Jump to content

Talk:List of sovereign states without armed forces/Archive 1

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

Liechtenstein

There is debate at Talk:Liechtenstein#Liechtenstein_Military_Defense_and_Obligations_of_Switzerland_and.2For_Austria about whether the defence of Liechtenstein is or is not the responsibility of Switzerland. It would appear that reliable sources generally say it is (rightly or wrongly, but at Wikipedia we trust reliable sources and don't publish our own theories). For now, I've added a {{Fact}} tag. Indeed, I suggest it might be better to remove the claim altogether. --kingboyk (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, a follow up. I see it's already debated above. I see also that the sources are generally disputed by one guy called Michael. I'm gonna change the article per the reliable sources; if anyone wishes to challenge it they need to provide their own reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What is an Armed Force

Most of these nations have something. The Regional Security System seems to be unbalanced, with most nations on this list. Even if some of these forces are nominally police forces, some could be preforming military duties. we need to come to a decision and what make something a armed force. Rds865 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, I looked ar the Regional Security System, and it list the police forces of the member states except for the two that have defense forces. In part it is a police/coast guard cooperation, but there is a mutual defense clause. I interpret this as meaning the police forces would serve as an army, if war was declared. Even if this is the case, as I am sure that it is, does that make the police force an armed force, or an inactive militia? Rds865 (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Haiti has a police force said to "replace" the regular armed forces, and according to the CIA World Factbook, the regular army may exist on paper. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html
Mauritus has a SMF that may be an armed force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Mobile_Force Rds865 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New changes

Hello, I've been working on the matter for some time ! Western Samoa is not american Samoa, though indeed they are neighbours ! CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.152.23.255 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi, There is no defence agreemment between Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Would violate the neutrality of both. Switzerland even left Liechtenstein defenceless during both world wars.

Similarly, Itlay has no defence treaty with Vatican (wich is neutral) and San Marino.

And Mauritius no known agreement with India. CB07. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Samoa

It's Samoa, not Western Samoa. The name change occurred in 1998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.59.138 (talk) 2006-02-05T22:01:45 (UTC)

Thanks, good info ! CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.144.36 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-nuclear constitutions

For Japan : The constitution article 9, stipulatse that the country shall have no army, though it does. There was a debate, and I think a succesfull one, to ask USA not ot come in Japan with Nuclear weapons, but I am uncertain. However, there is nothing in the constitution. For germany : I do not know for the constitution for sure. But I doubt it. The nuclear power plants, though bound to be shut in 2020 (and no new ones build) are still in function. And US had, if not has, nuclear weapons stationned there. For Brazil : I have no clues. It wouldn't take that long to read these three texts, and to control if the ascertion I made, based on documents regarding Palau being the only state with an anti-nuclear constitution, is correct or not. Just now I lack the will or the time. But I am open to any details. Thank you. CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.150.191 (talk) 2005-11-23T13:16:54 (UTC)

The Army of Japan is charged only with national defense duties; although the Constitution literally prohibits the right to initiate a war, it doesn't deny the obligation to defend a country. And neither Brazil and Germany have "anti-nuclear" constitutions, please include sources if you think so! --ShiningEyes 04:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides prohibiting the right to wage war, or to use war in international realtions, the Japanese constitutions (article 9, paragraph 2) clearly stipulates no armed forces, no navy, no air force. The gorvernement has been violating it's own consitution for half a century or so. Predsently if I am right, Japan has the third biggest military bidget in the world. The right to defend, is vested in the United Nations charter, but there is no say on whith witch means. It can be civil defence ! CB

The Palau constitution is availbale on the net. CB http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/pau28362.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.144.36 (talk) 2006-03-29T10:31:59 (UTC)

For future reference Eastern Caribean(independent states) are under the RSS.

Just for future reference the independent states of the Eastern Caribbean area under the CDERA and the RSS. Not- the United States.

CaribDigita 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Japan only has self-defence forces which only engage in peacekeaping operations and in internal conflicts. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Good point It's constitutional. They should be on here. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say Japan does not have armed forces? It has one of the biggest militaries in the in its region (not to mention spending). Are we just engaging in sophistry by saying it has no armed forces. Does the Japanese Self Defence Force just carry around broomsticks? 60.226.236.214 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We should mention in the introduction that this is a list of countries that formally doesn't have armed forces. Japan certainly has, though the SDF is formally not military. "only engage in peacekeaping operations and in internal conflicts" doesn't really matter either. So does Sweden, but nobody claims that Sweden doesn't have armed forces. --Apoc2400 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And as I said above (sorry I just saw this) I'm having a hard time trying to understand how invading Iraq can possible be a "self defense/peacekeeping/internal conflict resolution". So unless Japan have sent boy scouts to Iraq they to have armed forces and they actually invaded a foreign country with them; so why are we keeping Japanese "Self Defence" Forces on this list? Doesn't make any sense. --190.48.106.236 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Japan DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ. If you actually read the article on their deployment, then you'll see their presence was focused on reconstruction. They had soldiers there to protect the workers.--KrossTalk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


What about listing Japan somewhere on the page, with a special note that while Japan formally has no standing military and only "self-defense forces" (about which constitutional debates are ongoing in Japan right now), in actuality it has one of the largest defense budgets in the world and has sent troops on out-of-area missions, albeit in a peacekeeping/peacemaking role... Nicolasdz 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Fact is that Japan has a de-facto military forces, even if its offical legal description might state otherwise. In this list we have both countries with official military forces that are so small that they aren't considered armed forces here and countries with de facto armed forces not described as such. So which is the description for countries without armed forces in this article? --130.208.189.147 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

San Marino

Should it be here? It seems to have an army, just one that can't do much because of the country's small size... --Imajin 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Their military Corpi MIlitari Uniformati appearently consist of Corpo della Gendarmeria, Guardia di Rocca, Compagnia Uniformata delle Milizie and Guardia del Consiglio. Of these units the Compagnia Uniformata delle Milizie is no doubt a military unit. Meanwhile the other ones might be more described as para-military perhaps. But this opens up the question, are countries with official military forces that aren't very big or modernly armed, without armed-forces? And are countries officially without armed forces but have a big warfighting capabilites resting in their large and capable para-military forces, truly without armed forces? In fact I believe all of these countries have armed forces. Every sovereign country has at least a single policeman with a club or stick or a baton or some weapon and are thus armed. But that might not necessarily mean that this list is worthless, it simply needs to be more clearly defined. ---130.208.189.147 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree since they got a budget for it, as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures That-Vela-Fella 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. Just go there and you will see there isn't much of an army... Or a place to hide one... And moreover, they do not have a defence agreement with Italy. Anyone proving otherwise is welcome to do so, but I did research the matter sufficiently to change that. CB07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 2007-10-01T11:21:55 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any confusion here. San Marino DOES have an army; it is well armed and considering the size of population it is a large military force. It does include the Gendarmerie (which is militarised), but not the civil (municipal) police force. Additionally there are several other military units, some largely ceremonial, but others (Guard of the Rock, Army Militia, etc) largely operational. I don't believe San Marino should be in this list at all. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nauru

The possibility of Nauru having an "unformal" agreement with Australia is slim. I'd like to know more about this. However, it is very seldom that governements enter into "unformal" agreements. There is too much uncertainety, and one way or the other, they do not lack lawyers to do the job. On the other hand, there has been strong ties between Nauru and Australia, the later establishing refugee camps in Nauru, i.e. So a military defence agreement is not unlikely. Really, Id' like to know the source of this info. And I leave the page unchanged till confirmation is given. Thank you. CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.150.191 (talk) 2005-11-23T13:16:54 (UTC)

I'll second that. That "informal agreement" caught my eye - very unusual in International Relations, unless it's a secret one, but a secret defense treaty makes no sense. Nicolasdz 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The clue exists on the Nauru page, but is not sufficient to me. So I changed the line. CB07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 2007-10-01T11:12:11 (UTC)

Secret treaties are illegal following WWI, perhaps there is wide spread speculation and even an assumption that Australia and/or the UN would protect Nauru's sovereignty. If this is the case, there might be evidence of it. Rds865 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein

According to the page on Liechtenstein their defense is the responsibility of Switzerland: "since the Army was disbanded in 1868, Defense is also the responsibility of Switzerland." -- Sölvi Úlfsson 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainely not, as SWitzerland is premanently neutral, it can not defend another country. CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.180.73.202 (talk) 2006-04-10T17:24:16 (UTC)

Well, the CIA's World Factbook has this to say:

defense is the responsibility of Switzerland

However, I haven't been able to find anything more authoritative than this. Silverhelm 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

The CIA factbook is simply wrong. Yes, as horrible as it seems. I am Swiss, am a lawyer and after reading some of the wiki articles simply had to find out more about this. Found nothing. Not even on this page here. I shall dig through the UniGE law library once the opportunity presents itself (best law library this side of the Alps), but I fear the CIA factbook is wrong. ~Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.96.158 (talk) 2006-08-20T01:26:39 (UTC)

  • Apparently, I have to insist. Switzerland is NOT responsible for Liechtenstein's defence. Switzerland cannot even move troops through the country, as testified by this here event. The CIA Factbook is wrong, plain and simple. ~Michael, the unhappy Swiss lawyer. Message left on 03/03/2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.156.223 (talk) 2007-03-03T19:16:51 (UTC)

There is a treaty between Switzerland and Liechtenstein (http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/de/home/topics/intla/intrea/dbstv/data55/e_20040755.html) That allows for mutual assistance in case of catastrophes (earthquake, flooding ...) According to: http://news.search.ch/inland/2006-11-10/schweizer-armee-beschuetzt-liechtenstein This treaty allows for the swiss military/security forces, to assist during Euro'08 in securing the safety in Liechtenstein. Only as late as 2000 a treaty was created (http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/de/home/topics/intla/intrea/dbstv/data50/e_20000850.html) in which the usage of Liechtenstein airspace was allowed for swiss military airplanes provided: - No military materials are transported (weapons, munition ...) - Its deployment is not aimed at preparing or assistance of a military operation. So the unhappy swiss lawyer is correct. Defense is not the responsibilty of Switzerland, not has it ever been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin71 (talk • contribs) 2007-10-22T14:55:12 (UTC)

Apparently the edit war has been going on for quite a while. As such, I hope I have come up with a sort of a consensus formula. However, I am on the side of those who support that Switzerland is not responsible for the defence of the tiny principality. Russoswiss (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe a citizen of the countries in question could write an official, and ask them. Rds865 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the Liechtenstein article's talk page. Russoswiss (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

I don't think this title is fitting. "Armed forces" are any non-police, non-intelligence agency, defense force. This list would be more appropriately named "list of countries without an army", as some nations have no army, but still have a military (such as Iceland, Monaco, St kitts and Nevis, and Panama). QZXA2 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The swiss guard protect every day te person of the roman pontiff every day also during is visit outside Vatican so they are really an armed force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-10T20:20:46 (UTC)

I think the Swiss Guard is more of a bodyguard then an army, and I think non-police is not accurate, because an armed force could have dual purposes. Also Armies have intelligence agency. Really what this article is about is sovereign nations with out an official armed force. Any significant group of soldiers who work for the government constitute an official armed force. The Swiss Guards are soldiers, but they act as bodyguards when Swiss Guards. Rds865 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the title should be changed ASAP, or the discussion about one country filling one list or the other will continue forever (read previous section "Armed forces?"). I think "list of countries without an army" should be better. Avargasm (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Map

This map is misleading and inaccurate. It shows Panama, not Costa Rica, among other things... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauk55 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is Japan here?

They still have a military.-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 2006-11-27T13:57:59 (UTC)

Also, whoever added it forgot to update the country counts. Pbevin 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sending troops to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq is no "self-defence", "peacekeaping" nor "internal conflicts", I can tell.
Could someone please explain why Japan is on this list?
--190.48.106.236 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

japanese "national forces" Jietai is not forces.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

1. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

2. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. --123.220.132.228 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Haiti: awkward wording

According to the artie, "The remaining countries are responsible for their own defense, and operate either without any armed forces, or with limited armed forces. Some of the countries, such as Costa Rica, Haiti, and Grenada, underwent a process of demilitarization." Considering the size of the UN Peacekeeping Mission MINUSTAH, I submit that Haiti has very little responsibility or voice in Haitian defense matters. Perhaps that's not what the author intended to say, but that's what I understood.--166.137.244.113 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of countries without armed forces. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 08:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of countries without armed forces. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 15:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of countries without armed forces. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 07:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of countries without armed forces. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of countries without armed forces. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries without armed forces. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of countries without armed forces. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Japan

Would anyone argue against Japan being removed from this list, as they have all the characteristics of an Armed Forces, albit a defensive one in nature? 65.152.162.3 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The JSDF is heavily armed (on land, at sea, and in the air), with military ranks and structure, controlled by the Ministry of Defence, and with full offensive capability - the "defensive" position is about how the Government chooses to deploy the troops, rather than their capabilities. They are clearly a military force, and are currently deployed as such both inside and outside Japan. As I have stated elsewhere, our chief guide should be the principal stand-alone article about the JSDF, where it is described as "the military forces of Japan". That is more than sufficient for me to say that Japan has no place on this list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I would also agree with this, it should be removed 140.32.16.52 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like an army, works like an army, funded as an army, fights like an army. It's an army. Japan should not be on this list. (And yes, I do realise it's not just an army, but also a navy, and an air force.) Chris Golds (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Costa Rica and Panama

I think Costa Rica and Panama shoud be in the same group, both are in exactly the same circumstances. Panama is included in the "Countries with no standing army, but having limited military forces" because of the existences of Panamanian Public Forces, but Costa Rica has an nearly identical (and older) organization the Public Forces of Costa Rica. Thus, whether Costa Rica is included in that section or the other way around. Although I think most Panamanians are very proud of the fact that their country has no army and do not see the Public Forces as an equivalent, similarly to Costa Ricans. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Vatican?

100 people in the Swiss Guard, but the population's only 925... Per capita, I'd think that'd be hypermilitarized, not lacking an army. 209.6.230.71 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point of view ! They still have a police mission, not a military one ! CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.144.36 (talk) 2006-03-29T10:16:19 (UTC)

They use military ranks apperently. Military units have often been tasked with police missions in the past. What do they define themselves as? ---130.208.189.147 21:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The swiss guard protect every day te person of the roman pontiff also during is visit outside vatican so they are really an armed force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-10T20:20:46 (UTC)

They also use asspult weapon.Italy provide security only for the part of Saint Peter Square that is part of the Vaatican State the other part of the state are under security duties of the Vatican armed corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifero4 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-10T20:25:44 (UTC)

I maintain. The Swiss guard in vatican, though they have a militsary training (they all have been soldiers in the swiss army) is a a simple police force. CB07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 2007-10-01T11:11:08 (UTC)

The Vatican Gendarmerie Corps is a police force of the Vatican state. The Swiss guard, due to the fact that Swissmen are forbidden to serve in foreign armies, functions officially as private security service of His Holiness the Pope and his palace, though by structure it is de facto a military company (by size) or regiment (by status; the commander is a colonel, the de-facto platoon leaders are captains). So, both are true: no military, and hyper-militarized per capita (1 "soldier" for less than ten inhabitants, but mind the inverted commas, plus a police force of the same size).--2001:A61:260D:6E01:E004:F71:751:2DFC (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Source

"Palau - The only country with an anti-nuclear constitution". Source, please. I believe Germany, Japan and Brazil also have anti-nuclear Constitutions. Doidimais Brasil 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Brazil, an "anti-nuclear" republic? You must be kidding, with all nuclear plants the Brazilian state has. And I'm reading the whole German constitution and it doesn't seem an "anti-nuclear" one. So, if you want sources, why you don't show 'em? --Nkcs 03:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
New Zealand decleared itself Nuclear free in 1985. No Nuclear weapons or power is allowed in New Zealand --dmmd123 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Germany it's not anti-nuclear, it just passed a law few years ago to dismantle gradually its nuclear plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.199.143 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think someone mixed Germany and Austria up - Austria does have an anti-nuclear constitution. It's not easy to find for a non-Austrian, because it does not belong to the "main constitutional statute" (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz), but to the "other statutes on constitutional level" (Bundesverfassungsgesetze), but it exists, here: [1]. Germany has no nuclear weapons, and is phasing out her nuclear power plants, but has no constitutional proviso against either and has and retains nuclear sharing.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:1165:3A68:7701:3A5 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

User:Roitr has been going around adding some pretty outrageously inaccurate stuff, so this needs a cleanup. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maldives

Do these islands really belong here? According to the CIA world factbook they spend $45.07 million on military matters or 5.5% GDP which is more than most NATO nations even. And they have "National Security Service: Security Branch (ground forces), Air Element, Coast Guard" According to the CIAWFB and according to wikipedia "On 21st April 2006, during ceremony of its 114th anniversay the NSS was renamed as the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF)." And it certainly looks like a military...... --130.208.189.147 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Armed forces?

I find this article to be poorly conceived. Armed forces should include the military of those countries which have as their stated aims a defensive rôle.

File:WorldMilitarySpending.jpg
Recent annual military budgets of those countries with the greatest military expenditure.

I have included this chart to present to you the folly of including Japan in this article. Any discussion? Ozdaren 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also the name "Armed forces." Is there any country that doesn't have an armed police? A band of policemen with rifles would be and have been used for defence against external threats over history. Perhaps it would be better to term it countries without standing armies. And Japan certainly has armed forces, even though they are few in numbers. Even Iceland has a de facto army although not many would like to admit that... -130.208.189.147 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe Iceland's army is only 100 men, whose purpose is to participate in NATO operations, that denotes special attention. I agree Japan does have a military, as do most of the ones listed here. Such as Costa Rica, Monaco, as well as arguably other countries on the list, some who use the police for an Army, and have an Air Force and a Navy. Rds865 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


"I find this article to be poorly conceived." I agree. Every country of the world has "armed forces", even if there is a gang there armed with sticks or stones. The term "countries without armed forces" includes unofficial forces and ANY kind of arm, even stone age ones. If an US war boat visits the suposed "country without armed forces", the country will immediately have an armed force in it, because even foreign forces satisfy the definition.

I suggest the name of the list be changed to "List of countries without an army". Avargasm (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be "Countries without an army", rather than "without armed forces". Apart from the abursdity of some people describing sticks and stones as "arms", we are talking about firearms. Some countries such as Costa Rica claim to have abloished their army, but still have armed forces. I see from the discussion that the Civil Guards and Rural Guards have been renamed, but from my point of view 9,000 paramilitaries with helicopters, machine guns and mortars are not a police force. Some Costa Ricans dispute the status of their armed forces. But as an observer, I think that a police force may have guns, including automatic rifles, also grenade launchers (for tear gas and rubber bullets), even armed cars for crowd control. But once they get into machine guns, rocket launchers, mortars and armed vehicles (other than armed cars) they are a paramilitary force. We don't see many claims that Nicaragua before the Sandanistas or Panama before Norriega had no armed forces. Yet it is the same pedantics: the Nicaraguan National Guard from 1930s-79 was an armed paramilitary force, as was the Panamanian National Guard from 1950s to 1980s. This also avoided the issue of the US military getting involved in internal affairs by training and arming local police: they just trained official paramilitary forces. With regard to Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands: Vanuatu has (or had) the VMF: Vanuatu Mobile Force, which was a paramilitary force attached to the police with around 300 personnel. They are somewhere between a mobile police SWAT team and a full military. Some have been trained by NZ army (seen on a list from the NZ Peace Movement Aotearoa complaining about our military training a military in a country which some would say doesn't have a military). They have contributed to peacekeeping in Bougainville, and were involved a sort of coup where the PM was held at gun point over a pay dispute. Vanuatu also has a small coast guard. Similarly the Solomons has a Police Field Force, also around 300 personnel (Estimated by deducting the number of civiliam police, the coastguard and firemen from the total under the Police Commissioner) but this may have disintegrated during the civil war between the Guadalcanal Istanabu Freedom Fighters and the Malaita Eagle Force. Also has a coast guard. With regard to history, Germany had no army from 1945 to 1955, as did Austria and Japan. Japan reached a record, even before the formation of the Self-Defence Force, with a "police tactical reserve" of 70,000 with tanks. 02:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Barbados

Barbados' "military" unit is called the Barbados Defense Force - while not constitutionally prevented from warfare (their true capabilities are a state secret) they as a unit have never taken part in any wars since independence. If Japan is on this list, then Barbados should be as well.

Actually no. Japan doesn't have a military officially, but has one in reality. Barbados seems to have an official military no matter how puny or useless it may or may not be. --130.208.189.147 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Barbados was involved in Grenada, and Haiti (1995 and 2004). CaribDigita 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No army

Hey, a "country without armed forces" is a "country without armed forces". Half of the cases on this list are countries who actually have an army, but they say they are pacifist or their military is crappy. That's exactly like Japan, who has been removed. You can't list here Vatican, since Vatican does have an army, as well as at least half of the nations here, who are not elegible for this list, and should be reintegrated in the other armed countries lists.

193.253.199.143 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Time to change this list

If you take 5 minutes to read some of the preceding comments, it quickly becomes clear that there is widespread doubt about this list in its current form. Maybe it is time we did something about it? For example, the discussion above concerning San Marino appears to me to arrive at a clear and large majority opinion that San Marino should not be in this list. There seems to be a similar majority opinion concerning the Vatican, Iceland, Japan, and Monaco.

Perhaps the solution is two lists:

  • List of countries without armed forces
  • List of countries with limited armed forces

These two lists could still be on a single page, if desired, though it would probably be neater to have two pages, clearly linked to each other.

Timothy Titus Talk To TT 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your plan is the best way to fix this page. St. kitts & nevis, iceland, san marino, panama, monaco,and the vatican should be listed as having limited armed forces as all of those nations have some kind of military force. "ANK" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.58.127 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the list should be broken into groups. nations without any armed forces, nations relying on other nations for defense, nations with limited military, etc.

That sounds good, but why doesnt anyone just go ahead and change the list? Its not like there is any controversy that might start an edit war! This list is very misleading. St. kitts and nevis should not be on this list at all! It very clearly has a Defense Force Which is a joint army/coast gaurd complete with armoured vehicles. Sounds like a full scale military force to me! It is just very small. An Iceland, it doesnt have an army but it does have an armed force that isnt part of its police (coast guard, crises response unit), therefore it has a military of some sort. And Panama, it abolished its army, but the PSF is not part of the police (though it includes it), it has several non-police defense groups, and that means it has a military. The same goes for San Marino and. Monacco And also, the titke is misleading: acountry without armed forces is a nation with absolutely no military, just a police. The countries I have mentioned all have a military force besides their police! A nation without armed forces would be Micronesia of Andorra. This list needs to be fixed. -ANK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.49.175 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Iceland should just have a "honorable mention" but the other nations you mentioned will be removed. Rds865 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I left some that have a coast guard, although that is defined as an armed force by wikipedia, and I am not sure about paramilitary police forces or Gendarmerie. The question is not whether this are called military units, but whether they act like them. That is why I left the Vatican City, as the Gendarmerie is described as only preforming police duties, and the Swiss Guards are body guards and not part of the state. Rds865 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Palau

I notice Palau's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau#Nuclear-free_constitution article says the anti nuclear cause was repealed. Rds865 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite errors

There are a heck of a lot of citation errors in this list now... can we get this fixed? - 203.134.166.99 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid an edit by Rds865 and that has fixed the cite errors, although later I noticed in this edit summary Rds865 says "The reasons is several people agreed these places do have armed forces." Personally I don't know about it one way or the other. But if those countries are removed again, whoever does it should also remove the other refs that refer to those countries (like <ref name="costa rica"/> , <ref name="iceland"/> , <ref name="monaco"/> , <ref name="rss"/> , <ref name="san marino"/> ). --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
how do I do that?Rds865 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If you remove this text from the article
  • | {{flagcountry|Monaco}} | Renounced its military investment in the 17th century because the advancement in artillery technology had rendered it defenseless. Defense is the responsibility of [[France]]. Two [[Military of Monaco|small military units]] protect the [[Prince of Monaco|Prince]] and judiciary, and provide Civil Defense coverage. |align=center|<ref name="monaco">{{cite web|accessdate=2008-02-27|url=http://www.monaco-consulate.com/news_1024.htm|title=Monaco signs new treaty with france |publisher=Monaco Consulate }}</ref>
Then the following citation will show up as an error in the References section:
  • <ref name="monaco"/>
because it calls that reference named "monaco" and it won't be found.
If that URL ( http://www.monaco-consulate.com/news_1024.htm ) is valid for other material in the article (but you want to remove the text that precedes the full reference), the reference should be moved elsewhere in the article (by replacing one instance of <ref name="monaco"/> with the full reference <ref name="monaco">{{cite web|accessdate=2008-02-27|url=http://www.monaco-consulate.com/news_1024.htm|title=Monaco signs new treaty with france |publisher=Monaco Consulate }}</ref>
If you remove these references:
  • <ref name="costa rica"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="iceland"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="monaco"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="rss"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="san marino"> blah blah </ref>
and if those references don't support any other text in the article, you need to find the following text and remove it as well:
  • <ref name="costa rica"/>
  • <ref name="iceland"/>
  • <ref name="monaco"/>
  • <ref name="rss"/>
  • <ref name="san marino"/>
But it looks to me like some text in the intro would have to be rewritten (because it cites the monaco ref) and that text was in the intro when this list became a featured list. Why do you think Costa Rica, Iceland, Monaco, Dominica, and San Marino need to be removed? Do those countries have armed forces? This list defines "armed forces" as any government-sponsored defense used to further the domestic and foreign policies of their respective government. --Pixelface (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

St. Kitts and Nevis must go!

Unless anyone says otherwise I am going to remove St. Kitts and Nevis from this list entirely within the next three days. It is clearly an armed force despite it lacking heavy weapons or manpower. There is no reason why it isnt an armed force. I may also do the same with San Marino too as they have an Army Militia amoung other forces that are armed forces even if they only have limited combat capabilities. And I think a seperate list for countries that have no armies but armed forces (Iceland, Monaco, Panama) is long overdue. Please let me know if you disagree. ANK 71.244.156.126 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree - on all your points. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Countries with no Standing Army, but having limited Military Forces. Costa Rica?

Since when Civil Guards are considered Armed forces?. I strontly disagreed with the editing of categorizing Costa Rica or any other country as having limited military forces. The Civil Guard in Costa Rica has many divisions to ensure laws are enforced inside the territory such as; ilicit drug trafficking, special police forces, or to assist in case of of a national natural disaster. This will be as to say that the DEA, FBI,CIA and Secret Service are US military forces. Definitely non-sense.

With regard on whether a country has military forces or not according to the posting previously published. I want to point out that Costa Rica meets these as follow;

1° Constitutional or legal choice not to have an army. Usually it shows clearly where the country stands. Haiti is the exception, they disbanded the army, but did not change the constitution so far.

ARTICLE 12. The Army as a permanent institution is abolished. There shall be the necessary police forces for surveillance and the preservation of the public order.

Military forces may only be organized under a continental agreement or for the national defense; in either case, they shall always be subordinate to the civil power: they may not deliberate or make statements or representations individually or collectively.'

2° Absence of heavy weapons. There also is exceptions there, mainly for cost guards that have usually small canons on their boats.

The Guardia Civil operates 11 aircraft on government support, law enforcement, and paramilitary duties.

How can the above be considered heavy weapons?

3° So a third criteria has also been used. Is it a civilian force or an autonomous force ? Distinction can lay at various levels: mission of the force, own ministry, common personal civil status or all forces in the police.

Presidential Guard Northern Border Security Battalion aka Border Patrol (Patrulla Fronteriza)- 750 men operational on the Nicaraguan border, formed in May of 1985 by combining 1st and 2nd companies.

COIN or Counterinsurgency Battalion Special Intervention Unit (Unidad de Intervenciones Especiales) (UIE). Established in the mid-1980's and is between 60 and 80 men strong. Tasked with hostage rescue, VIP protection and conducting high-risk criminal raids and arrests. The unit makes use of 11-man assault teams, each divided into subteams of 3-4 men each. In addition, they have a small sniper element used for observation and fire support. The UIE is located in the 1st Civil Guard facilities in San Jose. They have received a great deal of training from a wide variety of sources, including Israel, Panama, USA, Argentina, and Spain.

Coastguard of 250 with several patrol boats Air Unit with a dozen light aircraft and helicopters There also is the 3,000 man National Reserve, the General Staff and enough equipment, mostly small arms, for 10,000 reservists.

Also the 10000 stated in the article is not correctly cited. It refers to reservists. I wonder which country in the world does not have some sort of Civil Guard("special forces").

The whole concept of "Countries with no Standing Army, but having limited Military Forces" is just non-sense. Either a country has armed forces by definition or does not.

Eao1970 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're fully entitled to your opinion, though personally I find the simple act of reading your own comments (immediatley above) sufficient justification for the new layout. I do think anyone reading your comments on Costa Rica would think that you were talking about a military force, and not a police force! Read some of the cited external articles about Costa Rica, which state that it is hard to tell the difference between a Costa Rican Civil Guard and a member of the US Army! Also that the Civil Guard is designed to be the national army in the event of an invasion by a third party. In any case, please read the section entitled "Time to change this list" (above on this talk page) which is where this change was discussed, with widespread support. In fact, I don't remember reading ANY objections when it was discussed there, and we waited quite a long time after opening the discussion before any action was taken. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again the only point I'm making is that is incorrect to say that there are military forces in Costa Rica. I could agree that there are around 8500 police forces which some have received some paramilitary training to become part of special units. But that does not mean they are for military purposes. The reference about the 10000 military style personnel is totally incorrect taken into consideration that out of the 8500 police forces are included your regular police officer that will give a ticket for speeding and everyday citizen’s violations. With regard of the cross relation with US ranks, this is just for reporting purposes, it does not mean they are equipped with the same heavy weaponry than their counterparts in the US. I just feel that the article is misrepresenting the cited facts. is not the same to say and I quote "there are over 10,000 military-style personnel" than "enough equipment, mostly small arms, for 10,000 reservists". One thing is equipment and other personnel. The cited source states that there are around 8250 police officers and yes many of them are part of special units and have received paramilitary training but the vast majority are just your regular UK or US police officer.
All I ask is that if an article uses sentences of a cited source, then the article must reflect the information from the cited source and not twist its sentences to have a different meaning. This unless you can reference a source stating that, there are 10000 active troops serving as Civil Guard.
Since I don't want to appear rude or violate Wikipedia guidelines. I'm just asking that the article reflects the information contained in the cited sources. I can't see in any of the cited sources a reference to "there are over 10,000 military-style personnel"
Eao1970 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Eao1970 is right. "Guardia Civil" is the name the police had until 1996. It does not exist anymore, and any reference to it is an obsolete fact. It is an absolute nonsense to say that Costa Rica police are "Military forces": they are under equipped even for police work. The weaponry of the police in Costa Rica, whatever their name, is of police action, not warfare action. The heaviest weapon of the Costa Rica's "Military Forces" is the M16 assault rifle or near that, and it is used only in rare circumstances as against sporadic foreign paramilitary groups who come to Costa Rica to commit crimes and have warfare weaponry and war training. We, costaricans, have never seen an RPG, a fragmentation grenade or a machinegun, only in TV or videogames; not to talk of a tank or a fighter plane. The only piece of artillery we know of, was manufactured at the beginnings of the XX century and is exhibited in a museum.

Timothy said: "I do think anyone reading your comments on Costa Rica would think that you were talking about a military force, and not a police force! Read some of the cited external articles about Costa Rica, which state that it is hard to tell the difference between a Costa Rican Civil Guard and a member of the US Army!" Well, that's not the case. The color of the uniform or the names of the jobs (Colonel vs. Director) do not make a military force. It needs much more than that. Timothy, I understand that this for you is about a pdf you read here, and an obsolete info you read there, but for us is our daily reality. Please understand that our police "forces" are far, very far, from being a "military force". For every costarican, this is clear. We wish they had enough equipment at least for police work, but they are a very weak police. Many of the "Civil Guards" don't have even a gun, only a stick. Read our newspapers, I can send you links if you want. The police cars (automobiles for patrolling) are very very few.

If you are going to cite a reference, please, use updated material, not referring to the long defunct "Civil Guard" (oh, yes, that sounds like the Hussein's Republican Guard!).

I am putting the article the way it HAS to be, because the other way is a flagrant and ridiculous lie, not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is you against a whole country (ours), not because you are going to fight against our military forces, but because every single costarican with Internet access that'll read this page will methodically correct your point, endlessly. Any other characteristic that defines what Costa Rica *is*, is more arguably than this one.

And YES, I cite verifiable references, including the World Desk Reference, where you can see for yourself that there are no military forces in our country.

Avargasm (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference?

In the original paragraph its written that this and that "have no armies, but still have a non-police military force". What are ye upto ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly clear - you need to understand the difference between List 1 and List 2. List 1 is countries which have no military forces at all. Your quote (above) doesn't match ANY of the entries on List 1. The point is that countries on List 1 only have a police service. Some have a para-military or special services department within their police, but they are still part of the police service. When the opening paragraph talks about "a non-police military force" that isn't an army, it is referring to List 2. List 2 is different. These countries DO indeed have small military forces that are separate from the police service. However, these do not constitute a "Standing Army" that could defend their state in the face of an aggressive act from another nation. For example, Iceland has a military force with about 150 members so that it can take part in multi-national peace-keeping forces, but it does not pretend to have an army capable of defending its home territory. Similarly, Monaco has a military force of about 300 members in two units, responsible (respectively) for Royal protection and civil defence, but again, does not pretend that this constitutes an army capable of defending the realm from invasion. An army exists primarily to defend the nation from invasion. Countries on List 2 acknowledge that they have no such army, but they do still have military forces for other purposes. I hope this helps make the principles of this list clearer for you. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dominica

Dominica was given as an example of a country that eliminated its military after multiple coups, but it has never had any coups (there was one actual and one planned attempt to overthrow the government, but the only actual attempt failed). It has a police force and coast guard now: I'm not sure what it had in the past. It is not in either of the lists in this article. MayerG (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

China could be considered a country with no official armed forces, because the People's Liberation Army is a branch of the Chinese Communist Party, answerable only to the Communist Party's Central Military Commission. 83.202.96.56 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Andorra have a military?

Twice in this articles it mentions Andorra as not having a military, but then in the header it mentions Andorra as having a military. So does Andorra have a military, according to this Wiki article it does, Military of Andorra. B-watchmework (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically Andorra does have an army - in the sense that it exists legally. In practical terms the manpower is about ten volunteers, whose duties are ceremonial - basically raising and lowering a flag. The Andorran Police are responsible for all actual security activities, including para-military functions, carried out by the GIPA (part of the police, not the Army). Admittedly, it is a grey area whether Andorra should be on List 1 or List 2 on this page, but it is probably correct where it is. The other countries on List 2 do actually have small fighting forces, whereas the Andorran 'Army' really are just flag-wavers (said with all respect, as flag-waving is important!). Timothy Titus Talk To TT 05:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a clarifying footnote would be useful in the article, Ref'd at appropriate points, giving this information, and citing a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Iceland

I don't think there is any reason to suggest that Iceland has "limited military forces". Iceland's entry on the list specifies these things as constituting military: military expeditionary peacekeeping force, an air defense system, an extensive militarised coast guard, a police service, and a tactical police force. You would not be able to get any authority in Iceland to describe the peacekeeping force as military in character. The air defense system only operates radars and patrols the airspace, it has no capability to respond to threats. The coast guard, police service and tactical police force are (duh!) civilian law enforcement agencies. It can be argued that the coast guard (which is neither "extensive" nor "militarised") fulfills certain roles that would be handled by a military in most countries. Compare this to the article Military of Costa Rica which to me describes a lot of the same things, armed police forces and peacekeeping. I assume a coast guard in some form exists as well although it isn't mentioned in the article. If Costa Rica is deemed to have no military at all, than the same has to apply to Iceland. --Bjarki (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Iceland's Crisis Response Unit is a militarised force, employing military ranks and uniforms, and all of whose members (active and reserve) receive basic military (infantry) training. The Coast Guard is much closer in style to a navy than a Coast Guard. The personnel are trained in the use of firearms, and the ships are armed and capable of engaging foreign navies (as happened with the British Royal Navy during the 1970s). These are undoubtedly military forces by anyone's definition. Limited, yes; but also military. There is no standing army. Therefore Iceland is in the right place on this list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Timothy Titus. There doesn't have to be a standing army for a country to be militarised, as it is in a limited way. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced. Costa Rica seems to me to have a more extensive armed force than Iceland and they are placed on the other list. Is it because the Costa Rican constitution says that there isn't a military? In that case, we should also respect the Icelandic Act on the Coast Guard of Iceland that clearly states its purely civilian function. --Bjarki (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Palestine

Why Palestine or the Palestinian territories is not in the list? --37.8.13.84 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, it's not a country, and secondly it has a military. B-watchmework (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Palestine is a country and it has no military. I have added it to the list. 2607:FCC8:ED05:DA00:C117:3419:69E:EB9D (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with you that Palestine is a country. The fact remains, it HAS a military, and does not belong on this list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Dominica

Humbly, I do know how to insert the reference : Dion Phillips. The defuncts Dominica defense force and two coups on the nature island, 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by APREDpeace (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

First, read WP:Citing sources. B-watchmework (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted, for now, the addition of Dominica for the following reasons:
  1. The editor who added Dominica cited no sources or references;
  2. The addition of Dominica was made by an inexperienced editor and resulted in formatting issues for the list;
  3. The main article Dominica makes no mention of the issues raised by APREDpeace - we must be guided/informed by the community consensus at main country articles;
  4. The article Military of Dominica is inconclusive, a stub, and unreferenced, but it does refer to police special forces and a coast guard, whose status must be confirmed before we know whether Dominica belongs on this list, and if so, on which part of the list;
  5. The editor APREDpeace has a possible WP:COI - his/her userpage states that he/she represents an organisation promoting peace and demilitarisation of nations, and he/she has no edits on other topics or pages - we have previously had issues with groups promoting demilitarisation attempting to manipulate data on this list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Obviously APREDpeace has WP:COI, just read his userpage or look at his/her username. With that being said, the military force, the Dominica Defense Force existed from 1966-1981 (the force was dissolved due to political instability).[2] Since 1981, the Ministry of National Security, Immigration and Labour includes,[3] the Dominica Police Force, the Fire and Ambulance Services Division, and the Prison Services Division.[4] Apparently there isn't a Coast Guard; no government source mentioned it. Thanks, B-watchmework (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Compacts of Free Association: FSM, Palau, RMI

The original entry on the Compacts States having "no say" in their defense or international affairs is simply wrong. The Compact States are the defense responsibility of the US to defend as they would "The Homeland." However, also included within those compacts is the stipulation that the US must meet with each nation annually at a formal Joint Committee Meeting (JCM) to discuss defense concerns and create projects and programs to meet their needs.

Going even beyond this annual requirement to listen to Compact State security concerns, US Pacific Command instituted a "Mid-Joint Committee Meeting" to enable formal dialog every six months. In addition, the Compact States are free to submit diplomatic notes requesting US military assistance for concerns throughout the year to their resident US Embassies.

How do I know? I just completed moderating the FSM-US Mid-Joint Committee meeting 01JUN18! They sure did have a say! In the interest of accuracy, please don't delete my simple edit again!

On a personal note: I know what the requirements of Title III of the Compacts of Free Association are, I serve in the US Military, and I know that I (and the rest of the Armed Forces of the US) are prepared to fight, and if required, die in the defense of FSM, Palau, and RMI. To me, that says they do have Armed Forces/Military/whatever you want to call defense forces! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.251.239.2 (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. It is appreciated, although we also need to operate here according to Wikipedia's principles. This raises some issues. One is that "I work there" isn't sufficient to justify edits - what we need is reliable sources in books or on-line. Your edits have actually removed 4 references (which you didn't agree with) and have added no new references to support your edits. Also, because you are so closely involved in the topic, we must be careful that you are not editing from a position of conflict of interest (see WP:COI). Your edits have also broken some of the neighbouring formatting, which I will correct for you, but it is important to edit carefully, and to use the "show preview" facility to check that damage has not been caused accidentally. We are grateful for your contribution, and other editors will look at the material, but it is important to understand that things won't just automatically be accepted simply because you say "I am in a position to know about this". If you can find reliable sources, that would be very helpful. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Vatican City gendarmerie

Article currently states:

"Maintains a Gendarmerie Corps for internal policing. The Pontifical Swiss Guard is an armed unit charged with protecting the Pope, although it is officially under the authority of the Holy See, not the Vatican City State. There is no defense treaty with Italy, as it would violate the Vatican's neutrality, but informally the Italian Armed Forces protect Vatican City. The Palatine Guard and Noble Guard were abolished in 1970."

However, Palatine Guard says the Gendarmerie was abolished in 1970 along with the other 2. Which is it ? SinisterLefty (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The original Papal Gendarmerie Corps, which was part of the Papal Army, was abolished in 1970. Some of its members were reconstituted into the Central Security Office, to police the Vatican City State as a civilian service. In 1991 it was renamed Security Corps of Vatican City State, and in 2002 it was again renamed as Gendarmerie Corps of Vatican City State. Thus the present Gendarmerie, which is a civilian police service, can trace a small measure of continuity back to the original military Papal Gendarmerie Corps, but they are two separate things. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 00:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The Costa Rica case

The whole thing of Costa Rica and the armed forces is deeper than solely not having an armed force. Costa Rica does not have even the CULTURE to support an armed force [1]. The last generation of people that grew up with an armed force is almost dead, almost any costarican citizen was born and grown without an "armed force to defend his country in case of foreign or local aggression". That produces a state of mind, a "culture" that you have to see to believe it. Obviously you don't notice this if you are a costarican born and living here because this is the "normal life" for you: a costarican only notices this phenomenon when she goes out of the country and has contact with any foreign culture that has an army. Then, the costarican is routinely asked questions sort of: "how do you defend yourselves in case of aggression?", etc. These questions tend to confuse the average costarican, because have never been considered before, and because in our heads, an armed force is completely unnecessary and even stupid according to our life experience. This typically produces a little "cultural conflict" between costaricans and people from other countries. What I am trying to tell with this long story is that the case of Costa Rica with regard to the inexistence of the armed forces is a subject of study unique in the world, and goes much farther than a wiki-discussion. If there is a country in the world that can talk about not having an armed force, this is the country. I know this may sound like a cheap chauvinist sentence, but trust me that this time that is not the case.[2]

Avargasm (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


The most recent news said that Costa Rica police hide their weapons, the costarican police have buoght(2008), new military weapons

So, Costa Rica Police is like an Army because all the police officer wear bullletproof suits and heavy weapons.

The old Guardia Civil did have some military clashes with Nicaragua 20 years ago. You're using a lot of hyperbole above. There is a Military of Costa Rica, although it's quite true it doesn't qualify as "armed forces" as the term is generally understood; Americans would liken it more to their National Guard, but smaller, less well-funded and equipped, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Costa Rica Asks to Be Taken Off List of Iraq Coalition Partners". Global Policy Forum - Asociated Press. 2004. Retrieved 2008-06-18.
  2. ^ "Desarmados hasta los dientes". Diario Clarín - Argentina. 2006. Retrieved 2008-06-18.

Dependent Areas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I went ahead and removed any items on the list that are not sovereign and independent in and of themselves. I also removed Sealand from the list because its status is disputed. See: List of sovereign states. D. Wo. 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Formally, I would agree. But Niue and Cook Islands, that have "free association" deals with NZ, do have sole responsibility for international relations and defence. So if you agree, I will put them back ! CB07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 2007-10-01T11:16:15 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They are comparable to the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Why should they be excluded in the first place? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Dude, the thread is at least a decade old. Open a new one. Matthew hk (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Is that required anywhere? When I left my comments here the section wasn't archived was it? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Micronation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about micronations? -- Zondor 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Micronations are not countries, read both articles. --Nkcs 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hum... All small countires have become menber of the UN (as countries) in the nineties. Except Niue and Cook islands. So, so to speak the is no Micro-nations left without a clear legal status but these two. CB07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Add them. 124.217.189.34 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How about Sealand it is a micronation without a clear legal status Bennyj600 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cook Islands and Niue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both the Cook Islands and Niue are formally sovereign, and so belong in this list. I have therefore edited it to reflect this.

New Zealand's responsibility for their defence is required by an Act of Parliament, and is also entrenched in the other two countries' constitutions; but there is nothing to prevent any of these countries from unilaterally deciding to take the legal steps necessary to put an end to the arrangement.

Silverhelm 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

They may be formally sovereign, but not "fully". Until they are, then they will be treated like any other place under another nation's control.That-Vela-Fella 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Formally, I would agree. But Niue and Cook Islands, that have "free association" deals with NZ, do have sole responsibility for international relations and defence. So if you agree, I will put them back ! CB07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Are they still missing? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Cook Islands should be in the list.KDMP (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add them. 124.217.189.34 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Not "fully" sovereign and recognised as that and they don't hold full control of their affairs especially defense. 79.101.189.16 (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What's the definition of "full control"? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Full control is full responsibility for external affairs and defense without "consultations" with some other country, to is neither dependent or subjected to any other state and to be recognised as that by other states. This two examples are not fully sovereign, when/if they proclaim to they are and become recognised as that, and if not form some army they can be added. It is when and if, we don't do advocacy here. 109.93.167.77 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
In what way may Wellington or the Beehive control or overrule the Cook Islands or Niue in defence matters? They aren't Tokelau or the NZ Antarctic Territory are they? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
"Full control is full responsibility for external affairs and defense without "consultations" with some other country, to is neither dependent or subjected to any other state and to be recognised as that by other states." That says pretty everything about fully sovereign. 109.93.252.158 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
So in what way may the Beehive control these affairs of the Cook Islands or Niue? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Please don't reive a decade old thread....Open a new one and please don't vote stacking by simply changing ip. Matthew hk (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This section wasn't "revived" from the archive was it? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Why have a page on countries without armed forces

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, I am very happy there is one. It shows it can be done (a country living without a defence force) and this is a great progress for peace !
Now we can argue almost endlessy on where the limit between armies and police lay, and therefore waste a lot of time putting countries on or off this list.
However, this list has evolved from 27 down to 23 countries. 27 is the number in C. Barbey's book. He used 3 criterias :
1° Constitutional or legal choice not to have an army. Usually it shows clearly where the country stands. Haiti is the exception, they disbanded the army, but did not change the constitution so far.
2° Absence of heavy weapons. There also is exceptions there, mainly for cost guards that have usually small canons on their boats.
3° So a third criteria has also been used. Is it a civilian force or an autonomous force ? Distinction can lay at various levels: mission of the force, own ministry, common personal civil status or all forces in the police.
Now a bit of history and discussion of our page : - Have been removed first Niue and Cook islands because they are not fully independant or recognized as such, not sovereign accoridng the terminology in use here. That's true and I'll let be, even if factually they are solely responsible for their defense and international relations. However, we could have them in a special category on the page, they are more independant regarding defence than Monaco, Micronesia, Palau and Marshall islands.
- Was also taken off recently, Maldives, and I have little to say about that. Saddly, they have been militarizing in recent years.
- The removal of Vanuatu, done without explanations, is a bit more strange. True as St-Kitts, they have a small defense force for internal reasons (there was secceeding risks at independance in both). Both have around two hundred men with barely no heavy weapons (criteria 2). However, unlike Antigua and Seychelles (that do have the same number of men) they are both (Vanuatu and St-Kitts) under civil authority, not forming their own "administrative" entity (criteria 3).
- Both in Monaco and San Marino, ceremonial guards are definitely not armies, no heavy weapons.
Final comments :
On the long run, what will really count is the peace prone attitude of these countries.
We, APRED, [5] are preparing a new list of countries organized differently : "Countries non-militarised and peace proactive" "Countries demilitarized" "Countries at risk of militarisation".
It can also be noted that none of the recently new countries have made that choice : Timorleste, Montenegro or Kosovo. Too bad...
For today, good enough. Thanks for intelligent and sound debate. May peace prevail. CB08 (Ex CB 07)

To "CB08" - please respect talk page guidelines by always signing your comments. This is done by typing four tildes. It doesn't just identify authorship, but also assists in communication between editors. Just writing your name in plain text at the end of comments really isn't the same thing! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find it hard to agree with almost any of the above by "CB08". To answer just a handful of your points -
  • Go and speak to the people of San Marino! They are VERY proud of their army, which has a very ancient history. To suggest that it is "merely ceremonial" is both incorrect and offensive to the people of that nation. The same guards (Guard of the Rock) who perform the daily "changing the guard ceremony" at Palazzo Pubblico are on armed border patrol that same evening; and there is still immense pride in Sammarinese families through having family members enrolled in the Army Militia.
  • The "absence of heavy weapons" is a ridiculous standard for judging whether a unit is military or not. Have you never heard of light infantry or special forces? Two examples of military units which pride themselves on having no heavy weapons, and an enhanced operational capability as a result.
  • Notwithstanding your own political opinions, declared through your self-identification as part of APRED, this is not really the place for expressing such views. However, since you have already made your "too bad" type references to decisions by Montenegro and Kosovo to maintain armies, common sense is bound to respond with the simple question "Have you ever heard of Serbia"?!! Luckily this is an encyclopedia, so the facts of the matter are easily to hand.
I do not wish to appear offensive to you, or your views on world peace, but this list MUST be a factual account of which countries have armed forces, and which countries do not. It would be quite wrong to make it simply a mirror of the list published by a group like APRED (with a clear political agenda), or indeed to use it to try and advance your own theories on how to create world peace - that would be unencyclopedic, and I think would probably amount to original research too. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add Niue and the Cook Islands. 124.217.189.34 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why have a page? I'll tell you why. It makes it easier to figure out which countries to start invading once I can assemble my own personal army. It's all about land rights. 82.211.214.120 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dependent territories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about countries which are dependent territories or equivalence, like Bermuda? Umofomo (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the beginning of the article as it's already stated as to why. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Countries like Bermuda have to pay for the armed forces. The Governor is the commander-in-chief. We cannot therefore assume all dependent territories don't have any armed force. And it'd be neccessary and encyclopaedic to list out those dependent territories which do not do so. Umofomo (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Places listed here are independent countries, not territories, etc. Feel free to make a separate article (with sources, etc.). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In that case the title of this entry has to be renamed. But what about two separate tables under different subsections in this article? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
cuz they are not countries/states and their army is is the same as "main" country 178.220.243.5 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I fully agree with user That-Vela-Fella. Explained all. 178.220.243.5 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Dependent territories which are inhabited and having organised governments are countries per se, if you are an English speaker and come from a country with an English-speaking background. And, no, some of these countries got their own armed forces or paramilitary forces too. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This article/list is about sovereign states. No territories, no half independent, no not fully independent or so. When/if some territory become fully independent, able to form totally independent foreign policy, have full control of all affairs(defense included), is recognised by the other countries as that and without own military, it can be added. 79.101.189.16 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Most if not all similar lists are organised according to countries, and there's no "fully independent" states to begin with, except for a couple of most powerful ones. Is there any particular reason for the restrictive scope of this list (which has never been reflected in its name), and why there isn't a corresponding list on the dependencies? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
huhhh "and there's no "fully independent" states to begin with, except for a couple of most powerful ones." That is in your personal opinion, read more about international law, membership in some international organisations, unrecognised states, de facto independent, relations between sovereign states etc. Simple as this, dependencies or dependent territories are not sovereign states. They are dependent. Dependent territories depend to other countries, especially about international relations and about defense. And this article is about that, sovereign states. When there is some new state what is recognised as sovereign (member of the un, has diplomatical relations with some other states, accepted by international community etc) and without military would be added. 109.93.167.77 (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
In most cases sovereign states are bounded by treaties to coordinate their defence efforts. Meanwhile there are indeed dependent territories which got control over some parts of their military or paramilitary forces. E.g., Greenland over their coastguard. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
One of the main things about sovereignity is possibility of equal participation in treaties and defense affairs. Sovereign countries can chose that, they can become part of an international treaty or alliance, or they can be totally out of any or of many, e.g. North Korea, Iran etc. A dependent territory, dependent area, or dependency, can't, they are under the other country rule especially about defense and foreign affairs, and not recognised as sovereign by other countries. Greenland for example, it is said to the defence and foreign affairs of Greenland is the responsibility of the Kingdom of Denmark, enough said. If that change and for example Greenland become full indipendent and take control of all affairs, it can be added. So for that is here sovereign countries. 109.93.252.158 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Still there are some dependent territories which are given control over some of their armed units, and some dependent territories which got no control at all, some of which are demilitarised altogether. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Falkland islands?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is that independent? Also, should the section "Dependent territories" be here???--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it should not as mentioned in the starting paragraph. Removed it (with reason given) as there seemed to have been a misunderstanding of what was meant earlier. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What about the Falkland Islands Volunteer Corps? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I fully agree with user That-Vela-Fella. He said all. 178.220.243.5 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The scope should have been in line with the title too. There's no other article on Wikipedia I have come across which restricts its scope with its leading paragraph to exclude dependent territories. (Dependent territories needs no quotation marks in the first place, btw.) 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
It is not that helpful to revive a decade old thread. Matthew hk (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This wasn't revived from an archived section was it? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

'List of countries..'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This list goes by the title 'list of countries..', and presumably it should follows the usual meaning of the English word 'country', instead of the narrower definition of sovereign state. The English word 'country' is used to refer to both sovereign states and other countries that aren't independent. This same usage is followed by WP:WPC. Furthermore, there are non-independent countries which pay for their military expenses, and/or have some role on their own in areas that are assumed by the armed forces in other countries. It's necessary for an encyclopaedia article to take note of this point somewhere in the article. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Prove this claim - you keep claiming that WP:WPC "backs" your claim, and yet when I checked it I saw zero evidence that it does.
Also, I've seen this exact same claim before, that the word "country" doesn't actually mean "sovereign state", when to the vast majority of readers and English speakers that is exactly what they think of when you say "country" (i.e. in terms of "nation"). I assume if the name of the page was changed to "nation", then exactly the same claim would be made by the HKG pushers that "nation" doesn't mean "sovereign state" either.
In any case, I completely agree with the original consensus of this list that it implicitly (if not explicitly) refers to "countries" (i.e. sovereign states), and should not include "territories". --IJBall (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Like up for articles like Bermuda, Gibraltar, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and the like. They are all covered by this WikiProject. In other words, WikiProject Countries recognises these countries as countries. Furthermore, only ignorant people would believe that countries = and ≡ sovereign states. Before most colonies become independent in the 1960s, all colonies are considered countries. Just that the remaining dependencies in the 21st century are too insignificant in number. Yet if you get a copy of, say, the Economist, you can tell these dependencies are still considered countries. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
From the Economist: Defining what makes a country , where they use country and state in the same breath. CMD (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Practically: [6] . 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Hello? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
So? This article is specifically talking about sovereign states - that is very clear. So are most lists that use the term "country" on Wiki. So, let's get straight to the point - would changing the name of this article to "nations" even make a difference to you? Or are you still going to make the unsupportable point that explicit territories should still be included in the article? --IJBall (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
And, again - back up the claim that the ones you just listed are included in WP:WPC - because I see no evidence that they are: they are not included in the list of articles. --IJBall (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty apparent that you don't actually understand the different meanings of countries, nations, and sovereign states. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It is pretty clear that your editing is not constructive, with continued comments like this. As I suspected, no word usage is likely to be acceptable to you that won't include non-sovereign territories, such as Hong Kong. It's the umpteenth example of HKG nationalism-pushing that I've seen on Wiki this winter... --IJBall (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Read this [7], or any similar lists available in reputable publications. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@IJBall: Pretending that you didn't see this? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's just quote this article's intro here:

This is a list of countries without armed forces. The term "country" is used in the sense of independent state; thus, it applies only to sovereign states and not dependencies (e.g., Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Bermuda), whose defense is the responsibility of another country or an army alternative.

The definitions used, and the scope of this article, is right there in the article's opening. There's no arguing with that. Case closed. --IJBall (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As said in the very beginning of this thread of discussion, this scope is ill-defined. It's encyclopaedic to mention the cases of some dependencies, e.g., Bermuda, Hong Kong. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Furthermore, if the scope covers only sovereign states, and that such a definition is justified, change the title of this article to reflect this. We don't name an article Felid while we talk only about cat in such an article. An article titled Felid should talk about cheetah, jaguar, lion, and tiger, too. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well said. 124.217.189.34 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are both sovereign states and dependencies both subsets of the English word 'country', in the same manner as leopards, jaguars, lions, cats, are subsets of felids? 17:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.155.127 (talk • contribs)

  • Leopards, Jaguars, and Lions are also cats, hence the page big cat. In felids as well as in political bodies, the English word can have multiple meanings determined by context and convention, so you're on the right track. CMD (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and to follow up on that thought: many words have a primary definition, and several secondary (or more minor) definitions. "Country" is one of those - the primary definition is synonymous with "state" (i.e. sovereign state).
However, regardless of all that, the objection lodged here is irrelevant because each of the pages he's objecting to clearly states what definition of country is used. So the objection here is really quite silly... --IJBall (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The word country is used to describe a sovereign state, not a dependency. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The meaning of country can vary, but the range of meanings is clear, and is defined at the article country. The problem here, as IJBall has correctly pointed out is that we have an anonymous IP address frantically pushing a political POV in relation to the sovereignty of Hong Kong. He/she is anxious to have Hong Kong recognised as independent in all these lists (Hong Kong,of course, is NOT independent, it is part of China, although it enjoys a high degree of autonomy as a Special Administrative Region) and to support his/her POV he/she is pushing for dependencies to be included on all "lists of countries". This is contrary to consensus, and also contrary to the very clearly defined meaning of "country" on the lists that he/she is trying to alter. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Country has a number of definitions. The meaning of the word depends on how it is being used. The use in the article is rather clear. Here the term coutry is being used solely to refer to Sovereign States.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is this also listed as an RC for Metro systems? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The meaning depends on which country where in the world you use it in, though personally I would say sovereign states and dependencies are part of their parent country (e.g. Taiwan is part of China, no matter what these Taiwanese people think despite the fact that Taiwan claims to be independent, it is really a dependency). Epicgenius (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Totally different case than Hong Kong - sovereignty basically boils down to whether you control your territory (i.e. whether that state can exclusively exercise the "use of force" in that geographical area), and Taiwan absolutely clears that hurdle. Places like Hong Kong and Puerto Rico, for example, do not. I'm not sure how someplace like Bermuda would fit into this, however... --IJBall (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
As of right now Taiwan is a part of China. However the De facto soveriegnty that Taiwan excercises is alot like the soveriegnty of any full Soveriegn country. The presence of a Quasi-Gendarmerie or Quasi-Military force for Hong Kong does not a Military force make. They aren't recognised as a Military force. They operate solely with the policing authority they are responsible for under the Hong Kong autonomy agreement that made Hong Kong another city in China.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the meaning of country in this article is clear. I think this RFC should be closed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. And if this IP user continues his disruptive editing, sanctions should be pursued. --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Look up this list, or any other similar lists in reputable publications. And do look at other Wikipedia lists and nav boxes, e.g., those for largest bridges, tallest buildings, power stations, airline destinations. There was indeed a community consensus. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There absolutely isn't consensus at the List of tallest buildings in the world - check the Talk page. Regardless, you are wrong at the three pages you are pushing this. PLEASE STOP. --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about cases like Aruba and Bermuda, and over the past few years Greenland, that some of the duties are now shared between the government of these countries and the (metropolitan) countries which retain sovereignty over them? And that appears to be the case of Hong Kong too where such duties are assumed by other bodies. Are those specialised police forces, coast guards, offshore search and rescue agencies, cadets, regiments, maritime patrol, aerial patrol, counter-terrorism operations, disaster relief, etc. considered armed forces? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Closed discussion and of course not, it is about sovereign countries, Hong Kong is not sovereign and defence is under the PRC gov. The same with the other examples, when they/if become fully indipendent with full duties then can be said do they have armed forces or nop or some other paramilitary forces for defence.178.220.243.5 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
These duties are not entirely performed by the PLA garrison posted from across the border to the territory. In some of these dependent territories some duties are performed by local forces. In others they may entirely be performed by the sovereign states which hold sovereignty over them. (If a closed discussion is an issue feel free to start a new section below.) 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The question is not relevant here. This article/list is about sovereign states. Hong Kong is not within its scope. This has been explained repeatedly.Timothy Titus Talk To TT 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The original thread is ended long ago. Please start a new one. Matthew hk (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In that case this article isn't properly titled. But then I haven't come across any other Wikipedia entry which restricts its scope this way, except, perhaps, the list of UN members after Belarus (well, arguably) and the Ukraine achieved their independence. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Japan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Constitution of Japan explicitly forbids the existence of an army. Of course, some people argue that the SDF are a de facto army, though no de iure (although the same can be said for Costa Rica and Panama), however others may disagree. As the subject is under debate it is incorrect to establish it as a fact in the article. If anything both positions should be presented and/or the official position which is that Japan has no army should prevail maybe with a note explaining that such notion is disputed by some.

Truth is that whether or not Japan has an army is subjective. Some people may think that the SDF violate the Japanese Constitution, some people may not, in case of controversy Wikipedia can’t take sides.

I personally think that Japan is in the same circumstances than Panama and Costa Rica, dos not has an army per se, but it does has a paramilitary civil organization capable of military activities and should be listed in the same section than those two countries, or at the very least have its own section explaining the situation both the official and legal stand point and people who dispute it.

Another possible solution (and not mutually exclusive) is, as suggested above, changing the article’s name to “list of countries without an standing army” which is more accurate, as almost all countries listed have armed forces, in the sense of state organizations with armed people carrying weapons, although in most case for police reasons. Costa Rica’s Public Force has among its legal duties the defense of the country, had had took part of military operations in the past (the occupation of Dominican Republic for example) and the President of Costa Rica holds the official title of “commander-in-chief” of the Public Force in the Constitution. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging users who have made edits so far:Garuda28 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

They do constitute an armed force - I would argue that the sources support the JSDF as a military organization. Yes, it is true that Article 9 of the Japanese constitution states that "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained" - however that was adopted in 1947, prior to the creation of the JSDF in 1954, which have land, sea, and air forces. From a purely legal standpoint, Japan should not have a armed forces - but de facto has one of the most potent armed forces in the world.
The JSDF has all of the trappings of a modern military, with vast amounts of conventional warships, fighter planes, and tanks. In fact, it has the sixth largest air force in the world [8], more tanks than the German armed forces [9], and is considered by global firepower index to be the sixth most powerful military in the world [10]. I do not mean to use this as a reputable source to say that they are an armed forces, but to make the point that they possess far beyond just a limited military capability.
Many media sources, such as CNN ("Why you're seeing more of Japan's military") [11], Foreign Policy Magazine ("With Little Fanfare, Japan Just Changed the Way It Uses Its Military") [12] and BBC ("Japan's contradictory military might") [13] often describe the JSDF as being a military or projecting military power - things that a state without an armed force cannot do.
Moving non-news sources, the RAND article "Giving Japan a Military"[14] describes the JSDF as "one of the most advanced armed forces in the world" and states that "Domestically then, the SDF is not a military. To everyone outside of Japan, the SDF is a military. As a result, the SDF exists as a military in all but name". This is the crux of my argument. The JSDF may not legally be an armed force, but to use an old adage possession is 9/10's of the law. In almost every aspect the SDF is an armed force, and is considered as such by the outside world, possesses vast sums of military hardware, and trains to perform military missions.
This is unique from all other subjects of this page. It is not a limited military, as it possesses far beyond the internal security forces of Panama and Costa Rica. And while legally Japan is not permitted to possess a military, the evidence seems to point that it already does. I would argue that the reality of Japan's military organization and role should hold more influence than the idea that it legally is not. It is a military in all but name, and thus is in the eyes of the international community. I am struggling to find independent sources that state that it, in its current state, does not constitute a military. Garuda28 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It is still a sui generis situation, that's why I suggest giving Japan its own subsection where all these can be expander, not in the introduction though as it would cause too much chance for future edit warring. Your own sources mention that the matter is subjective: Domestically then, the SDF is not a military. To everyone outside of Japan, the SDF is a military. Declaring that the army was re-installed is taking sides in a debate which would go againts the neutrality policy, it can, however, be included that the subject is questioned and is under debate. The other issue is the change of name, because armed forces and stanging military are two different things and that may help the matter. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by your proposal, although I am not sold quite yet. And I do agree, it certainly is in a category of its own. Can you explain your thought process a little more on the difference between an armed forces and standing military? My current assumption is that the JSDF would still fall into the category of a standing military, as it is composed of permanent, professional full time members (which is my understanding of what a standing military is)?Garuda28 (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Well the issue of the armed forces vs standing army applies more for most of the rest of the countries, Costa Rica, Panama, Monaco, Iceland etc most of these countries certainly have armed forces, what they don't have is standing armies. In Japan there's no doubt it has (like th other countries) armed forces what can be argue is if it constitute an army (even taking strictly "an army in everything but name is still not an army"), the issue is that saying that the army was fully restored is missleading. The subsection could say something like:

The Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan officially abolished the army and the use of war for setting international disputes. However Japan has the Japanese Self-Defence Force since 1950 which some experts consider very similar to or a de facto army, although this claim is often disputed.

--Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree on the premise that "this claim is often disputed". I have never seen it disputes that the JSDF is an armed force. I have read that people say it should not be, but never that it is not. Garuda28 (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course they are an army, nobody seriously disputes that, although there are domestic questions in Japanese politics about whether they should exist or not. The Japanese Self-Defence Forces are recognised as soldiers by the international community, and always have been. Their participation in peacekeeping operations as United Nations troops is not a new thing - in fact the first UN request for Japanese forces to form part of a joint military force was as early as 1958, with the second one in 1961. In other words, they have always been recognised as a military force. The Prime Minister of Japan describes them as a military force, and has announced his intention to change their name to reflect that (although he has received political opposition to that suggestion). Full-time soldiers, with military ranks, heavy weaponry, military discipline, living in barracks, carrying out military duties (not policing ones), and serving in joint military forces with other nations under the UN - if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. The argument that Japan should be considered as having no military because a clause of its constitution says so, is really a red-herring (though obviously a point of interest to be noted in the article); by the same token, the Constitution of Andorra provides for an Andorran Army, and there *is* an Andorran Army, but we include Andorra as having "no military forces", because the Andorran Army has about a dozen members, and they carry out purely ceremonial functions. We already make judgment calls based on consensus, and rightly so - some common sense is required here. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case of Japan then the same can be said about Costa Rica, for example, the Public Force has heavy armory, is made of thousands of individuals, take parts in military operations and military exercises with other countries, and so on, same with Panama. I really fail to see the difference between Japan and all the countries listed in "countries with no standing army but limited military capacities". --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps that’s another discussion we have, but a quick google search actually seems to show that there is actually a degree dispute weather the public forces actually constitute a military force. However for Japan the vast majority of sources state that it is a military force. The difference seems to be one of scale of sources. Garuda28 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is one interesting question but in my opinion pretty clear. Japan indeed keep one full armed forces organisation with separated branches or air, naval and ground forces, organised totally by military lines. Founded by government and separated in all ways from their police, in command, recruitment and budget matters. Before JSDF and after WW2 there was an organisation called the National Police Reserve what was part of their police, the same command and budget as police, so part of police but with paramilitary duties. If there is still organisation called National Police Reserve, part of their police under the same command as police but with some paramilitary duties we could say to Japan didn't re/established armed forces capacities or to has limited military capacites or so. But JSDF is one different story. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

My issue is more on that saying the army was re-established is a very bold statement. I think in the past the article said something like "Japan ablished its army in the 1945 Constitution however is generally not included because it has the Japanese Self-Defense Forces". I mean, most of the countries in the "limited military capacities" have de facto armies (Costa Rica has more effectives that Czech Republic), but I do understand that the level of militarization the SDF have is much more in scale. Yet, is still something disputed and we can't take sides, the best would be to mention both position even if one is in the minority. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Costa Rica is not Japan. Costa Rica limited military capacities are due to militarisation of police in Costa Rica but still, there is just police with some paramilitary capacities, no independient organisation with focus on military/defense duties under ministry of defense. "Costa Rica has more effectives that Czech Republic"? Uhhhh no. Lol. Is this some trolling or what. Wrong example. Anyhow, it is not about Costa Rica. I just checked talk page, there is April 2017, consenus about Japan. We can't open every time talk page to reach consensus when any single user is concerned with solely legal matters about why are armed forces/JSDF in Japan. Btw it is not disputed, there is military organisation, only disputed is solely by legal aspects by some scholars in Japan, but not as de facto situacion. In Japan existing military organisation focused and organised about defense duties formed in 1954 before that they had police with limited military capacities but in 1954 all changed, and that is it. If other armies see JSDF as army that is enough also other users made good arguments why and how Japan has armed forces. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Banovicmiki14 accusing someone of trolling is being unpolite which is against Wikipedia:Etiquette's policies and can be reported. And yes, it is disputed, whether like it or not it can not be put as a fact as far as there's dispute even if in the alleged minority (although proving that is a minor position is trikcy, if is only judge by whatever appears in google which can not be use in Wikipedia as a source btw). But in any case, I really don't see why such reluctancy in mentioning the debate. Why some users are so resoluted to saying one version that completely disregard the option of just mentioning the dispute as the neutralitiy policies require. Is not like is not going to say it has (according to some) an army. In fact it was perfect as it was before, I don't know whyu it was change in the first place. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It was about mentioning and comparison of Czech Republic and Costa Rica. Wrong example. But not in some bad context said. Also anyway, it is not about Costa Rica or so. Japan case this is, and should be talk about Japan, this is not some forum. Maybe we should keep clear cut cases as it is in the list, add countres if they abolish armed forces, remove countries if they reestablish them etc. To keep things clear. I will hide also Haiti note until we make some consensus. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned CR because it's a similar case (similar not identical) in that a lot of people questions whether in reality has no army or just has an army by any other name. I know is not to the extend of Japan of course. In general I have no problem with the mention of Japan my only problem is in not mentioning both positions or at the very least mentioning what the Constitution officially says even if is not acomplished fully in practice. However if the mention (as in Haiti case) is decided to be removed is not a bad idea either I'll agree with that too.
The other issue that might be a good idea is rethink the name, as mentioned before armed forces has almost every country here, even the Vatican, what they don't have is standing armies. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe @Banovicmiki14: solution would work. Removing cases like Japan would probably be the most amenable solution to all parties. @Dereck Camacho: can you please explain how the content of the page would change if we rename it to states without standing armies? I want to be clear what that would entail before I take a side on that debate. Garuda28 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
For me it is about organisational form, not about standing army, as I said it should be about is there separated organisation what is focused primary on defense duties, or not. And about Japan, about 250000 uniformed soldiers, 700+ aircrafts and many tanks and warships belong to one organisation what existing under their Ministry of defense as it is case with many other countries, what is organised and budgeted by their state and with primary defense mission for this article that is what matter. Countries listed here, great majority of them has just police with some units what keep some military capacities and noone keep separated ministry of defense and couple just in theory leave possibility to form standing army example of Costa Rica, just on my mind. Standing army, wont change much in my opinion, lets say we will come to that to Japan again de facto keep standing army and can make more confusion. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Well I wasn't the first in suggesting it though, but as I understand one definition encompasses the other but one is more broad and accurate than the other. It would depend in how armed forces are define of course, police forces and civil guards are armed forces (as in state-owned corporations of people who carry arms for official duties) which most countries have. Standing armies on the other hand is something that non of these countries has, at all (some of them have caveats in their constitutions allowing them to form one in time of war though, but not to have one permanently). So, although semantics, that's the main difference. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, armed forces of sovereign state is organisation focused on defense duties, trained and organised for war situacions and police/ civil guard/ gendarmerie on law and order duties. Also a lot of difference about, training, recruitment, organisations, units etc etc. Armed forces are armed forces. Yes police of Costa Rica and Panama, etc can become and act as army in theory but as peacetime functions are clearly about law and order and just small minority of people would see Costa Rica police for example as armed forces. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we have that conensus about 1. To keep clear cut cases about countries 2. Add to the list (there is 2 lists and that is good, already explains much in that lists) if some country abolish their armed foces 3. Remove from the list/s if some country reestablish it. 4 Without cases like Japan etc. and to keep focus at the list/s in general. This is cool article with really good and detailed list/s, and with some "patroling" we can keep it good and to update when needed. And about name, that is different topic. I gave some arguments why we should keep the same name as it is now, but lets see. What kind of disturb me is also, many people in their search engines, and on their mind when think about, will more easy find about "countries without armed forces" than "without standing army" and more confusion we can make. When is said about armed forces association is clear for many, about to meaning is army as organisation and functions in that way. The most easy would be, "countries without army" but cuz this is encyclopedia, armed forces has more formal meaning considering force with all warfare branches, ground, navy, marines etc etc. About name for this article to keep it as it is,that is my opinion for now. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second the points made above. I’m not convinced on a rename, but if it were to happen I express the same concerns on using the word "army" given that it is jus one service branch. Garuda28 (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I also agree with the proposal to set the issue about Japan and co. The issue of re-naming can be discussed later on, is not a priority. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I will remove hidden content about Japan and co. Also about the name of this article, I gave some arguments why I am against to change, but it is for now, we always can talk more about and lets see. Banovicmiki14 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What about a third category, with a third table? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nop. Nicely explained into discussion here.178.220.243.5 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk page discussions don't form part of the entries. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The thread was stale since 2019, so that you should better open a new one . You can mention old thread by using link such as /Archive 1#Japan (and they are two threads in the archive so that linking may be broken), /Archive 1#Why is Japan here?. etc. Matthew hk (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Wasn't this the newest section on this page before User:Valereee added a new section below a couple of days ago? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_without_armed_forces/Archive_1&oldid=1218210816"