Talk:International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

ICJ advisory opinion

cc @M.Bitton, why have the ICJ advisory opinion in this page? It doesn't mention anything regarding a hypothetical Sahrawi state, only reaffirms the need for auto-determination of Sahrawis. NAADAAN (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal background perhaps? I'm not exactly sure. @Koavf: what do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: this provides the legal context and the international law basis for their being an independent Sahrawi political entity. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in the 70-page advisory opinion does it even entertain the need for a separate Sahrawi state. By the same logic, this could provide the "legal context" for the 2007 Moroccan autonomy plan, if the Sahrawis agree to apply it. And since there is already a page about the advisory opinion, I deem this to be redundant.

An "independent Sahrawi political entity" does not mean a nation nor a state, and the header states clearly "Recognition [of SADR] by the International Court of Justice". That statement is factually incorrect and I have no idea whatsoever why this must be debated upon. In my opinion, it should be removed from this page as it is irrelevant to what the page is about and its scope (international recognition of the SADR).

Eid Mubarak :-) NAADAAN (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

What would be a non-state independent Sahrawi entity? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A Sahrawi entity can include the Autonomous Saharan Region as described in the 2007 autonomy plan, a political party, a council like CORCAS, etc... "Independent" in my eyes doesn't mean "sovereign". Either way, I'm not too keen on wasting time on dilemmas, especially during Eid al-Fitr. You have yet to address the rest of what I have written, the advisory opinion doesn't mention anything about independence. The advisory opinion only mentions self-determination, which can be also achieved through the 2007 autonomy plan if Sahrawis deem it just.

If you do not offer valid argumentation on why this should stay on the page, then I will feel welcome to remove it. Eid Mubarak ;-) NAADAAN (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Autonomy is not independence, by definition. Do not remove it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-determination is not necessarily independence, by definition. Why should I not remove it if you have yet to address anything I have said? The advisory opinion does not constitute any recognition by the International Court of Justice of any Sahrawi republic. NAADAAN (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No one wrote that it did and there is no consensus to remove tgus content that has been here for a decade. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"No one wrote that it did" Because you just changed it, it has said this for over ten years now. Either way, the page is still literally called "International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" so this argument is null.

"there is no consensus to remove tgus [sic]" That is the point of a discussion.

"tgus [sic] content that has been here for a decade" It is irrelevant if it has been there for a decade, two decades, or fifty years, and this doesn't prove anything an old mistake is still a mistake.

Eid Mubarak :'-) NAADAAN (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia operates on consensus. You do not have consensus to remove this and it is germane context for the international law basis for an independent Sahrawi state. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I am seeking consensus here, if not, I would appreciate if you guide me on how I could go ahead with that. Even if this was true, that is not recognition, this page is only for recognition of the RASD.

A reader of this page would be interested in which countries recognize the RASD, not a mostly-irrelevant misappropriated advisory opinion. Does I really need to take this to WP:CONTENTDISPUTE?

I'd appreciate if you took your time to actually address and justify why this belongs on the page rather than seemingly acting like a broken record, Eid Mubarak :-) NAADAAN (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't make you read what I already wrote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you have fallen down on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. An "international law basis for the Sahrawi state" doesn't come close to any sort of recognition. There are dozens of pages you could mention the advisory opinion, but this is not it. The Polisario Front had existed for 2 years when the advisory opinion was issued, yet the advisory opinion does not mention it at all.

If you took your time reading the advisory opinion, you could see that it mentions a referendum (a solution the Polisario threw off the table) twelve times and not once mentions "independence" in the context of an independent Sahrawi state. If you choose to still continue playing with this after all I have said, then this is going nowhere.

I know you are extremely biased toward Sahrawi nationalism, to your own admission, but are you sure this is a hill you want to die on? This is the last message I will make before WP:CONTENTDISPUTE unless you address my points specifically. NAADAAN (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Polisario Front is not the same thing as the SADR: this is not about the international recognition of the Polisario Front. I have no clue what points you think need to be addressed as you are just talking past me. E.g. no one wrote that the ICJ didn't mention referenda. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume @M.Bitton, whom you're at the very least friendly with, would beg to differ. The Polisario is the only political party in the SADR, share leaders and controls all of their decisions, they're one in the same.

I will simplify this so you can wrap your head around this: this page is dedicated to international recognition of SADR. The page has part of an advisory opinion from a court (not an order nor judgement) that doesn't recognize SADR. Even if the advisory denies any "Moroccanness" of the Sahara and calls for self-determination, that doesn't constitute recognition nor constitutes a call for independence and it is fallacious to say so. Does the opinion belong on the page? I'd argue it is irrelevant, but you'd beg to differ.

I assume you have a relationship with Morocco that is very close to, if not, WP:IDONTLIKETHEM but I'd appreciate if you reasoned with me for a second. NAADAAN (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Polisario is a political party and is constitutionally part of a one-party state in the SADR until emergency conditions are over (tho there is a splinter group that has run for elections). I don't recall writing that the ICJ opinion called for independence. Can you please remind me of when I wrote that? I also have no relationship with Morocco and really dislike your poor, bad faith arguments and distractions, so please stop. Thanks.[-: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a splinter group, is it Sahrawis for Peace? If the ICJ opinion didn't call for independence, then it weakens the case that the advisory opinion is recognition of a Sahrawi state.

I will rewrite this once again, this page is exclusively about international recognition of the RASD. The ICJ advisory opinion doesn't constitute recognition and a "legal framework" is not recognition. The ICJ advisory opinion is irrelevant to the scope of the page. If you could address that, that'd be good. I'm not sure how this is poor or in bad faith, but if you interpret it as such then I apologize.

From reading your U.N. speech, you probably don't have a very positive opinion of the country, but let's not distract ourselves with that. :-} NAADAAN (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Front Polisario Khat al-Shahid. The ICJ were not tasked with advocacy, but fact-finding. I don't have a positive opinion of killing civilians and stealing their land as oppressors. [-: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, the ICJ still didn't recognize the RASD, so they shouldn't be on this page. I don't see how you couldn't possibly understand this. There are quite a few things I could say, but I'd rather not get invested in your poor provocations and open Pandora's box, especially during one of the holiest days in Islam. If that could give you a sense of righteousness, then who am I to judge? :-) NAADAAN (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that the ICJ Advisory Opinion did not time travel. [-: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That's another reason to remove the ICJ advisory opinion from the page as it could not imaginably recognize any Sahrawi state because there wasn't any in 1975! I'm glad that we can finally agree on something. NAADAAN (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hence it's background and context, so now you've finally understood the first two responses in this thread. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Context on why someone would recognize it? That's kinda useless. It wasn't context for the last 10 years but rather straight-up said recognition, the header simply saying "International Court of Justice" can also mislead people into believing that the ICJ recognizes any form of RASD.

I will propose a compromise, I will replace the ICJ section with "History" and "Background" sections (still mentioning the ICJ case) so it can be more useful to the reader than simply quoting the advisory opinion, similar to International recognition of the State of Palestine. I will try to act in good faith while writing the article, and you are free to review it after I am done. This will both spare us from tremendous headaches. Does this sound good? NAADAAN (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thumbs up emoji. The process works. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, glad to have resolved this :-) NAADAAN (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf This has been implemented, feel free to review it. I attempted to be as neutral as I can. NAADAAN (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Peru, 2023

Peru seems to have again broken relations / withdrawn recognition of the SADR, so the stats / numbers all need changing: https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/peru-breaks-off-relations-with-the-saharawi-arab-democratic-republic/20230912140122190755.html Dan Palraz (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This may be true, but this does not seem like a reliable source with wording about the "fabricated conflict in Moroccan Sahara". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You are right, let us wait and see. Dan Palraz (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sourcs in article given. Peru frozen diplomatic relations, no frozen recognition. --Jan CZ (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Original research tags

@Mewulwe I understand where you're coming from, but the list very well may be a full list; if the numbers are actually wrong, they can easily be corrected. WP:CALC explicitly states that simple operations (such as counting) are not OR. We could also add "at least" before to show that it may not be exact if you really have gripes with it. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)