Jump to content

Talk:International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jagiellon (talk | contribs)
133 edits
UNSC 1808
Jagiellon (talk | contribs)
133 edits
Line 122: Line 122:


== UNSC Resolution 1808 ==
== UNSC Resolution 1808 ==
UNSC Resolution 1808 is being given as supportive reference to a statement claiming that 190 countries recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia. However, 1808 was issued months between the conflict and subsequent recognition by Russia, and reflects a snapshot of the situation in April 2008 which is why even Russia supported it. It also urges a non-violent solution to the conflict. The member states which is refers to are the 15 UNSC members. A similar resolution has not been voted on at the UN General Assembly so it would be [[WP:OR]] to claim that 190 states are in agreement with the April resolution. We simply don't know so please don't claim this based on an erroneous source which even one of its sponsors has since diverged from. [[User:Jagiellon|Jagiellon]] ([[User talk:Jagiellon|talk]]) 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
UNSC Resolution 1808 is being given as supportive reference to a statement claiming that 190 countries recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia. However, 1808 was issued months before the conflict and subsequent recognition by Russia, and reflects a snapshot of the situation in April 2008 which is why even Russia supported it. It also urges a non-violent solution to the conflict. The member states which is refers to are the 15 UNSC members. A similar resolution has not been voted on at the UN General Assembly so it would be [[WP:OR]] to claim that 190 states are in agreement with the April resolution. We simply don't know so please don't claim this based on an erroneous source which even one of its sponsors has since diverged from. [[User:Jagiellon|Jagiellon]] ([[User talk:Jagiellon|talk]]) 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:44, 23 September 2008

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Serbian Krajina

I have removed Serbian Krajina from the list of de facto sovereign states or governments. Serbian Krajina is just a self proclaimed government in exile, in Belgrad. Please, pay attention to the titles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So,were should it be put? CrniBombarder!!! Шумски Крст (†) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that such organisations should be put in this very article? There are other articles such as "Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence". We have deleted such section as "Non-states and organisations" from our list because they are definitely not a valid source for recognition. I think that Abkhazia and South Ossetia will not recognize this government of Serbian Krajina in exile, and will not establish diplomatic relations with it. So, this statement of government of Serbian Krajina in exile has no sense in the context of recognition, this is just a political statement of a political organisation, and we do not have to include such statements in this very article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Intent to recognize" section

Shouldn't we have a section for "States that intend to recognise". Belarus is they only country which fits fits this criteria currently, but may not be the only one in the future. I propose we add "States that intend to recognise" to the article. Ijanderson (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It is the same way it is being done in the Kosovo article. It also makes sense from a practical perspective: As even Nicaragua showed, there is sometimes a period between announcing intent and formalizing recognition. Jagiellon (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It used to be on here. I re-added it but I was reverted by User:Elysander. There is no legit reason not to have the section. --Tocino 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Let us safely add it back as it used to be (and as the somewhat similar Kosovo article has it). The section header could be "Intent to recognize" and inclusion criteria would be express intent to recognize as stated by a President, high government official or diplomat. Mere expressions of support for South Ossetia and for Abkhazia would not suffice. Jagiellon (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one seems to object I would like to go ahead and reinstate the "intent to recognize" section. I would also like to restore the opening line to its previous stable version which was developed through general consensus. Jagiellon (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the talkpage! Why should we reinvent a perpetuum mobile again? Belarus wanted to recognize within 2 days end of August, now perhaps recognition will take place anyway after Sept. 28. The only thing which will happen again in this article .. irrelevant discussions about what means really "intent" and how at which time countries should or must express their "intent" anyway. The next step will be reinserting the next dubious subsections as only weeks before. Article is still underaverage without tricky dicky changes too. Elysander (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately waited five days before re-inserting the earlier section in order to give others a chance to comment. So far, there seems to be consensus and persuasive arguments for having an Intent to Recognize section, just like Kosovo's similar article has it (where some of the intentions date back to July, or even earlier.) That Belarus is taking its time and has stated it will wait until after September 28 does not detract from the statements of intent to recognize which have not been detracted. They therefore still stand and it will be a service to the article if we include them in a section of publicly stated intent. Jagiellon (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus should stay where it is, in "Other reactions by UN states". DannieVG (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an intent to recognise section in this or the Kosovo article. It just adds confusion. A country that intends to recognise has not recognised and can validly be listed with the countries that will never recognise. An intention section is simply a battleground. Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. DannieVG (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea

Can we include, either in the Ukraine reaction or in the other entities section the following:

The Parliament of Crimea called on Ukraine to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia, saying it backed their right to self-determination and appreciated Russia's actions there. [1]

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this should probably be added within the Ukraine entry rather than under other entities. Jagiellon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Its not the reaction of the Ukrainian government but rather of a body within the Ukraine. It should be listed separately, either with 'other entities' or under a new category. 141.166.241.22 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Crimean constitution (which has the legal status of Ukrainian low), Autonomous Republic of Crimea participate in creation of Ukrainian foreign policy. So, it is neccesary to add this position to "Ukraine" subsection and I have already done it. And please do not create subsections for organisations, other than at least de facto sovereign states (see subection below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything in [1] to support the assertion that Crimea can participate in Ukrainian foreign policy - could you expand please? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to read this one in Ukrane's constitution

Article 135 The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea that is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than one-half of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. and this one

Article 85 The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine comprises: approving by law of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and amendments thereto.

And then, after it, you have to find the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and read the text of that Constitution. Or you have to simply believe other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.170.99 (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but now I cannot find the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in English. I can give to you the link only to the Russian text of this constitution. http://www.rada.crimea.ua/constitution/soder_constit.html

Article 18 (in Russian) http://www.rada.crimea.ua/constitution/glava05.html#_18 Статья 18. Полномочия Автономной Республики Крым 

    1. Ведению Автономной Республики Крым подлежит:
 3) участие в формировании и осуществлении основных принципов внутриполитической, внешнеэкономической и внешнеполитической деятельности Украины по вопросам, касающимся Автономной Республики Крым;

This is very clear assertion that Crimea participate in Ukrainian foreign policy. And remember that the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has the legal status of Ukrainian low. The Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is the Ukrainian low N 350-XIV, approved by the Ukrainian parliament and signed by the Ukrainian president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.170.99 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela / Cuba

Two new sources within the past 24 hours claim Venezuela recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and one included Cuba). But I have been unable to find any official confirmation of this so far, or even a recent quote from a high government official. First, from http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1009/42/371058.htm = "Nicaragua recently joined Chavez and Cuba in recognizing the breakaway Georgian regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia" and second, from http://www.coha.org/2008/09/venezuela%E2%80%99s-military-in-the-hugo-chavez-era/ = "Venezuela has gone to great lengths to establish close ties with the Russian government, not only through military purchases involving billions of dollars, but also with diplomatic initiatives like recognizing the Georgian breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia." True? False? Jagiellon (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Moscow times to be a reliable source Ijanderson (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No they have not recognised. Believe me, when and if they do recognise, we will all know about it straight away. It will be very big news in Russia, not just a single erroneous sentence Kislorod (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you, but now we even have Reuters saying the same. This sentence appears in the latest Reuters report from the United Nations General Assembly: "Venezuela and Nicaragua have even recognized the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, following Russia's lead." Source: [2] - Personally I don't care either way how we include Venezuela or not, but I believe Reuters to be a reliable source. Jagiellon (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens, there will be full articles dedicated to it in the Russian news agencies. Also, official declarations will appear on the websites of their ministry of foreign affairs.Kislorod (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President Chávez will be visiting Russia this week, so we will likely get a clear statement about whether Venezuela has recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence. --Tocino 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean Tatars

So where did the reaction of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars go? 141.166.241.22 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read the next section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who tries to include autonomous regions (such as Gagauzia or Crimea) here

The entity which can recognize new state is only a sovereign government (at least, de facto). Please do not include other entities in the list (such as autonomous regions of Ukraine, Moldova or Russia). They cannot recognize new state at all! They can only call central government of the respective state for such recognition! We may mention their attitude in the text, but please do not include them in the list of sovereign governments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can't? Well, Gaugazia, rather obviously, did. This will probably create quite an issue in Moldova, but that's another story... Óðinn (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, according to the special legal status of Gaugazia, this region has the right to participate in creation an execution of Moldlova's foreign policy when Gagauzia's interests are concerned. Whether this resolution was illegal or not is for Moldova's constitutional court to decide. Óðinn (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, give me the reference to the ORIGINAL text of resolution of Gagauzian parliament. I think that we can find here just calling for recognition, not the recognition in itself. Gagauzia is not a sovereign state, it is just a part of Moldova, and only government of Moldova can recognize new states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try (and look at my comment above) Óðinn (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, fing the reference, or I will delete Gagauzia again! I cannot believe that the part of Moldova state has the right to recognize new states separately from Moldova! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're partly right. Here is the full text (in Russian). It is quite ambiguously worded. Basically, it reaffirms South Ossetia recognition which Gagauzia granted in the early 90s when it was de-facto independent. And it also calls on Moldova's parliament and president to do the same. I'll move Gagauzia to another section. Óðinn (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read your text CAREFULLY. De jure it is just a CALL to president and government of Moldova to recognize new states. You have to move this CALL to MOLDOVA subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this continue we will soon get back BjornSocialist Republic also. Närking (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to positive views on recognition. And it actually says "Recognizing the continuity of goals of the Gaugauz Republic, which signed friendship and cooperation agreements with the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and officially recognized these entities..." Óðinn (talk)
But there is no Gaugauz Republic now! Read your text again. This is just the appeal to the central Moldovan government! And also this resolution has the statement that Gagauzia is a constituent part of Republic of Moldova. According to international low, the constituent parts of republics (or other states, such as kingdoms, principalities, sultanates, duchies, emirates, jamahiriyas, federations, federal republics etc.) have NO RIGHTS to recognize new states. It can be done only by the central governments. So, you have to move your very valuable information to "Moldova" subsection. We have to create the separate subsections only for de facto sovereign states or governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, similar to Gagauzia, I'm sure that the stance of Crimean parliament has to be added to the "Ukraine" subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas isn't a sovereign state either, is it?... Óðinn (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas rules de facto over the Gaza strip. Gagauzia does rule over their territory to an wide extent, however they are still beneath the central government.Kislorod (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Gaza strip secede from the Palestinian National Authority?.. Óðinn (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will explain why we included Hamas here. Consider China and Taiwan. They have separate independent from each other governments. But the governments of China and Taiwan claim the whole territory of China both. That is why the general rule is to consider China and Taiwan not as the one state, but as de facto two independent states. The similar situation we have in Palestine now. There are two independent governments of Palestine, which claim the territory of whole Palestine both. But West Bank and Gaza Strip are de facto independent states ruled by the separate governments now. That is why we included Hamas (government of Gaza Strip) in our list. The same logic as with China and Taiwan. And there are no similarities with the autonomous regions - constituent parts of other states.
Alright, you convinced me. Óðinn (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should add the similar information to "Ukraine" subsection about the resolution of Crimean parliament. Can you help us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.164.28 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know about it. Good find. Óðinn (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Resolution 1808

UNSC Resolution 1808 is being given as supportive reference to a statement claiming that 190 countries recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia. However, 1808 was issued months before the conflict and subsequent recognition by Russia, and reflects a snapshot of the situation in April 2008 which is why even Russia supported it. It also urges a non-violent solution to the conflict. The member states which is refers to are the 15 UNSC members. A similar resolution has not been voted on at the UN General Assembly so it would be WP:OR to claim that 190 states are in agreement with the April resolution. We simply don't know so please don't claim this based on an erroneous source which even one of its sponsors has since diverged from. Jagiellon (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Recognise Georgian regions says Ukraine's Crimea, Kyiv Post, 2008-09-17
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_South_Ossetia&oldid=240332518"