Talk:Sovereign state - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 31 August 2010 (→A question on states which no longer practise recognition: my turn for a long response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:45, 31 August 2010 by Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk | contribs) (→A question on states which no longer practise recognition: my turn for a long response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sovereign state article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

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.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Top	This article has been rated as Top-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.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Article

This is the new sovereign state article. Please don't move it without discussing it first. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Im getting lost here, we have articles everywhere right now. Ive just found that the State (disambiguation) is different to state so its missing certain options. Does State (disambiguation) need to become a redirect to State???

Also i see there is ALREADY an article on State (law), i didnt notice that existed before and we still have Nation state which i dont understand how is really any different to some of the other "states" we have. State (law) seems to cover the sorts of things State (polity) now covers.

Im glad there is an article on sovereign states still and all the tags have been removed, but the setup still seems a complete mess. far too many articles, thank god we dont have to pay per page. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

State (disambiguation) should redirect to State as long as that is a disambiguation page. I think it ought to be; there are at least three different meanings of state as "government", and a half-dozen mathematical/chemical/statistical senses. None of them is primary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

State (law) deals with private international law; this article should deal with public international law; State (polity) covers domestic law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, although I say State (polity) deals with the state in sociology and political science, and its development as understood in these disciplines. This article deals with the state in public international law and international relations. The rules on state recognition belongs here and clearly no where else. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I propose that this article, which is much more encycolpedic than Sovereignty, be merged with that one, and be made to follow more the outline of this article. Hires an editor (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best approach. I don't think there's any harm in having separate articles on the sovereign state and sovereignty. If the latter is such a bad article we could just delete all the crap bits. If that means reducing it to a stub, so what? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dated and doctrinaire material

The Misplaced Pages articles on states read like something out of the colonial era. This article needs an additional section to explain the fact that many countries dropped the declarative and constitutive debate half a century ago, and no longer practice "recognition". The US was a latecomer but it started saying that the question of recognition does not arise back in the early 1980s. harlan (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge

There's an article called State (polity). Isn't a state by definition itself sovereign? If that is so, to call a state 'sovereign' is redundant. Plus the fact that the article talks about virtually the same thing as this article, I'm starting to think that these 2 articles are talking about the same thing essentially and that one should be merged into the other. A couple months ago, I brought the issue and discussed it on the other article, but the lad just stopped replying. I hope the same will not happen here, and we can finally come to a final resolution. Liu Tao (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the first five articles of the UN's "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" ; The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ; and the Inter-American system of International law states are juridically equal. For example:

Article 4 of the Montevideo Convention said "States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one does not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law."
Article 10 of the OAS Charter said: States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law.

harlan (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge. This article is specific to international law and the state within that context. Outback the koala (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If the definition is specific to international that should be in lead and text to make it clear there is a difference. Otherwise merge would seem best move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging these articles will create more confusion than it will solve. It is quite common for international treaties to refer to sovereign states as "States", but they're not talking about Ohio, hence why we use the adverb. Part of the reason this article was created was that lots of editors were writing ] ]s in articles as they realise the English word "state" can apply to both Ohio and France, but wanted to just about about states like France. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blue. Outback the koala (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The other option is to remove all the general info that belongs under the State (polity) article (which is better explained there anyway) and make this refer only to the international definition and then have mention of the international definition in the first paragraph of the State (polity) article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion now proceeding over at Talk:State (polity)

national capital

Edinburgh is the capital city of the Scottish nation but it is not a sovereign state's capital so the statement in the article "...the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital,..." is not correct. -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed this is a problem and needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it did say "also refer" and not "always refer". I've tweaked it a bit. Any better now? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A question on states which no longer practise recognition

In the recently introduced paragraph it say that:

'Repeatedly, the State Department has responded to inquiries with the statement: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."'

This strikes me as a reference to the practise of no longer formally recognising the governments of states, rather than the states themselves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The following article

Current developments in monetary and financial law, Volume 4

By International Monetary Fund. Legal Dept, IMF Institute

makes the distinction quite clear. It even cites one of your sources on page 79 to demonstrate that the US doesn't government recognition any more. But this is quite a different thing to state recognition as the article itself makes clear on page 78. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Treating an entity as a state: I'm aware of the difference between state, government, and diplomatic recognition. However, the State Department has not restricted its statements to those situations involving recognition of governments. The corollary to the practice of deemphasizing recognition of governments is the longstanding practice of "treating an entity as a state", in lieu of formal recognition. I'll use Palestine/Israel/Jordan as examples, since they demonstrate nearly every aspect of state practice.

The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States recites the four Montevideo criteria for statehood verbatim and notes

§ 201.(h) "Determination of Statehood. Whether or not an entity satisfies the requirement for statehood is determined by other states when they decide whether to treat that entity as a state."

For example, Palestine was a mandated state that was recognized by United States government. See Kletter v Dulles, United States District Court, District of Colombia - in Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. ; and the governments of Spain and Italy

§ 201 Reporters note 3 says "The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist."

In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said "The use of the term "Palestine" is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its "revived usage enrages" individual Israelis". Crawford said "It is difficult to see how it "enrages" Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter since there was a quota nationality, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341; and US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions, "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

§ 202 Recognition or Acceptance of States says

(I) A state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state but is required to treat as a state an entity meeting the requirements of § 201, except as provided in Subsection (2).
(2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.

Comment

a. Recognition or treatment as state. Recognition of statehood is a formal acknowledgment by another state that an entity possesses the qualifications for statehood as set forth in § 201, and complies a commitment to treat that entity as a state. States may recognize an entity’s statehood by formal declaration or by recognizing its government, but states often treat a qualified entity as a state without any formal act of recognition.

Thomas Grant provides an example: Israeli forces had shot down a British aircraft over Egypt in January 1949. Despite nonrecognition, Britain addressed to Israeli authorities Britain's intention to seek compensation. Britain dealt with unrecognized Israel as if the country possessed international legal personality. See Thomas D. Grant, The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) page 20
The Washington Post recently interviewed Mark Regev and reported that "Israel maintains that it was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying any state has the right to blockade another state in the midst of an armed conflict." Regev cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea. Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law expressed surprise, because that article only applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force.
In December of 1948 the mayors of almost all towns of Palestine held by the Arabs met in Jericho and declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine. The Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 1706; Kadosh, Sandra Berliant, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252, especially 246; and Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 2, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 1163-68
On January 21, 1949 Transjordan officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354
The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713
In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation:
In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn-that the US did in fact recognize the union.

Recognition of Government vs State

Stefan Talmon explains the difference between recognizing a government (conditionally) and a state (unconditional) "With regard to US recognition of Israel, Dr Jessup, Deputy US Representative in the Security Council, informed the Security Council on 17 December 1948 that 'so far as the Provisional Government of Israel is concerned, the United States did extend de facto recognition to that Provisional Government of Israel.' In this connection it is also of interest to note Dr Jessup's telegram of 13 July 1948 to Secretary of State Marshall stating: 'it is our understanding that US recognition of State of Israel is unqualified, that is, de jure, while our recognition of PGI was a de facto recognition of government that state. Is this interpretation correct?' The Department, on 15 July, stated its agreement with New York's understanding and set forth its belief that 'in case of recognition of new states as distinguished from new governments no question of de facto as against de jure recognition is involved'. --Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 62

State Recognition vs Diplomatic Recognition

Talmon illustrates that recognition of a state is not the same as diplomatic recognition: "Another case concerning the recognition of Israel is also informative. On 25 January 1964 the Republic of Ireland disclosed that it had granted de jure recognition to Israel 'some time ago'. However, it was not until 12 December 1974 that the Irish Republic and Israel announced that they had agreed to establish diplomatic relations." --Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 72

In 1987 the United States repeatedly criticized the Soviet Union for withholding 'diplomatic recognition' of Israel. Diplomatic recognition in this context referred to the unwillingness of the Soviet Government to re-establish diplomatic relations which had been severed in 1967. The USSR had been the third State, after the USA and Guatemala, to recognize 'officially' the State of Israel and its Provisional Government on 17 May 1948--a recognition which had never been withdrawn.--Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 111 harlan (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan you're putting way too much effort into this. All this shows me is that states suit themselves as far as state recognition is concerned. The reality is that when Kosovo declared independence countries either recognised Kosovo or they didn't. I can't remember anyone saying that they didn't do state recognition any more. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, § 202 Recognition or Acceptance of States says explicitly that

"A state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state"... "States may recognize an entity’s statehood by formal declaration or by recognizing its government, but states often treat a qualified entity as a state without any formal act of recognition."

Misplaced Pages articles do not reflect the fact that in controversial cases, or in cases involving belligerents, states often choose to accept and treat qualified entities as sovereign states without any formal act of recognition. See the examples of Israel and Jordan cited above.

In fact, Misplaced Pages has several so-called "List" articles that place a great amount of stress upon attempts to count the number of states that have not yet made any formal declaration with regard to specific entities. During oral arguments in the Kosovo case, the Serbian Ambassador used a similar argument from silence to suggest that most States around the world opposed Kosovo’s independence. The representative of the British Foreign Office quickly countered that argument by pointing out the silence meant there was no widespread opposition to Kosovo's independence. He said that "In all likelihood, the vast majority of States that have not recognized Kosovo have no firm view on the matter, are hesitating in the face of the chilling effect of the present proceedings, or do not engage in formal practices of recognition." harlan (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Treating a state as a state is an act of recognition, all this says is that states may not engage in formal acts of recognition any more. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the sources say. On many occasions, the State Department has said that "the question of recognition" does not arise. The decision to treat a state as a state is separate from any of the formal or tacit forms of recognition listed in the Restatement. In many cases, it has been an internal government decision, that was not communicated to the target state, and in the absence of any intention of establishing relations. Implied recognition can only be deduced from the existence of diplomatic relations or other dealings with a state, but the Restatement says that determinations of the existence of statehood are based upon decisions to treat an entity as a state. In the case of co-belligerents, that might only mean the application of the rules of international armed conflict - not a desire to enter into relations. harlan (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All I'm really asking for here are clear sources. Your source which says that the State Department says that "the question of recognition" does not arise, clearly refers to recognition of governments not states. Please find an unambiguous example of them referring to states. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you sources, I just interpret them differently. To me a formal process is indicative of the constitutive theory of statehood where being a state is dependent on other states acknowledging statehood. While treating a state as a state is indicative of the declaratory theory where no formal process of recognition is required as statehood is self-evident. I'm not surprised the Restatement includes both possibilities. The problem is that many Western states, including the US, clearly do continue to formally go about the process of recognising states as many of them did with Kosovo. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The US did recognize the provisional government of Kosovo, but that was an exceptional case. US practice has never been entirely explicable by using either of the classical declarative or constitutive doctrines, e.g. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan exercised effective control and should have been on the State Department's list of States that sponsor Terror. In any event, the Bush administration and congressional attempts to escape the application of the Geneva Conventions have not turned out well. Conversely, putting states on the State Department terror list is relatively simple. Despite being "international persons", they have no due process right to be removed from the list, or to ask how they were selected for the application of sanctions in the first place. In practice, treating a state as a state operates more on the level of applying the customary rights and duties of states to the entities, with emphasis on responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and pursuing claims. harlan (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Blue-Haired Lawyer has misunderstood something – or then I am just unable to follow the argumentation. Finland is an example of a country that does not recognize governments. It will deal with who ever is in power. It will give formal recognition of independence of states. The last time this happened was most likely after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The United States is the opposite. It uses the recognition of governments as a political tool to interfere in the domestic issues of foreign nations. When recognition of governments i.e. "diplomatic relations" is so paramount, the question of recognition of states becomes secondary. Also, it may be argued that by not recognizing states the U.S. avoids giving support for self-determination; recognition of governments can be undone.

I am reverting the deletion of content. If I have totally misunderstood the issue, please explain it to me in words even I can understand. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I too wish for further clarification. What I saw Blue talking about before was de facto recognition(a very legitimate argument), however, this is something completely different. Outback the koala (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm becomming a little confused here myself. There are two issues here.

The first issue: I recently tried to delete the following two sentences:

'Since 1970 the United States has moved away from its older recognition practice. In recent years, U.S. practice has been to deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition. Repeatedly, the State Department has responded to inquiries with the statement: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."'

because both sentences, and the sources which support them, clearly refer to the recognition of governments and not states. It's dubious because its wrong. No one has contradicted me on this point.

The second issue is whether of not state formally recognise each other any more. There are abundant sources which prove that this process is alive and well:

Finland recognises Kosovo

The UN recognises East Timor

The EU recognises Montenegro

China recognises Montenegro

the EU and the US recognise Bosnia and Herzegovina

"Recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina's independence by the United States and the European Community occurred on April 6-7, and Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted to the United Nations on May 22, 1992."

Montenegro

"Since the 2006 declaration of independence, the European Union, Serbia, and all permanent members of the UN Security Council have recognized Montenegro."

The EU and the US recognise Slovenia

"1992 - The EU recognises Slovenia's independence, followed by the US. Slovenia joins the United Nations."

China recognises Slovenia

The US state department even provides a handy list of places it considers to be independent states. They even provide as definition of independent state which is "a people politically organized

into a sovereign state with a definite territory recognized as independent by the US." If US practise has been to "deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition", why do they produce a list which does the exact opposite? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

39 European states in 1815?

Where is this number coming from? There were 39 members of the German Confederation alone in 1815, plus at least 15 other states I can think of off the top of my head (UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sardinia, three Italian duchies, Papal States, Two Sicilies, Denmark, Sweden-Norway, Russia) - I suppose that personal unions might lead us to remove Hanover, Luxembourg, and Holstein, but that still leaves us with 51 distinct states, not counting Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, or the Ottoman Empire. I suppose you might decide not to count some of the smaller states in the German Confederation as fully sovereign, but if you remove the 4 free cities and 10 principalities, you're down to only 37 states total, and I'm not clear why you would do that, anyway. I'm not aware of any particular grounds on which Saxe-Meiningen would be considered sovereign, but Lippe-Detmold would not. john k (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories: