Talk:List of sovereign states

Territorial disputes

I recently reverted the addition of the border dispute over Hans Island as a non-notable dispute. After that a border dispute in the dollart was added, and I couldn't justify a reversion without falling down a slippery slope. We've currently included the maritime border dispute of Colombia and Nicaragua (which is misrepresented and only on one entry). We also have the Kuril Islands and Dokdo (although Dokdo again only on one extent, and should really be called Liancourt rocks). Strangely we have "Syria disputed[clarification needed] the Turkish sovereignty over Hatay Province", although the dispute seems current. I think we need at least a baseline for which ones are presented. I think as a minimum the dispute should fulfill one of two criteria to be included

1. The dispute is multilateral
2. The dispute is over territory with a permanent settlement

This would also mean a couple of disputes over minor US outlying territories and minor French atolls would go. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for reverting you before looking at the talk.) Why does it need a permanent settlement? The question about disputed territory has always been, where does the border lay? For Hans Island it is a question about the right to perform military exercises, amongst other things. Also, isn't the fact that we are disputing this, make it a dispute? 117Avenue (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some limit is needed because we don't want this article turning into List of territorial disputes. While yes, there is a dispute, whether it should belong on a page where many countries don't even have a description is the more important consideration. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an article for that? Cool. 117Avenue (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I might suggest that this list shouldn't include territorial disputes at all, except maybe if they involve the entire territory of the country. Though I wouldn't fight for this outcome if a lot of people were against it. Evzob (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Evzob is on the right track here. Obviously territorial disputes such as those over Kosovo or Taiwan would be mentioned here as those deal with whether the state in question even exists. Beyond that everything else is mere detail, to be covered on the List of territorial disputes page. --Khajidha (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of the more notable incidents, such as the Spratlys or Kashmir? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of sovereign states. Is anyone saying that the Spratlys or Kashmir are/should be their own states? If not, they would not change the list of states. Some states would have different extents depending on how these disputes are settled, but no new states would be created. Therefore, those disputes are not relevant to this list. --Khajidha (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone saying that Kashmir should be its own state? Yes. It's the official position of Pakistan. Nightw 14:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle with Khajidha. The extents of the states are not the topic of this list. Even a case such as Kashmir in which someone is saying it should be its own state is not really relevant here. Lots of countries probably wish the arrangement of states in the world was was different than it is; and Pakistan doesn't actually recognize Kashmir as a sovereign state. Evzob (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the dispute in the Dollart because it's a dispute of over 200 years of age, if I'm not mistaken, and it's currently a big isue because Germany want's to bild a huge windmill park in the Waddensea right at the disputed location. But if this list is going to change, like what Evzob suggested I don't mind taking it off. Maybe a new List of border disputes is a nice idea? Dqfn13 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Age doesn't make a dispute particularly important, and I doubt an inter-EU dispute will be any real problem. As border disputes are about territory, that would just duplicate List of territorial disputes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A map of the Republic of China's post-1953 territorial claims. The independent state of Mongolia is shown in orange.

I agree with you Chip, we need to limit this somehow; and your minimums are a good starting point for discussion. There are a good number of significant disputes that are simply two states involved, and are significant.. So it's hard to say. Do we then note the claims of the Other 10 as well. The claims of the ROC, for example, would be crazy for us to include (They claim all of Mongolia and parts of up to 11 other states) to note all would be painful, I just raise this issue, I can't think of a solution yet. Outback the koala (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if the claim isn't being actively pursued, then it shouldn't go in. A recent history of armed struggle, litigation or at least some strong rhetoric from noteworthy politicians should be considered before including a dispute. Nightw 05:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is not up to us to judge what is a minor dispute or not. In 2002, Spain launched a full military operation just to control a 100m uninhabited rock in the sea, you'd think it doesn't matter but for the claimants it is a big deal. There are active disputes and dormant disputes but the proposed criteria (i.e. Minor vs Major) depends on POV (someone said intra-EU disputes do not matter, well check out Gibraltar). It's best to just drop all the disputes that do not concern a country's existence as a whole, the other complicated cases can go to List of territorial disputes as they don't add much value here. Tachfin (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the proposed criteria doesn't mention major or minor. As for Gibraltar, for Spain to enter into the EU (or EC as it was) it had to fully reopen the border with Gibraltar, and since then its been nothing but diplomatic discussion. So yes, thank you for an example of where the EU took the sting out of a territorial dispute. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Chip, a border being open or close doesn't affect the disputed status of a territory. You proposed a "minimum criteria of inclusion", justifying that there are "non-notable disputes" so yes, your rationale boils down to "a dispute has to be important/major as opposed to unimportant/minor". By definition all disputes are important to those concerned, a criteria based on a dormant/active status of a dispute would make more sens, since we cannot define what's a "non-notable dispute" that would be very subjective.

I don't understand the first condition "1) The dispute is multilateral", what does that mean? more than two claimants? "2) The dispute is over territory with a permanent settlement", I gave you an example of an uninhabited territory (Perejil Island) that almost sparked a war between two countries a few years back. So no, "important disputes" can be over uninhabited and rather insignificant territories. Tachfin (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said the border affected the "disputed status", it just shows how relevant the dispute it. My argument may boil down to important vs unimportant, but I have quantified these rather than leaving them as purely qualitative criteria. A multilateral dispute involves more than two countries. I know about Perejil Island (a war? There wasn't even any fighting), and of course there will be grey areas etc etc. The point of these criteria would be to draw a line in the ground, so to speak, to eliminate as much grey as possible. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I said "almost sparked a war", not that it actually happened. The proposed criteria has shortcomings and is subjective so it will not solve the "greyness".
As at least 2 other users proposed, it would be best to just drop the disputes that do not question a country's existence; a good way to avoid listing all the disputes that might be seen by some as unimportant although a criteria based on active/dormant status of a dispute might also achieve this goal (CIA's World Factbook adopts this logic).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachfin (talk • contribs)

I agree it's complicated, but where a dispute impacts on a state's sovereignty it's no less relevant than all that information on Commonwealth realms and foreign involvement. Some of the dependencies we list, like British Indian Ocean Territory, are also disputed by some states. Nightw 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe there would have been a war, it would be stupid of Morocco to attack a NATO state. If you could list the shortcoming of the criteria that would help. Note that seemingly everything we do on this page is subjective, we just have to pick what we agree serves us best. Any clear guideline helps solve greyness. While we have agreements on head of state inclusion, bullet point usage, and flags, we don't have one for territorial disputes. Do you have a better criteria, or a better starting point? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we come up with, I think Outback's mention of the Republic of China's standing disputes with neighbors of Mainland China (see pretty picture above) are a good example of the least notable kind of dispute - ones that only exist in outdated laws that are still "on the books", and are not part of the actual policy of the state's government (note though that this is not the case with the territories actually under the control of the Republic of China, which are hotly contested with the People's Republic of China and in some cases with other countries). Evzob (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Territorial disputes are not relevant to this article unless they impact the existence of the sovereignty of the state. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Agreed with Evzob, Khajidha, Tachfin, Schmucky, et. al. The focus of this list isn't the territorial extent of sovereign states, it's on the existence of sovereign states. All non-existential territorial disputes should be relegated to List of territorial disputes where the issue can be dealt with properly. TDL (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, since 117Avenue added the list of territorial disputes to see also, not much information lost. So does everyone agree to remove information about territorial claims and disputes from any extent in which the sovereignty dispute column has a "none"? (This includes everything from maritime boundaries to disputes over dependencies to antarctic claims) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But the Antactic territories and disputed dependencies would remain in the bullet lists of dependencies right? And the statement above by evzob stating "Pakistan doesn't actually recognize Kashmir as a sovereign state" is technically incorrect. One of the three branches of Pakistans government (the judiciary) does actually recognize Azad Kashmir as an independent state, the other two branches have ambiguous or no position on the matter.XavierGreen (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dependencies would remain in bullets, although the notes of disputed sovereignty over them would be taken out. Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Norway would retain their bulleted antarctic territories, however Argentina and Chile would lose that information as they do not claim them as territories but integral parts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit over-the-top to remove the information on Antarctica. I think now would be a good time to discuss what kinds of information we do want in that column, because in my mind it should contain some basic information describing the item being listed. Nightw 11:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Can we agree in the meantime to take out anything not meeting the two minimums I have given above? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. Nightw 12:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections, as the dispute I've added is on the list as well. Dqfn13 (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for dependencies to be on this list at all. This is a list of sovereign states, not a list of dependent territories. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree to remove all territorial disputes that do not impact the existence of a state. Re dependent territories, if the country has recognized sovereignty over them then they must be included (regardless if X claims them). If it doesn't then it shouldn't be included, this is the case of the French and British territories in Antarctica which they have no sovereignty over, only claims. The proposal to delete dependent territories is also fine as it simplifies the list, We can instead put in the last column Country X has a number of [[Dependent territories of X|Dependent territories]] Tachfin (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If a british citizen murders someone in the antarctic territory they are tried under British Antarctic territory law. The UK does exersise soveriegnty over the portions of its antarctic territory it directly occupies such as Halley and Rothera. France's claims in the antarctic are administered as a district of the French Southtern and Antarctic Territories. I think every non-integral territory and polities over whos parent soveriegnty are limited by international treaty (Svalbard, Hong Kong, ect) should remain bulleted regardless of the claims made over them. Most states do not have official published positions favoring one side or another over the soveriegnty of minor territories such as wake island and the British Indian Ocean territory. So determining which countries have majority recognition to the soveriegnty of a minor polity is a near impossible task.XavierGreen (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should these non-sovereign dependencies be listed on this page (a list of sovereign states)? Why not simply have a link such as Tachfin suggested along with a "Territorial disputes of X" link where appropriate? --Khajidha (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the reason for the extent column. It was added to provide details on a state's sovereignty. Dependencies are not legally part of any sovereign state, they're extensions of a state's sovereignty readers will expect them to see them in any "list of countries". Nightw 03:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

People expect to see non-sovereign areas in a list of sovereign states? That makes no sense. The fact that they are part of a state's sovereignty has no bearing on the fact that they, themselves, are not sovereign. I understand that they belong on a list of "countries", but this list is specified to be of sovereign states. From the intro: "This is a list of sovereign states giving an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty." Exactly what part of that covers the inclusion of non-sovereign areas? --Khajidha (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Point 3 of "information on the status of their sovereignty". Feel free to propose their removal (but do it in a separate thread as this is about territorial disputes). Nightw 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I think by "sovereignty" here you mean "control"? According to the POV of each state concerned, they have sovereignty over those parts of Antarctica that they claim. But they all also recognise the Antarctic Treaty and do not exercise de facto control over anyone outside their own bases and their own personnel.

Note also that Australia, France, New Zealand, Norway and the UK have all recognised one another's claims in Antarctica (see this section for reference), so it's not just a matter of asserting a claim that's not otherwise recognised. Pfainuk talk 18:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No Objections to Chip right now. Outback the koala (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC):

I've gone and removed the ones which indisputably fail the criteria I set above, and did this with a very liberal interpretation of territories passing the criteria. I also added a source. This in no way should be taken as an end on this discussion to remove more or all of them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On those U.S. territories, there was a discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states in the 2000s about it before. Nightw 04:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What a read. I adjusted the text to be closer to the factbook description on the disputes page I cited (because I cited it), which is "the US assert various claims to Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla Bank." As in the 2000s conversation, under the Colombia entry but curiously absent from the US entry. If I was to OR I'd guess that the other territories are all effectively under US control as there isn't any serious dispute over them (Haiti can't do much about Navassa, and Tokelau obviously hasn't got much international pull), whereas Colombia is a US ally (not only the only South American country to not recognise Palestine, but also abstaining in UNSC vote) and exerts as much administrative power as the US does over the islands (coast guard etc.).

C'est la vie. Change the text back if you think it was better, but if we do take it off source wording an explanatory note would be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, it's not a big deal really. Although you should look over the wording once more as I think you've left a word out. Nightw 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So I did, shamefully. Any further ideas on territorial disputes? We seem to have issues over Antarctica (Argentina/Chile), Kashmir, and what to do with Taiwan. To remind everyone, the current criteria for inclusion is "any major territorial disputes," which at least we have a minimum quantifiable criteria for. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus for the criteria proposed (I might be mistaken).
The criteria was designed from a single point of view; that a dispute between Germany and the Netherlands does not merit inclusion. The permanently settled condition was added to get rid of this dispute. The other "Multilateral" condition was added to keep Antarctica since it is not permanently settled. Both of the proposed criteria are totally irrelevant to the "Major/Minor" status of a dispute. I believe we should either list all of them or remove all of them, there is no hurry to start removing some disputes before the discussion runs its course. The Antarctica issue can be dealt with separately since it is a unique exceptional case.
P.S: I've put back Plazas de soberanía, I don't understand why removed it since it meets your own criteria (Permanently settled) Tachfin (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was not my reasoning. I first reverted Hans Island, which was before Dollart. I didn't think Dollart belonged not because of? the countries disputing it, but because it's a line in the water, and if we included all line in water disputes we'd have a glut of disputes. The multilateral condition I added with the spratly's in mind rather than Antarctica. The spratlys are the site of skirmishes every year as each of the multiple claimants tries to defend what they hold or show off their control. Antarctica is by the way, since the claims don't really matter anyway. What do you consider relevant to a "Major/minor status"? (Also, what permanent settlement is there in the plaza? There's just a couple of military outposts.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think Hans Island is very active and major enough for inclusion. I think more discussion is needed. Outback the koala (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we at least agree to leave out maritime disputes from the list when they don't involve any land - especially if involving only EEZs and continental shelves (these are not supposed to be "territory" per se under UNCLOS anyway)? Or do we have any of those on here anyway? Evzob (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

@Evzob: I've already removed the maritime disputes as far as I can tell.

@Outback the koala: Why? (Serious question, not redundant. I wish to hear the reasons.) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It has had such a high profile in Canada, especially after the highly charged events of 2005 on the island, the number of media reports on this island is quite large. It is still key in Canada's foreign policy especially with regard to "Northern Sovereignty". This biggest thing I can think of is how widely known this little island is, in almost every part of the country (the government funded Canadian Broadcasting Corperation produced near-daily reports on the events and this was picked up by most domestic media). The defense minister flew and landed there with military personal and put up a flag. The Danes protested and dispatched warships to the area. There was an escallation. Because of the high tensions, immediate talks were held at high levels in late 2005, I believe in september or so, but as far as I know they were inconclusive. It later became a platform issue for the Conservative (CPC) govt in their reelection, to protect arctic sovereignty. In the part of Ontario where I live, there was a boycott of Danish goods. But my local stores began selling the stuff again after a year or two.

In other articles we look to the media to determine what is notable, as well as notability or knowledge of the item/event/issue in society. I think this is the case here. I think that the Plazas de soberanía is similar in this respect; a minor claim, fairly insignificant, but which generated a fair amount of press coverage around the issue (The plazas for the Morrocan incursion and the military situation the insued). Our focus should also be on what meets notablilty guidelines. Just because a dispute is minor does not mean that it is not notable. Conversly, A claim could be huge (ROC's claims above) yet not really be notable at all. Thoughts? Outback the koala (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I do note the plazas caused a lot of hoohah, and if the same occured with Hans, then it would be fairly notable. The problem is that based on this we'd have to individually discuss each addition or removal, which could sap a lot of time on this timesapping talkpage. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be helpful to note that some of the islands in Spanish North Africa did hold civilian populations until the early 20th century. So the islands are not uninhabitable, just merely uninhabited. I do agree that maritime claims without any land should be kept out of the page regardless of their size, otherwise we would be including huge numbers of obscure claims over tiny slivers of ocean.XavierGreen (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the purely maritime disputes have already been removed. Sorry I didn't take the time to check that out more thoroughly before I brought it up. Evzob (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that maritime disputes should be dropped (They already are apparently). I propose two alternatives for inclusion:

1. Keeping the active disputes and dropping the inactive ones (The CIA World FactBook is a good start to sort out active/Inactive)
2. Remove all disputes (that aren't sovereignty disputes), as they are not of absolute central importance to this article.

The number 2 is problematic because of disputed dependent territories, if we choose to keep them listed here we can point out to the states that claims them as giving one side of the story would be POV. But then again there is List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent, we would not be losing much if we just not listed them.

P.S: The "Plazas de Sobreina" are all inhabited, the dispute that you referred to (Perejil Island) is about an uninhabited rock that is not part of the "Plazas de Sobreina" and not part of Ceuta. So as the article currently stands this dispute is not listed. Tachfin (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not POV to give an accurate statement of who controls certain dependent territories. Also, number 1 would supposedly add back the maritime disputes and every current dispute there is, which would be unacceptable. Also, none of the plazas have settlements, yes I know Perejil is not officially part of plazas and Ceuta. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside of the Autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla, Spanish North Africa is not organized politically rather it is administered by Spain directly without any organized government. Thus under Spanish law Perejil has the same status as the rest of the remaining minor pieces of Spanish North Africa, there is no political entity offically called plazas de soberanía at all.XavierGreen (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression the Plazas were an informal grouping for the islands that aren't organised but Spain has proper control of. 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Spain, the "Plazas" are Spanish territory (which BTW is recognized by Morocco). Perejil is not one of those, the whole 2002 dispute stems from the fact that it is not part of the Plazas and neither part of Ceuta. Some have attempted to claim either of those versions as to legitimize the Spanish military operation, but in fact it is not and has never been mentioned anywhere until 2002. But let's not sidetrack the discussion.

@Chip, 1) should come with "no maritime disputes". What I find POV is to list the Antarctic territories for countries who consider them dependent and not do the same for Argentina, Chile etc..Whereas the whole continent is disputed and claims overlap each other. Also, "Plazas" are inhabited by humans; it is irrelevant if they are military or civilian, though I'm sure there are some civilians there (fishers). In any case, the "dispute" is over all of the Spanish enclaves in northern Morocco, it would be absurd to separate Ceuta and Mellila from the rest. Tachfin (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring these unsourced assertions on the definition of Plazas, if we list Dependent territories it's not POV to not list dependent territories... besides, the Chilean and Antarctican could be argued as in by my mention of multilateral, as you stated. I didn't mention inhabitants (which by definition must be long term so temporary military postings and fishing boats fail that) but settlements, which again it fails. It's not absurd to separate the claim over two cities from a couple of oceanic rocks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with your criteria but the military posts there are permanent and long term. The dispute concerns all of these territories, why separate them on irrelevant geographic/demographic traits? Are we to say that China claims only the settled parts of Taiwan? Come on that is absurd. Tachfin (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I know you don't agree, I'm just pointing out the flaws you give it aren't actually flaws. A building is not a settlement, and inhabitants don't live there long. The plazas are as settled as the International Space Station. As for why to separate disputes based on demographics, that's because disputes with people involved are generally far more important in the real world than those without. No-one is saying or has said China only claims settled parts of Taiwan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is one dispute which concerns the Spanish possessions in northern Morocco, separating some of these territories because you believe they don't have a population is the same as separating some parts of a disputed territory (e.g. Taiwan) on the same basis. Disputes always involve people, you think Spain and Morocco are uninhabited? Besides, the Spanish didn't take over deserted places, almost all were forts (e.g. Badis). Tachfin (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

All of this illustrates my point that NONE of this belongs on this list. There is a sovereign state known as Spain, it belongs on this list; there is a sovereign state called Morocco, it belongs on this list. There is a dispute over some bits of land between the two, that does not belong on this list. The most that should be on this list is a link to pages for "Territorial disputes of Spain" and "Territorial disputes of Morocco". Dependencies, as they are not sovereign in and of themselves, do not belong on this page. Disputed territories not claiming their own sovereignty do not belong on this page. This is the list of sovereign states page, why everyone wants to put all of this extraneous detail here is beyond me. --Khajidha (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Tachfin (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise with the removal of territorial disputes, but I think information on dependencies is useful for showing how their sovereignty can reach beyond the state. Disputes can often be divided, Gibraltar has two official disputes, many disputes, especially over islands, have some settled while the rest isn't. In the Morocco/Spain case, Spain treats differently its autonomous cities and its plazas. At any rate, you'll have to convince Outback and others. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but the recognition of dependencies and the thing about Antarctica should stay. Nightw 22:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes if an entire polity is claimed by a state than in the eyes of that state the polities current form of administration does not exist. For example in the eyes of the Haitian government there is no such polity as the Territory of Navassa Island. So the claim over navassa island would have to stay because it threatens the legitimacy of the entire territory. Partial claims over territory should be removed since they dont threaten the existance of the polity claimed in part.XavierGreen (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But Navassa Island does not have a sovereignty of its own, it is under US sovereignty. Even if it were transfered to Haiti, it would still not have a sovereignty of its own, it would be under Haitian sovereignty. Whether it is part of the US, Haiti or simply an empty rock makes no difference in the number of sovereign states so it should not be listed here even though it is disputed in toto. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah but it is not part of the united states, it is a possesion of the united states. It has a seperate soveriegnty from the united states, but that soveriegnty is in the possesion of the USA since it is a dependent territory. In order for a polity to become a part of the United States proper it must be incorporated. Unincorporated territories such as Navassa are not considered to be part of the United States, merely posessions of it.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What if we include mentions of dependent territories as well as any disputes that involve the entire territory of either the sovereign state OR any one of the dependent territories ("existential" disputes, including those pertaining to dependent territories)? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Do we have objections to that too? Evzob (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me. And im sure it would be to the vast majority of editors here.XavierGreen (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Niue and Cook Islands

Sources showing each meets the criteria

	Cook Islands	Niue
Constitutive	Netherlands, Japan, China	China China 2
Declarative

Ok, are we adding them or not? We just stopped the discussion because of a territorial dispute! People, are we going to discuss a problem that is 1+ years, or are we going to wait undecided again? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion kinda ran out of steam with no clear consensus for inclusion. Sometimes discussions here do this.

If it can be demonstrated that the Cook Islands and Niue each individually pass the inclusion criteria specified by the article, then they should go on the list. If it cannot be so demonstrated, then they must not go on the list. The inclusion criteria are not ambiguous and should not be difficult to source, and there's no reason why we should not follow them. Pfainuk talk 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few sources showing the recognition of the Cook Islands as a state. So... to not add it would be going against the inclusion criteria. There's a lot to figure out before adding it though, such as what the dispute column would show — I think I also saw some sources posted that showed explicit non-recognition. Perhaps someone can repost them right here for reference? I don't know about Niue. Nightw 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Either way, I agree that there is no consensus to add them to the list at this time. @Nightw - I also would like to see those sources. Outback the koala (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How about a "Level of Sovereignty Disputed" section?--Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

China recognized sovereignty od Niue. Jan CZ (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The source says Cook Islands, so I moved it. Is there another? Nightw 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For Niue http://lt.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t391353.htm. Ladril (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this source from Pacnews, quoting Toke Talagi (current Premier of Niue), is also relevant because it refers explicitly to diplomatic recognition. Given both, and also given that the lack of controversy is likely to mean that recognition wouldn't necessarily be picked up by the global media, I think the case is demonstrated per the inclusion criteria. They both belong, in the second part of the list, with "None" in the sovereignty dispute column (because they are not "claimed in whole by another sovereign state") but with appropriate notes in the notes column. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is also one for Niue from India: [1] Ladril (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't see any way around including Cook Islands on the list, since it seems clearly to meet criterion (b). I support adding it. But I do think it would be good if we could work in a note about its unusual situation of not having declared independence. As for Niue, I just looked at the sources you guys posted, and I don't see any explicit mention of recognition other than in the future tense. I'll keep my eye out though. Evzob (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an issue with two of these sources: this refers to a decided future exchange of ambassadors, which implies but does not state recognition. On the Indian side, this states that Niue is a "sovereign country" but doesn't ascribe that position to any government.

This is why I posted the Pacnews one, which quotes Toke Talagi as saying "History will note though that China is the first country to recognise Niue diplomatically formally and I thank the Chinese Government for that honour." I've also found this. Both prove that the exchange of ambassadors between Niue and China did in fact occur, and both cite Talagi (and note that the latter is a Chinese government source).

IMO, we have the Chinese government doing the sorts of things that seem to imply recognition and perfectly happy to cite the Premier of Niue as saying that China formally diplomatically recognises Niue. Neither text use the word "sovereign", but I'm rather inclined to say that this is a technicality, not something that should stand in our way. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. De jure recognition is by nature based on technicalities, and in a list with carefully defined criteria such as this, those technicalities matter. What about Palestine, whose governing body (the PLO) holds officially acknowledged relations with the U.S. and other countries that do not recognize Palestine as a state? I think diplomatic relations do not by themselves imply official recognition. A similar principle was also at work during the recent Libyan uprising, when several major international players established diplomatic relations with the rebel National Transitional Council without officially recognizing it as the legitimate government of the country. Or what about the countries that recognize each other but haven't gotten around to setting up actual relations? What I'm saying is, relations and recognition are independent of each other, even if they typically come together. Evzob (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say, I would agree in general. But the reason why I cited Pacnews was not to prove that the exchange of ambassadors occurred but because it cites the Premier of Niue outright referring to formal diplomatic recognition of Niue by China. I'm not saying that evidence of diplomatic relations is enough. It isn't. But here we have an clear reference to formal diplomatic recognition.

If this reference was made by the government where there was an active dispute such as South Ossetia or Kosovo, I still wouldn't be convinced by this. But this is Niue, where there is no such dispute and no reason for the Premier of Niue to refer to diplomatic recognition where it does not exist.

The technicality I refer to is not a lack of a reference to recognition. As I say, we can now reference formal diplomatic recognition of Niue by China. It's that that the reference to recognition does not refer to Niuean "sovereignty" (though it's worth mentioning that the source that discusses establishment of diplomatic relations does). To my mind, this omission is not significant. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So the fact that Cook Islands are proven sovereign, what category whould we put it in? I think the limited recognition one because I see maps that say they are part of NZ, but others that show the kind of font that shows they are independent. We need to find sources for every country. So adding Cook Islands, may I do so? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Isn't it clearly an example of "States with no membership to the UN"? And I think we better wait for the others to chime in before we claim consensus on this. Evzob (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in: It's still really annoying that all sources jump around the point. The problem here is that there is no clear right answer, and I don't think there is one in real life either. This is all deliberately ambiguous because in real life it is kept ambiguous (I would OR that this is because of the citizenship issue). We have sources noting they are diplomatically recognised, but then again so is SMOM... I wish there was something official clearly saying they were "recognised as states". If they do go in (and frankly there's no point putting in the CI and not Niue), they'd go in nonUN. If they don't, I say we add an explanation in the inclusion criteria section, as this is a truly ambiguous case. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Something from pt.85 of that original source [2] might be ideal for that, marking the point at which it was deemed a state by the UN (there's a more official-looking version here). Nightw 01:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chip, its very annoying that these sources jump around the issue. I want to see clear proof as well that makes the situation seem straight-forward, but the fact is, it is not. And as Chip says, this is deliberately so, and I would agree on this point as well. But why deliberately so? Because Niue is not truely a full sovereign state. The evidence is constantly shifting this way and that - making it so hard to make a determination as to whether inclusion is warrented. The SMOM is extremely troubling in light of this discussion as well. Frankly because of the citizenship, the shared Realm situation, and the obscurity of CI+Niue, I doubt that we will find solid sources ever. We have to go with what we have, which, I do not think is enough for inclusion right now. I'm open to one at a time as new sources come; CI is in a better position as far as proof through sourcing goes, therefore it could be put on the list until clear sources regarding Niue come up. They would be in the NonUN cat. Outback the koala (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that neither polity posseses its own citizenship prevents them from being considered a sovieregn state under any definition. How can a polity claim to be soveriegn when its people are not even citizens or subjects of the state (in this case they are citizens of new zealand and thus subject to new zealand law). Even the SMOM is more of a state in this regard in that it actually does have a limited number of citizens.XavierGreen (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

1) The question of citizenship, we solved in the past. I have to quote Ladril: "It is usually considered that Canada became a sovereign state in 1931..., but there was not a separate Canadian citizenship until the Citizenship Act of 1947". There is no CI citizenship, it is unusual for a sovereign State, but it does not alter the fact that the CI + N meet the criteria.

2) Japan no looked CI like any sovereign State in the past, because there is no CI citizenship. Prime Minister of the Cook Islands Puna said (after receiving the recognition from Japan), that it was a long work to explain to Japan today status of the Cook Islands (an independent State in a special relationship with the NZ). Japan recognized CI as an independent State rather than from their own reasons, but because the CI time explained the situation and asked for recognition.

3) SMOM is not a State, since it has not its own territory. CI + N are States. If they have sovereignty, they are sovereign states.

4) Some of the anomalies are found, or the limitations of sovereignty exist or existed in various cases, States such as Andorra, Monaco, Bhutan or Palau. It no change the fact, that they meet the criteria. CI + N are special cases. But I think it is clear now that CI + N are "sovereign states with special relationship with NZ", not "states under NZ sovereignty".

5) Sources indicate that the CI + N comply with the criteria. Therefore I´m for the start-up of discussions where on the list and how to describe the CI + N. Jan CZ (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Soveriegnty is not akin to statehood. An individual, a tribe, a non-state actor, a band of nomads can all be soveriegn. For example the various Mediatisated monarchs in the 1800's had no states but were considered to be soveriegn. The Holy See possesed no territory from 1870 to 1929 yet remained a sovierign body in international law. A truely stateless person who is neither a citizen of any country nor the subject of a monarch is also soveriegn under international law. Niue and the Cook Islands have no right to conduct external affairs outside of the authority of the Queen of New Zealand, its stated as such in their constitutions. The relationship between the two polities is therefore that of suzerainty to the Queen of New Zealand.XavierGreen (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The list should be based on the inclusion criteria that define it. Because it is the inclusion criteria that define what belongs on the list and what does not list, any consideration that is unrelated to those inclusion criteria is irrelevant to any discussion on inclusion. That includes your argument here.

On a practical level, if we refuse to include entries that pass the inclusion criteria, we have no right to complain if others then remove other entries that pass the inclusion criteria.

If you feel that the inclusion criteria need changing, then by all means start that discussion - though bear in mind that WP:LSC requires that list inclusion criteria be unambiguous, objective and backed up by reliable sources. But while we have the current inclusion criteria, we need to use them. Pfainuk talk 21:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Pfainuk. We can't have an inclusion criteria and then just ignore it when it doesn't agree with our POV. The only relevant question here is has Cook Islands been "recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state". The evidence seems clear that they have.

Also, the Commonwealth itself seems to dispute XavierGreen's argument: "Under the 1965 constitution, Cook Islands is a sovereign state with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state" and "Cook Islands has full constitutional capacity to conduct its own external affairs". [3] TDL (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Going to this link, in the history section, it states that Cook Islands is a sovereign state. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am much less opposed to the inclusion of the cook islands on the list as i am to Niue, the constitution of Niue states ""Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue", basically granting the queen of new zealand absolute soveriegn power in the regard of niues foriegn affairs.XavierGreen (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"In recognition of constraints imposed by its size and isolation, the Niue Constitution states that New Zealand would retain responsibility for the external affairs and defence of Niue. By convention, these responsibilities confer no rights to the New Zealand Government and can only be acted on at the request of and on behalf of the Government of Niue. The Niue Constitution also commits New Zealand to provide "necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue". [4] Ladril (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The existing criteria are valid, the CI + N are the meet criteria. If someone is against the inclusion of the CI + N on the list, occurs when the discussion about the change in criteria. Can we start-up of discussions where on the list and how to describe the CI + N? Jan CZ (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese source was quite compelling, it's recent and it's form a law school, so one hopes they know what they are talking about. If it does go in Jan CZ, it will go in the Non-UN section (similar to Kosovo). Per norms of our description we would note the shared head of state and free association, although I suppose in this case we would not only note shared persona but shared office, as well as citizenship. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

On page 3, there is a comment about Niue being a sovereign state, monarchy, and democracy: [5] --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The sovereign state comment is basically made through the support of the fact it participates in bilateral treaties and "its description as such in the Letters Patent, constituting the Governor-General of New Zealand (SR 1983/225)". That would be a good letter to see a copy of, if anyone can find it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Xavier that I am much less opposed to the inclusion of CI than Niue. What Pfainuk and Dan says is true. If the sources show it meets critrea than thats it. So include CI - but there are no sources here that show me Niue is a sovereign state, or is recognised as one; and the evidence to the contrary is also clear. They don't seem to be is so similar situations as I has previously beleived. And yes, Jan, CI would be under the nonUN section. Outback the koala (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that strictly based on the inclusion criteria (which as Pfainuk said, we must follow, regardless of external issues), we have a consensus that CI should be included (but not a consensus so far on Niue). I am in favor of adding some kind of special note to explain the situation, as that would an appropriate way to acknowledge the ambiguity of the situation while complying with the criteria. And the reason the SMOM is not included here is because it neither is nor claims to be any type of state, sovereign or not. From the criteria: "For the purposes of this list, included are all states that either..." Evzob (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that there are no sources supporting that Niue is a sovereign state is false.

Read this source [6]. Under "The Nature of the Relationship Between New Zealand and Niue" it states: "Niue is self-governing nation in free association with New Zealand. The United Nations accepted that the choice of the status of free association with another state was an acceptable form of self-determination and equivalent to independence for international law purposes".

On pages CRS-25 and CRS-26 of this document [7] Niue is described as an "independent state in free association with New Zealand". Ladril (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Niue is described as an independent state here (p. 23) [8] Ladril (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution of niue states "Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue" so regardless of how many sources you provide there is no possible way under the current law in niue that it can be considered a fully independent state. At best it is suzerain to New Zealand.XavierGreen (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

From "The Strange Death of the Realm of New Zealand": "Another term of the free association relationships relates to defence and foreign affairs. Both the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 and the Niue Constitution Act 1974 state that nothing in them or in the Constitutions shall affect "the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand" for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands and Niue.[83] Despite the implication in the word 'responsibilities' that these matters might be beyond the control of the Cook Islands and Niue Governments, the prevailing view is that external affairs and defence powers can only be exercised by New Zealand at their request and on their behalf." [9] Ladril (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that you have provided a source stating that it is in the cook islands constitution as well, i now am opposed to including the cook islands inclusion on the same grounds that i oppose niue, that they are merely suzerian states and not fully independent ones. Their constitutions specifically state that the queen of new zealand can do as she pleases with their external affairs and that nothing in the constitution can affect that right. I dont see how it can get any plainer than that.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not so unusual. The constitution of Australia states "Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Are you suggesting that Australia should be removed because they're "merely suzerian states and not fully independent ones"? The constitution is a WP:PRIMARY source. You need to find WP:RS which make these arguments or else they're merely WP:OR. TDL (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't see much relevance there regardless. Given that there is no declaration of independence, the relevant inclusion criterion is international recognition. The Cook Islands constitution is only relevant inasmuch as it affects international recognition. Pfainuk talk 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Australian situation is entirely irellevent, a personal union (Australia) is not the same as suzerainty (Niue and the Cook Islands). Australia has the right under international law to conduct its own foriegn affairs, Niue and the Cook Islands do not. The constitution also states "The Executive Authority of Niue is vested in Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand", meaning that their is no personal union rather that Niue is subordinate to the Queen of New Zealand. There are various sources that state that New Zealand is responsible for the foriegn affairs of Niue, such as page 206 of this [[10]]XavierGreen (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's entirely relevant. While Australia is in a personal union with the UK today, when the constituion was signed in 1900 Australia was still legally a colony of the UK. It wasn't until decades later that this transition occurred. The fact that the constitution has retained some of the wording from this time claiming that they are subordinate to "the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", as opposed to under the crown of Australia in a personal union, hasn't precluded them from developing their own distinct international personality. Nor should it prevent CI. However, as Pfainuk stated, none of this is relevant since CI qualify under the international recognition clause of the inclusion criteria. TDL (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

regardless, the situation today is not relevant so we are mearly speculating. Outback the koala (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of what the text I quoted from the source says, Xavier. Ladril (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

1) There is a consensus that the Cook Islands meet the criteria. Will therefore be included in the list. The specificities of the relation between CI + NZ does not alter on compliance with the criteria and therefore on the right to inclusion. Discussions about these variations are interesting, but in relation to the inclusion are irrelevant. In the case of CI now prove about the exact wording of the text of CI in the list.

2) For Niue consensus is not yet. The relevant question is: Is Niue recognized at least one other State? In my opinion, Yes. Some editors has said that China no recognized the sovereignty of Niue. But in the official text on the establishment of diplomatic relations clearly writes: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity..." [11]. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Niue declared that China was the first State that diplomatically recognized Niue [12]. I think that the sources are reliable and relevant. Yes, the Cook Islands are recognized at least three States, Niue is only one. But according to the criteria the only one recognition is enough for inclusion in the list. Therefore, I'm for the inclusion of Niue to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Including CI but not Niue when they both have an identical legal status is going to be confusing for readers that haven't been following the talk page. Can we not just change the inclusion criteria to unambiguously include associated states? Surely that's a simpler solution than trawling through news releases and quibbling over semantics. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, because the status of associated state is semantic. I think that if we take CI we should take Niue too, on the basis of equal relationships with NZ. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A polity can have diplomatic relations without being a soveriegn state. Even embassadors can be accredited without according recognition (Bavaria after the Unification of Germany, ect). I have already stated above that i do not agree that either the cook islands or niue should be included on the list, given the fact that their own constitutions state that they are not independent in their external affairs and are both subordinate to new zealand.XavierGreen (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that having diplomatic relations makes a polity sovereign. Certainly not based on what I've read here. On the contrary, we're looking for evidence that the Cook Islands and Niue pass the inclusion criteria that define the list - specifically that each is "recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state".

Remember that it is the inclusion criteria of the list, not the title of the list or ad hoc criteria created by editors, that define the list's contents (ref: WP:SAL#Lead). Your arguments on the Cook Islands constitution are totally irrelevant. I'm not going to argue the substance of the point because even if you're entirely right it doesn't make a jot of difference. We can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Cook Islands pass the criteria laid down. Therefore the Cook Islands must go on the list.

For Niue, the sources are a bit vaguer (referring to "diplomatic recognition" and "mutual respect for sovereignty"). But the question still has nothing to do with the constitution of Niue. The question is whether we consider that those two points (taken apart or together) are sufficient evidence that Niue is "recognized as a sovereign state". Pfainuk talk 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with Pfainuk. Jan CZ (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A polity should be required to consider itself an independent state in order for it to be listed. For example we never listed tamil elam or the emirate of abyan despite the fact that they act like independent states.XavierGreen (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria require a declaration of independence or outside recognition. Tamil Eelam (as was) and the Emirate of Abyan are not (to my knowledge) recognised as sovereign states by any outside sovereign states, so the question of whether they have declared independence is significant. If they have been recognised (as with the Cook Islands), it isn't.

If you want to propose a change to the inclusion criteria, then that's one thing. But while we have the current inclusion criteria, I see no reason why we should be allowed to add our own ad-hoc criteria to them. The inclusion criteria are chosen to be objective and unambiguous, as required by guidelines. Refusing to include polities that pass the criteria because they don't meet unspecified additional criteria entirely undermines that objectivity in a way that does our readers a significant disservice.

That's not, of course, that we should not explain the situation in detail in the notes section. On the contrary, we should. Pfainuk talk 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say Xavier, although I too would not include them on a list of sovereign states, the sources collected do show the CI and to an extent Niue to have passed the criteria of recognition as independent states. It's hard to defend their being kept off the list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Although I am willing to say CI meets our criteria, Niue does not appear to as of yet. I too would not include CI on this list either because I don't beleive its sovereign, yet the sources say otherwise. Who am I? Not a source. Alas, we must allow CI on this for now - but certainly not Niue. Outback the koala (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if the Cook Islands do go on the list then their are two other polities that may have to as well due to recognition. Azad Kashmir is recognized as a state by pakistan and the Sultanate of Sulu is considered to be soveriegn by Malaysia and the united states as well. Now Azad Kashmir like the cook islands does not have any right to conduct foriegn relations with any other state, but yet it is recognized as being a state by the pakistani government.XavierGreen (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the whole Pakistan in Kashmir situation, but I assure you Malaysia definitely does not consider the Sulu Sultanate sovereign, and neither does the USA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sultan of Sulu is a pretender. Outback the koala (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan does not consider Azad Kashmir to be a sovereign state, and neither does any other country. It does not even define itself as such. Ladril (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia and the United States consider the majority of Sabah to be leased from the Sultanate of Sulu which actually possesses the soveriegnty of the region. The government of Malaysia continues to this day to pay rental payments to the Sultan of Sulu as stipulated by the original lease for Sabah. As for Azad Kasmir, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that it is an indepdent country. There were several sources regarding this provided by someone (perhaps Ladril though i am not certain) either here or on the Azad Kashmir page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this, so I don't know what on earth this has to do with Niue and the Cook Islands, but no it doesn't. First of all, the lease was terminated by the sultan in 1957 when he transferred sovereignty over the territory to the Philippines. Any incoming payments would be going to the Philippines, and that may be what should be happening (legally speaking), but it isn't. It certainly doesn't recognise Sulu sovereignty. And Pakistan does not consider Azad Kashmir a sovereign state. It just doesn't consider it part of Pakistan, and argues that Kashmir (all of it) should be a sovereign state (or part of Pakistan) if its people choose to. Nightw 18:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic, perhaps? Nightw 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The government of Malaya still pays the lease payments to the Sultan of Sulu, it does not recognize the philipine claim only the Sultanate of Sulus. The lease terms of the lease stipulate that the Sultanate of Sulu retains soveriegnty over the land.XavierGreen (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As for Azad Kashmir, here is a source proving that the Pakistani government recognizes it as a soveriegn state. [[13]]. If recognition is all that matters for inclusion, than if the Cook Islands are included Azad Kashmir must be included as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your source [14]does not prove that Pakistan recognize Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state.

Please, can we fix the issue of whether China recognized Niue as a sovereign state or not? That's the key question for the decision of inclusion/non-inclusion of Niue to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We do have to distinguish between "recognized as a sovereign state" and being described as a sovereign state in a federal context. US states are formally sovereign under US law, for example, but they're clearly not what we're dealing with here. There is a problem with any inclusion criteria here if taken overly literally - I've also seen it argued that the fact that the UK calls its constituent parts "countries" is equivalent to diplomatic recognition.

The context does not make it clear that this is not what is happening here (unlike in the case of the Cook Islands), and I would also raise doubts as to the source's reliability.

As to Jan's question, the sources refer to diplomatic recognition, and mutual respect between China and Niue for one another's sovereignty. In both cases they are primary sources, which means that we can't draw interpretations from them without original research. My view is that the Pacnews source is sufficient, given context, to pass our inclusion criteria. I can see where those who disagree with me on that judgement are coming from and their objection is not unreasonable.

All in all I think it fair to suggest that there is consensus to include the Cook Islands at this time, but no consensus to include Niue. If clearer sources can be found on Niue then obviously this would clarify matters (either improving or disproving the case for inclusion). Pfainuk talk 23:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Attorney General of Pakistan, which is the supreme representative of pakistan in judical matters stated that "AJK is a sovereign state". The article also contends that this is the official position of the Pakistani government.XavierGreen (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a primary source that the judgement of a lawsuit that was dismissed by the United States Supreme Court on the basis that it violated Florida's sovereign immunity. It starts of from the position that [t]he Eleventh Amendment presupposes that each State is a sovereign entity. In searching for the precise term "sovereign state", I find that the source quotes another judgement that states that there is a "rule which exempts a sovereign State from prosecution in a court of justice at the suit of individuals" - and it is clear from the context of the document that the "sovereign State" concerned is one of the US states. US states are sovereign according to the Supreme Court of the United States' interpretation of the United States Constitution. I would, as an aside, suggest that the local Supreme Court is a far greater authority on the meanings and implications of a country's constitutions than we are as Wikipedia editors.

I note that this is a primary source per WP:PSTS, but it is clear enough that no interpretation is required to come to this conclusion. And the word of the Supreme Court is clearly a reliable source for a Supreme Court ruling. Your source is Zimbio, an online publisher that "publishes a blend of professionally written featured stories, user contributed articles, videos and high resolution photography". It could be reliable. But its reliability is certainly in question.

I would suggest that our rule is such that we require more than just someone saying "X is a sovereign state", particularly in this position (when it is a description used by a state to describe one or more of its constituent parts). We require actual diplomatic recognition of an entity as a sovereign state. We get that for the Cook Islands. We may well have that for Niue. I don't yet see it for Azad Kashmir. But I agree with Jan. If there's a case to add Azad Kashmir, or to change the inclusion criteria, it needs to go in its own section. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Name in English, and the official, national, and other important languages of the state	Membership within the UN System	Sovereignty dispute	Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA
ZZZ↓ States with no membership to the UN ↓	D AAA	ZZZ
Cook Islands English: Cook Islands Cook Islands Māori: Kūki 'Āirani	D Not a UN member state, but member of one or more related agencies	BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine	New Zealand may act on behalf of the Cook Islands in foreign affairs and defence issues, but only when requested so by the Cook Islands Government and with its advice and consent. Although in free association New Zealand, it is recognised by 3 UN members, the Netherlands, Japan, and the People's Republic of China
Niue English: Niue Niuean: Niuē	D Not a UN member state, but member of one or more related agencies	BClaimed by AfghanistanClaimed by GeorgiaClaimed by North Korea Claimed by Serbia Claimed by Somalia Claimed by the People's Republic of China Claimed by the Republic of China Claimed by South Korea Claimed by Azerbaijan Claimed by the Republic of Cyprus Disputed by Israel Claimed by Indonesia Claimed by the Marshall Islands Claimed by Mauritius Claimed by Morocco Claimed by Moldova Claimed by Mali Claimed by Spain Claimed by Argentina Claimed by Ukraine	New Zealand acts on behalf of Niue in foreign affairs and defence issues, but only when requested so by the Niue Government and with its advice and consent. Although in free association New Zealand, it is recognised by 1 UN member, the People's Republic of China

Would those be good for CI and Niue? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 06:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, if anyone thinks that Azad Kashmir or any other entity meets the criteria, either start a new section. This section is about inclusion/non-inclusion of Cook Islands and Niue in the list.

The second proposal for discussion is here:

Name in English, and the official, national, and other important languages of the state	Membership within the UN System	Sovereignty dispute	Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA
ZZZ UN member states or observer states	A AAA	ZZZ
New Zealand English: New Zealand Māori: Aotearoa	A UN member state	A None	New Zealand is a Commonwealth realm. New Zealand has the dependent territories of: Ross Dependency Tokelau The Tokelauan government claims sovereignty over Swains Island, part of American Samoa, a territory of the United States. New Zealand does not recognize the Tokelauan claim. New Zealand retains residual constitutional link with the Cook Islands and Niue in relation to citizenship.
ZZZ↑ UN member states and observer states ↑	A ZZZ	ZZZ
ZZZ	AB	B
ZZZ↓ States with no membership to the UN ↓	D AAA	ZZZ
Cook Islands English: Cook Islands Cook Islands Māori: Kūki 'Āirani	D Not a UN member state, but member of one or more UN specialized agencies	A None	State in free association with New Zealand. Classified as "Non-member State" by the UN. Cook Islands established diplomatic relatations with 31 UN members. Cook Islands is sovereign subject of international law. UN recognized the full treaty-making capacity of the Cook Islands in 1992. Cook Islands is members of UN specialized agencies without any specifications or limitations. Cook Islands is member of FAO, ICAO, IFAD, IMO, UNESCO, WHO, WMO. New Zealand retains residual constitutional link with the Cook Islands in relation to citizenship. South Korea do not yet recognize the Cook islands as a sovereign state, because of the lack of distinction between its population and the rest of the New Zealand citizens, that they consider as inconsistent with the principle of independence. Japan has changed its position and recognized the Cook Islands as a sovereign state. Other states which formally recognized Cook Islands are Netherlands and China.
Niue English: Niue Niuean: Niuē Fekai	D Not a UN member state, but member of one or more UN specialized agencies	A None	State in free association with New Zealand. Classified as "Non-member State" by the UN. Niue established diplomatic relatations with 6 UN members. Niue is sovereign subject of international law. UN recognized the full treaty-making capacity of the of Niue in 1994. Niue is member of UN specialized agencies without any specifications or limitations. Niue is member of FAO, IFAD, UNESCO, WHO, WMO. New Zealand retains residual constitutional link with Niue in relation to citizenship. South Korea do not yet recognize Niue as a sovereign state, because of the lack of distinction between its population and the rest of the New Zealand citizens, that they consider as inconsistent with the principle of independence. First state, which recognized Niue as a sovereign state is China.
ZZZ↑ States with no membership to the UN ↑	D ZZZ	ZZZ
ZZZZ	ZZZZ	ZZZZ

Notes

Jan CZ (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For New Zealand it says:

The Tokelauan government claims sovereignty over Swains Island, part of American Samoa, a territory of the United States.

If sovereignty is disputed, would it not be better to say ...controlled by American Samoa, a territory of the United States.?

I don't see a need to list South Korea specifically or the history of Japan's position. We need to note that they've been recognised by the states that they've been recognised by, note that they are associated with New Zealand and that they're members of X-and-Y agencies and leave it at that. Obviously, we need to be sure we've got consensus for each before adding either. As I noted above, I believe we currently have a non-unanimous consensus for the Cook Islands but that there is no consensus for Niue. Pfainuk talk 11:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I agree.

Of course, prior to any addition of Niue is necessary to achieve consensus.

We must to answer the issue of whether China recognized Niue as a sovereign state or not. That's the key question for the decision of inclusion/non-inclusion of Niue to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that can be provided regarding the Attorney General of Pakistans statement. For example, this source [[15]] states that Pakistani recognition of Kashmir as an independent state was a new policy and that the subject previously had been ambiguous. It also notes that the individual representing Azad Kashmir did not consider the nation to be soveriegn. In regards to the comments about first order political divisions being called states and possesing limited internal soveriegnty, such a situation is impossible in this instance because there are no first order political divisions of Pakistan called states as there are in Germany, Australia, and the USA for instance.XavierGreen (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Xavier, if You think that Azad Kashmir or any other entity meets the criteria, please either start a new section. This section is about inclusion/non-inclusion of Cook Islands and Niue in the list.

Here, we must to answer the issue of whether China recognized Niue as a sovereign state or not. Jan CZ (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Azad Kashmir is recognized as a state by Pakistan, its inclusion would hinge on the same basis as the Cook Islands and Niue.XavierGreen (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. But it is a separate matter from the Cook Islands and Niue and the two are best not mixed. Any decision as to whether an entity should be included or excluded should be made purely on the merits of that situation according to the inclusion criteria. I don't think anyone's saying that the current inclusion criteria is perfect, permanent or unchangeable, so if you feel that they need changing then by all means propose a change (bearing in mind that, per WP:LSC, any inclusion criterion needs to be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources").

Jan, I believe that the current position is:

• Cook Islands: non-unanimous consensus that the criteria are met, and thus that the Cook Islands should be included.
• Niue: no consensus that the criteria are met. Niue should therefore be excluded unless better sourcing (preferably sources that refer explicitly to recognition of Niue's sovereignty) can be found. Pfainuk talk 12:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir is not a seperate issue, it is akin to the Cook Islands because it is recognized by a state as being independent, yet its constitution curtails that independence in the same manner as the Cook Islands does. If one is going to be added then the other needs to be added as well.XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source describing that Pakistan considers Azad Kashmir to be a soveriegn independent state, [[16]].XavierGreen (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Another source that does not refer to recognition. But regardless, even if you are entirely right in everything you say, including the inferences you draw, this does not make the two situations not separate issues for our purposes. Trying to insist that the case of Azad Kashmir is identical to the case of the Cook Islands even though it is plain for all to see that it is not is unreasonable. It is blindingly obvious that the two cases are not identical, which means that they must be treated on their separate merits. FFS, we're even treating Niue as a separate issue from the Cook Islands. Pfainuk talk 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If its being treated seperately then why is it lumped into the same discussion here. And the source provided specifically states that Pakistan maintains that Azad Kashmir is independent and soveriegn. No inferences are made.XavierGreen (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Poll

Sources

	Cook Islands	Niue
Constitutive	Netherlands, Japan, China	China China 2
Declarative

Just to confirm consensus before I add anything. Given that the inclusion criteria for this list are:

"all states that either:

(a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory
or

(b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state"

• Based on the sources in the table, and the inclusion criteria noted:

1. Do you believe that the Cook Islands pass these criteria and thus should be included?
2. Do you believe that Niue passes these criteria and thus should be included?

Pfainuk talk 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Cook Islands

Support

1. Support inclusion. The sources make it obvious that the Cook Islands are recognised by Japan and the Netherlands. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Support inclusion. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Support inclusion Meets the inclusion criteria we've created, whether I like that or not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Support inclusion. There is source CI considers itself independent, and there is a source showing one country, Japan, recognizes CI as a country. Personally I think CI is not sovereign because of lack of own citizenship, but it obviously meets the inclusion criterias of the article. --maxval (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Support inclusion There is a criteria, the Cook Islands meets at least 1/2 criteria. Add it. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
6. Support inclusion Exactly what Chip said. There's no choice about it. Outback the koala (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
7. Support inclusion Sources indicate that the Cook Islands comply with the criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
8. Support inclusion CI seems to clearly meet the recognition criteria, though I do think we should insist on a thorough explanation (perhaps mentioning Niue's slightly different situation if it is not added too). Evzob (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion For my reasons mentioned above, i can recognize a mouse as a state that doesnt mean that it is one.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose inclusion Title „free associated state” (as Puerto Rico) or „sovereign state” (as Oklahoma or Bashkortostan) is only title. Cook Islands is not independent state yet. Aotearoa (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

2. Niue

Support

1. Support inclusion. I believe that the sources make the case sufficiently well, but accept that they are not as explicit as would be desirable. Pfainuk talk 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Support inclusion. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I'd also add that including CI but not Niue when they have an identical legal status would be highly counter-intuitive for readers. If the inclusion criteria really require that we do this (and I don't think they do) then they need to be changed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Support inclusion Same status as the CI, including relationship to NZ, and apparently state to state communication with China. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Support inclusion There is a criteria, Niue meets at least 1/2 criteria. Add it. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Support inclusion Sources indicate that Niue comply with the criteria. Jan CZ (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose inclusion For my reasons mentioned above, i can recognize a mouse as a state that doesnt mean that it is one.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose inclusion. Sources show only establishment of diplomatic relations, however no source Niue is recognized as a country. SMOM has diplomatic relations with much more countries, so by the same logic SMOM needs to be included too. --maxval (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose inclusion I don't beleive we have sources that make a clear case. It might be a 'nation' but its no sovereign state. Outback the koala (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose inclusion Very mildly opposition here, because I just don't feel like I can say in good conscience that this is well enough supported by the sources. Confusion on the part of the readers is not in itself a reason to bypass questionable sourcing, and there are other ways to remedy possible confusion, such as mentioning Niue in the footnotes. Evzob (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose inclusion Title „free associated state” (as Puerto Rico) or „sovereign state” (as Oklahoma or Bashkortostan) is only title. Niue is not independent state yet. Aotearoa (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

Cook Islands

I say we have support for the Cook Islands, may I add it? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to use the box for CI that you proposed above or the other one? Do any further changes need to be made? I think we could do away with the claimed bit. Outback the koala (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The third proposal for discussion is here: Jan CZ (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken that proposal, significantly shortened it, and rewrote it so it doesn't sound like a collection of bullet points. We don't need a list of all the UN agencies the CI are members of, nor a list of countries which have recognised them (which would be a terrible list anyway as it is based off google searches for individual points). It now has (slightly customised) shared head of state information, a concise note on international position (member of some organisations and can sign treaties), and the associated state note which are present on current entries. The only addition to this is the shared citizenship note, which is unique and definitely notable enough to be included. I've wikilinked it to New Zealand nationality law. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Chip, that is probably what we should put, and add how many states it is recognized by. 3rd proposal. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

But we don't know how many states it's recognised by. We have some sources noting explicit recognition, that's it. Do others recognise? We don't know, but creating a list would imply they don't. Considering the ambiguity, it's best to just not mention it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right Chip, that the list of States that have recognised would not be complete. For example, I know that the Cook Islands have been recognised by the Czech Republic. Confirmed it to me on my query Czech Embassy by e-mail. From public sources, but cannot substantiate. On the other hand, the recognition by those three States to decide on the inclusion. Without informations about it is not at all clear why we joined the Cook Islands, but not Niue. Therefore, I think that those States must be provided with a note that these States recognize the CI proven, but that we aren't claiming that the list of the recognizing States is complete. Jan CZ (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think misleading readers that only 3 countries recognise the CI will be worse than the minor inconsistency. I did support Niue going in by the end, and we have a Niue source below. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, as with Kosovo, we did not include states unless recognition was explict. If we don't know, we don't know. I say include the number 3, we can change it if more sources are found on the topic. Outback the koala (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it very confusing that the fact that there is no source of New Zealand recognizing the CI or Niue, yet we say there sovereignty dispute is none. Any thoughts on this? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The footnote for the sovereignty dispute column says that we only mention it if the state "is the subject of a major sovereignty dispute. Only states that are claimed in whole by another sovereign state are mentioned."

My understanding is that so far as New Zealand are concerned, the Cook Islands and Niue can have whatever status they want. I would suggest that their current status is probably universally recognised (at least among those that have thought about it) - but there is a difference of opinion as to which side of the legal-sovereign-indepedence line that status technically falls on. Pfainuk talk 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Name in English, and the official, national, and other important languages of the state	Membership within the UN System	Sovereignty dispute	Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty
A AAA	A AAA	A AAA
ZZZ↓ States with no membership to the UN ↓	D AAA	ZZZ
Cook Islands English: Cook Islands Cook Islands Māori: Kūki 'Āirani	D Not a UN member state, but a member of one or more related agencies	A None	A state in free association with New Zealand, recognized at least by Japan, Netherlands and China. The Cook Islands is a member of multiple UN agencies with full treaty making capacity. It shares a head of state with New Zealand as well as having shared citizenship.
ZZZ↑ States with no membership to the UN ↑	D ZZZ	ZZZ
ZZZZ	ZZZZ	ZZZZ

Niue

No decision.

Niue - further sourcing

[17] "On 19 October New Zealand and Niue will end their relationship of administering Power and non-Self-Governing Territory; we will enter a new period of partnership on a basis of equality." Ladril (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[18] (p. 3) "Niue is a sovereign state in free association with New Zealand". Ladril (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Name of Morocco

The short name of Morocco in Arabic appears on the left of its full name whereas it should appear in the right, because of the direction of the Arabic script (see other country names in Arabic. I have unsuccessfully tried to fix this. could someone do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybgursey (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to let Tachfin answer this, because he made the change on that entry. He raised the point that the transliteration should correspond to how it's written in English next to it (i.e., short form name → long form name). We originally had it the other way around for the reason the OP gives. I'm not really sure which is the best way. To my mind, it'll make more sense to a reader who can't read Arabic to have it as: "دولة قطر - قطر → Qaţar – Dawlat Qaţar", but for those who can read Arabic it'll look wrong, and perhaps a little unacademic even to those with a basic knowledge. Whatever method we use, we definitely need consistency on this. Nightw 10:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the reading order of the language is really relevant here. The names are listed to parallel their English versions and should be in the same order to make that parallel clear. --Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Khadjidha. English readers will read from left to right, so the short/long names should be in the same order. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's what I have done, switching made it correspond with English (i.e. short -> long form) and I think this was the intention of the person who originally made the list, since, if you look at the code, the short form comes first but because Arabic has a right-to-left logic it displays the other way (i.e. long form->short form). The way it currently is, a non-reader of Arabic would think that the transliteration of the long form is that of the short form. --Tachfin (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok according to Night w, it was the other way originally...Reading in English you'd expect to see to short form to come first, regardless if that language is read right-to-left. --Tachfin (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Does anyone have some spare time to swap them all around? Nightw 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can try and fix it.--Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Nightw 13:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dependent Territory missing from the list

It appears there is a french territory on Saint Helena. Two minor pieces of land were actually ceded to france in 1858 by treaty with the UK. A third french property is owned by france but does not seemed to have been ceded (thus not french territory). A source providing some details on its aquisition by france can be found here [[19]].XavierGreen (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is. They have some extraterritorial possessions, but no sovereignty. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The various sources i have seen specifically mention that Longwood House and Napoleans tomb were Ceded to france in exchange for 7000 pounds. World Statesmen lists it as being ceded to france in 1858, [[20]]. The treaty itself should be of some use in the manner though i cant seem to find it at the moment. It appears that two of the three areas were actually ceded to france, while the third doesnt even have extraterritoriallity and is merely owned by the french government.XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

similar to the vimy situation between France and Canada? Outback the koala (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I havent seen the vimy treaty, but from what i am reading now it appears that the canada was only granted use of the land (as opposed to being ceded the land), in the saint helena situation the territory was actually ceded to france. The French wikipedia page for the french possesions in saint helena states that it is a territory of france.XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is extraterritoriality only, not a posession. --maxval (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir inclusion

I think Azad Kashmir doesnt belong here, as it doesnt consider itself sovereign. --maxval (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like first to see reliable sources that make it clear that Pakistan actively recognises Azad Kashmir as a sovereign state in the sense that we are using the term (i.e. dealing with independent states). I am also willing to consider changes to the inclusion criteria if this can remove the ambiguity between sovereign states in the sense of Louisiana and sovereign states in the sense of France, and to lay down a clearer standard of evidence required to confirm recognition of sovereignty, provided that such changes meet the requirements of WP:LSC. Pfainuk talk 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Current inclusion criteria are:
  “(a) have declared independence and are often regarded as having control over a permanently populated territory
  or
  (b) are recognized as a sovereign state by at least one other sovereign state”
  In the criterion (a) we have: “...are often regarded...” – and “often” is not “always”, so according to our criteria all separatist movement that declared independence can be listed as states. Azad Kashmir meets these criteria, and Waziristan, and Tamil Eelam, and Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, and so on... Aotearoa (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The government of Azad Kashmir is not a serperatist movement. It was a defacto independent state that declared itself independent in 1947. It is not a part of Pakistan, yet its foreign affairs and defense are administered by Pakistan. The pakistani government considers it to be an independent and soveriegn state. No other state acknowledges it as such. If we are to list Niue as a soveriegn state via recognition than so must Azad Kashmir be listed.XavierGreen (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ok the website is "www.ajk.gov.pk" basically standing for "World Wide Web (dot) Azad Jammu and Kashmir (dot) government (dot) PAKISTAN", part of Pakistan. That is its official website. So it is part of Pakistan. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC) And I am pretty sure a source is needed. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

All the website means is that it is registered on a .pk domain. I have provided sources about that state that Pakistans offical position is that Azad Kashmir is an independent state including [[21]], [[22]], [[23]].XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You say, "If we are to list Niue as a soveriegn state via recognition than so must Azad Kashmir be listed." Why do you not feel that the individual case should not be considered on its merits? As I noted above, we're even treating the Cook Islands and Niue separately on their merits (and indeed we may well end up in a position where one is included but the other isn't). Trying to get Azad Kashmir in based on the merits of Niue is absurd.

Going on to the merits of the Azad Kashmir case, I shall start by pointing out that your second and third sources there are identical. I note that those sources are not as good as the ones we have for Niue. In Niue's case we have evidence of formal diplomatic recognition. None of those sources refer to recognition. A key plank of your argument from that source appears to be the statement of the Attorney General of Pakistan, but the same source puts that down "largely to bureaucratic incompetence". The source also notes the "ambiguities in [Pakistan's] position on the constitutional status of Kashmir". In this way, the two sources actually contradict one another as to Pakistan's position on the matter.

I finally repeat a point that I believe I have made several times before. Nobody is arguing that the current inclusion criteria are perfect. Nobody has said that they cannot be changed. If you feel that the current criteria are wrong, then I strongly suggest that you propose criteria that you feel would be more appropriate. I only ask that when doing this, you consider WP:LSC's requirement that inclusion criteria be "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". Pfainuk talk 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If Pakistan considers Azad Kashmir to be independent, than that is recognizing it as independent. The Cook Islands, Niue, and Azad Kashmir cases are all linked because each polity has some restriction on its independence regarding foriegn affairs. Niue and the Cook Islands are subject to the Queen of New Zealand, Azad Kashmir to Pakistan. All three are effectively suzerien states.XavierGreen (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can accept this position - if it is supported by sources. As with the last case, it comes down to sources. Show me the sources! Outback the koala (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I might as well chime in and add I think this is a slippery slope. ...each polity has some restriction on its independence regarding foriegn affairs... Surely things like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man fall under the exact same category? There would also be arguments for, in my opinion, Greenland; and I'm sure other areas I can't remember. They all act pretty close to independent states, the only difference being that some other country holds say over their foreign affairs.

I could see it argued that, for example, the Isle of Man is more "independent" than Azad Kashmir; it has it's own currency, sports teams, it is treated separately in several international organisations from the UK (most notably the EU), arguably the oldest parliament in the world. Notably, it's parliament, the Tynwald, is totally independent from the UK government, whilst according to our article the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council has 6 members from the Azad Kashmir government and 5 from the Pakistani government, and it's chairman is the president of Pakistan.

Anyway, I think that if any state is going to be included that is semi-independent like Azad Kashmir or the Cook Islands and Niue, then proper consideration should be given to the criteria used, as it's only going to lead to a whole load of claims. I'm not here to champion the inclusion of the states I mentioned, but to be honest if Azad Kashmir is included I can see no good argument for excluding them...--23230 ^talk 00:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)