Misplaced Pages

While we're on the topic of form, I would propose that each case should be discussed on its own merits, i.e., let's not try to piggyback on SMOM threads to try to argue in favour of other cases. I've seen that source about ICRC before, and it doesn't seem to me like it is sufficient evidence, but I'm willing to consider its inclusion in List of sovereign states (or maybe Sovereignty) if the case is well sourced in a thread of its own. North Sentinel already has its own thread above. Ladril (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should decide what to do with these things before arguing which ones fit the criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On a second thought Ladril's source provided above seems to imply lack of recognition. One of the main arguments against SOMOM was that this is a list of states. Then lets just rename the page!!!!!!!! Creating a second list would be redundant and we can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! As for the Red Cross (since this is bound to pop up if SOMOM passes Its recognized by everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--95.188.168.85 (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Changing the scope of the page would make it less useful for the reader. The page as it stands says "Here's a list of sovereign states which are unrecognized by at least one other sovereign state" and you're proposing that we change it to say "Here's a list sovereign entities that do not fit under the category of widely recognized sovereign state." The former is specific, which makes it easier to understand and maintain. The latter is vague, which makes it more difficult to maintain and less useful as a page. SMOM doesn't need to be on a second list and it doesn't need to be on this list. It doesn't need to be on any list at all. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing we remove all entitis from this list. I would rather it not come to renaming the page either, when I made the section I made a lead which explained that this section contained non state entities but everybody said "this is a list of states". I am proposing we change it to a general term, states are soverign entities after all.We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition!!!!! . This would remain--95.188.181.153 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Why not? The page has a defined scope that SMOM falls outside of. I think we can very easily ignore it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"We can't just ignore that SOMOM is a soverign entity with limited recognition".

Let's keep calm. That the evidence does not persuade everybody is no reason to squabble. At least some people are beginning to see the point, I guess. Ladril (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The goal of wikipidia is to provide verifieble, notable, NPOV information. This fits all those criteria, but we don't know were to put it, what's wrong with putting it hear?--95.188.181.120 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Just because something exists doesn't mean that we have to put it on a list. The content of a list is determined by its inclusion criteria, not the other way around. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but whats wrong with renaming the page to List of soverign entities with limited recognition and adding SMOM?--95.188.172.219 (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Because we have a clear definition of what a sovereign state is (defined territory, permanent population, government, capacity to enter into relations with other states, claim of sovereignty) and beyond the 203 entities which fit that definition, things get murky. What criteria would you use to define a "sovereign entity"? Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wish things were that simple. Neither the Holy See nor Palestine fit that definition. Ladril (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that "entity" is an extremely vague definition for something; is it even a term used in legal theory? You said it yourself somewhere above that to rename a page in order to include something that doesn't really fit to begin with would be WP:UNDUE. Night w (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The term exists insofar as the UN uses it to refer to one of the entities on this list: Palestine. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A more refined term would be a soveriegn non-state international personality, or a soveriegn non-state polity.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Holy See has a defined territory (Vatican City), a permanent population (around 900 full-time residents), a government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states (nunciatures, etc.), and a claim of sovereignty. Palestine's situation is somewhat more complicated but it does seem to have a defined territory (West Bank and Gaza), a permanent population (the Palestinians), a government (the Palestinian Authority), the capacity to enter into relations with other states (it's recognized by multiple states and exchanges embassies with them), and a claim of sovereignty (since 1988).

And whatever term we use, we still have the problem of not being able to adequately define it. What is the definition of "sovereign entity" that encompasses only the 16 entities currently on this page + SMOM? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

False. The Holy See, for starters, cannot have a population because it is an entity separate from the Vatican city state. Leaving that aside, the alleged population of Churchpeople reside in the Vatican on a non-permanent basis. Palestine's national authority does not have the full status of a government, as defined in agreements between the PLO and Israel. And the purported State of Palestine does not have a defined territory, as witnessed by the facts that their declaration of independence does not confine them to the West Bank and Gaza and that they are negotiating their boundaries with Israel. Ladril (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's not rehash the argument about Palestine here. It's debatable, I'll admit, but there have been multiple discussions about this on the main List of Sovereign States page and the conclusion has been that Palestine fits the criteria there. SMOM on the other hand, clearly does not. And like you were saying earlier, we should be using the same criteria on both pages. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"but there have been multiple discussions about this on the main List of Sovereign States page and the conclusion has been that Palestine fits the criteria there. SMOM on the other hand, clearly does not."

Not that clearly, since it's still mentioned on that other page. Anyway, whether SMOM fits in a list of states is something that should be discussed over at List of sovereign states. What we we're discussing here is whether it fits in a list of entities with limited recognition. Ladril (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you've suddenly decided that List of sovereign states doesn't matter, because earlier in the conversation you were saying: "The same criteria should be used in all pages of the encyclopedia. If SMOM fits in List of sovereign states, it fits here." Well, I agree with that statement. This list and that list should use the same criteria, and SMOM is very explicitly excluded from that list. Just like Antarctica, the EU, Sealand, dependent territories, federal states, and uncontacted tribes. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"It's interesting that you've suddenly decided that List of sovereign states doesn't matter"

I did? If you say so... Ladril (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what are you saying? Do you think we should be using the same criteria as List of sovereign states or not? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that SMOM is mentioned on that other page for a good reason, and that it also deserves a mention on this page. I'm not interested in a polemic on whether it's a state or not. Third-party source support for its existence as a sovereign entity is enough for it to warrant a mention. Ladril (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine has effectively been administered by the Palestinian National Authority since the creation of that body, for example the pna controls the un observer seat and the like. Thus it can be argued that it does have a defined territory and control over some of that territory. The holy see is a seperate administrative body under international law, vatican city is a temporal possesion in effect in personal union with the holy see. Thinking further on the smom issue, i came to realize that there have been dozens if not hundreds of similar cases in the 18th and 19th centuries that resulted from the Mediatization of several monarchs in europe. The monarchs lost their states, but were still seen as soveriegn international personalities immune from the laws and jurisdiction of states similiar to how the ICRC and SMOM are.XavierGreen (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that a soverign entitie is a subject of international law with a government and a capacity to enter negotiations with other states but I stand to be corrected. As for renaming the page, I would rather it not come to this, it is a counter to the list of states argument. I still think renaming would be undue weight and unnecissary hassal, why do people oppose a section of soverign entities? As for Palestine, it has a A Territory: Gaza, West Bank, a population: those living there, a government: the PNA and diplomatic capability.--95.188.178.48 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Im not opposed to listing them how their listed on the list of soveriegn states page, the Cook Islands, Niue, SMOM, and ICRC could be listed in such a manner.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Of that list, only the SMOM is apparently without full recognition. Although again, the recognition that it does have remains irrelevant in this context. Night w (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm but dont the countries that have relations with the Cook Islands and Niue recognize them as independent states while the rest simply see them as possesions of new zealand?XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that question doesn't really impact on this current discussion; since they are states (independent or nay), they're not in the same category as the other two you mentioned. Night w (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you meen like on the list of soverign states, in a Diliberatly Excluded section? That is definatly a possibility though I still don't get why my origional proposal was rejected. 2 questions must be razed: whill we include other entities excluded from the page such as Sealand or North Sentinel and what will we do if a similer entity to SMOM surfaces, though we can cross that bridge when we get there.--95.188.187.224 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

I didn't support your original proposal because the addition didn't belong here. The proposal to change the title had foreseeable problems aswell, mainly that it was too broad and vague of a topic, without a well-defined criteria. I wouldn't be opposed to an "excluded" section, provided it is not entered in table-format. We would also have to agree that this section would be exclusively for the SMOM; a short note on uncontacted societies and micronations (with no examples) would suffice for the remainder. Night w (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine by me.XavierGreen (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ladril (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to add a "diliberatly excluded section in non table format with SOMOM and a note on micronations and tribes?--95.188.188.144 (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Yeah, seems so. Night w (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

israel, not recognized by hamas

but hamas isn't un member...84.228.162.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

It has been established that we list recognition and non recognition by non UN members as well as UN members. --95.188.187.224 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (HFF)

Autonomous areas

Since these areas do not claim soveriegnty, i see no reason for them to be included in the critera section. If we leave them there it gives reason for other editors to include other categories that are not nessesary. I state that we should only include categories of entities in this section that meet the soveriegnty criteria but not the others. (note i understand the azad kashmir problem and i think we should discuss that in a seperate thread than this one.)XavierGreen (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We are mentioning them because very often somebody pops up adding Iraqi Kurdistan, Tibet or the Basque Country. We're trying to make the page more manageable for the editors. Ladril (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the purpose behind an encyclopædic article. And why autonomous areas specifically? It seems (especially with the examples) that it's almost intended to pre-empt an addition that would already be disqualified by not having met one of the six points described at the top of the section. Two other questions (and I'm not trying to hijack your thread here, Xavier, I'll stick to the new section): 1, Would it not be better to place the criteria section at the bottom of the page; and 2, Why is there a flagicon next to SMOM? Night w (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the creteria section is to make the page more managable so I see no problem with Autonomous areas. The flagicon is there because it is 1: more visualy appealing and 2: for the sake of consistance.--95.188.189.148 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)(HFF)

If we're going to nitpick, I see no clear reason why uncontacted peoples or micronations should be mentioned on this page. But that's only my own personal perspective; other people think differently and the goal is to tell them that by consensus those kinds of entities are not to be listed here. Same with SMOM and autonomous areas, which have been recurrent topics of debate and edit-warring here. Few things are more frustrating than the continuous edit and revert wars over the addition or deletion of such and such entity. As for the location of the criteria section, I believe such a section is always better at the top (and it should also be that way in List of sovereign states). That way it's harder for people to claim they did not see it before editing. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a better solution would be to include the autonomous areas (outside of azad kashmir) in a faq section at the top of the talk page. This is similar to how common issues are handled on the United States page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's been tried before, and the reality is only a small fraction of editors actually read the talk pages. Misplaced Pages:Featured list criteria recommends that " has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." Let's not try to find a problem where there is none. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well some obvious ones have been identified. Firstly, the flagicon on SMOM needs to go. There's no reason for it, and having it there (especially at the top of the page) makes it seem like it's an entry on the list. I'll ask again, why autonomous areas specifically? Why not also add dependent territories? secessionist units? associated states? governments-in-exile? There are many territories that have been disqualified already by the criteria layed out...why is "autonomous areas" mentioned specifically? It was not part of the consensus established in the discussion above when we agreed that this section would be incorporated. Another thing, which was part of what was stipulated, was that examples were not to be used. I've reverted to what was agreed upon. Changes and additions that are opposed, per proper procedure, should be proposed and discussed here. I've let the flag issue go for now, because it wasn't explicitly ruled out in the discussion above, but I am still arguing for its deletion. Night w (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly as I said before autounamus areas are here because they have been added to the main list in the past by (possibly) misguided editors. I have no problem with dependent territories secessionist units associated states and governments-in-exile except that that would make for a giant section and that so far these have been added and debated far less then say Autanimus areas or micronations. As for the flag I do not get whats wrong with it. It is visualy appealing and identifies that this entery is a specific entity not a group.--95.188.179.145 (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) HighFlyingFish (talk)

Too much argument over minutiae, really. And serious danger of instruction creep as well. Ladril (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The section's been moved to the bottom by another editor, so I'm fine with leaving the flag in for now. Night w (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what's wrong with the flag icon as well. What are the icons for then? Ladril (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the SMOM is sui generis, i dont really see a difference with having the flag or not. Its just a stylistic issue i suppose, but one i have no opinion on.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone okay with the section and flagicon as is? (I am).--95.188.177.42 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Night w (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay now lets get back to Autonomous areas, I beleve that all entities that were repeatedly added should be listed, autaunimus areas were added as much as micronations and debated as much as unconected tribes.--95.188.168.184 (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

Or we can mirror the excluded entities section of the List of sovereign states page. Ladril (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Every page on[REDACTED] is indipendant, just because we got the inspiration from L.O.S.S. dosent meen we have to mirror it. Including the E.U. for example would be irrational.--95.188.181.243 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)HighFlyingFish (talk)

But on the same page, I'd dispute your rationale behind including autonomous areas —which, from what I've heard so far, is basically in the hopes of stemming unwanted additions that have been repeatedly added in the past. But I don't think that explicitly mentioning such cases is going to achieve that result any more than would simply outlining the criteria as we have. We have a set criteria, and autonomous areas fails to meet it; why go any further than that? Otherwise, before you know it, another editor will propose that "associated states" be mentioned specifically, and then something else, until behold: a comprehensive and completely unnecessary list of what doesn't meet the criteria —defeating the purpose of having one in the first place. It is best to adopt a policy of minimalism in regards to that section, else the quality of the read will suffer. Night w (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the issue needs some serious thought. The section looks somewhat weird already. Ladril (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If we list only the polities which claim to have soveriegnty, but do not meet another one of the categories then the number of items on the list will be quite small (i cannot think of any other entity at the moment that claims soveriegnty and is not on the list). Since Autonomous areas do not claim to be soveriegn international personalities, they would not be included on the list.XavierGreen (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets stick to stuff that is soverign, though I don't get why we should be minimallists about this and how this isnt instruction creep,however I will not insist since this is a rather minor problem.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An actual serious problem

It appears some clown has deleted the file for the flag of the western sahara and i have no idea how to fix it.XavierGreen (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What about these? or BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like people with greater powers than i have taken care of it already.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Um the flag icon is still blank!!!--95.188.179.145 (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism for the second time. Given that the flag is used on hundreds of pages through the {{Flag|SADR}} template, it may be worth protection. Any commons admin around?—Emil J. 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir

Since we have been tackleing relatively minor issues as of late, here is a problem of a bit more substance. Azad Kashmir is apparently recognized by Pakistan as a soveriegn foriegn state, under occupation by Pakistani forces. No other country to my knowledge recognizes azad kashmir as a soveriegn state. It apparently maintains its own government, yet many (if not most) functions of government are handled by the pakistani government. So my question is what do we do with this thing? Do we add it to the table, or in some other form. I think it should be added in some form since it has official recognition. Perhaps this case is similar to that of Northern Cyprus is it not?XavierGreen (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Pakistan does not recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. It considers the whole of Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory that is pending a settlement. Ladril (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Do either of you have any reputable sources you can show us? Night w (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Azad Kashmir Constitution Act of 1974 is available on Scribd. 1 Ladril (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Pakistan sees its relationship with Azad Kashmir to be somewhat similar to suzerainty. The language of the constitution you mentioned treats Azad Kashmir as a power seperate from pakistan yet inferior to it. Pakistan also does not claim Azad Kashmir to be a part of pakistan, only that it is administered by it. I don't really know how to classify it, since it has some aspects similar to an autonomous area, some similar to a dependent territory, and others similar to an associated or vassal state with internal soveriegnty.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be classified as a local administration. In the list of sovereign states it deserves a note to explain its status. But it's not legally a dependency (because Pakistan does not label it as such) nor an associated state (because there is no arrangement of association) nor a suzerain (because this notion does not correspond with modern international law). Ladril (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental question is, does Azad Kashmir have authority in foreign matters or do they exercise them, or does that lie with Pakistan? If the latter, then it seems more akin to a possession like Puerto Rico or the Cook Islands, and not worthy of inclusion. If the former, then things get more complicated. Similarly, citizens of the Cook Islands are citizens of New Zealand, and citizens of Puerto Rico have dual US/PR citizenship. Are citizens of Azad Kashmir considered citizens of Pakistan? According to 2 the matter seems complicated but it does say that citizens of Azad Kashmir travel with a Pakistani passport. It almost seems akin to the PRC's relationship with Hong Kong, but with more autonomy. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands is a sovereign associated state, not a possession. As I said before, it's not that Pakistan has annexed a part of Kashmir, but that it considers that Kashmir does not rightfully belong to India, and is awaiting a long overdue UN settlement to determine whether the region should join India or Pakistan. Azad Kashmir is a provisional administration which does not seek recognition as a sovereign state and thus does not merit the same standing as the Cook Islands or the entries on this list. I'm not sure about the citizenship. Now keep in mind that Kashmir cannot have much in the way of foreign affairs, because according to the UN it is a territory in the process of decolonization that should choose between becoming part of either India or Pakistan, and it's not an international legal personality. To complicate matters further, last year Pakistan also set up a government for the Gilgit-Baltistan areas. Ladril (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the evidence, Pakistan represents the parts of Kashmir it controls in international matters. See 3. Ladril (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that Pakistan considers Jammu and Kashmir a disputed territory awaiting a final settlement, but does that necessarily mean that it doesn't consider Azad Kashmir independent? I'm not sure. For what it's worth, this is how Britannica describes Azad Kashmir:

area of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Azad (“Free”) Kashmir, established in 1947 after the partition of India, is neither a province nor an agency of Pakistan but has a government of its own that is regarded by Pakistan as “independent,” even though it is protected by and economically and administratively linked to Pakistan. 4

I wonder if this is anything like Dadra and Nagar Haveli's former status. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake. Pakistan cannot consider Kashmir "independent" because it wants to incorporate it. Ladril (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Is wanting to incorporate something mutually exclusive with considering it independent? I can think of counter-examples in history. India and DNH, for one. But Turkey and Hatay also come to mind. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case it is. Let's consider also the fact that there are insurgence movements in Kashmir fighting for independence from Pakistan which seem to lend support to the conclusion. Ladril (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Pakistan recognizing Azad Kashmir as independent and Azad Kashmir actually being independent from Pakistan are two different things. I mean, that's sort of the classic puppet state model, isn't it? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what i was getting at with mentioning suzerinty above. Clearly defacto Kashmir is not independent, but dejure Pakistan treats it as a foriegn entity. I can think of dozens of examples similar to this before 1900, but perhaps the only similar modern one might be Northern Cyprus immediately after the turkish invasion, Sikkim while under indian protection, or the remanents of the Kingdom of Kongo in the early 1900's.XavierGreen (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done quite a bit of research on the matter, and I could not find a single source stating unequivocally that Pakistan considers any part of Kashmir whatsoever to be a sovereign state. The source you reference above seems to me like a mistake or an imprecision, which shouldn't be copied here. Maybe if we take the time to assemble a set of reliable sources we can arrive at a conclusion that satisfies everybody. As a side comment, do keep in mind that this issue is very touchy for both Indians and Pakistanis, so editing lightly can get you into trouble. Ladril (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Xavier, I don't think suzerainty is the right word here and those examples don't exactly seem analogous to Azad Kashmir's current status. ...Whatever it is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as very similar to Sikkim or Northern Cyprus either. I'm not familiar enough with the Kongo case to give an opinion. Any analogy would be inexact, but if forced to pick one I would go for the UN Trusteeship Territories; that is polities with a provisional administration while their situation is not yet determined. Ladril (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one of the best texts I have found on the matter. Note that it explicitly states that Pakistan has never recognized Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. 5 Ladril (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking at this source, I must side with Ladril on this. It is as if this area has been completely excluded from the democratic process, this happens in all democratic countries.. I would liken this gerrymandering, on a very large scale indeed - then throw in a conflict between India and Pakistan plus an independence movement in the area as well as an "independent" government that takes up the slack. The state possesses territory that it neglects and does not recognise as sovereign, seems open and shut to me now. Outback the koala (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the impression I get from reading the Azad Kashmir constitution. If we find a different interpretation by a reputed legal scholar and/or statements by the governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir on this matter, they should take precedence. Ladril (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Article 7 of the Azad kashmir constitution states: "No person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan." Ladril (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this source. 6 It explicitly states that Pakistan does not recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state. However, it suggests that the territory has tried to act as one in its dealings with Pakistan. Perhaps the 'disputed territory' and 'quasi-state' labels are not inappropriate in this case. Thoughts? Ladril (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As debated above this is a list of states with limited recognition so a 'quasi-state' would not be listed. Azad Kashmir already has a note on the List of territorial disputes, perhaps Azad Kashmir deserves a note in the excluded entities section.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As per 'autonomous areas' above, I believe a note for Azad Kashmir on this very page might be excessive. However the info on List of sovereign states should be expanded upon. Ladril (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source that states that Azad Kashmir sought to join the US as an independent state. 7 In light of this evidence, I'm beginning to consider it for inclusion in this page. Ladril (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean UN? --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant the UN and the US. Isn't the US an independent state? Just kidding. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? Ladril (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I probably did, but, forgive if I'm missing sarcasm here, but the tone of your question appears to be snarking at me for legitimately questioning a typo you made. --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no. My mistake. Apologies. Ladril (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source, more academic than the prior one: 8 Ladril (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ladril, it would be really helpful if you weren't just posting Google Books links in here. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Tell me a better way to communicate an argument. Ladril (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Telling us what specifically in the source we're supposed to be looking at would be a start. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried that before, but a majority of editors here seem not to be interested in listening to arguments, so I've kind of given up. For example, see "Cook Islands and Niue" below. I posted a rather long quotation justifying an argument and I got scolded for doing it. Tell me the correct modus operandi for being listened to. Ladril (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, whatever. Do what you like. I don't care. But don't expect to throw a dozen sources at people without explanation and expect them to understand what you're getting at. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not a good editor for this page. I'm quite willing to accept that. Peace between us. Ladril (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that souce before and its actually what spurred me to start the thread in the first place. There are several sources that state within google books that pakistan recognizes kasmir as a state apart from pakistan. This source 9 states that it has no defined status under international law, and seems to liken it to an occupied state that has surrendered many of its powers to the pakistani administration, yet is still not part of pakistan.XavierGreen (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More food for thought: Ladril (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So the Supreme court of pakistan recognizes Azad as independent.XavierGreen (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears the Pakistani government doesn't seem to know if it considers Azad Kashmir independent. Unless you have a new link, because the one Ladril posted doesn't say whether the Supreme Court had come to a decision yet. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The commentary says that the attorney-general of Pakistan considered Azad Kashmir a sovereign state, which is a statement without precedent in the history of the Pakistan government. I'd suggest we avoid having a lawyer-like discussion of this (we're editors, not lawyers). However, a note based on this source would do no harm, even if it's not necessarily added to this article. Ladril (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It however says that two groups headed by the prime minister have said opposite things. I agree that the AG saying it is important, but not if he's overruled by the PM; the problem is that not even the PM seems to know. --Golbez (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should take this as the official position of Pakistan's government as a whole. I'm thinking more along the lines of a note saying "the attorney-general referred to Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state". In my opinion, the statement carries enough weight to be worthy of inclusion here. Ladril (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

A citation from an official New Zealand government web site at 1

"3.2 The Cook Islands and Niue - associated states

The older Commonwealth states (such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) evolved as autonomous members of the international community by growth of conventions, advising the Crown, as titular head of the British Empire, that each of these former Dominions would function separately in respect of their interests.

This doctrine of the divisibility of the Crown enabled the position to be reached in 1926 where, in the Balfour Declaration of that year, it could be agreed by all the Prime Ministers that:

'(The Dominions) are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, and in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'.

The practice that supported this doctrine was not reflected in constitutional statutes until much later. Yet, in accordance with the widely accepted analysis of the British jurist Albert Venn Dicey, the conventions that gave it operational reality were part of the Constitution. By that analysis, the Constitution was made up of two kinds of rules: rules of law that it was the job of the Courts to enforce, and conventions that were rules that the Courts did not enforce.

This did not mean that the latter were unimportant: to this day the vital principle that the Monarch (in New Zealand the Governor-General) acts in almost all matters only on the advice of responsible Ministers is not a rule of law but rather a convention of the Constitution. Not surprisingly, this arrangement causes much confusion among foreign observers - and even New Zealand inquirers - who are told to disregard apparent legal powers which are explained to have been modified, or even displaced, by unwritten conventions of sometimes mysterious origin.

We are now in a position to understand the concept of the Realm of New Zealand as it is defined in the 1983 Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of New Zealand. Clause I of this instrument declares the Realm to comprise:

(a) New Zealand; and (b) The self-governing state of the Cook Islands; and (c) The self-governing State of Niue; and (d) Tokelau; and (e) The Ross Dependency...

Both the Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing states in free association with New Zealand whose respective Constitutions expressly vest full legislative powers exclusively in their legislatures.

The New Zealand Parliament has thus ceased to have power to make law of any kind for the Cook Islands and Niue. Even if the New Zealand Parliament were to repeal or amend the New Zealand statutes conferring the Constitutions of 1965 and 1974 on the Cook Islands and Niue, those statutes and constitutions would continue as part of Cook Islands and Niue law, even though they ceased to be part of New Zealand law.

There are no matters on which the Cook Islands and Niue legislatures cannot make laws, although special procedures (special voting majorities in the legislatures, extended time-scales for legislation, and referenda) are required for modification or amendment of certain designated fundamental elements of the Constitutions.

Constitutional links nevertheless remain with New Zealand. First, the Queen in right of New Zealand continues to be Head of State of both the Cook Islands and Niue. In the Cook Islands Her Majesty is represented by the Queen's Representative appointed on Cook Islands' advice, and in Niue by the New Zealand Governor-General.

Secondly, and of great importance to the island populations, New Zealand citizenship is retained with full rights of access to New Zealand. Thirdly, a peculiar provision in the Constitutions of the two Associated States declares that the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in respect of external relations and defence remain unaffected by the relocation of law-making power in the respective legislatures. That provision was, in the early years after self-government, the subject of some misunderstanding in New Zealand and internationally. Now it is widely understood that the effective source of advice to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand on Cook Islands and Niuean matters are Her Cook Islands and Niuean Ministers. As with the emergence of the older Commonwealth States as autonomous members of the international community, this position was reached by the evolution of constitutional conventions.

The Cook Islands Constitution came into force on 5 August 1965 as a result of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 of the New Zealand Parliament. The New Zealand Act contained the elements of the associated state model to which reference was made in the preceding chapter. Specifically it declared that: Section 3: The Cook Islands shall be self-governing. Section 4: The Constitution set out in the Schedule...shall be the supreme law of the Cook Islands. Section 5: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands, those responsibilities to be discharged after consultation by the Prime Minister of New Zealand with the {Prime Minister} of the Cook Islands. Section 6: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the status of any person as a...New Zealand citizen... Ten years later, the Niue Constitution Act 1974 (NZ) followed a similar pattern to bring the Constitution of Niue into force on 19 October 1974. It set out the following elements of the association with New Zealand: Section 4: The Constitution set out (in the Schedule)...shall be the supreme law of Niue. Section 5: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the status of any person as a...New Zealand citizen... Section 6: Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue. Section 7: It shall be a continuing responsibility of the Government of New Zealand to provide necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue. Section 8: Effect shall be given to the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of this Act...after consultation between the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Premier of Niue, and in accordance with the policies of their respective Governments...

In relation to Section 6 of the Act just quoted, it is important to stress that, as with the Cook Islands, the responsibilities of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue do not confer on the New Zealand Government any rights of control. Full legislative and executive powers, whether in those fields or in any others, are vested by the Constitution in the legislature and Government of Niue. Where the New Zealand Government exercises responsibilities in respect of external affairs and defence, it does so in effect on the delegated authority of the Government of Niue.

On 10 November 1988, the New Zealand Government lodged a Declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the relationship of the New Zealand treaty-making power to the self-governing States of the Cook Islands and Niue. The Declaration recited that the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue have 'exclusive executive and legislative competence to implement treaties in the Cook Islands and Niue'. It also stated that those Governments had requested that future New Zealand treaty actions not extend to the Cook Islands or Niue 'unless the treaty is signed...expressly on behalf of the Cook Islands or Niue'. The Declaration reversed the previous understanding that New Zealand treaty action applied to all the Realm of New Zealand unless any part was specifically excluded."

With this, the issue of Cook Islands and Niue being considered sovereign states is completely settled, I hope. Ladril (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gimme the cliff's notes version: Do they belong on this list or not? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave the Cliff Notes 20 times before, but people just kept repeating the same old assumptions again and again. As for my position, the two definitely have an international personality as sovereign (albeit associated) states. Not every country recognizes it, apparently. For example, Japan does not recognize Cook Islands as sovereign, though several other states do. Ladril (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If any UN member state recognizes the Cook Islands as independent, then I see no reason not to mention it here. They don't necessarily have to declare themselves independent to qualify. For example, if Tibet didn't declare independence but yet Belgium recognized them as such, I suspect we'd include them on this list based on that. --Golbez (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Statehood is not only achieved through a declaration of independence. Free association is also a way to develop a separate legal personality as a state. Proof of this is the existence of the associated states of Palau, Micronesia and Marshall Islands, which have never declared themselves independent from the USA. Ladril (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the case of those, I'm not sure it was their place; they were administered by the US but were technically(?) territories directly of the United Nations. But that's a little academic at this point, it really sounds like the Cook Islands belongs up there, regardless of their independence status, if recognition can be sourced. (I apologize if this has been brought up before) --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comparison to Palau etc. makes sense. Both Palau's constitution 2 and the Compact of Free Association 3 explicitly describe Palau as having sovereignty over its land and territorial waters. I'm not sure CI or Niue have ever made a similar claim.

Also, I know that there are states which have diplomatic relations with CI/Niue, but have any of those relations come with explicit recognition? I seem to remember that last time we had a discussion like this we couldn't find any evidence. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand and Cook Islands have declared each other independent states in their own affairs. See 4 Also the same document states that Cook interacts with the international community as an independent state. Ladril (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The prime minister of Cook Islands refers to his country as a sovereign state here: 5 Ladril (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, just because people seem to be making strong assumptions here, Cook Islands and Niue are more free than Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. New Zealand does not have any authority over its associated states. The latter three, on the other hand, have to ask the US government for permission to allow foreign ships into their territorial waters (read the Compacts of Free Association). Ladril (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The following source states that several states have recognized the Cook Islands as independent and some don't. 6

I hope this settles it. Ladril (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Also check the following source, which states that free association does not mean the two partners are not sovereign states: 7 Ladril (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC) As for the issue of recognition, in this text it is stated that recognition is a prerequisite for the establishment of diplomatic relations: 8 I hope this puts the matter to rest. Ladril (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hillebrink source says that many states "deal with the territory as an independent legal personality". That's not explicitly recognition, and I don't think that would be an acceptable source for any other country currently on this list. The Keitner/Reisman source is exclusively about the United States and I don't think we can generalize anything about associated statehood since it is a vaguely defined concept that each country has implemented differently. And I feel like you're being too strict with your interpretation of the Dugard source. Quebec, for example, has diplomatic relations with a number of foreign countries but none of them recognize it as independent. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel like we should probably be having this conversation on the much more well-trafficked List of sovereign states before we have it here. This would be a pretty significant change. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But it's not really going to happen, is it? Unless somebody can provide a primary source from the recognising government that explicitly states "The republic of *blank* recognises the Cook Islands as a sovereign state" (or something along those lines), nothing is going to change, since relying on interpretations of scholarly essays would be synthesis. Night w (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't make an improvement to the encyclopedia, just because the sources don't have the exact wording you want? How functional. Ladril (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the problem is I don't think the sources you're posting back up your claim about recognition. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't verify it, it's not an "improvement" in the first place. Night w (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If we don't agree, we don't agree. Ladril (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the statement of recognition for the Cook Islands from Belgium: 9. Ladril (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is another which states that states, verbatim, that Germany has recognized the Cook Islands as a sovereign state: 10 Ladril (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(Changed link to the English version, since I'm sure many other English readers don't also know German)That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just one comment since this was lost in the translation. "Selbständige" can translate as both "sovereign" and "independent". Ladril (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks valid enough to me. But how would we portray it on this list? "... is recognized by at least two countries", or are you going to hunt down every foreign ministry and find out if they recognize them? :) --Golbez (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, we may be exaggerating here. Check the documents used as sources for Kosovo. You'll hardly find one saying "country X recognizes Kosovo as sovereign". The establishment of relations generally assumes recognition. Ladril (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as inclusion on this list is concerned, my plan is to include the Cook Islands as a state that is not recognized as independent by Japan. In the case of Niue only three countries (New Zealand, Popular China and Nauru) have recognized it. Ladril (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's giving undue weight to Japan's lack of recognition. In the case of the Cook Islands, recognition seems far more important and 'off-the-norm' than lack thereof. It is, after all, not a member of the UN. For the Cook Islands, you should say "is recognized by at least X countries, despite not being a UN member and being in free association with New Zealand", rather than saying "is not recognized by Japan". One improves our understanding of the subject, the other not so much. --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with those caveats is that both CK and Niue are full members of UN organizations like UNESCO and are state signatories of many treaties and agreements. According to various texts on international law I've read, it would not be untrue, but it would be inexact to say that "only" 21 countries recognize Cook, since several other countries also treat it like a sovereign state. This is a strange grey area of international law. Ladril (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested waffling on it by saying "at least". It may be a member of UNESCO, etc., but unless it has a vote in the general assembly, it's a non-UN member. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say that being members of UNESCO makes them "partially" or "some sort of" UN members (I'm quite clear about the distinction between being a UN member and not being one). What I'm trying to emphasize is that, even though we should definitely mention on the page that they are not UN members, we cannot stress this too much as an indicator of non-recognition, due to other factors mentioned above. Ladril (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

True; a mention that they are members of UNESCO would work too. Here's a question that might boggle you: Are they officially represented in the General Assembly by New Zealand, or do they lack representation? :) --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, New Zealand is responsible for their foreign policy, and as such has spoken for them - with their previous consultation and approval - at the United Nations. Increasingly however, they have been speaking on their own accord at the organization. Ladril (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another way to answer the question - which may boggle you- is that both Cook and Niue are full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, which is an observer organization of the UN General Assembly. Ladril (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference I recommend looking at the List of sovereign states on the German Misplaced Pages, which contains text that can be inspiration for the entry. 11 Ladril (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The same topic was discussed here and currently here. Alinor (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil war

I added a link "List of civil wars (the establishment of many states with limited recognition is caused by a civil war)" after looking for a suitable place for the Fatah-Hamas split discussion.

As it seems that each of the entries in the list of states with limited recognition is caused by similar conflict - maybe we should put links to the Somali Civil War, Korea War, etc. in the "notes" column (or additional column)? Alinor (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommended category split

I would like to recommend that topic #2.3 - "Non-UN member states recognized by at least one UN member" be split into two sections:

• recognition by a few UN members (Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia)
• recognition by substantially many UN members (Republic of China, Kosovo, Palestine, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic).

While there aren't many states in each category, the differences are substantial enough to be treated separately rather than be grouped together as is presently the case. — Glenn L (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But where would you draw the line? The distinction that comes closest to your list there is "less than 10" and "10 and more", but then we're starting to pick numbers to conveniently match a distinction. Furthermore, no one knows exactly how many states recognize Palestine, according to the list. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, to leave it with just at least one is simple enough. The line is drawn where whether or not an UN state recognises the particular state. Liu Tao (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We have too many categories as is.—Emil J. 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with previous editors and object the idea. The distinction will be hard to make without making this another POV issue. Readers with half brain can get the difference on their own. --Muhandes (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that dividing by number of recognition here leads to the problems of how or why? For example, the Republic of China has only 22, as opposed to the other 3 you wanted to group, which have much closer to 100. Even within those three, there are some differences. Between the "few UN members" ones, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have 300% more recognition than Northern Cyprus, so why should they be grouped together? It's much better to just leave them as one. Chipmunkdavis (talk)

Very well, I withdraw my request. However, perhaps the current list could be listed (least to most) based on best estimated UN member recognition. — Glenn L (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

'Estimation' in general should be best avoided, there's too much gray when estimating. Liu Tao (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Hard numbers talk. Outback the koala (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the catagory split will just cause confusion.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"held by Israel" - Gaza Strip

I try to fix wrong information in this article which say that Gaza Strip is "held" by Israel. This totally wrong and harm quality of wikipedia. POV edit warrers for some reason are allow to cancel my changes and continue say that Israel "holds" Gaza Strip. There is no Israeli military or civilian in Gaza Strip, except one - Gilad Shalit held illegally kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists Hamas denied visits by Red Cross. Is this called "held by Israel"? Because one Israeli soldier is held in captivity by barbarians? No, I do not think so. So someone fix this mistake. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, tell us how you really feel. Second of all, Israel clearly thinks it exercises control over Gaza's foreign affairs, considering its interdiction of multiple ships inbound to the area. Usually, control over foreign affairs implies total control, unless there's some other intervening agreement. So what is the situation? --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The situation is a naval blockade. This not equivalent to "held". Gaza people govern themselves, this is not "total control", and you are WP:OR to say what Israel does or does not think. Israel clearly has said it has no interest in controlling or ruling people or land of Gaza Strip. LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

First: can you provide a source saying that "Israle has no intrest in ruling the Gaza Strip", second: I belive that both Jerusalem and Gaza deserve mention since Jerusalem is the clamed capital of Palestine (correct me if im wrong) while Gaza is a major conflict zone, Third: Pleas keep a cool head, it is POV to call someone "barbarians" and asking "tell us how you really feel" is also not a good idea either.

Who are you? You must add sign to your post so other know who you are. And you think I care it is POV to call terrorists barbarians? Terrorists are evil people. You will not convince me anything else. And your whole message ignore my point. It does not matter anything about Jerusalem or conflict zone Gaza. Gaza is not "held" by Israel. You ignore that why? Here is your source. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)