like the hover box system has been fixed because it's rendering properly now. For what it's worth, what was causing it was the coord placed at the top of the article instead of the bottom (where it should be per MOS:ORDER). Personally, I fixed dozens of articles like that while the bug was still active. — W.andrea (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)