Jump to content

Talk:Annexation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Atlanta

What's with the sentence "Further annexations occurred during the 1950s, but interest in annexation ceased after Atlanta elected its first black mayor."?? That seems to be under-the-table racism, but I"m not sure of how to rephrase it/where to get the information to rephrase it. Scoutersig 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was the 50s, and yes that seems to have been the major motivation for those annexations back then (and why they stopped immedately after their first black mayor.) (One of the conditions of settling the racial descrimation suit filed against Memphis shortly after the 1990 census showed that Memphis had become a majority-minority city was a moratorium on new annexations for a few years [pending annexations still being actively challenged in court exempted], that moratorium expired a years ago.) What's missing in this line about Atlanta is that at some point Georgia changed the state law to require those being annexed vote by majority to be annexed. Jon 19:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unilaterally rather than through treaties

I am a little bit confuced with this phrase. If two (or more) countries enter into a treaty to devide the territory of another country between themselves. Would not it be an annexation?

From the formal point of view, it is not unilatery and it is through a treaty. But to my fieling, it looks strange. Could somebody clarify the meaning of this phrase?--AndriyK 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Encyclopedia Britannica uses "annexed" for partisions of Poland.--AndriyK 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I mentioned this problem four people: Irpen, Mikkalai, Petri Krohn, Digwuren reverted the article restoring each time this dubious statement "unilaterally rather than through treaties or negotiations". Irpen and Petri Krohn did it twice! And nobody did not even try to discuss it or provide the reference.--AndriyK 08:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry; I restored while reverting removal of the section Annexation and international law before 1949. I am fine with leaving this particular statement out. Digwuren 10:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


"Annexation" of Goa

If one reads the sections about Tibet and Goa side by side, one might get the impression that the page has been written by a Chinese (whose views have always been antagonistic to Indians'). Jokes apart, even if you don't know anything about Indian history, even if you read the second paragraph of Goa, it is clear that Goa was always an integral part of India. The Portuguese forcibly annexed and colonised it, and in 1961, 14 years after all the other colonial powers had left India on their own, the Portuguese refused to vacate it. It was only then that India launched an armed offensive to take back what had been its territory for thousands of years before. If there was any measure of expansionism about it as the first paragraph of this article talks about, the Portuguese wouldn't have surrendered it so meekly, and they would have vociferously disputed it in international fora like the Tibetans do to this day.

That is why i have flagged this article for a neutrality check.

Hackeye (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC) hackeye

A letter to the NYT from an ANDREW C. MAYER is not a reliable source. Do we have a reliable source that says that the area was annexed. BTW military occupation is not the same thing as annexation.--PBS (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of annexation after 1947

All these examples need a reliable source that states that annexation took place. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored revert - Rational the cited documents DO support my edit

Reason given for revert by 71.204.165.25 "not at all what the source says" It is in fact what the sources say [1].. Cited source for recognition by Britain and Pakistan ... Used Judea and Samaria as it was called at the time it was captured by Transjordan. Only after it was captured was it renamed the West Bank ... talknic (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Annexation and international law before 1949

Text cut from the article:

Annexation may be the consequence of a voluntary cession from one state to another through purchase or other treaty, or of conversion from a protectorate or sphere of influence, or occupation through military conquest. A city might annex unincorporated areas or a country might annex other disputed territories. The assumption of a protectorate over another state, or of a sphere of influence, is not strictly annexation, the latter implying the complete displacement in the annexed territory of the government or state by which it was previously ruled.

In international relations the term annexation is usually applied when the emphasis is placed on the fact that territorial possession is achieved by force and unilaterally rather than through treaties or negotiations. The cession of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany by France, although brought about by the war of 1870, was for the purposes of international law a voluntary cession. Under the treaty of December 17, 1885, between the French Republic and the queen of Madagascar, a French protectorate was established over this island. In 1896 this protectorate was converted by France into an annexation, and Madagascar then became "French territory." The formal annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary (October 5, 1908) was an unauthorized conversion of an "occupation" authorized by the Treaty of Berlin (1878), which had, however, for years operated as a de facto annexation. A case of conquest was that effected by the South African War (Second Boer War) of 1899 – 1902, in which the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State were extinguished, first de facto by occupation of the whole of their territory, and then de jure by terms of surrender entered into by the Boer generals acting as a government.

By annexation, as between civilized peoples, the annexing state takes over the whole succession with the rights and obligations attaching to the ceded territory, subject only to any modifying conditions contained in the treaty of cession. These, however, are binding only as between the parties to them. In the case of the annexation of the territories of the Transvaal republic and Orange Free State, a rather complicated situation arose out of the facts, on the one hand, that the ceding states closed their own existence and left no recourse to third parties against the previous ruling authority, and, on the other, that, having no means owing to the de facto British occupation, of raising money by taxation, the dispossessed governments raised money by selling certain securities, more especially a large holding of shares in the South African Railway Company, to neutral purchasers. The British government repudiated these sales as having been made by a government which the British government had already displaced. The question of at what point, in a war of conquest, the state succession becomes operative is one of great delicacy. As early as January 6, 1900, the high commissioner at Cape Town issued a proclamation giving notice that the British government would "not recognize as valid or effectual" any conveyance, transfer or transmission of any property made by the government of the Transvaal republic or Orange Free State subsequently to October 10, 1899, the date of the commencement of the war. A proclamation forbidding transactions with a state which might still be capable of maintaining its independence could obviously bind only those subject to the authority of the state issuing it. Like paper blockades and fictitious occupations of territory, such premature proclamations are viewed by international jurists as not being jure gentium. The proclamation was succeeded, on March 9, 1900, by another of the high commissioner at Cape Town, reiterating the notice, but confining it to "lands, railways, mines or mining rights." And on September 1, 1900 Lord Roberts proclaimed at Pretoria the annexation of the territories of the Transvaal republic to the British dominions. That the war continued for nearly two years after this proclamation shows how fictitious the claim of annexation was. The difficulty which arose out of the transfer of the South African Railway shares held by the Transvaal government was satisfactorily terminated by the purchase by the British government of the total capital of the company from the different groups of shareholders (see on this case, Sir Thomas Barclay, Law Quarterly Review, July 1905; and Professor Westlake, in the same Review, October 1905).

In a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1899 (Cook v. Sprigg, A.C. 572), Lord Chancellor Halsbury made an important distinction as regards the obligations of state succession. The case in question was a claim of title against The Crown, represented by the government of Cape Colony. It was made by persons holding a concession of certain rights in eastern Pondoland from a native chief. Before the grantees had taken up their grant by acts of possession, Pondoland was annexed to Cape Colony. The colonial government refused to recognize the grant on different grounds, the chief of them being that the concession conferred no legal rights before the annexation and therefore could confer none afterwards, a sufficiently good ground in itself. The judicial committee, however, rested its decision chiefly on the allegation that the acquisition of the territory was an act of state and that "no municipal court had authority to enforce such an obligation" as the duty of the new government to respect existing titles. "It is no answer," said Lord Halsbury, "to say that by the ordinary principles of international law private property is respected by the sovereign which accepts the cession and assumes the duties and legal obligations of the former sovereign with respect to such private property within the ceded territory. All that can be meant by such a proposition is that according to the well-understood rules of international law a change of sovereignty by cession ought not to affect private property, but no municipal tribunal has authority to enforce such an obligation. And if there is either an express or a well-understood bargain between the ceding potentate and the government to which the cession is made that private property shall be respected, that is only a bargain which can be enforced by sovereign against sovereign in the ordinary course of diplomatic pressure." In an editorial note on this case the Law Quarterly Review of January 1900 (p. 1), dissenting from the view of the judicial committee that "no municipal tribunal has authority to enforce such an obligation," the writer observes that "we can read this only as meant to lay down that, on the annexation of territory even by peaceable cession, there is a total abeyance of justice until the will of the annexing power is expressly made known; and that, although the will of that power is commonly to respect existing private rights, there is no rule or presumption to that effect of which any court must or indeed can take notice." So construed the doctrine is not only contrary to international law, but according to so authoritative an exponent of the common law as Sir F. Pollock, there is no warrant for it in English common law.

An interesting point of United States constitutional law arose out of the cession of the Philippines to the United States, through the fact that the federal constitution does not lend itself to the exercise by the federal congress of unlimited powers, such as are vested in the British parliament. The sole authority for the powers of the federal congress is a written constitution with defined powers. Anything done in excess of those powers is null and void. The Supreme Court of the United States, on the other hand, declared that, by the constitution, a government is ordained and established "for the United States of America" and not for countries outside their limits (Ross's Case, 140 U.S. 453, 464), and that no such power to legislate for annexed territories as that vested in the British Crown in Council is enjoyed by the president of the United States (Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 692). Every detail connected with the administration of the territories acquired from Spain under the Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898) gave rise to minute discussion.

According to the top of this page the above text was based on text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain. It is so badly out of date and limited to describing the state of the law in 1911 that I do not think it should be in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. State of the law in 1911 is also worth considering; international law is inevitably subject to long-time developments.
If you consider the difference between 1948 and 1911 to be as significant as to make 1911 "obsolete" by 1948, I would think the 1911 state merits a separate section. (The actual boundary would probably be somewhat later, though.) Digwuren 10:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of this info was perhaps from EB but some clearly was not. I am restoring the piece and if you want to remove based on 1911, please make sure you only remove what's in EB. --Irpen 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Which bits do you think were clearly not from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition?

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this paragraph that you included into the start of the article:

In international relations the term annexation is usually applied when the emphasis is placed on the fact that territorial possession is achieved by force and unilaterally rather than through treaties or negotiations.

Yet the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) of 1949 Artcle 47 explicitly states: nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory. So "territorial possession" can no longer be "achieved by force and unilaterally"

Annexation may be the consequence of a voluntary cession from one state to another through purchase or other treaty, or of conversion from a protectorate or sphere of influence, or occupation through military conquest. -- Yes to the first clause but no to the second two. But even that wording is a but iffy because of the need to consult the population of the area to be annexed.

A city might annex unincorporated areas -- Should be placed into the article Municipal annexation in the United States or similar. Not in this article.

The assumption of a protectorate over another state, or of a sphere of influence, is not strictly annexation, the latter implying the complete displacement in the annexed territory of the government or state by which it was previously ruled. -- Are there any protectorates not under the auspices of the UN (eg like Kosova)? The trouble is that the wording of all of this is antiquated and does not make sense in the 21st century. What is needed is text from modern sources not a souce written before the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions of 1948. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed Irpen that you revert the changes without further discussion. I have moved the text here as is reccomended in WP:V. While we are discussing the text please do not reinclude it. If this was a scientific article about a topic radically changed since 1911 would you insist on keeping Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition even though it was now considered outdated and wrong? If not why do you want to keep text that is presenting the situation under International Law as it was a century ago? For this reason I do not think that for this topic the Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition is a reliable souce, (see 1911 Britannica in the 21st century for more on this). I am all for this article being expanded but please lets use articles that take into consideration developments in international law over the last 100 years.

Irpen, you wrote above "Some of this info was perhaps from EB but some clearly was not", but have not as yet explained which parts are not from EB 1911. Please can you do so so we can engage in a constructive conversation and try to reach a consensus? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

EB1911 is relevant, because it constitutes the chapter on the historical review of the legal situation before 1949. From a historical point of view it is not outdated. Inclusion of the pre-1949 section is particularly important as most annexations happened before that year. I am restoring the section. -- Petri Krohn 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Which year before 1949? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to cite some of the information in the EB 1911 then at the very least it needs to be re-written into the past tense. It should not be quoted in the introduction. The EB 1911 article is not the situation of 1911 let alone 1949 because the author(s) had/have not considered and incorporated the then new Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) into the text. Also they could not have incorporated the treaties post 1911 and before 1949 or any changes in the interpretation of customary law between those dates. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The part in the introduction is not related to the EB in any way. Only pre-WW2 examples are. Those examples are clearly relevant and you are welcome to improve the text flow and make it more modern-looking. Wholesale shearing of the article is disruptive. --Irpen 18:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above on the first two paragraphs. The second of which AFAICT is from EB 1911. See third sentence in EB article "Annexation may be the consequence of a voluntary cession from one state to another, or of conversion from a protectorate or sphere of influence, or of mere occupation in uncivilized regions, or of conquest." --Philip Baird Shearer 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the title of the Article is "Annexation", without a time frame, I see no reason why it should start at 1947/48. The history of annexation has changed based on earlier treaties, conventions and Charters. Thus far consensus is against removal of the pre '47/48 information. However EB is contradicted by the ICRC source and the Hague conventions (Laws of War), UN Charter and GCVI. I suggest that if it is restored in some form, better sources are provided ... talknic (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Additions before 1947

Rationale for restoring : no actual challenge or objection to any of the information in the edit. There is no WP:POLICY against making the edit as I did or of having to address it in Talk prior making the edit. If PBS wishes to challenge the information he should do so now, point by point ... talknic (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The source you added does not say the Arab league insisted that Jordan be a trustee. Nor does it say Pakistan recognized the annexation, which is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.165.25 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 26 November 2011‎
71.204.165.25 -- A) The Arab League threatened Jordan with sanctions unless it complied.
Session: 12 Date: April 1950 Temporary Council boycott of Jordan because of Jordan’s acquisition of Eastern Palestine.
Session: 12-I Date: May 1950 Special session called to discuss steps against Jordan due to her unilateral annexation of Eastern Palestine; Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria support expulsion, while Iraq pressed a compromise position (later accepted) which viewed Jordan as the "trustee" of the area.
Session: 12-II Date: June 1950 Council approved plan to consider Jordan the "trustee" of Eastern Palestine.[2]
B) The reference to Pakistan existed before my edit. You didn't object before, why not? ... talknic (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
First point you should not construct section names that name a user as you did. The section name gets embedded in the history of the talk page. You should use neutral names (See WP:TALKNEW). As for "no actual challenge or objection to any of the information in the edit" have you read the previous sections of the talk page? No there is nothing wrong with being bold. But having been bold and had it reverted. Build a consensus for the change before reverting (see WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), and there is a policy against edit warring to force through changes.
PBS - Point taken re WP:TALKNEW Apologies. Something I'd not noticed it until your pointing it out..
To reiterate - A revert needs valid reasons. You gave no valid objections to the materials or sources. There is no WP:POLICY requiring editors to gain consensus on the Talk pages before making a bold edit. The accusation of edit warring to "force through changes" is not correct. The record shows your rationale was my reason for restoring AND I've agreed to discuss point by point by bringing it to the Talk page (albeit with a title in breach of [[WP:TALKNEW]). To that end thanks for including that discussion ... talknic (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The reason why annexations before the change in international law took place is that there would be literally 10,000 of them, so the list will inevitably be selective and therefore likely to be bias, it will also overwhelm this article (the usual thing to do is to move longer lists out of articles into an article dedicated to a list. Many lists of this have a logical cut off point to do with international law. For example the List of military occupations goes back to those occupations that have occurred since there was an agreed treaty on what constituted a military occupation. (and note also that it is not included in the article on Military occupation but in its own list article). This article covers the period since the international laws governing annexation took on its modern coverage under the post World War II treaties. I am going to revet your changes and please explain in detail why you selected the annexations that you did and not for example the Soviet annexation of half pre-war Poland? And why you think that pre-1947 examples are needed in this article.-- PBS (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
PBS - "..there would be literally 10,000 of them, " Please show WP:POLICY where all instances need to be listed .. thx.
"Many lists of this have a logical cut off point to do with international law" The UN existed 1945, the LoN existed 1920's. Pre 1947 examples give readers a notion of how the laws surrounding annexation have changed.
"the list will inevitably be selective and therefore likely to be bias, " Can you point out the 'selective'ness and why there is 'bias' in the examples I gave? 'likely to' is hardly sufficient.
"This article covers the period since the international laws governing annexation took on its modern coverage under the post World War II treaties" Odd, it says only "Annexation"
"I am going to revet your changes " You're engaging in edit warring A) by not giving any valid reason for reverting in the first place B) by reverting again once the issue IS on the Talk page.
"and please explain in detail why you selected the annexations that you did and not for example the Soviet annexation of half pre-war Poland? " The examples I gave are relatively neutral and used to point out they were by agreement/treaty/referendum before 1947/48
"And why you think that pre-1947 examples are needed in this article." To show folk a little on how the law developed. Article name is Annexation No time limitations ... talknic (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
PBS - An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. -- 1) 11:11, 25 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer (revert to last version by 140.247.249.179. // 2) 01:57, 26 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer(Rv to last version by PBS // 3) 02:01, 26 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer (removed pre 47 annexations) // 4) 02:02, 26 November 2011‎ Philip Baird Shearer (removed 45-48)
Please self revert ... Thx ... talknic (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your page WP:3RR specifically say ". A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." So I have made two reverts (2,3,4 in your list count as one, and besides two were reverted out so that I could make the edit in discrete parts rather than reverting all of the in-between edits).

Yes. Replied already ... talknic (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is you who wish to add this materiel. To date you do not have a consensus to do so. Putting in random annexations does not explain what annexation is. You say "A) by not giving any valid reason for reverting in the first place" read the other sections on this talk page. If you had you will see I am repeating myself. But that has now been done again so that horse had bolted. The annexation of Poland was by treaty (two different ones!) one with the Germans the other with the Western Allies and probably a third with Communist Government of Poland. So I stand by my statement your choice is selective. The next point you says "[pre-1947 examples are needed in this article] To show folk a little on how the law developed." For that you will need to explain what international law was before 1947, examples selected by you does not explain the law. I deleted the huge chunk from EB1911, precisely because it was not clear and AFAICT was factually wrong for 1911 (as the author did not mention the 1900, and 1907 Hague Conventions that has a major impact on Military Occupation and Annexation. If you find a decent modern reliable secondary source which explains the laws of Annexation since early times and would like to summarise it here, that would be a useful addition to the article, but a list of a few annexations chosen by Wikipedia editors not help to explain what to a reader what the laws were covering annexation before 1947. To see what I mean try reading the General Treaty of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, much of it reads like farmers swapping land and livestock and is typical for the treaties involving territorial changes at that time. It is long way from the modern world and the rights of national groups as laid out in the UN charter. -- PBS (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

PBS -- "It is you who wish to add this materiel." That is the notion behind Wikipedia to inform readers "To date you do not have a consensus to do so" One does not need consensus to add information before any objection is registered.
BTW - After having reverted based on my needing consensus, you're NOW giving different excuses...
"When I rewrote the article in 2007" Consensus was 3:1 against[3] the limited view YOU're now determining to keep by preventing changes to an article with no timeline implied in its title.
"The annexation of Poland was by treaty (two different ones!)" Yes, treaties are AGREEMENTS. However, the annexation of Poland is rather controversial & could be seen to be biased towards those who instituted those treaties.
"you will need to explain what international law was before 1947, examples selected by you does not explain the law" they do in fact show there was AGREEMENT via treaty/referendum/plebicite, the stuff of self determination BEFORE 1947/48 and also AFTER 1947/48. As the section on GC IV explains, it made avoiding International Law 'harder'. It did not introduce International Law. The EB Lede entry saying there is no International Law, is contradicted on careful reading of the ICRC reference. I have made an edit to that effect and altered other text which did not accurately reflect the ICRC source
"I deleted the huge chunk from EB1911 because it was not clear and AFAICT was factually wrong for 1911" Oh, so there WAS a pre 1947/48 section... consensus for that major change was 3:1 against The UN Charter is current, GC VI is current, both evolving from previous Conventions, treaties, the LoN Covenant and the Laws Of War.
General Treaty = agreement. Unlike Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem for example. No agreement or treaty and declared null and void by UNSC 252 and SIX reminders.
(Congress of Vienna) - "It is long way from the modern world and the rights of national groups as laid out in the UN charter" It's a general treaty. Read the references, where-in you will find treaty, treaty, treaty .... It's an example of showing treaties/agreements were an accepted method of legally acquiring territory AFTER war BEFORE 1945 .... talknic (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I started to reply in detail to the points you raised at the start of your last posting, but to do so would invite a repost, and is distracting from the more important issue of content. I don't understand the point you are making in your last paragraph. Before 1947, the exchange of territory had little to do with the wishes of the peoples who occupied the territory. Yes sometimes treaties were signed, but not necessarily territory could be annexed through a unilateral decelerations and provided the rest of the international community were OK with that then the territory was incorporated into the annexing state. Perhaps the largest ever annexation of that type was Britain's annexation of the eastern territory of Australia.[4]. The difference after 1947 is that before 1947, if a state won a war one of the ways it paid itself a dividend for the war was through the acquisitions of some of the enemy's territory. Typically some of that which it occupied during the war. Hence the difference between a armistice and a peace treaty. Usually the losing power had little choice but to aqueous to that demand or risk loosing even more territory of the war resumed. Take for example the territories exchanged under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), the ink was still drying when the territories gained by the Central powers was redistributed under the Treaty of Versailles. But whether these were acquisitions through mutual consent and the voluntary cession of territory or whether it was an annexation by force of arms, is probably either a point of law or a political point of view. It will take more investigation to see if annexation is a one sided forcible grab, or if annexation can also be used to describe acquisitions through cession and amalgamation.
But the point is that just listing the 1,000 of acquisitions throughout history, does not improve the article. The advantage of the current list is that since 1947 there have been very few annexations so the list helps explain what the current situation is.
I have just done a Google search on [Annexation international law] it returns some books which we could use to expand the article for example this book appears to me to be a good modern introduction:
  • Aust, Anthony (2010). Handbook of International Law (2, revised ed.). Cambridge University Press, isbn=9780521133494. pp. 35–37. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help)
This one has a chapter explicitly on the creation of the modern Italian State, which seems to have used various methods to unify the territory of what is now Italy. In it annexation is done through one state issuing a decree, and other territorial acquisitions are described mostly in other ways.
  • Marek, Krystyna (1968). Identity and continuity of states in public international law. issue64 of Travaux de droit, d'économie (2 ed.). pp. 191 f. ISBN 9782600040440. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Text "publisher-Librairie Droz" ignored (help)
The following source is interesting because of the statement in paragraph 96 "Mr Kamto pointed out that by definition annexation could never be lawful". The quote is from delegated discussing a treaty on the "Prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities" (the paragraph they were discussing was 13 and it seems that paragraph was not agreed upon and is missing from later drafts). It would appear under international law a distinction is made between acquisition through annexation (a unilateral move involving force) and presumably by mutual consent through cession and amalgamation. I suspect that annexation has become a short hand for "annexation through the use of [aggressive] force".
  • United Nations: International Law Commission (2006). Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001. Vol. 1. United Nations Publications. p. 207 ¶ 96. ISBN 9211335892.
This seems to fit in with the old communist definition "any addition of a small or weak people to a large or powerful state without the definitely, clearly, and voluntarily expressed consent and desire of this people irrespective of when this coerced addition occured..."
  • Tunkin, Grigoriĭ Ivanovich (1974). Theory of international law. Harvard University Press. p. 9. ISBN 9780674880016.
Which is probably what most people understand annexation to be.
-- PBS (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Annexation after '1947'!!

Hi, is this article written for some reasons specific to India? Is this how Wikipedia works? Why does this article not mention annexation before 1947, especially worldwide colonization? Or is annexation considered to be different that colonization? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When I rewrote the article in 2007 (removing all the EB1911 stuff), I also removed all the examples before the changes to international law in 1948. This edit by an IP address changed the date to 1947. This is an arbitrary year it makes much more sense only to list those annexations since 1948 when modern international practice was agreed. I suggest that it is changed back to 1948. -- PBS (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to avoid mentioning Annexations before 1947, and I am not sure if Wikipedia has such policies to include material only after certain laws were made, irrespective of anything else. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Another annexation has been done after 1947, by France. International treaties were suspended between France and Italy because of the war between these countries. In 1947 the treaty of Paris 10/02/1947 has been ratified, especially its 44th article that forced France to notify the treaty of Turin (1860) to Italy within six month ; if not, the treaty would abrogated. The 44 article also force France to register at the secretary of the UN the annexation treaty of Savoy set by the Treaty of Turin. France has never done this registration because it would implies the decolonization of Savoy. Savoy has been a european country and state from 1032 to its annexation by France in 1860.

As the treaty of Turin has been suspended, without being reinstated, France illegally occupies Savoy since 1947. France shall register and notify treaty of Turin, which will implies the automatic mobilization of the office of decolonization of UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.80.189.5 (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Tibet

Shouldn't Tibet be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.173.165 (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Crimea

This page contradicts itself where it says first annexation is the forcible acquisition of a territory. There was no documented use of force to acquire Crimea by Russia, rather by referendum. I'd rather have wikipedia to be a neutral source of information and the Crimea situation is still very cloudy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.46.248 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Annexation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

German reunification

what about annexes in standards, as there is sometimes with IEEE standards? Thanks, Abdull

Annexes in standards are a completly different topic. Joncnunn 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Would German reunification count as annexation of the former East Germany by West Germany and the result then renaming itself "Germany" ? [unsigned]

The official name of (west) Germany hasn't changed. It's always been the Federal Republic of Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.190.243 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I dought it, as I recall most East Germans wanted to become part of a unified Germany since standards of living were (still are) higher in West Germany. Also, the currency unification was very favorable to those with East German Marks along with other economic incentives to invest there. Joncnunn 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this page could use being split up into (city) annexation & (international) annexation pages. They are very different in nature. In the case of a city annexation, those that are now unwillingly residents of that city can vote with their feet against it by moving away a few miles. This is frequently seen in many cities that are looked upon by those nearby as an undesirable place to be due to things like high property taxes or low quality of public schools, etc. Joncnunn 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Late reply but here in Russia the example of Germany is now used a lot. One could argue that Crimeans also wanted to join Russia. I'm not saying it's the same situation, but it's worth mentioning imo. (But then again, even the respective articles are called "annexation of Crimea" and "reunification of Germany"...) 188.123.241.11 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Annexation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Neither Republic of Cyprus with the support of the other EU nation, or Turkey, recognise the Cypriot territory under Turkish military control (Northern Cyprus) to have been annexed. This was made clear by Turkey when it raised the possibility of doing so (Turkey says it could annex northern Cyprus March 2012). -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you'll see I made the same point above, and already removed it in List of annexations. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

List

Examples from this list have been split into a better formatted List of annexations. This follows the format of List of military occupations.

I have not moved some of the examples, pending further discussion of those names (some - e.g. West Bank - have not been annexed).

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Geohem: good question. The ones I didn't move to the list were ones which are either unusual or need discussion. Having looked into it further, the West Bank, Kuwait and Western Sahara were definitely annexed (Kuwait only 7 days after the occupation), so I will add them to the list.

For discussion:

  • Northern Cyprus (Turkey) - Turkey have not annexed this to Turkey. So I don't think it belongs here or in the list at all

I have now moved the two unusual / unpopulated examples (Rockall, Antarctica) into their own section.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

It was a mistake to split out the examples into a list I have put the List up for an AfD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of annexations since World War II. For the moment having the example list here helps people compare and contrast the difference while the AfD takes place. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2017‎ (UTC)
@PBS: I am disappointed with your aggressive and disrespectful behavior, adding back old and outdated material twice. I will not revert you, because I don't want to join your edit war. An experienced editor as you are, you should be ashamed.
This change took place four months ago, with an explicit discussion thread which you did not participate in. Things have moved on since then, and the List of annexations is now a much better list than the unstructured and unclear random set of names you have added back here. So now Wikipedia has two competing lists of similar information, which is confusing for readers and new editors; and all because you don't want to wait for the discussion you have opened to run its course. Discussion is good, but edit warring to support your argument is not.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree edit warring is bad -- WP:BRD -- wait for the outcome of the AfD and let other compare and contrast. -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Also your "let others compare" point is absurd. Others can compare by looking at [5]. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: nonsense and a cheap shot. I did the B and the D four months ago. Noone reverted. Now you make a big bold attack, adding back a huge block of outdated and badly structured text, and opening an AFD. I revert you, and then you revert me. After four months it is you who should be respecting WP:BRD and as an experienced editor I suspect you know it as well. You did not need to be antagonistic in your approach; you didn't even bother trying a respectful approach to the matter. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: you definitely need consensus to make large-scale reorganisations like. Please write a coherent proposal and invite comment from other editors. (I am uninvolved as of now.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I did exactly that four months ago (see above). Onceinawhile (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see a proposal there. What you attempted to do is a WP:Content fork. It should only be done if a particular aspect of the content has grown too large (or has potential to do so), and would give rise to WP:WEIGHT problems. In the present article, there is not much content at all. So the issue of forking does not arise.
Secondly, Wikipedia prefers text over tables. Wikipedia readers are here to read and learn. Tables do not serve that purpose. We use tables only for listing items that are covered in more detail elsewhere. So, the table you have created is not a good substitute for the content that is here. (Tables are also magnets for POV pushers and are hard to maintain. They should have as little 'meat' as possible to avoid that.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines or policies which can verify the points in your post above? I consider myself an experienced editor but I am keen to learn.
To my mind, a List of annexations is valuable for readers. A separate article will encourage growth and improvement.
On a separate note, this is a very poor article at the moment, providing a convoluted and confused introduction to an important subject in international relations and military history. The list of examples as added back by PBS is an example of this. As is the section on 1949 protections, which relate to occupation not annexation.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I have already referred you to WP:Content fork. Have you looked at it? The prose issue is mentioned in the WP:Manual of style. (You will have to search for it.)
You cannot treat Wikipedia as a personal project. Whenever you want to make large-scale changes, you need WP:Consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: WP:content fork includes a section called "2 Acceptable types of forking" with a subsection "2.6 List formats"; it specifically mandates for lists to be forked.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables says "The sortability of tables makes them very useful for "List of..." articles in Wikipedia, which are intended to give an overview of the subject area, and to allow easy comparisons among many similar items. Avoid cramming too much detailed information into individual table entries; if appropriate, the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to read a full, detailed article corresponding to a concise table entry."
I would accept your WP:OWN critique if I hadn't opened a talk page discussion here four months ago, and if I didn't accept that consensus can change. I did and I do. I am simply unhappy that PBS rode roughshod over that and refused to wait to build consensus himself. He has refused to respect the fact that four months is a long time. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I suggest that instead of arguing this here(in this section) you reserve these arguments for the AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of annexations since World War II); as replicating conversations can be seen as forum shopping. If the consensus is to keep the list then it is a moot point what is discussed in this section. However please leave the examples in this article until the end of the AfD, because it allows other editors to compare and contrast the differences and to make an informed choice as to which they consider the better approach. -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I currently have no intention of contesting the AfD. I am too disheartened about the way in which you have twisted things to ignore the attempt I made to build consensus here four months ago and to force this article back in time in order to maximise your chances of winning the AfD, and your lack of engagement with me here before opening the discussion there with a misleading claim. There are more important points to fix on this article (i.e. in the two sections below) than the binary question of whether the list is kept as a separate article or merged back in here. I hope you will engage on those in good faith. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Annexations before WWII

@PBS: I see from [6] this edit 10 years ago you that you don't think there should be examples here from before 1949. You made a similar comment at the AfD. Other editors in the various threads above argued against you, but you fended them all off single handedly (and apparently against consensus) with indirect arguments.

Are there any policies or guidelines you can point to which support your position here? Because, irrespective of your "other stuff exists" refutation, Wikipedia common practice is relevant, and the lists at Outline_of_war#History_of_war suggest your concerns that an open timeframe "will inevitably lead to the list expanding" are not widely considered to be a problem by the community.moving up as requested

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Far to many section. I will not respond here as you are filling the page up with sections, which will make the conversations disjointed. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I don't understand. How do you want me to format the conversation differently? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@PBS: now we've covered your questions above, could you share your thoughts on this one? Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
See my posting in the previous section with sigs ending 18:19, 17 July 2017 and 11:10, 18 July 2017. Reply in that section. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Tibet

This edit:

removed Tibet without an explanation by an new account which to date has only made this one edit (Napolekov contributions).

I would usually revert such an edit and ask for details of why Napolekov thought that removal was the correct move. However in the article Simla Accord (1914), where is a section called "2008 British policy change" that explains that unto 2008 Britain was the only state that did not recognise China's full sovereignty over Tibet. In 2008 Britain changed its position. This means that since 2008 no state supports the stance that Tibet was annexed. Britain's change of position on this probably makes it worth a mention as the NYT thought the change was made to because Britain wanted China to help financially and thought HMGs change on this would help oil the wheels. It is a good example of power politics (and how an annexation can be turned into something else by power politics).

I am going to ask Napolekov to comment on why the Tibet section ought to be removed. -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Supporting China's sovereignty and considering 1950 an annexation are not mutually exclusive. Numerous sources call it an annexation (e.g. Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations Sumit Ganguly; Sumit Ganguly; Andrew Scobell; Joseph Liow (4 December 2009). Handbook of Asian Security Studies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-22962-7.). Onceinawhile (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"Supporting China's sovereignty and considering 1950 an annexation are not mutually exclusive" yes they are, or are you suggesting that a state can annex its own territory? To consider 1951 an annexation one has to take the previous British position on Chinese sovereignty". Yes some academics such as "Elliot Sperling" (the author of the article you cite) may consider it an annexation, but the international community does not, so if it is to be included then this ought to be made clear and annexation should be attributed in-text. -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Simla Accord (1914) explains that the British position was
One theory is that China's claim for sovereignty today stems from Tibet's previous status as a Chinese protectorate. Annexation can be used to bring a protectorate under full sovereignty. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"Until 2008 the British Government's position remained the same that China held suzerainty over Tibet but not full sovereignty. It was the only state still to hold this view" (quoting the text of the Simla Accord (1914) which contains citation to support the sentence). No state holds the view that "Tibet's previous status [was] as a Chinese protectorate". Before 2008 and the British change of potion, then Tibet had an ally on the UN security council, since then the view is one that is unsupported by the international community. If this is to remain in the list of examples it would make a good case for showing how to paraphrase Kissinger and Lord Palmerston "states do not have friends; they has interests." (q:Henry_Kissinger#1980s). As I said some academics such as "Elliot Sperling" (the author of the article you cite) may consider it an annexation (it would have to be in articles published since 2008), but the international community does not. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a firm view about whether Tibet should be listed in this article, as there are claims that it was "annexed", but the international legal interpretation as accepted by the UN and the international community is clear and consistent. This view is that Tibet was not a sovereign state before 1949-1950, it was under the sovereignty of the Republic of China (or, as PBS points out, suzerainty, according to the UK historically) but enjoyed a large degree of autonomy; some time around 1949-1950 the People's Republic of China succeeded to the same sovereignty; and between 1950-1965 the People's Republic of China reduced that autonomy. Even taking "annexation" at its broadest legal sense, to say categorically that either the replacement of the Republic of China by the People's Republic or the invasion of Tibet and/or the subsequent reduction of autonomy was an "annexation" would be to give WP:Undue weight to a view which is not accepted by the international community, and could be said to be simply wrong. However, it is true that some commentators do describe the invasion as an "annexation", possibly because they subscribe to the minority view, or because they are ignorant about the law, or because they are using the word metaphorically or hyperbolically. If the widely accepted view is respected, I don't think a mention that some commentators use the word "annexation" to describe the invasion and/or the subsequent reduction in autonomy is totally objectionable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation/Archive_1&oldid=1028896523"