Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Donetsk, Luhansk should be included now

By this time, the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics is no longer any different from that in Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Osetia, namely:

• The states control territory and people.
• The states have declared independence.
• The states do not seek to conquer entire Ukraine, so it is not a civil war.
• The states are recognized by some other states of limited recognition.
• This territory does not change over the time (the conflict is frozen since ~2015, so, 5 years, and the ceasefire is generally respected with no more boundary changes).
• Like in the cases of Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Osetia, the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics are claimed by the country that formerly ruled their areas (in this case Ukraine). In all five cases that country sees the particular countries as being not really independent but rather "puppets of Russia" or "Russian-occupied territories". That said, such arguement does not make either Abkhazia, South Osetia, or Transnistria unlisted in this article, so Donetsk and Luhansk should also be listed in this article.

Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

For the two entities to be added to this article, we would need reliable sources to clearly state all of the above, and preferably to directly link these to theories of statehood. CMD (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The above is insufficient. What we need is reliable sources that analyse these situations in terms of the theories of statehood and that conclude that states exist. Kahastok talk 07:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the points above are already proven by links that exist in Wikipedia, including here (e.g. South Osettian recognition) and the articles on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. What's more, on their articles themselves the two countries are listed as "unrecognized states" rather than as "rebel groups" (see the infoboxes on the right on the particular articles). As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, two different Wikipedia's articles should not describe the same object differently depending on the point of view of their authors - so, either this article should be edited or those articles should be edited, and, given the situation is as described, I believe this article is the one that should be edited.Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case please provide the source. Not a list of sources that you claim demonstrate the points above. That isn't enough. We need actual reliable sources - in practice that means legal, academic or diplomatic sources - that analyse the situations explicitly in terms of the declarative theory of statement and find in each case that a state exists.

Either that, or we need a demonstration that each is recognised as an independent state by a UN member state. South Ossetia does not count.

If the position is in fact that no such sources exist - and in six years nobody has manage to find one - then they cannot go on this list. Kahastok talk 16:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the basis for the criteria you require? E.g. what is the basis for the idea that it is not enough to prove each of the point that together makes the entity "unrecognized state" but one has to find some kind of particular source where all criteria would be analyzed at a single place? Such sources are typically sourced at the people allied to these entities so it would be easy to claim they are "not neutral/reliable" - but it cannot be otherwise when something is disputed; the very nature of this article means that any claims these entities are "states" will be matched or outnumbered by analysises making a contrarian conclusion, and it is so for each of these entities. Furthermore, what is the basis to say that this would be not needed if South Osetia would be a UN member state? The article deals with partially recognized and completely unrecognized states; many of the other states mentioned are not recognized by other UN members (Somaliland, Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh). Last but not the least, whatever criteria are seemingly adhered in this article are not adhered anywhere else on Wikipedia for this matter or other matters (with Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic articles describing them as unrecognized states) - yet nobody tries to edit that to make the criteria uniformly applied accross Wikipedia. Essentially, this fact makes this article a kind of POV fork. I will mention this on talk pages of the respective articles so the issue could be resolved. Ruĝa nazuo (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The current criteria present on this article is the result of a consensus that has been developed over years of discussion. I wouldn't be too hasty to just brush it aside. Regarding your point on Somaliland, Transnistria, and Nagorno Karabakh being listed on the article despite no UN member recognition, the fact is that we do have qualified reliable sources detailing that these are indeed "states" as defined by the declarative theory of statehood, even if most other states (be they UN members or not) do not recognise them. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I have read extensively on the arguments made here and elsewhere on the mapping community about the matter. I have one academic source to present. This academic source is focused on comparing economic sustainability of post-Soviet de facto states. The article clearly, and without any dispute places DPR and LPR on the same level as Transnistria, South Ossetia, Artsakh, etc. The article acknowledges the same level of independence in economic decision making, sovereignty, and monopoly on violence in each of these states. Thus, this article clearly favours the argument that these two new de facto states must be given the same treatment as the first wave of state breakaways after the Soviet collapse. Link to the article: [1] Ion Marandici, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, The Political Economy of the Post-Soviet De Facto States: A Paired Comparison of Transnistria and the Donetsk People’s Republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nima Farid (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

this article clearly favours the argument that these two new de facto states must be given the same treatment as the first wave of state breakaways after the Soviet collapse. Unless the article itself actually states that they must be given the same treatment then that is just an interpretation of the article, and is thus synthesis of the conclusions reached in the given article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the abstract "this article explores the resource extraction strategies of de facto states via a paired comparison of Transnistria (PMR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR)" so I don't think it's a synthesis. Alaexis_¿question? 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That sentence from the abstract of the linked article above does not explicity state which of the two of the "paired" (whatever that means) comparisons is the de-facto state, the PMR or the DPR. It could mean DPR, it could mean PMR, it could mean both. My point is is that it is not clear. Unless it states so in more detail within the article elsewhere I would consider the statement made by Nima Farid that the article clearly favours the argument that these two new de facto states must be given the same treatment to be false. Nothing I can see from just the abstract states anything clearly from my perspective. - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Edited on 16:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC) by Wiz9999 (talk)

In the article itself they are referred to as 'unrecognized states'

“ In 2014, a second generation of self-proclaimed republics emerged in Eastern Ukraine – the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). Having monopolized the use of coercion, these post-Soviet unrecognized states tax residents ... ”

In any case I've provided below a quote from a book on this subject that uses the term 'de facto state' for these entities. Alaexis_¿question? 13:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

These are "unrecognized unrecognized states". The states that are not even recognized as unrecognized. Ha Ha! Alexxzz123 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean no country recognises Somaliland yet its a nation, Donetsk and Lugansk are Recognised by eachother and South Ossetia, 84.71.67.197 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

---

This is an excerpt from Unrecognized States and Secession in the 21st Century by Riegl and Bobos (page 12):

“ However, it has become clear that de facto states are not simply ephemeral phenomena that will collapse on their own (Broers 2013); they have demonstrated their longevity. The four de facto states in the former Soviet space have all existed for more than two decades, as has Somaliland, while Northern Cyprus has been a de facto state for four decades. Moreover, new contested territories that could be described as de facto states have emerged, most notably the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic in Ukraine. These two newest additions to the universe of de facto states have started to create some of the trappings of statehood, although the extent of ‘indigenous roots’ is still debatable ”

I believe that we can include these entities in the list, obviously noting conflicting opinions. The definition of a de facto state is necessarily subject to interpretation and not everyone agrees that even "established" entities like TRNC and Somaliland are de facto states. Alaexis_¿question? 11:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That text doesn't argue that they are de facto states (only that they could be described as such, which is different), nor does it demonstrate the point in terms of the declarative theory of statehood, let alone demonstrate that this is a widely held view. Kahastok talk 17:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Aren't we applying an impossibly high standard of evidence here? The book uses a very similar definition to the one used in the article (see pages 11-12: staying power, territorial control, state institutions) which is the best we can hope for in social science. The book itself is a reliable source and it describes these entities as the new additions to the universe of de facto states. We also see that there are scholarly articles ([2], [[3]]) using these terms for the entities in question. Alaexis_¿question? 17:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a standard of evidence we achieved with a single quote in the cases of Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland and Transnistria:

"...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland."

It refers directly to the declarative theory (through Montevideo), and it explicitly says that it is a widely-held view that the standard is met.

I do not see why we should hold Donetsk and Luhansk to a lower standard. Kahastok talk 23:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, this quote is from a 2012 book, so DNR and LNR could not have possibly appeared there. I've provided a source that says that these entities possess the characteristics of de facto states published in 2018 and other sources which use this term. I believe this is sufficient for including them into this article. If you don't agree let's seek outside feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've requested feedback at WP:RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 09:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think if Somaliland is included for being a de facto state despite receiving no international recognition the DPR and LPR should be included, as they have de facto held their territory for half a decade by now. Flalf^Talk 13:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, again, that needs sourcing. The problem with adding these two is what it has always been. The fact that - unlike in the case of Somaliland - nobody has ever been able to find a single independent academic, lawyer or diplomat anywhere in the world who has analysed the criteria for statehood and concluded that these are states. Let alone demonstrated that this is a widely-held view in academic, legal or diplomatic circles.

Wikipedia should never ever be the first independent source to reach that conclusion. Kahastok talk 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you haven't. You've provided a book that suggests that the case is arguable. That's not the same thing.

If we were to add them based on this, we would be the only independent source on the planet that has concluded that these are in fact states according to the definitions of statehood. That's somewhere we really do not want to be. Kahastok talk 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Countries that don't recognise North Korea

I'm pretty sure that there are more than three countries that don't recognise North Korea. For example, the United States doesn't officially recognise North Korea, despite the fact that it has engaged in some relations with it. Another article on Wikipedia claims that Israel doesn't recognise North Korea. There are probably numerous other examples. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Added the US, no formal bilateral relations. Flalf^Talk 01:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No diplomatic relations does not equal no recognition. Flalf^Talk 13:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Turkey and Armenia does not have any single relations right now, does not mean they withdraw the recognition of Armenia. You can recognise a country without having an embassy there. Beshogur (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria - Academic sources

The ‘inclusion criteria’ requires that for a polity to be included in this article it must satisfy either the declarative or constitutive theory of statehood. The declarative theory requires a defined territory, a permanent population, a government and a capacity to enter legal relations with other states. The constitutive theory requires that the polity be recognised as being part of the international community by states already in the international community, the most obvious expression of this is membership in the United Nations.

The inclusion of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria), the Republic of Artsakh and the Republic of Somaliland is justified on the grounds that all three states satisfy the declarative theory of statehood. Furthermore, all three states have clearly sourced academic and journalistic references, it is not the policy of the article editors to include states as a matter of editor discretion, but rather to use existing sources to support the inclusion. I would suggest diversifying and expanding the existing sources as a single academic source is used for the inclusion of these polities.

The exclusion of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (Luhansk) has been particularly controversial. That is looking at the article discussion history there is much to be found on debates concerning their inclusion or exclusion. The main arguments against the inclusion have been lack of academic sources, immaturity and the fact that the international community (including Russia) universally recognises these polities as belonging to the Ukrainian state.

The other argument is that the inclusion of these polities opens the floodgates to the inclusion of any territory under the control of a rebel group, which is particularly complicated by the fact they change hands so regularly and there are so many of them in some parts of the world. This would make the article overcomplicated and prone to error and constant change that would render it ineffective.

I know of at least one academic source that compares Transnistria to the DPR and emphasises the shared features of both as being ‘lack of international recognition’ this is from an article published this year: Ion Marandici & Alexandru Leșanu (2020) The Political Economy of the Post-Soviet De Facto States: A Paired Comparison of Transnistria and the Donetsk People’s Republic, Problems of Post-Communism.

If we are accepting a single academic source as a reason for inclusion at the very least we must now reject Transnistria from this list because I have provided a more recent example of a single academic source claiming that the DPR and Transnistria are equivalent in recognition. If the list does not include the DPR it should not include Transnistria. Many of you will find this argument unsatisfactory and say that there is more to it than that, you are probably correct but this is an argument for the inclusion of more academic sources showing the differences, the point is that a single source is inadequate.

As for whether the DPR and Luhansk do satisfy either criteria, they clearly do not meet the constitutive theory, but the declarative theory is trickier. I have been unable to find any clear sources that say that either of these two polities do meet the declarative theory, but in theory I cannot see why they do not.

One thing I have found is that many discussions of de facto states do include discussions of these two polities (DPR and Luhansk) alongside the others included in the article. For example, an article in the International Studies Quarterly Jun2017, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p337-351. 15p. 3 by Adrian Florea, the DPR is mentioned alongside Abkhazia. This suggests it is not a stretch for them to be included in the currently existing list.

Given the lack of credible academic sources saying that the DPR and Luhansk meet the declarative theory it is perhaps immature for them to be included currently. But I think there ought to be a serious consideration as to whether the inclusion of the other entities is somewhat arbitrary, or at the very least not sourced enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llihcurhc (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the declarative theory of statehood and the “D/LNR” in Ukraine, as codified in the Montevideo Convention:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. . . .

The contracting states definitely establish the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or advantages that have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure

a) Is there a permanent population of the D/LNR? There was a lot of news last year about the RF giving residents Russian passports (150,000 of them, according to Marandici & Alexandru 2020). b) What is the defined territory? In 2014–15 it was “New Russia,” and leader Zakharchenko was talking about driving tanks all the way to Kyiv. Do the D/LNR constitutions define their territories? I doubt it is defined by the Minsk ceasefire line, or the similar but not identical current line of contact. c) Do the D/LNR possess their own government? There’s plenty in reliable sources about their being established and run by Russian citizens, including in high posts (formerly Borodai and others, now Pashkov), and direction from members of the RF government (Surkov, now replaced by Kozak, I think, and also Aksyonov from Crimea), as well as allegations of its armed forces being commanded by soldiers who report to Moscow. d) How is capacity for foreign relations defined? Currently, their relations with Ukraine, including negotiating the Minsk agreements and prisoner exchanges, are passed through the Russian government and moderated by France and Germany in the Normandy Format. It has no economic relations except through its patron-state, the RF (according to M&A 2020).

And regarding “coercive measures”: Reliable sources tell us that the de facto Donetsk and Luhansk territories are the result of military action (involving thousands or tens of thousands of Russian volunteers, mercenaries, and soldiers) culminating in the Battle of Debaltseve. So why would Wikipedia recognize this as declarative statehood when, according to the conventions of international law, no law-abiding state would? (And are we jumping the gun by considering this recognition, when no law-abiding state does? )

The subject of Marandici & Alexandru 2020 is economic endurance, not statehood, declarative or otherwise. It has a note (1) about the phrase “de facto states,” referring to Blakkisrud & Kolstø 2012, which in turn states:

1. There is no universal agreement on terminology concerning what to call these entities – different authors have at various stages identified them as ‘unrecognized states’ (King 2001), ‘pseudo-states’ (Kolossov and O’Loughlin 1999), ‘quasi-states’ (Kolstø 2006) and ‘contested states’ (Geldenhuys 2009). Whereas several of these terms have some merit in the sense that they indicate essential characteristics of these entities, there seems to be an emerging consensus on the term ‘de facto’ states, and we will therefore use this appellation. The distinction between de facto states and regular ‘restive regions’ is that the former have officially declared independence from their parent state and have been able to maintain such de facto independence for some time (Kolstø 2006 argues for a minimum of two years).

That is, this is a way to refer to these entities that have certain shared characteristics (which are not all of a, b, c, and d, above), and not an evaluation of their statehood.

But since we’re discussing this paper: in contrasting the DNR to Transnistria, it says its “survival depends exclusively on Russia’s material support,” and “the patron-state thus is not a remote actor, but actively shapes the governance structure of these regions.” It describes ways in which the DNR is partly foreign-controlled and rent-dependent, e.g., the “patron-state sets the level of public-sector wages” through the “Kremlin’s kurator for Donbas,” etcetera. It mentions that the DNR’s aim is not independence: “both regions continue to call on the patron-state to formally incorporate them.” All of these can help us evaluate the possibility of declarative statehood (but they are no substitute for a reference that states it).

Florea 2017 merely mentions the D/LNR, without studying or evaluating them, and uses the term “de facto state” to refer to all of the entities in the category it discusses, including the ones that failed or were reintegrated into their parent states. It is also not an evaluation of statehood.

Whether the D/LNR belong in this list should be justified independently of whether, for example, Transnistria belongs here, and vice versa. Likewise, it should be actually justified: it’s insufficient to say they are mentioned together somewhere so that means they have the same statehood status.

And finally, the concrete manifestation of declarative statehood is in international law, which leads to recognition by other law-abiding states. So Wikipedia can safely remain a follower and consider states to be recognized states, since recognition will often and typically follow declaration. In fact, do we know that declarative statehood can be known to exist until after it has been legally internationally recognized? Like the guilty, mustn’t we presume states innocent of statehood until it is determined de jure? Let’s not jump the gun by Wikipedia recognizing statehood before any other state, or even before any other reliable source.

In summary, I agree. —Michael Z. 20:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

Change original text:

[States that are neither UN members nor UN observers : Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic : “Morocco invaded and annexed most of Western Sahara after Spanish withdrawal from the territory in 1975.”]

to:

["Morocco invaded and annexed most of Western Sahara, forcing Spain to withdraw from the territory in 1975."]

(Source: Mundy, Jacob (January 2006). "How the US and Morocco seized the Spanish Sahara". mondediplo.com) 142.182.123.127 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but added a different citation for this, as the stated source did not give details beyond the title. - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove Artsakh from the list

James Ker-Lindsay, who is already used in this article as a reliable source, said that "the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic no longer exists as a de-facto state". Should we remove Artsakh from this list? --Surfsvizor (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Final details of the agreement are still being worked out, it would be unwise to remove it completely until all details are finalized. Besides, the Republic of Artsakh and it's capital Stepanakert will still exist; albeit a much smaller state. What's left of Artsakh will not be under Azeri control and while it has shrunk significantly in size, it is still acting as a de-facto state with the capital city under its control. Archives908 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is notable that he said that it "no-longer exists", but I don't think it warrants any change just yet. The chances now of any other state recognising it are next to nothing (including Armenia, which never even recognised it when it was a more fully fledged de-facto state. It seemingly will still exist in some manner or another, although with much reduced power and influence. The most significant change that impacts this article since the conclusion of the war has been the reduction in territory, which means we will need to change our map (and other such wikipedia maps) to what the new borders will eventually be settled on, but it is too soon to be clear what those borders will be in practical terms (thinking of the Lachin corridor here). - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think we need to keep tabs on it and I think we need to be open to new evidence. But it's not clear at the moment that the NKR government has been dissolved, nor that reliable source opinion will conclude that it no longer exists as a de facto state when the dust settles. Kahastok talk 10:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Archives908, Kahastok, and Wiz9999: you are not consistent. You are not including Donetsk and Luhansk in this list, because there is no source directly claiming that they meet the Montevideo criteria. The only provided source which directly confirms that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic meets Montevideo criteria is the book by James Ker-Lindsay Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780199698394. ...there are three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.. But now he said that the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic no longer meet the Montevideo criteria (if the video above is not enough, he told me that now the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic does not meet the Montevideo criteria, I can ask him to speak about this in the next video more explicitly). But of course NKR government has not been dissolved, but what does this have to do with meeting the Montevideo criteria? --Surfsvizor (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about ignoring sourced information about a particular entry from the same author who is being relyed on to argue for the inclusion of said entry. However, I think we can all agree that a youtube video and a response to a comment does not hold up the same merrit as a fully published and detailed book specifically about the subject. About me being inconsistent in excluding Donetsk and Luhansk from this list, I think you will find if you look through the archive history that I have generally been supportive of their inclusion on this list and overall the sourced information that has been dug up thus far has not met the satisfaction of the other editors as being reliable enough. As far as I am aware, that still has not changed, meaning Donestk and Luhansk are excluded. Understand that the current arrangements on this article are due to an overall truce on the situation (based on a series of lengthy previous discussions) and not necessarily supported by every contirbtor here before you go making wild accusations. - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

This keeps popping up in every single armenia-azerbaijan related article and as you can see on the talk page itself as of right now still exists and removing it would be premature as the agreements are still being finalized. Flalf^Talk 15:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia ought to be conservative about these things. It is far better to rely on proper published reliable sources than on a brief line in a Youtube video. Let's let things calm down. Let's wait until the position is settled, and see what those reliable sources written after the war say. There is no rush. Kahastok talk 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ejiltalk.org/at-daggers-drawn-international-legal-issues-surrounding-the-conflict-in-and-around-nagorno-karabakh/ has some material on the matter but not sure if legal blogs count as determinative rs.Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Surfsvizor, do you have any updated information from James Ker-Lindsay about Artsakh having already lost its status as a de facto state? I like watching his YouTube videos, but I don't agree with his statement "Artsakh is no longer a de facto state". In my opinion, Artsakh has lost a lot of its territory in this war, but Azerbaijan has not completely taken over the daily administration of the whole Nagorno-Karabakh region. Most importantly, its capital city has not been taken by the Azerbaijani forces. So Artsakh still exists and it will continue to function as a de facto state until further political agreements are reached between them and Azerbaijan in the future. Most likely it would be fully intergraded into Azerbaijan as an autonomous region, but the breakaway area might gain independence through a referendum as a political compromise. As of today though, I think it is still a de facto state. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)