Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:10, 27 April 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Estonia Mid‑importance State continuity of the Baltic states is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latvia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lithuania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title and synthesis

Is there any RS grouping these cases together under this title? I searched the ECHR for "cases on occupation of baltic states" and found none, could anyone direct me in the right place? I have placed the appropriate tags, but surely will look into ways to fix it if no one adequately addresses the issue. (Igny (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

Split this list of cases with a POV-title into individual cases

To eliminate POV-title and SYNTH issues, I suggest to split the article into individual cases. Since the current article is POV-titled synthesis, I suggest to delete it. (Igny (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) I created a draft of one of the cases here. (Igny (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

There is no Synth here. Please read for example Rislakki, Jukka (2008). he case for Latvia: disinformation campaigns against a small nation. Rodopi. p. 156. ISBN 9042024240. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). You might be right that the title may be reflecting the POV of the European Court of Human Rights though. What is it exactly you'd like to do about it? I'm open to suggestions.--Termer (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that my suggestion was to split the article into case articles, see the split tag. (Igny (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

There is no need to do that, the source given above speaks explicitly about the cases of the European Court of Human Rights where the occupation of Baltic states has been under discussion. And that's what this article is about.--Termer (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for adding such a punch of colorful tags to the top of this article. This really draws attention to this article and makes it stand out.--Termer (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stimson Doctrine&Welles Declaration

What's going on? The only reason anybody can talk about the legal continuity of the Baltic states is due to the Stimson Doctrine applied to the Occupation of the Baltic States by the Welles Declaration. Why such a fundamental fact about the subject got removed from the lede?--Termer (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Stimson Doctrine is "just" international reaction, and "just" one side of a coin ("Ex injuria jus non oritur" and non "de jure"). The reality was much more complex. Peltimikko (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two options really. Either to move all opinions and seemingly relevant and "fundamental" "facts" into the lede, or to keep the lede as concise as possible. I prefer the latter. (Igny (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

The reality was more complex? one side of the coin? where exactly this comes from? In the current form article has turned into an essay, please make it encyclopedic by listing facts only.--Termer (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"encyclopedic" =/= "listing facts only". (Igny (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Facts include opinions in case it's clearly pointed out who says so? Please familiarize yourselves with the subject instead of using abstract claims in the lede like "is a complex concept". According to whom this is a "complex concept" and why exactly? "...has two competing maxims", according to whom?

Historical dictionary of Estonia By Toivo Miljan available online spells out the whole 'complexity' very clearly, the continuity of the Baltic states is based on the US nonrecognition policy. The fact is if the Wells declaration wasn't there, the non-recognition policy was based on, nobody could have talked about the "legal continuity of the Baltic states" in 1991 and after.--Termer (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. one of the most comprehensive studies published on the subject would be Diplomats Without a Country: Baltic Diplomacy, International Law, and the Cold War by James T. McHugh , James S. Pacy--Termer (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can suggest reading State Continuity and its Consequences: The Case of the Baltic States by PETER VAN ELSUWEGE and references therein. (Igny (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

PETER VAN ELSUWEGE

— On the basis of the fundamental law principle of ex injuria non oritur jus, no legal benefit can be derived from an illegal act. Thus, legally speaking, the Soviet Union had no sovereign rights over the territory of the Baltic states. Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law. This continuity was recognized by most Western powers and reflected in their state practice. For instance, the diplomatic and consular missions of the Baltic republics in the United States continued their activities and enjoyed all diplomatic privileges on an equal footing with all other foreign representatives. Such an attitude of absolute and uncompromising non- recognition of the annexation of the Baltic states, based on a principle of international law, took precedence over the factual situation. The Baltic diplomats and consuls were representatives of sending states that, in fact, no longer existed as independent republics. The basic attitude of non-recognition was therefore confronted with its unavoidable limitation: it cannot be upheld ad infinitum.5 According to another principle of international law, that of ex factis jus oritur, a violation of international law should be regarded as legal once evidence of permanence is present. Marek argues that an application of this latter principle must not be presumed or admitted ‘except in the very last resort, when the normative pressure of facts has reached its summit and all reasonable chance of a restitutio ad integrum6 has disappeared for as long a period of time as can reasonably be assessed’.7 Hence, the question was whether the Baltic states, which had been subject to foreign occupation for a period of fifty years, fell into this category.

So why doesn't the article/lede say than that "Marek argues..." like the source you provided explains? All those legal nuances and theories are interesting of course and deserve their place in the article. It doesn't explain why the fats from where exactly the non recognition policy-legal continuity originates from was removed from the lede? It originated from the policy of the US that was based the Stimson Doctrine&Welles Declaration&Executive Order 8484, and the US as the leader of the Western Block, such policy was followed by its allies. What is so complex about it?--Termer (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there are arguments for (like Marek's) as well as against. Lede does not have to bloated by listing all these arguments, opinions, claims, or instances of recognition or non-recognition. (Igny (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

I would like to remind everyone that this article is a work in progress. If you, Termer, or others refuse to contribute, at least try not to disrupt any progress made here. And I would like to invite editors to constructively contribute here, and, of course, thank Peltimikko for valuable contributions. (Igny (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Refuse to contribute? All my edits that spelled out what is this subject all about were reverted the minute I turned around and the text was replaced with confusing and misleading statements that as I can see have been sourced to someone's opinions but have been represented as facts by itself. --Termer (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. The article reads like a some kind of Baltic POV piece: "Claims of the Baltic states to state continuity", "International reactions to the claims of the Baltic states" etc instead of laying out the facts from where the whole state continuity originates from?--Termer (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A word "claim" as legal term. (see headings in Ineta Ziemele's book "State Continuity And Nationality: Baltic States And Russia") Peltimikko (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any improvements, I've already pointed out that Ziemele's opinions are probably valuable to this article but they can't be states as facts by itself. Please fix it or let me do it without reverting my edits. So far it reads like WP:Weasel--Termer (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:So far it reads like WP:Weasel-- No it does not. (Igny (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

To do

Just in case, here is what I am currently collecting data on (slowly but surely)

• Timeline (possibly need a section on that)
• Effect on bilateral and multilateral treaties, status of old Soviet-Baltic treaties
• restitutio ad integrum and border issues
• effect on citizenship laws and Russian minorities and human rights
• POV from internal Soviet law (constitution)
• political versus legal aspects

(Igny (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

Some of these issues have their own their article such as Estonian nationality law etc. Not too much information here. Let's stay inside "State continuity" as there are more issues to come. And furthermore, I would be very careful adding views of Russian Federation. The Soviet law and practises could be added to understand the Baltic state continuity or non-continuity. Peltimikko (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think modern Russian views are only relevant here because Russia considers old treaties like Treaty of Tartu void exactly because old states ceased to exist when incorporated to Soviet Union, according to Russia. And when defending such a view, Russia called many decisions or declarations by the Baltic states or third parties about illegality of annexation "politicized", whatever it means. But Soviet constitution is very relevant here: according to it, "restoration of sovereignty" by republics was illegal, and only their secession due to the right of self determination was allowed at the time. (Igny (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

The Soviet Union recognised the Baltic independence on 6 September 1991. Right or wrong? The Russian Ferederation is the predecessor of the Soviet Union? Peltimikko (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Baltic independence yes. What's about state continuity? I believe that according to Russia, Baltic states are the same as Ukraine, that is new, 20 year old states, rather than 90 year old states, right?(Igny (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

The Baltic states had multiple diplomatic relations and they were members of multiple international organisatios before 1940 annexation. Ukraine did not have such recognition before 1991. So, the "case Ukraine" is quite clear, but the state continuity with the Baltic states is more complex. Peltimikko (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I am just talking about Russia's position on this matter. Have they recognized the state continuity yet? For example, Elsewege did not say so explicitly, but it implied so when talking about the Tartu treaty. (Igny (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

factual accuracy dispute.

since the article pretends like the subject, the State continuity of the Baltic states is a some sort of a "claim of the Baltic states" and due to my edits referring to the facts about the origin of the state continuity get reverted, and replaced with abstract weaseling, the article goes under factual accuracy dispute. Please do not remove the tag again and again like you've done thus far until the dispute has been resolved and a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section provides an accessible overview of the article, and the lead reflects the body text. Please, check and edit body text instead if you find fact errors. Peltimikko (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The body has other problems, at first we should attempt to fix the lede so that it would make sense to an average reader. Above I've laid out the points several times, also pointed out the problems in the lede with appropriate tags several times, it should be straight forward. So please fix it or let me do it instead of reverting my edits. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

I have applied a POV tag to this article, please do not remove it until the issues are resolved. This article is terribly POVed. the entire first sections, those that have not been moved from the original article Occupation of the Baltic states, are derived entirely from one single book by Ziemele. Somebody else said that it reads like a some kind of Baltic POV piece: "Claims of the Baltic states to state continuity", "International reactions to the claims of the Baltic states", and I agree.

There is a big gap in this article because it ignores the origin and development of the concept of state continuity (which also has been applied to post-colonial states in Africa and Asia), and which came before any claim made in 1991. As someone said above, the concept originated from the policy of the USA based the Stimson Doctrine and Welles Declaration and Executive Order 8484. To show how flawed this article really is, the discussion of these events from 1940 appear in the section "International reactions to the claims of the Baltic states", as if the actions of 1940 is a reaction to the "Claims of the Baltic states" of 1991!!!

There needs to be a section that discusses the origin and development of the concept of state continuity in international law and it should come before the section "Claims of the Baltic states to state continuity", because these claims came in 1991 and are based upon the developments before 1991. IMHO, the section "Claims of the Baltic states to state continuity" should really be in an "Aftermath" article, since these claims were post 1991. ISerovian (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "To show how flawed this article really is..." I don't see why did you claim that the Baltic claims came in 1991, because from 1940 the embassies of the Baltic states pretended to represent their de facto non-existent but de jure recognized (by some western countries) governments. The question of continuity (recognition of pre-war Baltic passports, of the Baltic diplomats' status, etc.) existed even before 1991. With regards to "the concept of state continuity (which also has been applied to post-colonial states in Africa and Asia)", please, provide examples (with sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not seriously defending this article's POV that Baltic diplomats in the 1940's claimed legal continuity of the post-1991 Baltic states, and this forced the USA in 1940 to respond to this claim by invoking the Stimson Doctrine, making the Welles Declaration and issuing Executive Order 8484? This is what this article presently claims and you are seriously supporting this? It the tail really wagging the dog here?

The Baltic diplomats may have, as you say, "pretended" to represent the last legitimate government of the Baltics, but that is what they claimed in 1940, nothing more. Their hope in 1940 was that independence would be restored at the end of the war, they had no idea that it would take 50 years. In hindsight we can say that the presence of these diplomats helped the claim of state continuity, but they where not the instigator of that claim, it was the USA.

The USA wasn't reacting to these Baltic diplomats, but these diplomats reacting to US policy. The USA at any time, with a stroke of the pen, could have shut those legations down, it could have returned the Baltic assets to the Soviet Union, and deported Baltic nationals as Soviet citizens, but it did not. Instead, it was US policy that allowed these legations to remain open, it was US policy that froze Baltic assets and denied them to the Soviet Union but allowed these Baltic legations to draw on those assets to fund their activities, it was US policy that refused to recognise Balts as Soviet citizens. It was the USA's policy of non-recognition of the Soviet annexation and recognition of the legal standing of these Baltic diplomats in representing the pre-war republics that gave rise to the principle of legal continuity.

This non-recognition of the annexation, and thus by way of corollary legal continuity, was a conscious policy choice of the USA, developed during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, and consistantly maintained today, as exemplified by Barack Obama's co-sponsorship of a unanimously passed United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic in 2008.

In the 1940's there were two concepts competing within the US administration in formulating its stance towards the Soviet Union. The first was called the "Yalta axiom", a pragmatic realpolitik approach that regarded the SU as a super-power with a legitimate concern to consolidate its security. The second concept was the "Riga axiom", where the SU was viewed as a country persuing world revolution that denied any possibility for peaceful co-existance and therefore military containment was the only option. Needless to say the second concept came to dominate US thinking an the end of WW2 and during the Cold War. It is interesting to note that the two prime architects of the "Riga axiom", George Kennan and Charles Bohlen, both served as US diplomats in Tallinn and Riga during the 1920's.

So in a nutshell, the continued US non-recognition of the Soviet annexation was an artifact of the Cold War. The claim of legal continuity of the Baltic states in 1991 was the outcome of that Cold War. As in any war, there are winners and losers, the Soviet Union lost, the USA won and the Baltic states could claim legal continity in 1991. For further reading see the book "The Baltic question during the Cold War" By John Hiden, Vahur Made, David J. Smith

This article has deep POV issues that need to be rectified. ISerovian (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Estonia articles
• Mid-importance Estonia articles
• WikiProject Estonia articles
• Start-Class Latvia articles
• Mid-importance Latvia articles
• WikiProject Latvia articles
• Start-Class Lithuania articles
• Mid-importance Lithuania articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles