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.

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"? - USomalilanledgekid87 (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)

I agree with XavierGreen on this one. Demanding explicit reference to the Montevideo criteria seems to me like an unreasonable demand. I think secondary sources referring to any kind of de facto statehood should be enough. If I think about WP:COMMONSENSE and what readers will expect from this article, I feel like states with clear de facto control (like the Islamic State and MAYBE Donetsk or Luhansk) should be included. Let me make clear that I HIGHLY RESPECT TDL, CMD, and Kahastok (etc.) for maintaining a voice of reason in this article and others; but how many voices do we need before we can consider there no longer to be a consensus on the status quo? GeoEvan (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well, if sources are reporting about this widespread how many more opinions do we need? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
But the point is that it's a question of scope. By definition this article isn't a list of entities with "de facto statehood". It is a list of entities which are considered to be a sovereign state under international law. If we want to use a technical term like "sovereign state" we need to be sure we follow the academic consensus on it's usage. Rebel groups which have tenuous control over territory, but which don't have a legitimate claim to statehood under international law, are out of scope of this article. The only way to draw a line between such groups and sovereign states is to insist on sources which demonstrate a legitimate claim to statehood under international law.
If we were to include every place with "de facto statehood", we'd need to add numerous rebel groups including Al-Shabaab [1], Kurdistan [2][3][4], Houthis, Kachin Independence Army, etc., etc., etc., all of which control territory. Every time some rebel so much as takes control of a building, they'd need to be added. List of rebel groups that control territory was created for just such entities until such time as reliable sources describe them as being a sovereign state under international law. TDL (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The key difference is that the entities you have listed (ie the houthis, KIA, al shabab, ect) have not declared independence and thus cannot meet the declarative theory while Donetsk and Luhansk clearly have declared independence and meet criteria set forth under the theory.XavierGreen (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Donetsk and Lugansk have both received limited recognition and should be listed under the "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" section (NKR & PMR). [Soffredo] Yeoman 15:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with XavierGreen. This list would best serve readers by listing entities with de facto statehood PLUS declarations of sovereignty separate from existing states. Insisting on a strict legal interpretation seems like overkill, especially when no one is suggesting we restrict our sources to formal legal opinions. GeoEvan (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Than we should add every entity which has declared independence, such as Principality of Hutt River, Sealand, Carpathian Ruthenia (independence declared by 100 delegates to the Congress Of Carpathian Ruthenians in 2008), Moskitia, Republic of Lakotah and many more. Aotearoa (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Except the entities you've listed are generally considered micronations or don't have any sovereignty. [Soffredo] Yeoman 19:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Based on the evidence, the same would apply to Luhansk and Donetsk. Kahastok talk 20:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. I said "de facto statehood", meaning they have to be in control of territory. None of the entities you listed, Aotearoa, fit this criteria except for maybe Sealand. I just think that reliable sources calling an entity a "de facto" state should be enough. Requiring explicit mention of "Montevideo" is overly pedantic in my opinion. GeoEvan (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly NO CONSENSUS here. Just stating the obvious, and I too dispute exclusion of the 3 states with ongoing conflicts. Palestine too has ongoing coflict/intifada/civil war, and should not be excluded. This is just one side pushing their POV on a list of UNRECOGNISED entities. BritishProudImperialMrn (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The people's republics and Kiev have agreed to a truce, potentially ending this conflict. This may be the beginning of a frozen conflict seen in other former soviet republics (Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia) and Morocco (Western Sahara) with self proclaimed republics with limited recognition. I believe it's best to add Lugansk and Donetsk to this article while negotiations are ongoing (negotiations are still ongoing in other areas for decades, like for Western Sahara and Transnistria, for example). They also still seek independence despite earlier reports that they want "special status" with Ukraine. They had a formal declaration of independence after a majority of people approved it in a referendum, are establishing international relations with South Ossetia and have been in talks with Russia (thus, Russia has treated them in a similar manner like Transnistria), they have their own leaders and parliaments (unlike other rebel movements they have been grouped with), they have their own militaries, control sizable territories, and have large civilian populations still living in their territories. If the argument is used that they shouldn't be incuded because they don't control the territories they claim, we shouldn't be adding Western Sahara, since the rebels there only control minuscule part of the territory they claim from Morocco. Also, Palestine does not even control all its proclaimed territory and is currently in a ceasefire with Israel, no telling if it will last. Also, the fact that it has international limited relations has distinguished it from Somaliland. I believe so far that Wikipedia has been biased in not listing them.

"Also, Palestine does not even control all its proclaimed territory and is currently in a ceasefire with Israel, no telling if it will last" Palestine is a recognized country by many members of the UN and is itself somewhat a member of the UN, so it gets included on this list even if it controlled not one acre. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

North Sentinel Island[edit]

Hi guys,

I think we should add North Sentinel as an unrecognised de facto state to this list. May be it's a very "primitive model of state", but they fulfil all points in the declarative theory. We should not forget that they have full control (or sovereignty) in both their internal affairs and territory. Yes India, if wanted, could easily invade that area. But that island has never been invaded in history. The same people have been living there for millennia, with their own administration, their own warriors guarding the borders etc. Let me elaborate:

  1. They do have a defined territory (and have been having for millennia).
    • They shoot arrows at those closing to their border, be it from land, water or air. In 2006, two fishermen were killed with arrows for fishing in their territory.
  2. They do have a permanent population.
  3. They have a sort of government - a government is what governs the people, right? - even if we don't know their exact way of governing...probably clan leaders' council or something.
  4. They have obviously and naturally have a capacity to enter into relations with other states, even though they choose not to.

I am no expert on socio-politics. However, much-ever primitive, the locals of the North Sentinel Island seemed to me quite independent. They have an army (or group of warriors), while Andorra doesn't. They have a permanent population, while it's still debated whether ISIS has one. It has been already acknowledged that North Sentinel is de facto autonomous. So if the difference between autonomous and full sovereignty is having full control over territory, they definitely have it. So can we mention them in the article? What are your opinions guys? Thank you --Universal Life (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Two points:
  1. The relevant factor is not whether we think they meet the criteria, but whether reliable sources think they meet the criteria.
  2. The Sentinelese are generally considered an uncontacted people, thus explicitly excluded under the excluded entities section of the article. But we do have an article specifically on Uncontacted peoples. Kahastok talk 16:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Kahastok. About the criteria (the 4 criteria mentioned in the article). It's not opinion but fact that they meet the first two. About the last two criteria, I don't know what reliable sources say, although we could look up and search for it. It's quite possible though that many experts might not have paid attention to the sovereignty of a few hundred "primitive" people...although even if it is opined by reliable sources to be a state, may be we could mention it in the article as Mr. X, Y considers North Sentinel to be a state.
Secondly, I've read the excluded entities section you linked - and thank you for that as well - which brought up few questions to my mind. First of all, there are five things mentioned in that section.
  1. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta
  2. Uncontacted peoples
  3. Micronations
  4. Areas undergoing civil wars
  5. Separatist movements and governments in exile
  • I think I understand why the first one is not included but mentioned in that relevant section...It's because they don't have any territory and no declaration of state, but they have full diplomatic relationships with many countries. Is it so?
  • For the second one it says that they exercise varying degrees of de facto sovereignty over the areas under their control. When I read uncontacted people and look more into it, I see that, most of them (perhaps almost all of them) have lost the territorial control that they once had. Petroleum companies, mining companies have entered their lands, contact have been made with almost all of them, roads have been constructed through their forests etc. If I'm not wrong, only the Sentinelese have remained completely out of contact. Therefore, they have full sovereignty over their territories and they deserve at least a mention in the excluded section of the article. (It's not my opinion, it's just obvious. If anyone goes and reads about all uncontacted people and the Sentinelese, any neutral person could see this difference. Some article even was saying that it's so because of India's laws and protection...And unlike micronations, the Sentinelese are not under the law of their surrounding country.)
  • About the fourth one (civil wars), is that the reason the IS is excluded? Or is it because of not being sure whether they have a permanent population?
  • And lastly, the fifth one brought two questions to my mind. 1) Are governments in exile accepted as states, if they have full diplomatic relationships with many governments (such as for European countries, during the Second WW). 2) (more importantly) Why "states" that don't have de facto sovereignty are sometimes accepted as states? I mean doesn't de jure comes naturally after de facto? How can we speak of a state, when in fact, there is none to begin with? One example comes to my mind is Palestinian territories - and no, it's not a politically charged question, I'm just trying to understand better the concept of state - There might be more such examples.
Sorry for the wall of text and so many questions. I'm creating a list myself here. Since my childhood, I liked to make list of countries and memorise their capitals :) Although, they keep changing.. So, I want to keep one flexible list, that I can change, as realities change :) Thanks in advance, Cheerfully --Universal Life (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like it can't be listed for this very simple issue: We don't know if there is a single North Sentinel state. For all we know there could be multiple factions. Imagine if this were 1492 and Europeans just discovered there was this big land over here with people; would it be kosher for them to say "There is this unrecognized country of "America""? No. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You made the point very clear. Thank you Golbez.
And about the other questions, especially of why an entity is accepted as a de jure state, when de facto doesn't have sovereignty...if anyone could inform me, I would be very happy. --Universal Life (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think I'd start by pointing out that the question of whether an entity is a "state" or not is quite clear in most cases (e.g. Germany, Isle of Wight), but the edges are quite blurred and require a judgement call. The question of whether a "state" exists in international law is a Big Deal, and as Wikipedia editors, policies like WP:NOR mean that we are not in a position to make those judgement calls.

That means that, even if some of us think a case is obvious according to the declarative theory, we have to wait until a reliable source reports that a state exists according to the declarative theory. Can we prove territory, population, government to our satisfaction in many cases? Sure, but that counts for nothing if we're the only ones who think that. Wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to suggest that a state exists, and shouldn't find itself in a small minority. That - the fact that there is no source that suggests that a state exists - would be the formal reason for excluding North Sentinel Island as well as ISIS and others.

The answers to your questions can be broadly be summarised by saying that our aim is to create a list that does not radically differ from those that any other neutral observer would make. Basically, all of the five points are saying the same thing - we don't include "states" that haven't been judged as such by other sources.

So:

  • SMOM considers itself to be - and is recognised as - a sovereign non-state, which pretty much rules it out.
  • Uncontacted peoples - as Golbez says, by definition we don't really know enough about them to comment. But they are generally treated as a separate phenomenon from sovereign states.
  • Though micronations often try to make themselves look like states and frequently make self-aggrandising claims about recognition and the declarative theory, academically they are treated as a separate phenomenon and you won't generally find serious reliable sources accepting those claims. Clearly, uncontacted peoples are themselves different from micronations.
  • In the case of civil wars and cases of state succession, this one was written for an old criterion and not updated (I've just done it). You frequently get situations where something resembling a state might exist during a civil war or revolution. Libya is the archetypal example - for several months we had both a Libya-Tripoli and a Libya-Benghazi, de facto distinct and independent of one another but both claiming to be government of the same Libya - but one might also cite e.g. the current situation in eastern Ukraine. Because we want a reasonably stable list, we wait until there's a reasonably stable resolution.
  • The final case, again it's rather written for an older version of the criteria (I've just updated it). Remember that this is a list of states, not of governments. A government-in-exile is not a state, even it is recognised as a legitimate government of a state. As to the Palestinians, I find your example flawed as there are areas of Palestinian de facto sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza. Kahastok talk 09:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kahastok for your nice reply and infos you gave. I also read the change you made and it makes more sense now. I also understand your point when you say as Wikipedia editors, policies like WP:NOR mean that we are not in a position to make those judgement calls, we have to wait until a reliable source reports that a state exists according to the declarative theory and Wikipedia shouldn't be the first source to suggest that a state exists, and shouldn't find itself in a small minority. However I have a sincere question. I myself, as NOT being a sociopolitician neither being a social scientist (I'm actually a biologist) have no clue whether there actually are people/academicians that sit down and write a scientific paper about the ontology of underrecognised or unrecognised entities, I mean analysing if they are indeed a state or not according to this or that concept. I would very much like to know if such papers or academicians exist indeed. If not, what are the reliable sources? Politicans or politics of different countries shouldn't be, as today unfortunately politics itself is an expression of "vested interests". And Wikipedia, with the principle of NPOV-Neutrality, should not be the voice of this or that vested interest. If I come to learn that such papers/academicians exist indeed and that even few of them are independant (not funded by politicians) I would be quite happy.

There is a second and last thing I don't understand. How come a state is a state, when they don't have their own army or when they don't control their own borders. Andorra doesn't have its own army. Their citizens pay taxes to both Spain (some religious dude in Cataluña) and France! I don't understand their independance. You said that there are areas of West Bank and Gaza with de facto sovereignty. However, it's not correct. What you mentioned is in the West Bank and what they have is autonomy, because they are demilitarised, they don't have control over any border. They have police force co-funded by Israel and the USA but that's it. Gaza de facto neither controls their territory, not the land borders, nor the sea (it didn't neither prior to the current war). Anyway, even though Andorra and Palestine's situations are far away from each other - and I don't suggest they should be excluded - I'm just trying to understand, how come a state without an army (eg. Andorra) and/or a state without actual control over their territory (eg. PA) is considered an "independent state", worthy of the name. Thanks --Universal Life (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two competing theories of statehood, discussed at Sovereign state. They are the constitutive theory (i.e. statehood is based on recogntion) and the declarative theory (i.e. statehood is based on certain criteria independent of recognition). Our list is based on either-or. Andorra is universally recognised as a sovereign state, and Palestine is widely recognised as one. That's enough for us on its own and we don't need to make the case in terms of the declarative theory.
Having military forces has never been a prerequisite to statehood. Liechtenstein abolished their forces after they famously (though possibly apocryphally) came back from campaign with more soldiers than they'd left with, having made a friend. The British and Icelanders even managed to fight a minor war over their maritime borders in the 1970s despite the Icelanders not having any military forces.
The reliable sources who most often deal with these issues are international lawyers and political scientists - whether working for governments or in academia. The international lawyers and the politicians tend to be most interested in the blurry edges, rather than the obvious cases. Kahastok talk 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wa State[edit]

Follow Wikipedians, should we add Wa State to the list? To me, they have fulfilled every category and I can't see any reason not to include them in the list. What are your opinions? 125.168.97.231 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've looked briefly, and I see no evidence that it meets the inclusion criteria for this list (i.e. sourcing that says that it meets the standard of the declarative theory of statehood, or evidence of formal diplomatic recognition by a UN member state). Kahastok talk 10:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The infobox for that article claims they declared independence in 1989 but the text doesn't support that, nor is there a source supporting it. --Golbez (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There are various rebel groups in burma with defacto independent control over territory, the United Wa State Army is one such group. While do recall reading about a Wa group that declared independence, i do not believe it was the UWSA.XavierGreen (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

This list should contain also the states with effective control and ongoing conflict. The point of the list is to be informative. Heavy bias against the 3 new states with clear notability are constantly apparently removed by editors with obvious agenda. There is no reason to deny the existence of these states as entities with ongoing conflict - this is list of UNRECOGNIZED states, and effective control on ground in conflicts that takes thousands of lives (be it Ukraine or Northern Iraq/Syria) are notable cases of unrecognized (or partially recognized, in the case of Donbass) states/entities. We should not deny the elephant in the room, i.e. the most significant conflicts of the day, by taking sides and denying existence of these states even at UNRECOGNIZED list page with purpose to inform about existence of these problematic regions (and all are problematic, but these three, and especially so, are the ones where conflict is most serious). BritishProudImperialMrn (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Unrecognised means unrecognised. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All I know is the Russian Wikipedia has Donetsk and Luhansk on the list and refuses to take it off the list, yet the English Wikipedia refuses to put it on the list, I think both Wikipedia's are heavily biased towards their national adgendas. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If ru.wiki have different standards to us then that's their business. The current consensus has been clearly expressed. If there is overwhelming new evidence to suggest that any of these organisations belong on the list, then the decision can be reconsidered. What that means is evidence either that they meet the declarative theory - i.e. that actually comes to that conclusion - or that they are recognised as a sovereign state by a UN member state. These standards are clear, neutral and are the same as they have been since well before the current war in Eastern Ukraine broke out. Kahastok talk
Er... "One side has it, the other side doesn't. Both are biased!" You've literally created a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, where no position is possible without "heavy bias". This is a binary situation, inclusion in this list or not, yet you've just said neither position can be considered neutral. --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

International Court of Justice, on Kosovo's Declaration, Paragraph 81[edit]

81. Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, in ter alla, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia: Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.

The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council.
(end of paragraph 81)

Q1: "...the illegality attached to the declarations of independence ..." Who attached illegality to the declarations of independence? UN SC or ICJ?
A1: UN SC of course, not the ICJ! ICJ decides on a subject and attaches legality or illegality only if countries (or UN Gen. Assembly (with 2/3 of 193)) apply to ICJ; as in the case of Kosovo.

Q2: International Court of Justice (ICJ) was requested to give an advisory opinion on Kosovo as "Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?". Was ICJ requested to give an advisory opinion on "declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus"?
A2: Of course, not! Nobody requested ICJ to give an opinion on Northern Cyprus!

Q3: Can a court (international or not) decide on a topic to which it is not requested?
A3: Obviously not! Courts look and examine only the cases they are requested to do so. If a court violates this rule and state an opinion about a subject before the case is presented to that court, then the case of the issue of that subject is not presented to that court due to universal law since "result is stated in advance" situation, and this depicts a bias of the court that will handle the case.

Q4: Did ICJ state any decision of its own on legality or illegality of the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus?
A4: Obviously no! ICJ only interpreted the behaviours of UN SC about UN SC's decisions on UDIs.
Alexyflemming (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Further info: The President of the ICJ Justice Hisashi Owada said that international law contains no "prohibition on declarations of independence." The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one. That is to say, "being not recognized does not affect legality/illegality of a country". Recognition is a political action. Alexyflemming (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC) [5]

The limit of power of the United Nations Security Council[edit]

After the partnership government collapsed, the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus at the stage of the debates in New York in February 1964 (Cyprus-Mail, 09.03.2014 UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/03/09/unficyp-a-living-fossil-of-the-cold-war)
Q1: Does the UN SC have a right to
recognize the Flamans as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Flamans try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Wallons?
recognize the Wallons as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Wallons try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Flamans?
recognize the Czechs as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Czechs try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Slovaks?
recognize the Slovaks as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Slovaks try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Czechs?
A1: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.
Alexyflemming (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Legality and illegality of a use of outer force[edit]

In ICJ's 2008-2010 Kosovo process, ICJ only showed the "stance of UN SC on use of (claimable) outer force", but did not show its own stance on that issue.
As such some journal articles appeared about the limit and cases of legality of usage of outer force.

There are many discussion on this: Turkey on Northern Cyprus (Turkish Cypriots), NATO on Kosovo (Kosovar Albanians), Russia on Abkhasia (Abkhasians), Russia on South Ossetia (South Ossetians), Russia on Crimea (Crimean Russians)... I will explain the facts and realities, little later.Alexyflemming (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to the article? Per WP:NOTFORUM this is not the place for discussion of the issues, only of the article. Kahastok talk 08:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Change on Northern Cyprus part of the article[edit]

Current:
Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983. It is recognised by one UN member, Turkey. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization have granted Northern Cyprus observer status under the name "Turkish Cypriot State". United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 defines the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus as legally invalid.[1] Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".[2]
Proposed:
Northern Cyprus declared its independence in 1983. It is recognised by one UN member, Turkey. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Economic Cooperation Organization have granted Northern Cyprus observer status under the name "Turkish Cypriot State". United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 defines the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus as legally invalid.[3] Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".[2]
Namely: the deletion of the "... the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force"..." part.
Reasonings:
A. That part does not give any plausible extra information: "UN SC's stance ("use of outer force") was already stated just in the resolution of the previous sentence.". i.e. in the UN SC 541 (1983) resolution.
Notice that ICJ has no stance on declarations of the specified countries (NC is among them) in paragraph 81. ICJ states its stance only such a request is raised from ICJ, as in the case of Kosovo.
B. I do not know the Wiki user who added that extra info; it seems s/he has not enough English knowledge. Before I corrected that part, it was like that:
"the Court also said the illegality of the TRNC declaration stemmed from "the unlawful use of force".[2]".
I changed this to:
the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".[2]
based on the following facts:
1. The wiki user is deriving "attribution of illegality to the DOI of NC" by the ICJ from parag. 81. The fact is that parag 81 has no mentionings of stance of ICJ on Northern Cyprus. Notice also that ICJ states its stance about an issue only if it is requested to do so, as in the case of Kosovo.
2. In paragraph 81 (all of which is given above), ICJ is just making statements about the stance and position of UN SC on declarations of the specified countries. In paragraph 81, ICJ is not clarifying its stance on declarations of the specified countries. Notice that ICJ does this only in the case of a request is raised from ICJ to do this, as in the case of Kosovo!
3. The one who attaches illegality to declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus is UN SC, not the ICJ (as understood by the parag. 81)
4. Parag. 89 has no mentionings related with Northern Cyprus.

So, there seems to be (a Wiki user who has not enough level of English understanding edited the related part) or (a Wiki user who edited that part without enough research).
C. The relevant edits are:
PeterPedant 22.08.2014 08:21: "Inappropriate quote from ICJ para. 79 (covering 18C and 19C) changed to quote from para.89"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=next&oldid=621662492
From: International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence
To: general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence  ; parag89

PeterPedant 22.08.2014 09:06: "False claim that ICJ Kosovo opinion applies to TRNC corrected, with ref to ICJ para. 81"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_states_with_limited_recognition&diff=next&oldid=622311928
From: though the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence"
To: Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", the Court also said the illegality of the TRNC declaration stemmed from "the unlawful use of force"....and 81.

My interpretation about Peter's 22.08.2014 09:06 edit: Peter corrects one thing while he creates another incorrect situation. In first part ("..., though..."), the word "though" seems to so-pro to TRNC. Here one can also say, only the situations of these two entities "may" be similar. Hence, in another approach, there is no inconvenience in this. However, when Peter correct this to "...the Court also said the illegality of the TRNC declaration stemmed from "the unlawful use of force"", any normal body in the street can understand that ICJ stated some fact that is against TRNC. In parag 81, ICJ is not stating ICJ's stance on TRNC, Rhodesia, etc.; in parag 81, ICJ is stating UN SC's stance on TRNC, Rhodesia etc.. Hence, in parag 81, ICJ is saying simply that "UN SC is thinking that TRNC's declaration is illegal due to the unlawful use of force". Peter's editing/handling reflects (as a wrong info) that "ICJ is thinking TRNC's declaration is illegal due to the unlawful use of force". To Peter: ICJ does not state anything on an issue in which it is not requested to give its (advisory or compulsory) opinion. In parag 81, though ICJ is finishing paragraph with "no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council", ICJ did not state (and has no right to make a statement at all; see the last of this sentence) any pro or con decision on DOI of Northern Cyprus (or on DOI of Rhodesia etc.). ICJ cannot do that! ICJ explains, states, decides only when it is requested to do so, as in the case of Kosovo.
Alexyflemming (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be concerned with this proposal, because:
  • The sentence it creates ("Although X opinion on X in 2010 found Z.") is ungrammatical.
  • The remaining sentence is not clearly relevant to the TRNC situation. What does Kosovo have to do with the TRNC? The existing sentence makes this clearer.
If you want to remove this (and while I haven't looked at the rationale or sources in detail, I don't see a major problem with removing it if it is wrong), please remove the entire sentence starting with "Although...".
Yes, you are right, Kahostok; the sentences that wanted to be connected with "though", "although", etc. in a specific way, should be seen or should be derivable or inferable from the given sources and given references clearly. Connecting many sentences with connectives as if the sources said like that is false. Hence, based on your suggestion and above arguments; I offer:
From: Although the International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".[2]
To: The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".[2]
Alexyflemming (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to TRNC? Note that per WP:NOR we cannot state or imply that a statement made in one case is necessarily relevant in another, unless reliable sources also draw a connection. In this case, the point being implied - that TRNC had the right to declare independence - is apparently not accepted by the source (even if that rejection not accurately described at present).

No, we need to lose the reference to the ICJ completely or explain how the ICJ referred to TRNC in its decision. We can't leave a reference to the ICJ in a completely different case hanging like this. Kahastok talk 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

In deciding Kosovo's case, in paragraph 81, ICJ mentioned Northern Cyprus. Some misunderstands what ICJ means (they make derivations as if ICJ made negative statements for NC); They must read the whole paragraph completely carefully. In parag. 81, ICJ only interpreted UN SC's actions on NC and others. The one who attached illegality to DOI of NC is UN SC, not ICJ!
The other equivalently important thing is that some Wiki users make comments in this issue without knowing any law theory. In international law, ICJ and other courts make statements, explanations, decisions only if they are requested to do so. In Kosovo, UN General Assembly requested ICJ to make an opinion. In Northern Cyprus case, nobody requested ICJ to make an opinion or decision; Also, ICJ made no negative or positive statements on Northern Cyprus specifically (and has no such a right due to ICJ's own regulations).
Also, ICJ's approach in general is clear enough:
a: ICJ (Kosovo 2008-10): "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence."
b: President of ICJ, Hisashi Owada: International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.
So, from 2 ICJ info given in the article: The 1st (summary of both a and b) is necessary since it is new and directly related with "UN SC's illegality decision on DOI of NC", whereas the 2nd (ICJ's interpretation of UN SC's use of outer force arguement) is redundant since:
ICJ once more states and emphasizes position of UN SC (use of outer force) that is already given in the resolution of previous sentence (1983-541). That's why, that is redundant.
ICJ did not make any clarification what ICJ thinks at all. i.e. From "a" and "b", can one also say that whether the "use of outer force" also do not affect legality of DOI of a country or not? We will see this when NC's (or some other country's) case is presented to ICJ. (Hint and a guess: in Kosovo, NATO also was an outer force!)
Also, please do not miss what I offer: I offer not to use connectives like "though, although, etc." since in that case it is understood as you stated: "the point being implied - that TRNC had the right to declare independence". On the other hand, when it comes to WP:NOR (no original research), look at these two:
Did ICJ say that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence"? Yes! Exactly used this sentence in its decision. Hence, it is not an original research.
Is there any relevance of the presented info? Yes! UN SC made 3 illegality decisions on DOIs of countries "Southern Rhodesia, Northern Cyprus, Republika Srpska"; and (UN SC's decisions) and (ICJ's decision and President of ICJ's decision) are conflicting in some sense.
Alexyflemming (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is OR because it links an ICJ decision on Kosovo to the situation of the TRNC. We are not allowed to do that unless the sources make that link.

Let me put it another way. What point, that is relevant to the situation of the TRNC, are you seeking to make by including the words, The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".?

If those words are intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then that point is OR unless it cites a source that corroborates that point specifically in the context of the TRNC.

If those words are not intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then there is no reason for them to be in the article.

The conclusion is the same either way. Kahastok talk 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"It is OR because it links an ICJ decision on Kosovo to the situation of the TRNC. We are not allowed to do that unless the sources make that link."
R: WP:OR; No original research: ...Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...
I said (in offer; and that is currently on the article) that "The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".
I am presenting a fact and presenting reliable source. I did not change even a letter from ICJ's decision on official ICJ website! I take the mutatis mutandis (exactly) the same sentence from there, and included nothing besides it.
I did not make any analysis or synthesis. I did not state any conclusion. The source's writing is directly related to NC's case since in paragraph 81, NC is mentioned.
From "The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence", one cannot deduce ICJ decided or thinked the same for NC just like Kosovo.
What point, that is relevant to the situation of the TRNC, are you seeking to make by including the words "The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".?
R: In 1983-541, UN SC declared DOI of NC as illegal. In 2010-Kosovo,
ICJ said:"..general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence..", and
President of ICJ said: "..international law contains no prohibition on declaration of independences..".
Hence, "UN SC's declaration of DOIs of countries as illegal" has weak or no basis to be depended on general international law. (This is stated in parag.81 in ICJ's decision:
"The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the ICJ to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral DOI may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council")
i.e. "UN SC's declaration of DOIs of countries as illegal" is not an absolute determiner; i.e. that the applying/usage of that exceptional character has no root in general international law.
If those words are intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then that point is OR unless it cites a source that corroborates that point specifically in the context of the TRNC.
'R: With those words, I do not say that the "TRNC's case is exactly the same, and DOI of NC also does not violate general int'l law". I say exactly the same thing as ICJ, and does not add anything to ICJ.
From what I put there, one can derive/infer as much as what ICJ said. I do not make any derivation/inference from ICJ's 2010 decision.
If those words are not intended to make a point regarding the TRNC, then there is no reason for them to be in the article.
R: In 2010 Kosovo, ICJ handled the DOI of Kosovo; not DOI of NC. However, in parag.81, there is a point which is regarding with TRNC.
The name of the country ("northern Cyprus") is included in parag.81 of ICJ decision.
ICJ 2010 parag.81 does not state "DOI of NC is legal as well just like Kosovo", but say something/point related with TRNC, and I put exactly the same something/point.
If one connects sentences like "though" or something else, then that makes an analysis or synthesis.
What is irrelevant/redundant is the "the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force".
Because: just in the previous sentence, UN SC's 1983-541 resolution is mentioned and in that resolution UN SC's attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force"
That is to say, this last sentence "does not say something new" or "does not add an extra information". If ICJ handles the case of NC in future and say something positive or negative on DOI of NC, then that thing can be put as a new (or extra) info in NC's paragraph in the article.
Alexyflemming (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When I ask what point you wish to make you do not apply the sentence to TRNC. By mere fact of placing the sentence in a section about the TRNC, you imply that the there is some relevance to the TRNC in the statement - that TRNC may be legal as its declaration of independence is not illegal per se. That implication is OR. In fact the source says the opposite, as the status quo makes clear.

I thus oppose the proposal as is. If the entire sentence was removed, I would accept it. With a caveat as per the status quo, I would accept it. As is, I cannot as it is a violation of WP:NOR. Kahastok talk 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When I ask what point you wish to make you do not apply the sentence to TRNC.
R: ICJ made a point on DOIs of countries in general, that is not specific to TRNC. ICJ made no point on legality/illegality of DOI of TRNC (It can do so only if it is required to do so)
By mere fact of placing the sentence in a section about the TRNC, you imply that the there is some relevance to the TRNC in the statement
R: That relevance is not pro/con in itself. Also, in that section of TRNC, the decisions on DOI(s) of international organizations are placed like UN SC. Note, ICJ is also an international organization and also made a point about DOIs of countries.
That point is related with TRNC since in that paragraph, TRNC is also mentioned to reach that point.
- that TRNC may be legal as its declaration of independence is not illegal per se. That implication is OR.
R: From that point (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence) what you said (TRNC may be legal as its DOI is not illegal per se) cannot be deduced.
From (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) one can only deduce (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI)!
In fact the source says the opposite, as the status quo makes clear.
R: The source says nothing about legality/illegality of DOI of TRNC. Even, in international law, ICJ make statements, explanations, decisions, opinions only if it is required to do so, as in the case of Kosovo.
For NC, ICJ was not requested to make an (advisory or compulsory) decision till now.
"The continuation of the status quo in Cyprus island" has nothing to do with "the ICJ's opinion on DOI of TRNC". "The continuation of the status quo in Cyprus island" is due to UN SC's 1964-186 and UN SC's 1983-541. The case of Northern Cyprus was not presented to the ICJ till now!
as it is a violation of WP:NOR:
R: WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...
(general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) is said. it is exactly in ICJ's website. It is reliable. It is already in the article itself.
No analysis or synthesis is made. ICJ said (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) and (general international law contains no applicable prohibition of DOI) is offered in the article, which is still there!
What is offered as well is the deletion of "the Court also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force" since:
a. "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC" is already still there, in the article; one paragraph above in 1983-541.
b. By using "Although ((ICJ's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence)), ((ICJ also said "the Security Council attached illegality to the declaration of TRNC because of the unlawful use of force"))."
From this presentation, especially from the second part, a negativity is deducable. A derivation/inference is made. That is WP:NOR!
Alexyflemming (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The analysis you're making is that the statement:

The International Court of Justice's opinion on Kosovo's independence in 2010 found that "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".

is of relevance to the TRNC situation, as I have pointed out several times now. You make that analysis by mere fact of putting it in the TRNC section. You seem to suggest that you are not trying to draw such a connection. In that case, there is no reason for the sentence to be there - in fact it is counterproductive as it implies that there is a connection that is unintended.

I will accept full removal of both parts of the sentence, or inclusion with an explicit mention of the ICJ's reference to the TRNC. Given the arguments presented, I would suggest that both parts of the sentence should just go. Kahastok talk 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What about the following more neutral:
The International Court of Justice stated on Kosovo's independence in 2010 that "the Security Council in an exceptional character attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because it was, or would have been connected with the unlawful use of force" and "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".
This offer satisfies the followings:
(((a.))) Kahastok: "I will accept inclusion with an explicit mention of the ICJ's reference to the TRNC"
It now includes explicit mention as you suggested. Notice paragraph 81:
81. Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, in ter alla, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia: Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus, and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.
The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens).
In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council.
(end of paragraph 81)
(((b.))) Since there is no "though, although", no derivation or inference exists in the above offer, and takes mutatis mutandis (exactly) the same phrases ICJ used.
Alexyflemming (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)