Talk:List of states with limited recognition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured list List of states with limited recognition is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

References[edit]


Donetsk meets declartive theory criteria[edit]

The Donetsk People's Republic now controls the whole city of Slovyansk. As such it now meets the criteria to be considered a sovereign state under the declarative theory of statehood. See sources here, [[1]],[[2]], [[3]],[[4]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - moved my own comment to Talk:List of sovereign states#Donetsk meets criteria via declarative theory. Suggest that one location is appropriate. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
One militant group occupying one city, and declaring the entire region independent does not meet the definition of independence.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
A single city is enough territory to maintain an independent state. See city-state.XavierGreen (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed - the Vatican is even less than this! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
None of those sources state that Donetsk is an independent state. trackratte (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope. They don't. And it'd be a pretty important source to have if we were going to include it. Kahastok talk 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
In the DPR problem is that we don’t know what it control. Media reports that they control same cities and towns, but in other hand in these cities and towns offices subordinates to the Ukrainian Government are still operate. On the other hand in some areas under control of Ukrainian forces DRP is still operate. In Donetsk (and Lugansk) we have an overlapping control of both sides of this conflict – only certain places (such buildings) in cities and towns are de facto controlled by one side (DPR or (pro-)Ukrainian authorities), and all other areas are de facto uncontrolled. Aotearoa (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't really care either way, as I have no emotional or personal stake. However, this is still a Wikipedia article, and the normal procedures and policies apply. If we have a source (such as a news article) stating that Doonetsk is an independent state, then it can be placed in the article suggesting that it may be an independent state. For it to be presented within the article as an undisputed fact, then one or more reliable sources must be included to demonstrate this fact, ie academic and official sources. If precisely zero sources explicitly mention Donetsk as an independent state (using the declarative theory or not), then it does not warrant any mention. Our job here is to present fact from outside sources, not to present our own original research. trackratte (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
i would agree with Xavier that at this point this "DPR" does meet our criteria for inclusion, however the situation is far from stable. In the past, when a situation has been fluid we have held back on inclusion and this case should follow that trend. If by the end of the month little has changed, I would think we'd have to take a hard look at inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
South Ossetia 18.6.2014 recognized Donetsk People's Republic as independent state. Jan CZ (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I get a 404 error. Regardless, South Ossetia is not a UN member state as required by the criteria. Kahastok talk 20:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
New source about recognition from SO. Of course that SO is not UN member and this is not key info for result. Jan CZ (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
South Ossetia nas recognised Lugansk PR (not Donietsk PR), and Lugansk should be listed - Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria are listed despite lack od recognition of any UN member. Aotearoa (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Those three meet the other rule (declarative theory) based on appropriate expert sources. Luhansk doesn't meet either rule. Kahastok talk 21:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant[edit]

Hi there. Please check out my section in the talk page of ISIL. They claim lands in Iraq and Syria.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 16:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed several times before. On this list, we need evidence either of diplomatic recognition by a UN member, or that some outside authority or reliable source considers it a state according to the declarative theory of statehood. In the latter case, that means that the source has to actually apply the theory - Wikipedians' interpretations of whether the theory is met or not do not count. Kahastok talk 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you've enlightened me.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This expert opinion definitivly says it's an unrecognized state. “It also runs the equivalent of a state. It has all the trappings of a state, just not an internationally recognized one.” I found another article where the theory is applied and the decision is "unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." So, it looks like it's a little premature to declare it a state, however it looks like that's what is happening. The last condition of "declarative statehood" is having relations with other countries. That's yet to be seen. - Technophant (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
if Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik where included in the list then ISIS deserve it more.3bdulelah (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
This article (which apparently now needs a log-in) also indicates that ISIS is becoming at least a quasi-state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I would note, that war is a political relatiohship between countries and thus can count as satisfying the capacity to enter relations criterion.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The opening line of our entry on war states that "War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors." For what it's worth, though, I wouldn't oppose this being added. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Should ISIS be added to the "Non-UN member states not recognised by any state" section? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> A useful list of ISIS related sources here at Progressive Geographies. The summary suggests that some scholars are beginning to recognize it as a state. We have multiple independent sources - for me this is one to add. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is an article (in Arabic) by France 24 which says that " ISIS has "the elements and resources of a real state" 3bdulelah (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Given how many sources there are, I don't why it shouldn't be added. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that ISIS should definitely be mentioned in the article at least. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Do any of the sources mention the declarative theory of statehood or the Montevideo Convention? I haven't seen it in any of them, but I may have missed it? I think we should be aiming for something more explicit than a blog saying "all the trappings of statehood" (even if it's the blog of the Washington Post's Beirut bureau chief). The sources seem to say "quasi-state", not "state". Kahastok talk 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Quasi-state" is synonymous with our "state with limited recognition". It's a term often used to describe the entities listed on this page. No-one's discussing the Montevideo convention in those words, but they are saying it is providing some form of internal governance. Not much detail yet that I've seen, so I'm still not sure on this addition, but the sourcing is definitely growing stronger. CMD (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
While I concur that the sources are starting to move towards where we need them, most are still hedging their claims with qualifications like "equivalent of a state" or "on its way to". There is WP:NODEADLINE, so we should hold off adding them until there are sources which make clear, concrete conclusions on their statehood. It's better to be a bit slow than to be early and wrong. TDL (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, we're getting nearer, but aren't there yet. I would note that I find it difficult to see we can say that a state satisfies the declarative theory, without a source that says so (or at least mentions Montevideo). With such a source we can be absolutely clear that the author has considered the point in terms of the declarative theory. Kahastok talk 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why then Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik where added without a reliable source considers it a state according to the declarative theory of statehood? + can u give a "reliable source" that consider Nagorno-Karabakh Republic a state according to that theory because I couldn't find one for the three republics.3bdulelah (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The current inclusion criteria were only implemented in September 2013. You can see the proposal that led to them at Talk:List_of_states_with_limited_recognition/Archive_10#On_the_Criteria and Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Archive_11#Proposal_to_change_the_inclusion_criteria. Both Azawad and Bangsamoro were only included prior to the rewording of the inclusion criteria.
As for sources, there is one in the article: Ker-Lindsay, James (2012). The Foreign Policy of Counter Secession: Preventing the Recognition of Contested States. Oxford University Press. p. 53. "...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."  TDL (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
ISIL was declared before September 2013 and it wasn't included at that time 3bdulelah (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
When ISIL was originally declared as the ISI it was as an alternative government to that of the iraqi government and would not have qualified for the list even if it controlled territory, once it changed to ISIS it expanded its claimed territory to most of syria as well as iraq and became a different state than that of iraq since it claims both syria and iraq.XavierGreen (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be considered as alternative government if it was claiming the hole Iraqi territory but as u know they only claimed Arab Sunni territory 3bdulelah (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The end of the article explicitly excludes state that are in a state of civil war. ISIL clearly is in this category and can be excluded on this argument. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The civil war is in Syria and Iraq not in ISIL which claim some parts of Iraq and Syria. Somalia is in civil war but Somaliland is included because the war is in all Somalia not only in Somaliland. 3bdulelah (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Somaliland doesn't get caught by that exception because it has been stable for decades on end. It is not credible to say that "the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet" in the case of Somaliland. It is certainly credible to say that with respect to ISIS at present - your claim that ISIS is not in any way involved in the crises in Syria and Iraq is not remotely tenable.
We can go further than that, though, Somaliland has been widely described as an example of an unrecognised state by academics. At present it is pretty much the archetypal example. We have academic evidence applying the declarative theory explicitly to Somaliland and finding that it is met. At present, we do not yet have the evidence that there is even a "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria" that would make it make a difference. Kahastok talk 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I take it that this isn't enough to meet the criteria. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Not unless the ISIS still exists after the region is stabilized=. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've done a search for webpages discussing the Montevideo Convention and ISIS. Here's two opinions:

Conclusion; On conditions 1 and 2, claimed but uncertain. "While there are no temporal requirements for control of population or territory (emphasis added) when these are combined with the other two elements of Montevideo some form of long-term governance does appear necessary." On claim 3, government "Currently it is unclear as to whether Isis would meet such a standard." On claim 4, relations, "For Isis this criteria does appear lacking if social media is discounted."
Conclusion - On condition 1 and 2: "However, given the existing states' recognized political boundaries, massive refugee flows in and out of the various areas of this region, and the ongoing fighting over territory between ISIS and the Iraqi army, among other factors, it certainly cannot be said that the new caliphate has a permanent population or a defined territory." On condition 3 and 4: "Its ability to function effectively as a government, rather than a militant group, and to engage in relations with other states remains to be seen."

The Islamic State does seem to be effectively forming a governing body and beginning to form relations with other states however. In this article by Daily Star states “In Raqqa, ISIS has offices for everything you can imagine: health, education, security, Islamic aid, tribal relations management, and even an embassy of the emirate of Aleppo.” I think it's just a matter of time until the experts acknowledge that the conditions are met. - Technophant (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Constitutive theory - UN Bias in article[edit]

The constitutive theory of statehood has no requirement that recognition be by a UN member state in order for an entity to be considered a state, rather merely that recognition be by any other state. The requirement that recognition be from a UN member for a state to be listed via the constitutive theory on this and associated pages is biased towards a UN point of view and does not reflect the actual constitutive theory of statehood. As the criterion for inclusion under the criterea currently stand, it is unsourced synthesis and should be modified to reflect the actual theory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to complain about the current wording, but unfortunately "recognition be by any other state" entirely misses the complexity of the issue, that being that the definition is recursive. To determine if some entity (say A) is a state we need to know if the entity that recognized it (say B) is a state. And to determine if B is a state then we need to determine if the entity that recognized it (say C) is a state. The definition is logically impossible to implement unless we first choose a set of entities which are known to be states. To these state we use the CTS to determine what other things are states by checking to see if they are recognized by a "known state". So basically the premise of the article is that "all UN members are known to be states" and then checks to see what other entities are states due to recognition by a "known state". What alternative set of "known states" do you propose to use that has less "bias"?
Then to question becomes, do we allow for "chained recognitions". So for example, if Kosovo recognizes Somaliland, and Somaliland recognizes ISIS, and ISIS recognizes the Republic of Lakotah, and Lakotah recognizes the Principality of Sealand, and Sealand recognizes the Conch Republic, and the Conch Republic recognizes Westarctica, and Westarctica recognizes my bathroom (which I just declared independent) do you think that we should include all of these entities? Under your interpretation, each of these entities are a state and we would be forced to include them. If you agree that these "chained" recognized non-states shouldn't be included, then please propose alternative wording that would not allow such scenario. TDL (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes i do, as you often have told me in regards to the declarative theory it is not for us to interpret the theory, the theory itself does not make any mention of the united nations as being a requirement. The criteria as currently implemented are biased in favor of the UN. For example if Vatican City recognized the Republic of West Papua under the current criteria, west papua would not be included however if Vanuatu did it would be included. The page's ban on micro-states would prevent the majority of the entities you mention from being listed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You will notice if you read the article that it makes no claim to be listing states which meet the CTS. What it actually claims to be listing are the states which are recognized by a UN member state. That is precisely so that we don't have to interpret the CTS for each and every proposed entity. I agree that the current wording isn't perfect, but you have once again dodged the issue. What you are proposing is a logical impossibility. (See recursive definition for an explanation for the basic logic behind this.) Saying "widgets are things that look like other widgets" is not enough to define what a widget is: you need a sample widget to compare to other proposed widgets. We MUST specify a set of known states (or a "base case" as the wiki article terms it). What alternative set are you proposing to use?
And no, the ban on micronations would not keep them out, since as per the first sentence of the article they are "an entity that claims to be an independent nation or state but is not officially recognized by world governments". Once it becomse recognized it is now a microstate like the Vatican City for example. TDL (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with you on this. But would suggest that it may help focus future discussion in one place if we changed the inclusion criteria to something like:

The entries included in this list are all those that meet the criteria outlined for the list of sovereign states, that are not recognised by at least one UN member state.

This would make it clear that the two are intended to be the same and avoid any future issue of states being allowed by one rule and not the other. WP:SELFREF occurred to me, but it does not apply in this case. Kahastok talk 17:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Why is the Lugansk People's Republic listed, but not the Donetsk People's Republic (or ISIS)? It doesn't seem to fit the criteria (S. Ossetia isn't a UN member-state).

Because people keep on adding it, even though it fails the criteria, and despite the very big message at the top of the edit window asking them not to add it if it fails the criteria. As to why they keep on adding it, I don't know. You'd have to ask them that. Kahastok talk 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Republic of West Papua meets Constitutive Theory[edit]

The Republic of West Papua meets the constitutive theory of statehood as it is recognized by Vanuatu. As such i have added it to the page, supported by sources.XavierGreen (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Do they have control of there any of the territory it claims?—SPESH531Other 02:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
They may control some villages in the highlands, but do not do so openly. Occasionally the OPM will openly seize villages and hold them briefly. Regardless, control does not matter in this instance because the Constitutive theory only requires recognition by another state and nothing more.XavierGreen (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So technically, in this case, on a map, you can color West Papua separate from Indonesia?—SPESH531Other 03:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
The map on this page depicts defacto control, since West Papua has no open defacto control that i am aware of it should be distinguished in some other manner. Perhaps as a dot like axis occupied territories are indicated on this map Participants_in_World_War_II#mediaviewer/File:WWII.png. Or alternatively a scheme can be created where hashed areas depict claimed but not controlled zones.XavierGreen (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There may be some merit to this, but given that it is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, we need solid evidence before adding West Paupa. I've spent some time looking for sources but have found nothing convincing. Currently there is only one source which seems to be poorly researched, as the sentence used to verify the claim ("Of 197 UN members, Vanuatu alone recognizes West Papua as a separate country") contains a glaring error (there are only 193 UN members.) This speaks only of potential future recognition ("The bill committed Vanuatu to recognize West Papua’s independence"). The bill in question is the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill. It is described as "Vanuatu’s Parliament specifically ordered its leaders to: 1. Sponsor and pass a motion in national Parliament officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua." (See also [5].) Is there any evidence that this actually happened? I've looked around (including through all of [6]) and found nothing. This says they "back West Papua as a self-governing nation", which is something entirely different than a sovereign state. This and this say a Dec 2011 agreement with Indonesia "recognizes Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua".
This would be rather big news if it happened, so I'm not convinced that a single passing mention in a poor quality article is enough to support such a significant conclusion. I'm going to remove West Paupa pending the discovery of more convincing sources or a consensus on the talk page. TDL (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I posted a second source that stated the bill passed. And the article for the bill provides sources stating that it passed and that the It was rather big news when it happened, and has been a matter of controversy in Melanesian political matters. For example, Vanuatu regularly boycotts the Melanesian Spearhead Group because it refuses to admitt a West Papuan liberation organization as a full member. [[7]] The Vanuatuan government regularly lobbys on behalf of West Papua, and the issue is a major factor in elections in Vanuatu. The government scrapped the agreement with indonesia you mentioned and fully supports independence of West Papua. [[8]]. The West Papuan recognition bill was never recinded and is still law.XavierGreen (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Another source stating the bill passed can be found here. [[9]]XavierGreen (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my post? I'm aware that the Wantok Blong Yumi Bill was passed. However, that bill only said "Vanuatu’s Parliament specifically ordered its leaders to: 1. Sponsor and pass a motion in national Parliament officially declaring that Vanuatu’s foreign policy is to support the achievement of the independence of West Papua." It didn't recognized West Paupa, it called for the government to support West Paupa independence in the future. Those are different things. Is there any evidence that Vanuatu's leaders ever followed through with this? (The rest of your post is irrelevant to the question of whether Vanuatu recognizes West Paupa. "Supports independence" isn't the same things as "recognizes sovereignty".) TDL (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk part 100 (or so)[edit]

@Soffredo: You are trying to force Donetsk and Luhansk into this list on the basis that they are "recognised as a state by at least one UN member state", the "UN member state" in question being South Ossetia.

Except that South Ossetia is not in fact a UN member state. And it's difficult to believe that you do not know that. In any case, there is an exclusion for areas "undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria... where the conflict is still in its active phase". Donetsk and Luhansk would fall quite clearly into this category.

Please stop pushing entities into these lists unless you can demonstrate that they actually meet the inclusion criteria. That goes particularly when they fall into categories that are explicitly excluded in the article. Kahastok talk 20:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

They certainly would not fall under "current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession", they claim to be independent states not an alternative government to ukraine. As such they would not be excluded under that bullet. Somaliland has actively been in conflict since it declared independence and is listed here for example, because it doesnt claim to be somalia, it claims to be a different state with different borders ect.XavierGreen (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The rule doesn't apply to Somaliland because the situation there has been relatively stable. Somaliland has existed separate for Somalia for decades on end. This is not the case of Luhansk and Donetsk. Even if we accepted that these were totally separate from Ukraine (and I do not), then there are "current civil wars" or "other situations with problems over government succession" on the territories of each supposed state.
But in this case it does not make any difference because there is no "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria" demonstrated in either case. Unless you have evidence that South Ossetia has joined the UN? Kahastok talk 14:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The situation in Somaliland is not stable, it is constantly at war with Puntland over the eastern portion of its territory and with federalist groups over the entirety of its territory. The "current civil wars" or "other situations with problems over government succession" is only in the context of alternative governments, and was added specifically in relation to the Libyan Civil War. It applies only in that context, IE the ROC, Syria, ect not in the instance of a break away seperatist government that does not claim to be the successor to a government already in place.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You draw an inference that I do not find in the rule, so I do not accept your interpretation. It seems clear to me that it applies to all civil wars, regardless of their nature, so long as "the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet" - which is the case in eastern Ukraine today, and was the case in eastern Libya during their civil war, but cannot credibly fit the situation in Somaliland today.
But there's no point in having this argument because it doesn't make a jot of difference. Even if I accepted all of your points on this, the result would still be that both Donetsk and Luhansk would be excluded, because they fail the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 17:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The rule clearly says that it applies in situation of government succession problems. And if you look back into the archive talk page history on the list of sovereign states page, you clearly will see the context in which the rule was applied. It was put into place to prevent the Libyan Transitional Government from qualifying for inclusion on the page, which was a competing government controlling territory and claiming to be the legitimate government of all Libya. The "rump states" language was included so that a competing government that does not claim to be an different state but no longer is actively in conflict (ie Taiwan) would be included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Read the exclusion rule again. What it actually says is "those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession" are excluded. So areas in civil war are excluded whether there is problem over government succession or not. That's precisely what the "and" is for. And the context under which the rule was adopted is irrelevant to the discussion of what the rule actually says. It was specifically written to apply more generally than to just the situation in Libya. If you thought it should have been written less generally then you should have objected when it was implemented. Regardless, as Kahastok says this entire debate is pointless because there is no evidence of "temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria". TDL (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel that Donetsk and Luhansk should be included, WP:RS show that another non UN member South Odessa has recognized these states has independent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you guys look below please elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 21:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Read the article. It specifically says that states must be "recognised as a state by at least one UN member state". Recognition by a non-UN member by definition is not enough. TDL (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Then why do we have a section called "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That is for states that have qualified through the other clause: "satisfy the declarative theory of statehood". And as you argued below, at present it is just just the opinion of a bunch of wikipedia editors that either of these entities meet this criteria as no sources have been provided. TDL (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No sources have been provided though for this "Declarative theory" either. There is also the Constitutive theory which is properly sourced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition the two theories compete against one another, so it is not as clear cut.[10]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course they compete against each other, which is precisely why we allow a state to be listed provided that satisfy one of the criteria. But to date, you nor anyone else has provided any sources to show that either of these entities meet either criteria. Adding a few random unrelated links in the reference column does not make it properly sourced. The constitutive theory clause says that states must be "recognised as a state by at least one UN member state". Can you show me a single source saying they have been recognized by a UN member state? If not, then by the definitions of this article they clearly do not belong, no matter how desperate some are to edit war them in. TDL (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Declarative Theory Requirement[edit]

I do not believe that the title of this page accuratly describes its contents. I understand that states such as the Federal States of New Russia and the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant do not meet declarative theory, but are they not states with limited recognition? I think this page should include a category for any state with de facto control over an area. Any thoughts? -OBCPO

I agree with you that we need a category for any state with de facto control over an area but why do you think that The Islamic State, Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic do not meet declarative theory? 3bdulelah (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
<reduce indent> I sympathize with this issue. I think that if academics or journalists (the latter in reliable, substantive pieces addressing the issue, not with passing mention) call something a sovereign state, and treat something like a sovereign state, then we should be comfortable listing it, whether or not this definition is explicitly made in relation to the declarative theory. What's important is that we have proper sources mentioning statehood.
I have no problem with the active conflict exclusion - initial control over land during a war is not the same as having developed territorial control. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Breakaway states in Ukraine[edit]

Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic satisfy the 'Declarative Theory' actually.

  • 1) They have proper boundaries (Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast)
  • 2) They have permanent population (for sure)
  • 3) They have their governments (you can take a look at their self titled presidents)
  • 4) They have capacity to enter into relations with other states (they have been recognized by South Ossetia and made truce/ceasefire agreements with Ukraine etc.)
So what is the problem in putting them on that list? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 21:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the 'Declarative Theory' is it is a person's WP:POV Who gives the final say if these countries meet it or not? If it is editors here on Wikipedia then it is a problem. I mean Is someone eyeballing the map and saying "Yup I think this country's boundary looks good"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that say that it meets the Declarative theory? If not, then it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. TDL (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I agree entirely, however any suggestions I make saying this are immediately removed because I can't find an article specifically stating that ISIL, Novorossiya, etc. meet declarative theory. Not that one could find ANY article saying this about ANY country.... Also, it says this at the bottom of the page: "Those areas undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (by having control over permanently populated territory or by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase, the situation is too rapidly changing and no relatively stable rump states have emerged yet." -OBCPO
The active conflict exclusion refers only to competing governments (ie: countries with government succession problems) were two governments hold territory and yet claim to be the same state. Separatist governments (those that do not claim to be the same state as there predecessor are not covered under this exclusion. As for the declarative theory, an objective political scientist would say that the breakaway separatist states meet the declarative theory. Unfortunately, some of the folks around here are rather strict in what they regard as a reliable source, and want a source applying the theory in detail.XavierGreen (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly Xavier! It seems the vast majority of us feel the same way as you and I. I challenge our opposition to find an article that says ANY country meets declarative theory, and that says it as specifically as an article they demand from us. -OBCPO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@OBCPO1: There are already such sources in the article, for example:
Here is another:
Hello, this is OBCPO. I am not sure what you are trying to prove with these. I never said anything about Somaliland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@OBCPO1: You asked me to "find an article that says ANY country meets declarative theory". These are two sources which say that Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland meet the declarative theory. TDL (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@Danlaycock: Right, thank you. I was curious if such sources existed, as I could not find any reliable ones. Sorry for not reading the sources when you first posted them. Thanks! OBCPO1 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
XavierGreen's comments are rather disingenuous. No one has even provided a single source, reliable or otherwise, that so much as mentions the declarative theory and any of the proposed entities in the same article. To suggest that mentioning the two words in the same article is "applying the theory in detail" is rather laughable. All that has been provided is editors personal hypotheses on what "an objective political scientist would say". Such opinions are not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia because wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. If you think this claim is true, then show me an "an objective political scientist" who says such things and I will support inclusion. But postulating it is true, without any evidence to back it up, is pure speculation.
And no, as explained above the active conflict exclusion does not only apply to cases of succession. That is why there is an "and" in the sentence. TDL (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
They are not at all disingenuous, you and one or two others want detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity. If an objective political scientist applied the theory, they would each be considered states as the elements of the theory are present in each case. Anyone can do a google search and find dozens upon dozens of articles calling the entities in questions states.
As for the "active conflict" rule, the word "and" limits the scope of the rule to government succession problems (ie: where two entities claim to be the same state) because the word "other" follows it. Thus when read like a statute or rule (which it is in essence on governing the page) applying the principle of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps) the rule is clearly limited to government succession problems and does not include break away states, which are an entire beast in themselves. The rule would not apply to the entities in question, unless you want to argue that Donetsk and or Luhansk claim to be the legitimate government of all Ukraine which would be a laughable assertion. Furthermore, if you look back at the relevant archives on the list of sovereign states page, one would clearly see that the purpose of the rule was to exclude entities with government succession problems that temporarily met the criteria (ie specifically the Libyan Transitional Authority) there is no discussion whatsoever of the rule being applied to separatist states that claim to be separate legal entities from their former "mother countries". Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely disingenuous on your part and misrepresentative of the facts at hand.XavierGreen (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually what I want you to do is the opposite of "detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity". I don't want you to do any analysis of the theory at all.
If there were sources that said, Donetsk and Luhansk are states according to the Montevideo Convention/declarative theory of statehood, that would go a very long way toward demonstrating that they belong on this list. It isn't a particularly high standard. And yet nobody has ever found any source that comes even close to it.
If, as you claim, "[i]f an objective political scientist applied the theory, they would each be considered states as the elements of the theory are present in each case", it should be trivial to find one. We as Wikipedia editors are patently not qualified to apply the theory per WP:NOR. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret what "objective" fact is in a realm such as political science.
I do not propose to discuss the "active conflict" rule, beyond noting that I do not accept your interpretation, because it makes no difference in this case as there is no alignment with the inclusion criteria. Kahastok talk 16:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kahastok, this is OBCPO. Please find a source saying ANY state on this page satisfies the declarative theory of statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.159.164 (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You've already had two from TDL above, and between them they cover every state on this list that needs such a source (because all the others are recognised by at least one UN member state). Kahastok talk 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Ping:Kahastok Yes, sorry about the confusion. OBCPO1 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
So we just have to wait for an article or a book to be written about Donetsk and Lugansk PP's foreign or interior relationships, right!? Those two actually meet the criteria but you just want a sentence that includes 'Donetsk and Lugansk PP meets the Declarative Theory' from a scientist, researcher or a reporter. Mate, its time to gather on common grounds now or things will be like 'the story of the two goats'. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In regards to Kahastok's above statement, it is not trivial to find a scholarly political science article regarding anything that has happened recently. Rather in fact it is quite an undertaking to get something published in a journal. For virtually any journal of note, one first has to get the article peer reviewed at a conference which are not all that frequent (at most quarterly per journal). And it makes a ton of difference as to the interpretation of the "active conflict" rule. If i didnt say something, its very likely that 6 months from now when it potentially does matter one of you would have gone back and said "oh there was consensus that this was the interpretation because no one objected". I've seen some of you do it before, and i'm making it clear that there is no consensus hear for a "new" interpretation of the "active conflict" rule so that it excludes separatist states. Its an entirely bogus reading that has no basis in the original conversation that lead to its implementation in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
XavierGreen, you are either being extremely disingenuous or you've completely failed to grasp the points being made to you over and over again. As Kahastok explained, no one has ever asked for "detailed analysis of the theory applied to each entity". A single sentence which says something along the lines of "Donetsk meets the declarative theory of statehood" would be perfectly acceptable. If you think 7 words constitutes a "detailed analysis" then you have a very strange understanding of the words "detailed" and "analysis" indeed. I don't think any reasonable person would think 7 words constitutes a "detailed analysis". And who said anything about only scholarly political science articles being acceptable? Certainly not Kahastok nor I. If some scholar made the statement in an interview to a newspaper, that would be more than fine in my opinion. Newspapers come out daily.
Basically, your argument comes down to that it's too hard to find a source so we should just ignore WP:V and WP:OR and try to guess what RS would say if they did exist. Clearly that isn't acceptable in a serious encyclopedia. If it takes 6 months for sources to evaluate the situation, then we'll just have to wait. There is WP:NODEADLINE.
As for your "unique" interpretation of the "active conflict" rule, you have assumed (without any basis) that "government succession" only applies to the succession of sovereign governments. There is, of course, a "government succession" problem from the Donetsk Oblast to the PRD. TDL (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


Is there anyone opposed to making a new category on this page listing unrecognized de facto states that hold territory? I would hate to spend a lot of time making a new section to have it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBCPO1 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
OBCPO1, There is a page called List of active separatist movements in Europe mate, no need for that. TDL, you wrote well. I agree with you.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Added one more point in the criteria for inclusion[edit]

Since The Islamic State / the new Islamic caliphate defies the standards used until now for what a recogniseble state is, then I've found it relevant to add a third point to which limited recognised states that may be included on the List of states with limited recognition. The Islamic State don't recognise western or international law - only islamic sharia law. Neither do they recognise any other states as islamic states. In their wiev there is only one Islamic State - The Caliphate. Any other current states with a muslim population should dissolve themselves and become a part of the caliphate. Wheter The Islamic State is ready for having diplomatic relations with none-islamic countries is unclear, and is yet to be seen. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan[edit]

Latest news is that Iraqi Kurdistan is planning a declaration of independence. They've been operating as a state for years now, so I think it merits inclusion here. It's certainly closer to a state than any of those Russian puppets in eastern Ukraine are. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

They'll merit an entry here when they actually declare independence, not before that point. That said, I've already seen sources calling it a quasi-state, so it should be a shoo-in. CMD (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there are already sources saying they meet the declarative theory (ie Packard, Matthew (2013). "Earning Independence in Iraqi Kurdistan Notes & Comments". Temple International and Comparative Law Journal. "Kurdistan has already satisfied the criteria for statehood according to the Montevideo Convention ... Kurdistan satisfies the requirements for statehood under customary international law." ) so I don't foresee any dispute about adding them if they declare independence. TDL (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It can't meet the declarative theory unless it declares independence.XavierGreen (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ego White Tray:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Danlaycock: in direct relation to this thread, I would like to invite you to comment at RfC proposal on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy, essentially resolving whether Iraqi Kurdistan should or shouldn't be added to the "other dependent territories" under Asia topic. This is not considering Iraqi Kurdistan independent at all, but i suggest that it might be a case of exceptional autonomy, thus may be included in "dependent territories".GreyShark (dibra) 13:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

New Source on ISIS de facto "Statehood"[edit]

The following BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28222872 has several interesting quotes on ISIS's claim to statehood:

"Which leaves the prospect of a violent, extremist, well-armed, well-funded and religiously intolerant militia becoming a permanent part of the Middle East landscape, a sort of de facto "jihadistan"."

"To succeed as a viable state, let alone as a transnational "caliphate", Isis will need access to oil and water.

It has both. In Syria its forces control the oil-producing region around Deir Az-zour, including Syria's largest oilfield at al-Omar"

Do these quotes indicate that we now have a reliable source for listing this terrorist group as a state with no recognition, or are these quotes to ambiguous? --69.91.176.63 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)