Talk:Sovereign state/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge

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

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

Dated and doctrinaire material

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

Merge

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

According to the first five articles of the UN's "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" [1]; The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [2]; and the Inter-American system of International law states are juridically equal. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

national capital

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

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

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

A question on states which no longer practise recognition

In the recently introduced paragraph it say that:

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

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

The following article

Current developments in monetary and financial law, Volume 4

By International Monetary Fund. Legal Dept, IMF Institute

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

Treating an entity as a state

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

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

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

For example, Palestine was a mandated state that was recognized by United States government. See Kletter v Dulles, United States District Court, District of Colombia - in Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. [3]; and the governments of Spain and Italy [4] [5]

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

In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said "The use of the term "Palestine" is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its "revived usage enrages" individual Israelis". Crawford said "It is difficult to see how it "enrages" Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter since there was a quota nationality, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341; and US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions, "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.[6]

§ 202 Recognition or Acceptance of States says

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

Comment

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

• Thomas Grant provides an example: Israeli forces had shot down a British aircraft over Egypt in January 1949. Despite nonrecognition, Britain addressed to Israeli authorities Britain's intention to seek compensation. Britain dealt with unrecognized Israel as if the country possessed international legal personality. See Thomas D. Grant, The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) page 20
• The Washington Post recently interviewed Mark Regev and reported that "Israel maintains that it was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying any state has the right to blockade another state in the midst of an armed conflict." Regev cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea. Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law expressed surprise, because that article only applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. [7]
• In December of 1948 the mayors of almost all towns of Palestine held by the Arabs met in Jericho and declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine. The Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 1706; Kadosh, Sandra Berliant, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252, especially 246; and Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 2, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 1163-68
• On January 21, 1949 Transjordan officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354 [8]
• The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713
• In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation:

  In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn-that the US did in fact recognize the union.[9]

Recognition of Government vs State

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

State Recognition vs Diplomatic Recognition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States or governments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I agree that the sources are about "recognition of governments and not states". This is exactly why the text needs to be included; the U.S. sees no need to recognize states as it can simply recognize the governments and have all the added benefits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We still appear to be at odds. The source say the US does not recognise governments. You keep saying that the US recognise governments and not states, when the reverse is true. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I now finally understand your point. My understanding of the issue is the exact opposite. Do you have access to the cited sources or are you just making this conclusion based on the short quote in the text? Besides, the sources seem quite old (1974, 1975,1977), and may no longer be relevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I cited an article at the beginning of this whole discussion which explicitly referred to Harlan's source as evidence that states were ceasing the previous practice of recognising governments. In any event I don't think I need sources to remove material from the article. If some wants to re-introduce material they can find sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the sentence to read as follows: "The question of recognition [of states] does not arise: we are conducting our relations with [i.e. recognizing] the new government."

It seems that you read it as follows: "The question of recognition [of governments] does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Continued below

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

• Finland recognises Kosovo [10]
• The UN recognises East Timor [11]
• The EU recognises Montenegro [12]
• China recognises Montenegro [13]
• the EU and the US recognise Bosnia and Herzegovina

  "Recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina's independence by the United States and the European Community occurred on April 6-7, and Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted to the United Nations on May 22, 1992." [14]

• Montenegro

  "Since the 2006 declaration of independence, the European Union, Serbia, and all permanent members of the UN Security Council have recognized Montenegro." [15]

• The EU and the US recognise Slovenia

  "1992 - The EU recognises Slovenia's independence, followed by the US. Slovenia joins the United Nations." [16]

• China recognises Slovenia [17]

The US state department even provides a handy list of places it considers to be independent states. They even provide as definition of independent state which is "a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory recognized as independent by the US." If US practise has been to "deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition", why do they produce a list which does the exact opposite? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign Equality of States vs Sovereign States

First of all, some of you have conflated two different subjects. I cited the Kosovo case with regard to states that do not practice recognition. The text does not say that the United States does not practice recognition. It says that it now deemphasizes it. §202 of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States has always provided that one way the US can recognize a state is by recognizing its government. The US is distancing itself from that practice and readers should be informed about that. Blue-Haired Lawyer may have a point, but Wikipedia doesn't even have proper articles on recognition of statehood and recognition of governments. It confuses both with the related but legally separate topic of Diplomatic recognition.

Nonetheless, the FRUS contains examples where the US did not publicly announce recognition of new states. The union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan is an example. The US released declassified documents decades later which indicated the State Department's position that it was not the custom of the US to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area, e.g. [18] and [19] The first declassified document indicates that even the officials of Jordan had not been made aware of the US decision. The State Department's handy list may need considerable revision when today's documents are declassified in 30 years time.

I've already pointed out that the United States Government Printing office has produced lists of States with Limited or Restricted Sovereignty for decades and that Wikipedia editors ignore them when creating articles or Lists of sovereign states, e.g. Compare List of sovereign states in 1919 and Talk:List of sovereign states in 1919#Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy The State Department still lists Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty [20]

A UNESCO-sponsored collection of essays on international law highlighted the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of the term state:

there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision which depends on the judgment of the recognizing government. The underlying factors, nevertheless, are not solely legal, but in many cases they are mainly political.[21]

Editors also seem to be blind to the difference between the racialized concept of sovereignty from the colonial era and the modern concept of sovereign or juridical equality of states contained in article 4 of the Montevideo Convention [22]; Article 10 of the Charter of the Organization of American States.[23]; and Articles 1-2 of the UN Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, 1949 [24] "Sovereignty" and "independence" are basic entitlements of every state. They have never been an Article 1 requirement for statehood under the terms of the Montevideo Convention.

The US is a contracting party to the Montevideo Convention. See page 450 of United States Department of State Treaties in Force, A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2010 [25] The US State Department Digest of International Law says that independence is NOT a criteria for statehood:

A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties" See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223.

As a matter of state practice, the United States and many other countries have recognized dependent and protected states. Those states have enjoyed foreign sovereign immunity for their acts of state in the US Courts, e.g. Clayco Petroleum Corporation and Bruce Clayman, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental of Umm Alqaywayn, Inc., and Armand Hammer, Defendants-appellees Footnote 1:

This court has held that the government of Umm Al Qaywayn is a foreign sovereign for purposes of the act of state doctrine. Occidental v. Buttes, 331 F.Supp. at 113. This determination was made when that nation was one of the Trucial States; the sheikdom is now part of the United Arab Emirates. This change does not warrant a redetermination of the sheikdom's status.

Statehood has always been a criteria for membership in the United Nations. But representation in the United Nations cannot be confused with recognition of statehood. See S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning "Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations"[26] When Israel applied for membership in the UN, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements for a State as used and defined in international law. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador (and ICJ Justice) Jessup said:

'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948 [27]

I believe this information should be reflected in Wikipedia articles. harlan (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The longer it takes it to respond the more it just looks like you're doing original research. If the US was distancing itself from the practice of recognising state in the 1970s, I have evidence of the exact opposite for the 1990s and 2000s. I cited Kosovo because (according to some) it is the world's newest state, and there's lots of statements on the internet by governments recognising it. Frankly your source on Kosovo stinks. A assertion by a lawyer in legal argument is hardly evidence. The other side undoubtedly said the opposite, and I don't believe the court itself actually ruled on the matter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

States or governments? (cont.)

"The recognition of a new government is quite different from the recognition of a new state." Put another way, it is not possible to recognize an entity as a country's government without recognizing the territory the entity as a country. However, it is possible to recognize a country but not recognize any government for that country.

[...]

For example, to avoid problems of imputing legitimacy to entities that come to power by extra-constitutional means,¹⁷ many countries have sought since the l970s to deemphasize the concept of "recognition of governments" in their public statements.¹⁸ These countries focus, instead, on whether they would be willing to "deal with" an authority as a government. This distinction leads to more than just political nuance. It can be the source of much confusion because some countries take pains to emphasize that dealing with an entity as a government need not imply recognition.¹⁹

¹⁷ The controversy over imputing legitimacy to governments became quite contentious during the middle of the last century with conflicting doctrinal positions, espoused by two Latin American statesmen, at the center of the debate. On the one hand, the Tobar doctrine contended that no country's government resulting from a revolution or coup should be recognized until that country's people have established its constitutional legitimacy. On the other hand. the Estrada doctrine contended that one country could not pass judgment on the legal capacity of another country's government as this was derogatory to the dignity and sovereignty of the other country. Instead, a government, at its sole discretion, should simply maintain or recall its diplomatic representatives to another country and accept accreditation of that other country's representatives. See Whiteman, supra note 4, at 84-89.

¹⁸ See e.g., [1974] Digest of U.S. Practice in international Law 12 (stating that the U.S. State Department's repeated response to queries on the issue was "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government"). Similar practices have been followed by many other countries since the l980s, for example, Australia, Belgium. Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. See also Shaw, supra note 1, at 307; and Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, l998), at 275-35 (setting out responses received to questions on recognition practices from The Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Dominica, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Iran, Italy. New Zealand, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland).

¹⁹ See, e.g., 3d U.S. Restatement, supra note 3, § 203, comment b (stating that treating "a regime as a government includes accepting its acts as creating international rights and obligations; it does not require according to the regime the prerogatives commonly accorded to recognized governments, for example the right to sue in domestic courts").

I think when you see the context, the statement can be understood as meaning: "The question of recognition [of governments] does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government." — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ pleadings are routinely and reliably published. No counter-claim was made which advanced the proposition that a rule of law exists or that all states practice recognition. §202 and §203 of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States provide that a state is not required to accord recognition to other states or governments.

I've supplied exact quotes from reliably published sources which say that the United States is deemphasizing recognition and that, since 1970, it has been in the process of moving away from its former practice. You are the one who is attempting to perform a WP:Synth analysis of the meaning of that material in a way that suggests it can only be relevant to the recognition of governments. However, I've cited the relevant portion of the ASIL Restatement which explained that the methods the US has previously employed to recognize a State included formal announcements of de facto or de jure recognition of its government. So, any possible move away from those methods is relevant to an article about recognition of states in any event.

You are certainly welcome to cite other relevant views and subsequent examples of recognition. However, in the absence of a clearer published policy statement, I don't think you should reword or delete sourced relevant quoted material. Moreover, I've supplied documented examples in which the United States did not disclose its recognition or acceptance of a political union to the resulting entity, and kept the matter classified for several decades. So, there are unambiguous cases in which it conducted business and kept its internal decisions with regard to significant constitutional changes in makeup of foreign governments, their populations, their boundaries, and the jurisdiction of their courts all to itself.

I noted above that many source books on international law say that all states are juridically equal. The argument that "Sovereign state" is a notable topic that can't be merged with State (polity), because they are separate subjects under international law is doubtful. I've supplied two sources above which say there is no agreed upon legally binding definition. Both of those sources say there is general agreement that independence or the complete freedom to control foreign policy has not been a requirement. This article currently employs a synthesized construct for a definition that is not in agreement with either of those published authorities. Wikipedia articles must either include all of the significant published views on the topic, or be clearly identified as an article whose topic is a POV - complete with cross-references to articles on other appropriate points of view. See for example the guidance in Articles whose subject is a POVharlan (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult, if not impossible to maintain two different discussions with two different editors at the same time. You are again ignoring the difference between recognising state and recognising governments. You are also failing to see the difference between state practice regarding the recognition of state and what it is to be a state. You are the one engaging in WP:Synth. That you "supplied documented examples in which the United States did not disclose its recognition or acceptance of a political union to the resulting entity" has no relevance to the present discussion. In fact I agree. There is no requirement, in international, for state to recognise other states. I have never argued that sovereign state and state (polity) are "are separate subjects under international law". Every article on Wikipedia has to have a lead that has to try and define its subject-matter as best it can. This article's lead is sourced. That it is not universally agreed, is irrelevant. US practice is not the same as international law. There is nothing stopping you from nominating this article for deletion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not failing to see anything. I said I was familiar with recognition of states, recognition of governments, and diplomatic recognition. That does not mean that all of the published sources are in agreement with one another on all of those subjects. According to the American Society of International Law, one of the methods the United States used to employ to recognize a "state" was to formally extend de facto or de jure recognition to its "government" (in which case there isn't a bit of difference between recognizing states and recognizing governments).

The idea that there is a difference between "what it is to be a state" and "state practice regarding the recognition of states" has never been a universally accepted theory or POV. Even Montevideo Convention states, like the US, apply constitutive principles when they say that determinations regarding the existence statehood are ordinarily made by other existing states when they decide to treat an entity as a state. See § 201 of the Restatement. Actual fulfillment of the Montevideo criteria is a moot issue in our courts unless, and until, one of the political branches has recognized the entity as a state.

James Crawford concluded "It is sometimes suggested that the ‘great debate' over the character of recognition has done nothing but confuse the issues, that it is mistaken to categorize recognition as either declaratory or constitutive in accordance with some general theory. According to Brownlie:

in the case of 'recognition', theory has not only failed to enhance the subject but has created: a tertium quid which stands, like a bank of fog on a still day, between the observer and the contours of the ground which calls for investigation. With rare exceptions, the theories on recognition have not only failed to improve the quality of thought but have deflected lawyers from the application of ordinary methods of legal analysis. See Crawford, James R., "Creation of States in International Law", Oxford University Press, USA; 2 edition (April 27, 2006), ISBN: 0198260024, page 26

With regard to sovereignty, Ersun Kurtulus performed a critical assessment of three explanations in relation to the question of which types of entities actually enjoy sovereign rights. He concluded that two of these - constitutional independence and legal criteria of statehood - are empirically untenable. He then focused on a third, more plausible answer: recognition as a state. He pointed out the almost consensual attitude toward the issue adopted by political scientists and found the two doctrines of recognition formulated by international lawyers to be imbued with logical inconsistencies. He concluded by remarking on the impossibility of discovering any clear pattern of state behavior. See Kurtulus, Ersun N., "Sovereign Rights in International Relations: A Futile Search for Regulated or Regular State Behaviour", Review of International Studies Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 759-777.[28] harlan (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

39 European states in 1815?

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

Well this is what the source does say. I'm guessing the German Confederation was counted as a single state. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand everywhere else I look does seem to confirm that there were 39 states in Germany not Europe. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Country

I have removed the following:

The term country is often used colloquially to mean sovereign state, although it is not correct usage and merely refers to a geographic area rather than a political territory.

Mainly because there is no reliable source to back this statement up, but also because it appears to conflict with the lead. --Hm2k (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty is irrelevant. The US Code and Federal Regulations on Free Trade Zones and Country of Origin Markings, e.g. CFR 19 § 134.1 Definitions, say that a “Country” means the political entity known as a nation. Colonies, possessions, or protectorates outside the boundaries of the mother country are considered separate countries. -- [29]

US immigration law says self-governing dependent entities are regarded as separate foreign states: U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states. harlan (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

definition of control

The 'declarative theory of statehood' basically says "a state is an entity having control over permanently populated territory". But the question arises how to define "control". I propose that we add to the article two things from [30]: "Definition of a state: A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. States are ephemeral and originate and disappear with the stroke of a pen (e.g. the end of the U.S.S.R., December 25, 1991)." and "Definition of an independent state. A specialized type of political organization characterized by a full-time, specialized, professional work force of tax-collectors, soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats and the like that exercises supreme political authority over a defined territory with a permanent population, independent from any enduring external political control and possessing a local predominance of coercive power (always supplemented with moral and remunerative incentives as well) great enough to maintain general obedience to its laws or commands within its territorial borders. The first known states were created in ancient times in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mexico and Peru, but it is only in relatively modern times that states have almost completely displaced alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies all over the planet. (Roving bands of hunter-gatherers and even fairly sizable and complex tribal societies based on herding or agriculture have existed without any full-time specialized state organization, and these "stateless" forms of political organization have in fact prevailed for all of the prehistory and much of the history of the human species.)"

Of course not word-by-word and arranged in appropriate way. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The declarative and constitutive theories were unsuccessful efforts to establish a basis for statehood in international law. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that all peoples have the right to determine their own political status. The ICJ has affirmed that political right repeatedly. Most sources accept it as jus cogens, a peremptory norm, and an erga omnes interest of all states.

So, in actual practice the basis for statehood is mainly political. There is no definition that is legally binding on the community of states and each one gets to decide for itself. See for example Judge Benqt Broms essay, "IV Recognition of States" in International law:achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui (editor), Martinus Nijhoff, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, pages 47-48 [31] and S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning “Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations”, [32]

Some scholars, such as Professor James Crawford, argue that the creation of states should be governed by law and not political whims, but no such law or declaration has ever been adopted. During its first session in 1949, the International Law Commission (ILC) was asked to codify the legal requirements for statehood. There were objections that there was a danger in returning to the doctrine of legitimism by which a few colonial empires had virtually controlled the existence of other states by simply refusing to recognize them. The ILC concluded

that no useful purpose would be served by an effort to define the term 'State'... In the Commissions draft, the term... is used in the sense commonly accepted in international practice. Nor did the Commission think that it was called upon to set forth... the qualifications to be possessed by a community in order that it may become a State. -- See James R. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198260024, page 31

Prof L.C. Green explained "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 [33] Albanian, Polish, Czech, and Namibian states were granted the legal rights reserved for sovereign states without a government, defined territory, or effective control.

As for conquest, in 1963 Robert Jennings, the editor of Oppenheim's International Law, wrote "conquest as a title to territorial sovereignty had ceased to be a part of the law." The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says "The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist." Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute also continues to treat a signatory as a State if it is unable to carry out its own proceedings due to "a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system".

McHugo and Schofield explained

"If acquisition of a territory by conquest had not already ceased to be legal at an earlier date, it became so with the establishment of the United Nations and the adoption of the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Oppenheim is of the view that war "waged for the purpose of acquisition of territory has probably been unlawful since Article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant. In addition, in 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact made war illegal as an instrument of national policy." -- See John McHugo, Clive H. Schofield, "How to prove title to territory: a brief, practical introduction to the law and evidence", Boundary and territory briefing, IBRU, 1998, ISBN 1897643292, page 3, footnote 5. [34]

The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States §202(2) says A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualification for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.

So, the entity you described above probably would not be considered a state if it came into existence today. harlan (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, I haven't described any entity - I just pointed to a source that includes two definitions of statehood describing "control" in more detail than the current text of the article. What I propose is that in addition to current text of the article we add the explanation from the source I pointed above. Do you have some objections to that? Alinor (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be "about the subjects of international law", not the Dept. of outdated Political Science. The LoN criteria on recognition included territorial integrity and governmental effectiveness, but specifically excluded recognition of military conquest and occupation. They said that Article 10 of the LoN Charter provided for mutual defense in order to secure the independence and territorial integrity of all countries. See the Official Journal of the League of Nations, 1931, p. 2051-2053. There are many states which do not maintain a standing army, so that isn't necessarily part of a "definition of control" in any event. harlan (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Alinor: I wholeheartedly reject your first suggested definition. You quote a source which says that a state is:

"A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy."

This appears to be the definition of an empire rather than a state. There are plenty of states which are built by secessionist movements rather than conquest. There are pluralists and multicultural states where there is no single set of ideals or single culture. There are federal states without a single set of laws. And there are homogeneous states which don't have other "nations" to force their culture or ideals on. The source cited appears dubious and frankly the definition seems somewhat anarchistic. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Harlan: You might consider submitting your essays to a more worthy destination. In any event the more words you appear to express your point the less I'm convinced. Forgive me if I prefer using the orthodox definition but in my humble opinion that's what encyclopedias should do. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, maintaining of standing army has nothing to do with having control over permanently populated territory. You can have such control even without a single policemen - if everybody present there abides by your rules. Of course in practice this is highly unlikely, but as you say - many states function without an army - and this is because their societies are peaceful enough and rule-abiding enough so that a reasonably sized police force is sufficient for ensuring public order and security. Alinor (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, I don't say that we 'change' the article to point to the definition you object, but that we mention it. Maybe in historical sense. And please take a look at the second definition (on the bottom of the source I gave) - it's more interesting, because it describes what 'control' means. In addition the source gives examples of past stateless societies - and such information can also be added in the "History" section. Alinor (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, the Yearbook of the 1st session of the International Law Commission, 1949,[35] contains many discussions about this subject of sovereignty and states. The commission concluded that sovereignty, independence, and legal equality were exactly the same thing under different names. Mr. Brierly and Koretsky said the phrase "sovereign equality": ..."which appeared in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, had been a novelty in international law when it had first been proposed at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Much discussion had resolved the question of its meaning into the exact equivalent of "legal equality", a definition which would be found in the reports of the Drafting Sub-Committee of the First Committee at San Francisco."

Koretsky noted the report of the Secretary general and said "The concept of sovereignty had been much in the minds of the drafters of the Declaration, as was shown by the sentence on page 43 of document A/CN.4/2: 'The manifestation of sovereignty in tangible form is jurisdiction'."

They also agreed that states were no longer completely free to do as they pleased within their own jurisdictions, and were busy drafting a declaration to codify their fundamental rights and duties.[36] They considered including text from the Bogota Charter (A/CN.4/2, p. 51) on the topic of conquest, namely that "the right of each State to protect itself and to live its own life does not authorize it to commit unjust acts against another". Eventually, they decided that the prohibition against the use of force in violation of the UN Charter covered that subject adequately. The definition we are using in the lead is a somewhat archaic one from the 19th century. I've simply been suggesting something in-line with modern sources. harlan (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, excuse me, but again (as in the other article where we are in discussion) - isn't this already mentioned in the article? What changes do you propose?

And all this doesn't contradict with my proposal to include in the history section the top definition and to mention somewhere else the bottom definition as explanation of what means "control". We can have all three things at the same time - your explanations above (if they aren't already included), an example of historical definition, an example of explanation of "control". Alinor (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Page 267 of the ILC Yearbook [37] explains that the Commission was asked to codify the rules of international law, but did not feel that included a call to set forth "the qualifications to be possessed by a community in order that it may become a State". That's because there aren't any such "threshold" rules - including "control". For example, in the sense commonly accepted in international practice, once a government-in-exile has been recognized, it legally owns any properties and assets of the "State" in this country, & our courts are open to its claims. After it declared independence, Israel told the Security Council that no government exercised control of the Negev.[38] That was 60 percent of the territory of the new state. Nonetheless, it was recognized as the government of that territory by both the US and USSR on the basis of the map attached to the UN partition plan. See for example [39] page 22 of 45.

When Syria wanted to have the ICJ issue an advisory opinion on Israel's statehood, both the US and Israel said recognition was a political question that no organ of the United Nations or tribunal in the world could call into question. See page 3 of 6 in "S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter Dated 8 March 1950 From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning “Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations", [40] and the minutes of the 340th meeting of the UN Security Council, S/PV.340, 27 July 1948, page 12 [41]

I gave you a citation to L.C. Green which explains "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." Those legally binding decisions are based upon criteria that are usually political, but can include the jus cogens prohibition on use of force. Here is another cite from JCPA fellow Prof. Ruth Lapidot: "Recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another state. [42] Judge Benqt Broms explained that "there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various States are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. [43]

As for the changes I'm suggesting to the article, I explained that the ILC defined "sovereignty" as "jurisdiction" and that "sovereign equality" of states really only means "legal equality". The international community of states have defined a number of rights, responsibilities, and wrongful acts that are no longer considered to be solely or essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. So, 19th century notions of complete independence from outside powers or other states has been replaced with the notion of erga omnes obligations in which all states have a shared legal interest. The lede isn't too bad, I'm just suggesting the inclusion of those extra points. harlan (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, I'm afraid you want to push for saying that CTS is more important than DTS - and I remember many editors having the opposite opinion (and supporting it with sources) - that this is 19th century notion and that currently DTS is the more important one. The article already presents both, so I see no problem. If you want to add further explanations to CTS, fine - unless you take positions like "CTS is more important than DTS" - this would be POV on our side.

About describing "control". Above you basically say that "control" isn't part of CTS (that relies on "recognition" as criteria) and that the sources you like prefer CTS over DTS (that relies on "control" as criteria) and so there is no need to describe "control". I don't agree, because "control" is the criteria for DTS and we should describe both theories (CTS and DTS). Even if CTS is more important - we still need to describe DTS. And the description of "control" found in the source I gave is a nice addition to the article (because currently it doesn't have any description of "control"). The article mentions different theories of statehood, so it should mention different descriptions of "control" (if there is another one in another source) too. And I see no problem in mentioning in the historical section the other criteria from the source - as an example of what was in the past (together with the 'stateless society' type, also from the source). Alinor (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The changes were implemented, but Night w reverted them [44] speaking about copyvio. and not bothering to come to this discussion here. I will restore them and invite him to explain what he means and to see if some further editing is needed. Alinor (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "what he means"? WP:COPYVIO. You plagiarised a published work. Nightw 12:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

So should we reword it or put it in

quotation box

— published at ...

 ? Alinor (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

SMOM as de jure state

SMOM is currently given as example for present day de jure state, but it doesn't claim statehood (it claimed in the past, but not doesn't anymore), so this is false. Alinor (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Aztecs as one of the first states ever?

The article gives the aztecs as an exemple of one of the first states in the World, but it is really difficult to find any source that supports that the Aztec Empire or any other kind of organized Aztec state was created before the late Middle Ages. 189.119.67.145 (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it. Rennell435 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Should have a year for the map

Even if the map currently at the top of the article is current, there should be a "circa____". There have been too many changes in the past 3 decades to not have the year nailed down. IMHO (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How many sovereign states are there in the world?

This is a natural question for readers of this article, and I think some sort of answer should be given, preferably in the introduction. Of course this is a contentious question, different sources differ, and the number changes a little with political events, but it looks like most sources put the number at between 180 and 200. I tried to add some numbers to the article, but was reverted. Thoughts? --Chetvorno^TALK 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Example of a country that is not a sovereign state or vice versa?

The article states very firmly that Country is not the same as Sovereign state. Can anyone give an example of a country that is not a sovereign state or vice versa? Thanks, p.r.newman (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on what you mean by country, a word with a variety of definitions. The countries of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) are the most common English examples (no doubt as they include England), but other places like the Basque country are as well. Then of course there's the country, as opposed to the city. CMD (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Until recently, many countries controlled others as "protectorates". The United States has a number of what it calls "territories" (a euphemism for colonies) some of which could be called countries: Puerto Rico, Guam, United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't really a very fixed thing. The phrase sovereign state has a specialised meaning that country doesn't always possess. The World English Dictionary gives one definition as "1. a territory distinguished by its people, culture, language, geography, etc", which would include places like Scotland, the Basque Country, Greenland and Tibet to give a few examples. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 11:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please let me add that popular word "country" has no meaning in international law. The technical legal term is "state." Also, a "state" is not the country as such, which can be defined any way one wants to. It is rather the entity that rules it or at least claims the right to do so (and which historically has been treated as having an unlimited right to control - i.e., sovereignty - its own nationals within that territory, aside - as the positivist doctrine of international law maintains - from voluntary limits made in agreements with other states; according to the more flexible definition accepted today, the right to engage in diplomatic relations with other states suffices, making it possible to speak of a state that is not fully sovereign. Even within its own territory, the state exists alongside non-state entities within the country (as in "separation of church and state"), although the doctrine of sovereignty would give the state the ultimate right to subordinate these entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleanor1944 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Question of fact"

Something didn't make sense for me in this article: "The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[4]". I don't undertsand what that means. A "question of fact" is a specific concept for historians? Does it have a formal definition? Or does this article means simply "it is a question for you to decide whether it is a fact or not" ? Many thanks. --Lgriot (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This could probably be improved if it says that it is a "matter of fact". 90.161.84.128 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No - "Question of fact" is a specific legal concept 111.69.155.60 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I STRONGLY disagree with the claim that the existence and/or disappearance of a sovereign state is a question of fact! Whether or not it is a question of fact or a question of law (both technical legal terms) depends on which jurisdiction is considering the question.98.21.64.18 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Westphalian sovereignty

User:Joe Bodacious proposed merging this article to Westphalian sovereignty without leaving an edit summary. The discussion is at Talk:Westphalian sovereignty#Merger proposals. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

States are not Organizations

This article had begun by saying that a state is a kind of political organization when they are not. Governments are organizations. States are nonphysical social creations and as such it is impossible to see, hear, touch, taste or otherwise detect them. For more see James Also see Robinson for a complete argument against a state being an organization. Merek and Crawford also are also clear that a state is not an organization. In fact, Marek says states are nothing but bundles of international legal obligations.

There is probably confusion in this area because sometimes, particularly in the field of anthropology, the term "state" is used to to mean a particular form of government, but since wikipedia has different entries for "state" and "sovereign state" the difference in the terminology should probably be noted and the entry for "state" used to mean a particular type of government and "sovereign state" to be the nonphysical juridical entity of international law. Given that, it might also be the case that rather than moving "sovereign State" in with "Westphalian Sovereignty" it might be better to have an article for "State (International Legal Entity)" and then some kind of disambiguation page that directs some inquires about "states" to particular to a page on the particular for of government. 90.161.84.128 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

They are internationally recognised entities within a geopoliticial world. I think that they can be defined as having administrations but the state itself is more than the administration via which its Government is established. 05:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC) edited GregKaye ✍♪ 09:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

References

The United Kingdom is a country

Even though the United Kingdom is a unified unit made up from two for former sovereign states, the United Kingdom itself is a country and should not be used as an example to deterring from that fact. If you look on the "United Kingdoms" wikipedia page you will see it clearly states "the country includes", so there is already evidence that it is indeed referenced as a country on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewarzone56 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedia editors are lazy and use the terms 'country' and 'sovereign state' as interchangeable when they aren't. I don't blame people for this, but it's technically wrong to call the United Kingdom a country. If you want to be correct, then the United Kingdom is a union or a sovereign state. It contains 3 countries (England, Scotland and Wales) and 1 province (Northern Ireland). The UK isn't the only sovereign state to organize things like this. For example, the Netherland is not a sovereign state. It is a country with the sovereign state Kingdom of the Netherlands, which also contains Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. It's also true about the Kingdom of Denmark. The countries that make up the Kingdom of Denmark are Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Ezza1995 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All of England, Wales, Scotland & the UK can be called countries. It may not be logical but that's how it is. Johnbod (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Can a state that has voluntarily given up its sovereignty or entered into a binding union with another later resume it?

Just wondering if there are any examples of states which have voluntarily given up their sovereignty, or entered into a binding union with another state and later resuming it? Is there for instance a point at which it is no longer possible to undo the a free union, or is time not a factor?

There most be examples, but the one that springs to mind currently is the case of Scotland. I doubt anyone would disagree that Scotland was sovereign before 1707, and even after that date it had aspects of sovereignty like its own system of law, courts, education and church which were constitutionally protected from change. Is that residual sovereignty? Does the current referendum on Scottish Independence constitute an expression of the free will of the Scottish people to resume that sovereignty in full or is it an act of secession as some now claim? That said even at the time the union was not necessarily act of popular democratic choice, far from it. The parties to union were two equally sovereign states, surely then if the Act is abrogated the Union no longer exists and the original parties resume their separate status, ie Scotland and England (including N Ireland?). By what principle of international law does one party claim that the Act of Union of 1707 continues for them even though the original purpose of it is defunct?

Several of the current European states have had enforced periods of subjection to other states (Poland, Baltic States, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania etc) yet were welcomed back into the community of nation states. Why should it be so odd that a nation state that voluntarily merged with another state, could resume its sovereignty?

I think the sovereign state article would be enhanced if sources could be quoted to explain this. Freedom1968 (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This probably isn't the forum for discussions of this nature, because it's not really related to what's in the article itself... but just to indulge it briefly, I personally find the UK govt. rhetoric with regard to Scottish independence odd. Despite the separation negotiations not yet starting, they talk as if all sovereign institutions (the currency, EU membership etc.) would automatically rest with the remnant UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) after separation. But, as you point out, the UK was formed as a union of sovereign entities and could possibly split as those as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, though the topical nature of the Crimea issue does raise interesting questions about the nature of sovereignty in today's world. I agree with you on the Scotland point, interestingly the other "Union" of 1801 between Great Britain and Ireland was not between sovereign states, but an administrative reorganization. No united Irish state existed before 1171 or for that matter until 1541 when Henry VIII declared himself king. Should Scotland vote to reassert its sovereignty it must have a share of the assets, including those of N Ireland... England cannot claim to be the successor state, as Scotland is not seceeding from a state that existed prior to 1707. It was sovereign before 1707 and would be again. The exit of Scotland brings the Union of 1707 to an end, period. Furthermore If Scotland is not admitted to the EU automatically then England has to reapply as well. Freedom1968 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Old stuff, but the histories to look at here are Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Sweden. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be seceding from an extant country (the UK) that remains extant, and that has come about by the Acts of Union. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

From 1606 to 1707, Scotland was not really a sovereign state. The heart of administrative power was in London, there was a single coinage, a shared foreign policy and high levels of military acculturation of Scotland into the English model. In the same way that the Spanish Empire was ruled by a sovereign Habsburg Castillian/Aragonese personal union, so was Britain under a sovereign Stuart English/Scottish personal union. Scotland and England independent of each other during this time did not qualify as sovereign --TheAceOfSpades115 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Do some micronations fall under the definition of a sovereign state?

by the definition I would think so as long as they were to administer their territories independently from whatever nation they broke away from. However I think this definition is limited only to those micronations that fall more aspirant states then those which are publicity stunts or satires. Benuminister(talk) 21:33, 18 Jun 2014 (EST)

RfC

"... Since ISIL is accurately listed at List of active rebel groups can we have consensus that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not a sovereign state, country, or sub-national entity and should not be listed as such..."

That's a summary of the nominator's premiss in an RfC running at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant directly accessed: here.

Contribution would be appreciated and am pinging contributors to this talk page: Alinor, Blue-Haired Lawyer, BritishWatcher, CarolMooreDC, Chetvorno, CMD, Eleanor1944, Freedom1968, harlan, Hires an editor, Hm2k, Lgriot, IMHO, Lgriot, Liu Tao, Outback the koala, Petri Krohn, PBS, p.r.newman, Septentrionalis, Rennell435, Thewarzone56.

GregKaye ✍♪ 09:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Knights of Malta

Knights of Malta has no territory. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not strictly true; it has at least one palace, in Rome. It used to have more. But of course it is an oddity. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course, it also has other buildings, I mean its embassies. But now I'm wondering whether the palace in Rome is considered an embassy, or maybe some sort of colony or enclave or something? --62.16.186.44 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wheter it's just their private property or whether it's considered extraterritorial (like an embassy) doesn't matter. The KOM have no sovereign territory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

And either way, assuming you are talking about the Knights Hospitaller Fraternitas Hospitalaria, they are not considered a nation. They're a religious order under Papal charter. Think Jesuits, not Irish. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (formerly Knights Hospitaller)) is sovereign and ruled by the Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. They used to have their own colonial territories, but no longer do. As I understand it, they no longer have any land (as they also don't rule Malta anymore), but do have a palace in Rome and issue their own licenses and currency, and also are recognized by the European Union as a legal observer. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Partially inaccurate source (the single source for section 5 #State extinction)

"Robinson, Edward Heath (2011). "The Involuntary Extinction of States: An Examination of the Destruction of States though the Application of Military Force by Foreign Powers since the Second World War" (PDF). The Journal of Military Geography 1: 17–29."

The article as fine as it in naming examples and rarities names several errors to not go too deep I'll only name a few examples the author makes several contradictions and historical inaccuracies such as claiming that the Federal Republic of Yugo-Slavia is not the successor of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugo-Slavia and that the latter state has gone extinct meanwhile claiming that the Russian Federation is the successor of the Soviet Union while officially the Commonwealth of Independent States is the legal successor of the U.S.S.R. while the Russian Federation is the successor of Soviet Russia (The Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic) and unlike Yugo-Slavia actually proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union while the Federal Republic of Yugo-Slavia saw itself as the successor, comparably the author draws comparisons between North Viet-Nam (The Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam) Vs. South Viet-Nam (the Republic of Viet-Nam and later The Viet-Cong-controlled Republic of South-Viet-Nam) and South Korea Vs. North Korea where the latter states don't officially recognise each other while in reality North Viet-Nam did recognise the Viet-Cong as the legitimate government of South Viet-Nam so in one instance 2 competing parties see each other as rival sovereign states while in the other both consider each other their sovereign territory under a different government, with all the errors in this piece I wonder if it fits WP:SOURCE but as the discussion on state extinction is accurate and names various good examples such as Hyderabad State I'm not sure if I should remove the source, despite a few factual errors the piece is mostly correct concerning the paragraph it's used for.

¿Should I leave this partially inaccurate source here as the inaccurate parts aren't directly used in this article or should I find a better reference for the same subject?

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain what your issue is more concisely? Perhaps using a bulleted list? I tried reading the above 268-word sentence and kept getting lost trying to parse it. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nation?

The description of a "nation" in this article is simply unworkable. It fits for a number of countries and traditions. It is largely unworkable for what is called a nation in Africa. It should be made clear that the listed attributes are frequently used characteristics to define a nation, but rarely completely in place. Kipala (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Droping NC in State Practice paragraph

Christian Walter, Antje Von Ungern-Sternberg, Kavus Abushov, "Self-Determination and Secession in International Law", Oxford University Press, 2014, p.64:
Northern Cyprus fulfills all the classical criteria of statehood.

Stefan Talmon, Oxford Univ., "Impediments to Peacekeeping: The Case of Cyprus", p.58-59., in "International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations", Vol.8, 2002:
United Nations Peace Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) operates based on the laws of Northern Cyprus in north of Cyprus island.
Without a status-of-forces agreement (or similar arrangements) between the United Nations and the Government of the TRNC, UNFICYP operates solely within the framework of the laws, rules and regulations of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which may be altered by the TRNC authorities unilaterally and without prior notice.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 02.07.2013 Decision: (The laws of Northern Cyprus is valid in the north of Cyprus)
A de facto recognition of the acts of the regime in the northern area may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.

ECtHR 02.09.2015: (The Courts of Northern Cyprus are independent and/or impartial)
"..the court system in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" courts were thus to be considered as "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which they operated...the Court has already found that the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality...when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.."

ECtHR 04.01.2011 (Compulsoryness of all people in Cyprus island to finish NC law before ECtHR)
ECtHR directs all Cypriots to exhaust "domestic remedies" applied by Northern Cyprus before taking their cases to ECtHR. There is "no ground of exception".

United States' Federal Court (09.10.2014): "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a "democratic country".
Justia, Dockets and FilingsPage of the Court case (The Defendant: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)
Justia, Dockets and FilingsDecision of the Court.

United Kingdom's High Court (03.02.2017): "There was no duty in UK law upon the UK's Government to refrain from recognising Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates cooperation between the two parts of the island."
UK's High Court also dismissed the claim that "cooperation between UK police and law agencies in northern Cyprus was illegal".Ambamarblearch, Media, page 6.

In 2017, Northern Cyprus was represented with its official name "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" for the first time at a OIC conference in Saudi Arabia.

NC's Minister Saner: "Our country was designated as "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" in a OIC conference for the first time. (OIC is an organization with 57 UN members).

No UNSC resolutions qualify the operation in 1974 as invasion, including UNSC R.541.212.174.38.3 (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That the land was invaded is notwithstanding how R.541 was phrased. I removed "illegally," since no law was specified. El_C 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

UNSC 541

UNSC 541 does not say the operation in 1974 is "invasion".

The current expression, however, says this: recognition was widely withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land illegally invaded by Turkey in 1974.

See UNSC 541 here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_541

Also, the paragraph says "Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of ...Northern Cyprus".

The article is on "Statehood", not "Recognition". Also, stating "Northern Cyprus is almost universally nonrecognized" is problematic:

Christian Walter, Antje Von Ungern-Sternberg, Kavus Abushov, "Self-Determination and Secession in International Law", Oxford University Press, 2014, p.64:
Northern Cyprus fulfills all the classical criteria of statehood.

In 2017, Northern Cyprus was represented with its official name "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" for the first time at a OIC conference in Saudi Arabia.(OIC is an organization with 57 UN members).

NC's Minister Saner: "Our country was designated as "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" in a OIC conference for the first time.

Stefan Talmon, Oxford Univ., "Impediments to Peacekeeping: The Case of Cyprus", p.58-59., in "International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations", Vol.8, 2002:
United Nations Peace Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) operates based on the laws of Northern Cyprus in north of Cyprus island.
Without a status-of-forces agreement (or similar arrangements) between the United Nations and the Government of the TRNC, UNFICYP operates solely within the framework of the laws, rules and regulations of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which may be altered by the TRNC authorities unilaterally and without prior notice.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 02.07.2013 Decision: (The laws of Northern Cyprus is valid in the north of Cyprus)
A de facto recognition of the acts of the regime in the northern area may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.

ECtHR 02.09.2015: (The Courts of Northern Cyprus are independent and/or impartial)
"..the court system in the "TRNC", including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the "TRNC" courts were thus to be considered as "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which they operated...the Court has already found that the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality...when an act of the "TRNC" authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention.."

ECtHR 04.01.2011 (Compulsoryness of all people in Cyprus island to finish NC law before ECtHR)
ECtHR directs all Cypriots to exhaust "domestic remedies" applied by Northern Cyprus before taking their cases to ECtHR. There is "no ground of exception".

United States' Federal Court (09.10.2014): "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a "democratic country".
Justia, Dockets and FilingsPage of the Court case (The Defendant: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)
Justia, Dockets and FilingsDecision of the Court.

United Kingdom's High Court (03.02.2017): "There was no duty in UK law upon the UK's Government to refrain from recognising Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates cooperation between the two parts of the island."
UK's High Court also dismissed the claim that "cooperation between UK police and law agencies in northern Cyprus was illegal".Ambamarblearch, Media, page 6.

No UNSC resolutions qualify the operation in 1974 as invasion, including UNSC R.541.212.174.38.3 (talk) 10:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The article says it was invaded, it is not speaking of R.541 at that point. El_C 10:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: that it participates in some international organization, like the OIC or ECtHR, and that some judges acknowledge it, does not mean it has similar standing to, say, Taiwan, in the wider field of international relations. El_C 10:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The article says "invaded" by giving UNSC 541 as a reference. 29th reference: Rhodesia, 30th reference:Northern Cyprus. However, UNSC 541 does not state "invasion". There is no such wording in UNSC 541. Just the opposite, there are various decisions that the Turkey's 1974 operation is not an invasion; i.e., Turkey’s operation on Cyprus in 1974 is completely legal:

(1) Application of No Sanctions: Till now, there is NO sanction applied on Turkey due to 1974 Cyprus war.

If a country invades another one, UN imposes sanctions on that country. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and UN imposed sanctions on Iraq. Turkey did not invade Cyprus, hence UN did not impose any sanction on Turkey!

(2) There is no UN Security Council resolution that calls the Turkey’s 1974 action as “invasion”!

(3) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)(29.07.1974, Resolution 573): “The Turkish military INTERVENTION was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the fulfilment of a LEGAL and MORAL obligation.”

(4) Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): “The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION.” Note: Just after 5 years later than 1974, in 1979, Greece’s Highest Court decided Turkish military intervention is legal without making any difference between 1st and 2nd military operation!

(5) Makarios (1ST PRESIDENT OF CYPRUS) (the UN Security CouncilSpeech, 19 July 1974):

MAKARIOS: “CYPRUS WAS INVADED BY GREECE”. Sound record of the speech:http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/makarios1.wav

(6) Turkey acted on Cyprus via Art. IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee (“In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. IN SO FAR AS COMMON OR CONCERTED ACTION MAY NOT PROVE POSSIBLE, EACH of the three GUARANTEEING POWERs reserves THE RIGHT TO TAKE ACTION with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.”), hence in compatible with Art. 2(4) UN Charter.

By mentioning Taiwan (recognized by 22 UN member), you are still wandering about recognition, not statehood. Legality and Recognition are two completely different things (Neither of them is a "necessary" or a "sufficient" condition for the other one):

Recognition is completely a political notion/act (as stated by International Court of Justice, Kosovo 2010 decision) and has nothing to do with legality. 1/193 country recognizes Northern Cyprus; but even if 0/193 countries recognize NC, this has nothing to do with legality of NC.

The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi OWADA (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10730573

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2010): "while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of RECOGNITION was a POLITICAL one".

(in OSHISANYA 2016, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, p.64) https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=xMvOBAAAQBAJ

Recognition is a political, not a legal matter. That is to say, "being recognized/not recognized does not affect legality/illegality of a country". Recognition is a political action.212.174.38.3 (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

With regards to invasion versus intervention: please refer to Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

The international community considers the TRNC's territory as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus. The occupation is viewed as illegal under international law, amounting to illegal occupation of European Union territory since Cyprus became its member.

El_C 11:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) The sources you gave are very old: Quigley 2010, James Ker-Lindsay, Hubert Faustman, Fiona Mullen 2011. The sources I gave are from 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 and reflecting the real legal situation in Cyprus island correctly.

(2) The sources you gave are just people; i.e., peoples' thought do not bind Courts, but court decisions bind Governments and other courts much. The sources I gave: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)(29.07.1974, Resolution 573); Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79); Art. IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee; i.e., not personal thoughts of some academicians and politicians.

(3) You also say "some judges acknowledge it"... Judges of United States Federal Court decides "on behalf of the whole US judicial system". Likewise, Judges of United Kingdom decides "on behalf of the whole UK judicial system". Note also that Greek Cypriots appealed the decision of the judge of United States Federal Court. Greek Cypriots were rejected after the appeal as well; i.e., the decision became CASE-LAW in US: USA's COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS; USA Court of Appeals: Case 14-4449; page 10:

Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of N. Cyprus, No. 09-cv-1967, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143535, at *11 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2014) (holding that the TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS "IS 'AT HOME' IN NORTHERN CYPRUS, AS ITS NAME SUGGESTS, NOT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA". The same decision can be seen on page 17.

European Court of Human Rights, USA, UK judicially recognizes Northern Cyprus whereas USA/UK politcally does not recognize. Once more, the article is on Statehood, not recognition. 212.174.38.3 (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

They are not "just people," they are published people. I'm more interested in the interpretation of concrete international policy and politics, than with a collection of individual court decisions. On Wikipedia, we have a no original research policy; and our neutrality policy is guided by the principle of due weight. We follow the collaborative spirit of consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia, and consensus among the 2ndry (and tertiary sources) who interpret laws and treaties. The sources may be a bit dated (although this is meant to be an encyclopedia, after all), and that may be a fair point, if others agree. The current consensus is that Turkey invaded, and you are welcome to try and change that. But the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is probably the place to start to change this consensus. There you can get a better sense of what this consensus is and what it is based on. El_C 12:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

And yet you continue to promote the point of view of Northern Cyprus' growing autonomy, at an excessive length—exactly what I cautioned you against. El_C 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again, this is inappropriate—by sheer volume. You are in the wrong article if you are writing that much about Northern Cyprus—I get you have some connection to it, but it's too much(!). El_C 18:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

New paragraph of State Practice

Again, wrong article. You need to stop adding so much text about Northern Cyprus to that article, you are making it too unbalanced. El_C 18:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not add. Someone else added. I shortened. Now, I made it shorter further after your revert.

Also, there is no imbalance under "Recognition" heading:

If your concern is length of content:

Constitutive theory: 11 lines.

Declarative theory: 7 lines.

State practice: 14 lines (before it is 6 lines)

De facto and de jure states: 8 lines

If your concern is neutrality of the content:

First, current paragraph is obsolete, and out-dated. As IP indicated, from 2010-11. For 7 years many things happened that were given. Second,

UN has "not enacted or proclaimed a legal obligation of relevant governments not to recognize’ the TRNC. The recommendation of nonrecognition found in the Resolutions of the Security Council is not overtly founded on Chapter VII of Article 41 of the UN Charter; ipso facto, they have no legally binding effect. Dervish, S., "Can the European Union build a bridge over troubled waters? An analysis of the politicised and depoliticised legal approach between the European Union and Cyprus", Ph.D. Thesis, 2015.

Just the opposite, removing the content on NC makes it very biased towards NC.88.227.216.123 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone else, is that so? This article is not about the NC and you cannot add that much text about it versus every other entity mentioned. Please don't make me protect the page. El_C 19:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not about NC, but, in its current state it is too much biased towards NC since info now is out-dated. You should not count on the references given. References make the added content seem to be much, though it is 7-8 lines in main article. Anyway, I'll shorthen it further and further. Also, not every other entity has renewed info in int'l fora. What about the following (which makes State Practice just 13 lines, does not add any paragraph):

State practice

State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive approaches. International law does not require a state to recognise other states.

Recognition may withheld when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are examples of this. In the former, recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal racist minority régime". In the latter, recognition was widely withheld from a state created in Northern Cyprus on land invaded by Turkey in 1974. That said, Northern Cyprus fulfills all the classical criteria of statehood. UN Peace Force in Cyprus operates based on the laws of Northern Cyprus in north of Cyprus island. Since 2004, Turkish Cypriots has "observer status" in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and their representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus.. Northern Cyprus became an observer member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization in 2004 and 2012, respectively. The laws of Northern Cyprus are valid in the north of Cyprus, and its courts are "independent and/or impartial". All Cypriots must exhaust "domestic remedies" applied by Northern Cyprus before taking their cases to ECtHR. In 2014, US' Federal Court qualified Northern Cyprus as a "democratic country". In 2017, UK's High Court decided that "There was no duty in UK law upon the UK's Government to refrain from recognising Northern Cyprus. The UN itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates cooperation between the two parts of the island." UK's High Court also decided that "cooperation between UK police and law agencies in northern Cyprus was legal". 88.227.216.123 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Still way, way too lengthy, and way too reminiscent of NC public relations-speak. I'm looking for a sentence or two. Unless cunterbalanced with, how like Rhodesia was, it is only recognized by one country in the world, and so on, there's no justification to go on and on about NC being so state-like to such an extent. Especially, as its counterpart in the paragraph, Rhodesia, is mentioned in a breath. It makes the articles unbalanced, to mention every glowing thing about aspects pertaining to NC autonomy. Please consider NC-specific articles for this. And, again, please read Wikipedia's policy about neutrality and due weight. El_C 00:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I added that part (recognition by one country ) myself. And changed the section title to State recognition for clarification. That's what the section is about: about how countries fail to recognize other countries—the part about international organizations and so on, maybe (maybe) is worthy of a sentence or two, if at all. Or perhaps a brief explanatory note. All the detail on how govts. don't have specific laws precluding recognition of NC, and so on, is superfluous and non-neutral. El_C 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The power to issue money

This article says nothing about the power to issue the currency of the realm. Sovereignty rests with the entity that has the power to issue the currency of the realm. If a nation cedes its power to issue money to a bank or another nation or group of nations it is no longer sovereign. The EU member states are not sovereign. The US is not sovereign. The EU states have become USERS of the Euro. The US has ceded its power of money creation to the Federal Reserve system. The issuer of money never has to borrow its funding from another entity at interest. See Michael Hudson, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray on this subject. Lobdillj (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is intended as a suggestion for improving the article, please cite your supporting source(s). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The Lead

Customarily, an article starts off by referring to the title so something like

A sovereign state is, in IL, (say what it is)Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Political science

What is sovereignty of state? 2409:4066:19B:66DE:95B0:B9E4:B778:701F (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"Sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 28#Sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Privybst (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The Sovereignty article

There seems to be overlap between this article and that one. I did find this merge proposal in the archives but there wasn't much discussion. There is some material in Sovereignty that could be here, the scope of that article includes the history of sovereignty as well as sovereignty over non states. There, the complaint seems to be that the article should include parts from here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Sovereignty article seems a bit too state focused, given it has a much broader scope. This article serves somewhat as a subarticle of that one. There are also a few bits here that are more a general discussion of sovereignty, such as in the Westphalian sovereignty section, that would be better moved to the broader article. CMD (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

De facto, de jure

Sovereign state#De facto and de jure states This mostly uncited section (only specific examples are cited) seems ORish. It is a subsection of Recognition so one can assume it is referring to de facto and de jure recognition.

Example: "However, states which are only de jure states are sometimes recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control."

State recognition is not the same thing as government recognition. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The defacto v. dejure state language can be found in virtually any textbook on statehood.XavierGreen (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Then there will be no difficulty in providing a citation.(de jure/de facto recognition, de jure/de facto sovereignty, de jure/de facto annexation, even de facto state is a recognizable short form for unrecognized states but de jure state seems duplicative, since states are of course legal if they are states. Selfstudier (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Recognition de jure means that the entity fully satisfies the applicable legal criteria; recognition de facto is only of the current position of the entity, and is therefore usually provisional, although it can last for a long time.

De facto recognition is a provisional form of recognition...may be withdrawn...does not as a rule, bring about either full diplomatic intercourse or the conferment of diplomatic immunity

As a result, the Baltic states claimed, their existence was terminated only de facto, but continued to exist de jure. CMD (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The first two are about recognition de jure/de facto, I don't have a problem with those. The third one is a special case referring to the Baltic states claim of continuing de jure existence following alleged illegal annexation. What I am really looking for is a general discussion of de facto/de jure states as implied by the section title, it is less easy to find such in standard references. The section needs fixing up, I will give some thought to how to do it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Baltics were the first one to come to mind regarding de jure states that aren't de facto. Another example that springs to mind is failed states. But you are correct that they are relatively uncommon cases, especially so in the very structured post-WWII world. CMD (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There are several other cases throughout history, such as the various Allied aligned governments of states annexed by Nazi Germany during World War Two, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (although it now no longer claims to be a "state") and some examples during the Napoleonic Era as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)