Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Wa State

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_State

Wa State controls territory, it has relations with china, iirc, while it doesn't see itself as an independent state, since the Myanmar civil war, it acts as such. 79.77.67.121 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If even the state itself doesn't claim to be independent, it absolutely should not seen as something to add to the list. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is still De-Facto independent, Artsakh didn't itself claim to be independent but a part of armenia for alot of the time. but it was included. this is de-facto recognised by the People's Republic of China 77.44.68.140 (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities and Rojava as other entities

While they aren't claiming to be a state because anarchists don't support the state, they control territory and have had diplomatic relations with mexico

With Rojava I believe they have de facto recognition of the Syrian government, France, Sweden, Germany, USA and Switzerland via diplomatic relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Rojava 79.77.67.121 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to note the difference between de jure recognition and de facto recognition, and that this page really should be just for the former, otherwise it opens up a whole can of worms that frankly will never be agreed upon. What is "de jure" recognition? What makes it different from just negotiating with them? Does Cyprus de facto recognise the North because they negotiate? For the sake of logical consistency, this should really only be de jure recognition.

Also, even Rojava does not claim to be independent. They claim to be an autonomous part of Syria. If the region does not even say it is independent, there is no way that it could ever be de jure recognised as such. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

we included somaliland Gorgonopsi (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh after 2020

Is there any source confirming whether Artsakh satisfies the declarative theory of statehood after the 2020 war? The only source I have found in the article is [1], which does not assert this. Kpratter (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Artsakh still exists (functioning government, permanent population, etc...), albeit with reduced territory following the war. Archives908 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Archives908 I do not dispute the existence of Artsakh, but I'm not certain whether it still claims itself to be independent from Azerbaijan. As far as I understand, they have come to terms with being part of Azerbaijan but now seek cultural and territorial autonomy. Kpratter (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. It's the ruling majority within the government of Armenia which has come to terms with Artsakh being part of Azerbaijan. Not the Artsakh government. The two are not the same, with the Artsakh government still advocating for self-determination. Really no change pre-2020, minus less territory under their jurisdiction. Archives908 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

with the Artsakh government still advocating for self-determination source? Beshogur (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

And after today (20 September 2023)? Artsakh still controls anything?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Events (attacks, negotiations/discussions, ceasefires) are on-going, it's impossible to pre-determine what exactly will be the outcome of this escalation. Best to avoid all WP:CRYSTALBALL hypotheses and wait until things become clear. Archives908 (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Think-fully, we can remove that entry by 1 Jan 2024, as that day will be the de jure dissolution day of Ro. Artsakh, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That depends on what actually happens, but as it stands right now: yes. Labrang (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The edits of @Beshogur yesterday are premature and should be reverted. I am on phone now so a revert of two edits in one go is a bit complicated. Labrang (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing crystall ball here. Azerbaijan captured its capital, and there is no news since its announcement of its dissolution. It's dissolved point. And that's how various news agencies reporting it as[2] "former separatist regions", etc. You won't gain anything with revert either. See Afghanistan Islamic Republic example. Beshogur (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Reuters: former breakaway region of Karabakh

Sky news: former breakaway region

AP: former breakaway region’s capital Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

South Yemen

South Yemen does claim independence Gorgonopsi (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Those sources don't say South Yemen claims independence, just that an alternative government had been set up. Note how the first two sources refer to secession as a "prospect". CMD (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

They act as a seperate country they don't claim the entirety of yemen. Gorgonopsi (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Common name use

@JSwift49: it isn't about using the short version, its about using the common version. In Palestines case the page actually is entitled State of Palestine. We don't second guess the consensus on page name, we just use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well if you look at every table/graph on Wikipedia then it's just 'Palestine'. The article also starts with 'Palestine, officially the State of Palestine' much like 'Taiwan, officially the Republic of China'. JSwift49 19:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A quick search says its mixed, but a lot of those links do appear to be pointing to the disambiguation Palestine when they actually mean to point to State of Palestine. The point of a common name is to use the same name across wikipedia, thats the constancy we value not making a table/graph internally consistent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but from my POV 'common name' means most commonly used short name and not always the actual title of the article. Because by your rules, if Georgia was on this list, we'd have to include them as Georgia (country), but no one does that. Palestine seems the same case, no? since it's only called State of Palestine because of the disambiguation JSwift49 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

In wiki parlance it means the name of the page. I don't have a problem with using just Palestine and Artsakh in order to make the list visually cleaner. Better to have two redirect links than two dozen. For Sovereign Military Order of Malta its long but its actually the short version, long name is "Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"State of Palestine" isn't the page title due to common name, it's the page title due to disambiguation (of the common name). Republic of Ireland is similar, Georgia (country) is the least subtle. I agree that with the principle of using the article title to avoid rehashing the same dispute on every page, but that does not apply to disambiguated titles (unless of course the disambiguation is specifically needed in that context). CMD (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Its the page title due to consensus, not due to the existence of the disambiguation page per say... Theres no reason the disambiguation page has to be at Palestine and not Palestine (disambiguation). (edit: I was mistaken, there is not a disambiguation page at Ireland there is a page for the island as a geographic feature) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Relevant Court Cases on Northern Cyprus

International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence, and the recognition of a country is a political issue.

International Courts

• On 22 July 2010, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of 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".

The ICJ's ruling was expected to bolster demands for recognition by Northern Cyprus. The decision of the ICJ has also been regarded as opening more potential options for the TRNC to gain international legitimacy.

• On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".

• On 2 September 2015, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".

Courts of Countries

• On 9 October 2014, the Federal Court of the United States (USA) stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary".

• On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island". and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal.
  Nepal2000 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  So far, what are you asking for? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023

X= As it is. Y= Cook Islands and Nuie removed as they are territories of New Zealand like Puerto Rico is to the USA, Bermuda is to the UK and Greenland is to Denmark. Also Malta must be removed as that one is historical and no longer exists. 92.24.230.78 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have Puerto Rico or Greenland on here? Because they are fundamentally the same to Nuie and Cook.92.24.230.78 (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

They're all different situations. CMD (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ambazonia, Western Togoland, West Papua, Biafra

All of these are groups that declare independence, and control some territory. 77.44.68.140 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Republic of Artsakh removed from the list?

Okay, I know this country will cease to exist from 1 January 2024, but it still has nearly a month of life left. Why we removed them early? As of today, the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Artsakh is still up and running, this country is still alive. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:110B:5058:3F5A:723B (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)