Jump to content

Talk:List of sovereign states

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured listList of sovereign states is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 22, 2006Featured list candidatePromoted
November 29, 2008Featured list removal candidateDemoted
March 3, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
July 16, 2011Articles for deletionKept
March 12, 2012Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list


North and South Korea's names

[edit]

Should the reference to Congo be changed to:

Korea, Republic of

Korea, Deomocratic People's Republic of

(machine translation) Gdagys (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the common names. They're almost universally referred to in English as North and South Korea. I do, however, think they should be changed to "Korea, North" and "Korea, South", in line with the Congos. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Gdagys (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same thing. South Korea is the area controlled by the Republic of Korea while North Korea is the area controlled by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Using the longer names gives credence to their respective claims, which is why reliable sources generally prefer North and South Korea. It's one country divided by competing governments.
If and when they recognize each other, that will probably change as it did for Germany and China. Reliable sources also stopped referring to China as Mainland, Red or Communist China whe its current government was recognized. TFD (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Section for "States partially recognized by the UN System"

[edit]

Hello. I'd like to propose changing this article to include a new category for States partially recognized by the UN System. It feels disingenuous to have widely-recognized states such as Kosovo, Niue, and the Cook Islands, along with Taiwan (one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world) and the SADR (recognized national liberation movement), lumped together with other separatist states that maintain limited support (Russian-occupied territories, Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Somaliland). I've proposed an edit as such which I will recreate below. Note that while the WTO is not a UN Specialized Agency, it is still considered part of the "UN System", which includes Taiwan under a special designation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

States with partial recognition within the UN system

[edit]

Other states

[edit]

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely opposed to this. I think your idea has some merit. Two comments:
1. What exactly is a "recognized national liberation movement"? Is there some kind of verifiable source for UN recognition of this nature? And does it qualify it as UN-associated?
2. I'm wary about classifying the WTO as "UN-associated". I don't know enough about their relationship to say for sure one way or the other. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. A "recognized national liberation movement" is a designation from the 1970s–1980s that granted special status to certain groups during decolonisation, but is still in force today. For example, the PLO was a recognized national liberation movement until it was promoted to a non-member state in 2012. The UN receives communications from and maintains relations with the Polisario Front (the administrators of the SADR) as the "legitimate representative" of Western Sahara, a Non-Self-Governing Territory. The Polisario Front's international status has been recently reaffirmed by the EU Court of Justice. I've cited the two UN resolutions that initially granted recognition as sources in the "Further information" column.
2. The WTO is listed here on the official UN System website. So, though it is not a specialized agency and formally separate from the UN, it is still recognized as part of the UN System due to their close relations. Taiwan participates in the WTO. Again, it seems disingenuous to group Taiwan with other states that have almost no international legitimacy.
Let me know if that helps. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 22:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That helps me understand your points a lot better. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to this unless there is widespread sourcing that defines "partial recognition within the UN system". This also feels redundant to the existing column. Regarding the rationale, we have never found convincing sourcing to define "widely-recognized", and certainly I've never seen Taiwan described as such. CMD (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Nice4What means is states that aren't members of the UN, but which are associated with the UN in some way. As you point out, the sources are the sticking point. However, we already distinguish between states that are members of a UN specialised agency and those that aren't. That seems much more objective than the current proposal.
It does make some sense to me that members of specialised agencies would be seen as somewhat more legitimate in the eyes of the UN than states that aren't. However, again, the sources might not back up such an assertion. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sorting criteria was based on the organizations that it was, because that's a common approach used by the international community to determine whether states have the legal capacity to independently become parties to treaties. This is the so called "Vienna formula", which is summarized here: Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties#Vienna_formula.
It's not clear what the justification/rational for considering other organizations, but as mentioned we'd need sources to support it. TDL (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference untreaty1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo". UN. Archived from the original on 25 December 2014. Retrieved 8 January 2015.
  3. ^ ""Sijera Leone je 18. država koja je povukla priznanje tzv. Kosova"".
  4. ^ Question of Western Sahara A/RES/34/37 (1979)
  5. ^ Question of Western Sahara A/RES/35/19 (1980)
  6. ^ "Ma refers to China as ROC territory in magazine interview". Taipei Times. 8 October 2008. Archived from the original on 3 June 2009. Retrieved 13 October 2008.
  7. ^ 中華民國國情介紹. 2.16.886.101.20003. 22 March 2017.
  8. ^ van der Wees, Gerrit. "Is Taiwan's International Space Expanding or Contracting?". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 16 December 2021.
  9. ^ "UN System". United Nations. Retrieved 23 November 2024.
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference unms was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Абхазия, Южная Осетия и Приднестровье признали независимость друг друга и призвали всех к этому же (in Russian). newsru.com. 17 November 2006. Archived from the original on 16 April 2009. Retrieved 5 June 2011.
  12. ^ "Cyprus", The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 7 June 2023, retrieved 11 June 2023
  13. ^ a b Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780199698394. Archived from the original on 9 October 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. In addition to the four cases of contested statehood described above, there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognised by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.
  14. ^ Kreuter, Aaron (2010). "Self-Determination, Sovereignty, and the Failure of States: Somaliland and the Case for Justified Secession" (PDF). Minnesota Journal of International Law. 19 (2). University of Minnesota Law School: 380–381. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Considering each of these factors, Somaliland has a colorable argument that it meets the theoretical requirements of statehood. ... On these bases, Somaliland appears to have a strong claim to statehood.
  15. ^ International Crisis Group (23 May 2006). "Somaliland: Time for African Union leadership" (PDF). The Africa Report (110). Groupe Jeune Afrique: 10–13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
  16. ^ Mesfin, Berouk (September 2009). "The political development of Somaliland and its conflict with Puntland" (PDF). ISS Paper (200). Institute for Security Studies: 8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 November 2011. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
  17. ^ Arieff, Alexis. "de facto Statehood? The Strange Case of Somaliland" (PDF). Yale Journal of International Affairs (Spring/Summer 2008). International Affairs Council at Yale: 1–79. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 December 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
  18. ^ "Somaliland profile". BBC News. 14 December 2017. Archived from the original on 23 April 2017. Retrieved 27 January 2018.
  19. ^ Jansen, Dinah (2009). "The Conflict between Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: the South Ossetian Paradigm". Geopolitics Vs. Global Governance: Reinterpreting International Security. Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, University of Dalhousie: 222–242. ISBN 978-1-896440-61-3. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 14 December 2017.
  20. ^ "Russia condemned for recognising rebel regions". CNN.com. Cable News Network. 26 August 2008. Archived from the original on 29 August 2008. Retrieved 26 August 2008.
  21. ^ "Transnistria profile – Overview". BBC News. 20 November 2022. Retrieved 11 June 2023.

Denmark

[edit]

Is it supposed to be the state flag? RelliKtiabkcilK (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RelliKtiabkcilK: No, it isn't. The implementation was hidden deep, but I rectified it with Special:Diff/1261754281. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that was me, sorry. I changed the flag on the article for the Danish Realm from the state flag to the standard flag. I didn't realise there was a data page I had to edit as well. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I get it. RelliKtiabkcilK (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of rv

[edit]

@Chipmunkdavis First off, Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays! Anyway, I would like a full justification for your rv. I fully believe that I am following and standardizing the formatting used throughout the article. As for other changes (solving the excessive citations issue for Somaliland, unifying the notes for the top row of both tables, punctuation/grammar, etc.) I will automatically assume that it is alright to add them back if you don't justify reverting those. Cheers mate! HKLionel (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was a huge single edit that said cleanup but was doing quite a few things that go beyond cleanup. I saw a few good changes, but what caught my eye and I already mentioned in the edit summary was applying the dependency formatting to autonomous areas. CMD (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, my apologies, I just applied the formatting to entities that had flags under the flag template. I did not know of this beforehand. If that is the only issue, I will add back relevant changes soon. :) HKLionel (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a general list of changes? I noticed the adding of further efns and a few c/es that seemed good. CMD (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologize as I am not quite familiar with Wikipedia jargon, so I may have misapplied some terms. Anyhow, in my 1st edit:
A. cleaned up links
1. removed nonexistent section link ("summary by country") from dependent territory (line 58)
2. removed redirect to government-in-exile (line 58)
3. corrected section link to coregency by replacing nonexistent section "co-principality" with Andorra (line 84)
4. corrected section link to Commonwealth realm by replacing nonexistent section "relationship between the realms" with interrelationship, fixing the link name accordingly ("Commonwealth realm interrelationship") (line 94)
5. removed redirect to federal states of Austria (line 122)
6. removed redirect to communities, regions, and language areas of Belgium (line 152)
7. removed redirect to federative units of Brazil (line 197)
8. corrected section link to foreign relations of China by replacing nonexistent section "international recognition of the People's Republic of China" with countries without diplomatic relations with the PRC (line 256)
9. removed redirects to Taiwan Area and One China (line 262)
B. added links
1. linked Constitution of Argentina to "Argentine Constitution" (line 94)
2. linked Lithuania (line 152)
3. the note is about the use of Dominion as a name of Canada, so I directly linked it to Name of Canada#Use of Dominion and Dominion#Canada (line 229)
4. linked Bhutan (line 262)
C. c/es
1. rewrote note for formal name of Azerbaijan by aligning it with Azerbaijan#cite note-11 (line 122)
For B2&4, I erroneously linked the country names to their respective articles at first, but I linked them to their respective sections on the list in my second edit in accordance with the rest of the article. That is all the changes I made in my 1st edit, none of which concern the dependency formatting. If you have no objections, I will add these changes back to the article, and summarize the rest of my changes (made in my second edit). HKLionel (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinland and Wa State

[edit]

Chinland and Wa State are pretty much de facto independent states in Myanmar and thus should be included in the list Gavfor (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list only includes states that either have received recognition or have been assessed by reliable sources as meeting the Montevideo Convention criteria. CMD (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then maybe Chinland can’t be included because it doesn’t have relations with other states but the Wa State meets all of the requirements, the Wa State well exists and several sources back that up so thus it has a population, the government claims territory and so this it has an established territory, it has a government and reliable sources have talked about the fact that the Wa State exist so thus reliable source back up the fact it has a government, and Reuters, which is considered to be reliable, claims that the Wa State had relations with China so at least the Wa State should be included Gavfor (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the main thing is that the Wa State itself does not claim to be a sovereign state, so there's no basis for its inclusion in the list even if it fits the criteria of being a sovereign state (which is debatable as well). HKLionel (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unless I missed something I’m pretty sure there isn’t anything in the article that states that the state itself has to view itself as independent to be included in the list so I’m pretty sure it’s still technically qualified to be in the list Gavfor (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under criteria for inclusion, 2nd paragraph: "For the purposes of this list, included are all polities that consider themselves sovereign states (through a declaration of independence or some other means)..."
It is clearly stated in the Wa State article that it recognizes Myanmar's sovereignty over all of its territory, so it fails this criterion. HKLionel (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).