Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Including criteria

As evidenced by the independence of South Sudan every newly independent country has limited recognition for a while, because some governments are not quick enough to recognize it or just don't care, because there is no legal necessity for or immediate legal effects depending on formal recognition. However, this is clearly a different case like with countries that don't enjoy undisputed recognition, because some other countries [b]explicitly withhold recognition[/b]. If we want to include South Sudan, we should at least have a separate category for cases like this. 85.180.31.9 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article more carefully again, it says “Some states do not establish relations with new nations quickly and thus do not recognise them despite having no dispute and sometimes favorable relations. These are excluded from the list.” So I remove South Sudan, unless there is evidence that at least one country actively disputes her recognition. Sorry, for the mess! 85.180.31.9 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the length of a states existance should have little to do with its criteria for inclusion on the page. For example how new does a state have to be to be included, 4 hours? 4 days? 4 years? 40 years? Political theory is clear on the matter, states have limited recognition if they are not recognized by another state no matter how long that state has existed for or the reason for nonrecognition (whether it be trivial or not).XavierGreen (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So should we add every state which South Sudan has yet to recognize to this list? TDL (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not true. “Recognition” in the context of states means that the recognizing state considers the recognized state to fulfill the criteria for statehood in the context of diplomacy and international relations. But even though it has become common to issue declarations of recognition, it is by no means necessary. Nor does it have any legal effects itself, it is no more that a statement of the opinion of the recognising state on the legal status of the recognised state. However, when a state does not issue such a statement, it does not mean, that they don't recognize the state, just that they haven't publicly stated that they do. They can show their recognition by other means, e.g. by establishing diplomatic relations, or they can do nothing until the new state becomes relevant to their affairs. In controversial cases, which this page is really about, the non-recognising states make it obvious, either explicitly or implicitly, that they don't recognise the state. However, unless you can show that any state has shown that they do not intend to recognize South Sudan, it is a non-controversial case and just because not every state has stated that they do recognize it, does in no way mean, that any state does not recognize it. Furthermore, as I said above, the including criteria in the article itself explicitly exclude cases like South Sudan, please refrain from inserting it again. Thank you! 85.180.22.224 (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that only those coutries should be included that are explicitly NON recognized by other countries. South Sudan needs tyo be included only in the case when there appears any country that explicitly doesnt recognize it. --maxval (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition is only confered through diplomatic activity with another state (accrediting an ambassador, concluding a treaty, signing a formal document of recognition). To say that it has no legal effects is rediculous and shows that you have little understanding of international relations. A non-recognized country does not legally exist in the eyes of a state. Its passports and other diplomatic documents are worthless. For example if i hold a South Sudanese passport and try to gain admission into a state thats doesnt recognize it, more likely than not i would be refused admission into that state. Citizens of unrecognized countries do not have the leisure of calling on a consular agent if they are arrested in a foreign state that does not recognizee them, nor do they have any of the protections that their state might offer. Asking to prove non-recognition is asking for a negative proof. Recognition requires proof, not non-recognition as non-recognition is default upon the creation of a new state. For example, the united states does not recognize Seaborga, but you wont be able to find a document stating so. Similarly the United States does not recognize the Republic of Cabinda, but you wont find any official documentation stating that they do not. Often times states will simply ignore states they do not wish to recognize to avoid giving them legitimacy.XavierGreen (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"A non-recognized country does not legally exist in the eyes of a state. " No, actually 85.180.22.224 is quite correct. There are states that have a policy of not making direct statements of recognition, and the declaration of a "Republic of Cabinda" means nothing if no other state recognizes it and it does not exercise state powers over any territory. I won't regurgitate the rest because the other user already explained it very well. Ladril (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As i have stated above mutliple times, a direct statement of recognition is not needed in international relations to confer recognition. Accrediting a states ambassador/consular official used to be the standard method of giving a state recognition. Signing a treaty on equal terms with a nation also confers recogntion. If a state has done none of these things, then it does not recognize the other state as a peer in international relations and therefore that un-recognized state does not exist in their eyes. Just because a state exists in actuality does not mean that it exists in the eyes of another state. By not including states like South Sudan the list becomes biased and incomplete.XavierGreen (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"If a state has done none of these things, then it does not recognize the other state as a peer in international relations and therefore that un-recognized state does not exist in their eyes" - Xavier, this is a logical fallacy. Please see denying the antecedent. You've taken a true statement ("formal diplomatic recognition => believe state exists") and assumed the converse ("no formal recognition => believe state doesn't exist") is also true. Just because a state hasn't told us that they recognize South Sudan doesn't mean they think it doesn't exist.

I'd point out again that if you're arguing that South Sudan should be included because they haven't initiated diplomatic relations with 100+ states, then we'd have to add all those 100+ states which don't have diplomatic relations with South Sudan to our list for the same reason. TDL (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if your going to go that route, we already dont include the 200 or so states that dont have relations with Trannistria and Somaliland. You seem to have misunderstood what i said there is no inverse error. A state that is not recognized by another state does not exist as a soveriegn peer in the eyes of other states that do not recognize it. I would love for you to show me a reliable book on international relations that proves otherwise.XavierGreen (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Served. [1] Ladril (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you could give me a page number, the version i am seeing gives no preview to the book. (Google Books gives different previews according to location).XavierGreen (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Ladril meant page 82 onwards, it's what my preview begins at and it is about recognition. Useful note in this book that recognition of a state and of a government are different, thus hopefully helping with the Libya decision. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the IP and Ladril in this case. South Sudan should not be included at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I too concur, just wait for a while until a source proves that at least a nation has not recognized it for a given reason (if that ever happens).That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for the moment the issue is moot with the South Sudan admission vote at the UN having no opposition all the UN states defacto (or dejure if your of like opinion as me) recognize South Sudan as a soveriegn peer in international relations. The problem still stands of defining what exactly a new state is, i.e. 2 days, 2 months, 2 years etc.XavierGreen (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

But if we take the admission in the UN as de facto recognition we should think the same about Pakistan-Armenia and the rest of cases between UN members, not?--88.8.20.34 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, that this list should only include countries whose statehood is explicitly not recognized by any other countries, because, as I said before (sorry for the changing IPs btw), just because other countries do not explicitly state their recognition, or establish diplomatic relations, or have any contact at all, with a new state, does not automatically imply, that they do not recognize it. 85.180.23.39 (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you intend to commit to constant participation, creating an account would be a good idea. I too hated it when people first suggested it, but it gives very little hassle and makes your Wikilife a lot easier. Ladril (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand not the reasons for excluding of the lists some cases like Liechtenstein, South Sudan, Montenegro,...--88.8.20.34 (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not included as no state disputes their independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Armenia? Pakistan really disputes the independence of Armenia?--83.61.104.198 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Outback the koala (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

one very difficult item to find a citation for...

"Israel, independent since 1948, is not recognised by 21 UN members "

This is currently the only "citation needed" in this article. I have tried to find a source for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's non-recognition of Israel. No success as of yet. Any suggestions or assistance would be greatly appreciated. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a try if I get time. Try searching in French and Arabic. Nightw 15:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

term "claims"

The term "claims" is imprecise and is not NPOV. When saying that the so and so state "claims" the self-proclaimed unrecognized entity, it is important to note that it is not just "claiming" it - anyone can claim anything - but has UN and other resolutions on its side. It's one thing that so and so claims or considers some territory as its own, and it's a totally different thing when so and so is recognized to have the unrecognized entity as its de jure part. The article would greatly benefit from this clarification for many of the entries listed there. --108.18.9.130 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

UN resolution or not, they claim it, which is all we need for the dispute column. Including UN resolutions for every entry would greatly expand the extents of the relevant entities, so it may have to be done on a case by case basis. Any specific suggestions? We do provide wikilinks for further examination. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me the user is raising a valid question - that of terminology. In an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, we have to be precise and correct. Indeed, a UN-recognized member nation cannot "claim" something that already belongs to it - that would appear to be a real oxymoron. It is the successionist entities that "claim" independence, but not the other way around. Since this page makes special references to the UN and makes careful distinctions between UN-members and non-UN members, and other such legally-important issues and nuances, it would indeed make more sense to re-word such writings to bring them into compliance with common sense, logic and international law. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no objections and no evidence of current terminology used being proper and correct, I move to change those headings and descriptions to bring them into compliance with international law and practice, as well as with that of UN. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

...As long as you're not bolding the text against style conventions. Nightw 06:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The very reason why there is an article like this is because there is a conflict in international law as to whether the entities listed on this page are independent states or not. It is therefore quite appropriate to talk of claims here, since we cannot objectively say that either side is right. sephia karta | dimmi 06:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not correct - there is no conflict in international law, as international law has always recognized the difference between de jure and de facto entities. So what "conflict" do you mean? Likewise, this article, being an encyclopedia article, relies only on authoritative and reliable sources, not on self-published sources or other personal, non-scholarly, unacademic, etc., sources (which are prohibited in Wikipedia). Neither is this a place for any fringe theories. This is a serious article about a serious legal issue(s), and should be treated as such. When the article as well as the international law discern between de facto and de jure, we have to properly note that everywhere as needed. Also, UN Security Council and the international community cannot "claim" a territory/land/region by definition. They can only issue a decision - whom do they recognize as the rightful owner, de jure, of that land. That's the law, and that's the international practice - I understand you might now like it, but that's how it is, and we should abide by these rules, which none of us here invented or authored. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What is 'not correct'? That there is a conflict in international law? Some states (as indicated) think that these entities are independent states. The others disagree. That is a conflict in international law. As for international organisations, recognition is a prerogative of sovereign states. sephia karta | dimmi 08:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

you clearly misunderstand terminology. Once again, there is no conflict in international law, as both principles co-exist without problem, whether de jure vs. de facto, or some states recognizing another state vs. not recognizing. So the "conflict" is made up by states, or rather, governments, but not by the international law or international legal system. Thus, let's pay attention to terminology and be very careful in its usage and application. Same goes for "claims" - it is Abkhazia that claims it is independent, not Georgia that claims it. Georgian "claim" is recognized by UN SC (highest authority in international law, which can actually create/make international law) and overwhelming majority of sovereign nation-states. So the burden of proof and "claims" are on the unrecognized and semi-recognized de facto entities which are not UN members, not on the fully recognized sovereign nation-states that also happen to be UN members. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis' revert

Chipmunkdavis, why have you reverted here [2] when the source clearly states that NK didn't recognize anyone de jure? Why do you think "de facto recognition" or "de jure recognition" are "oxymoron"? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such "nuances" matter. Please see this from Oxford University Professor Talmon, an international law expert: "Distinctions between “de facto recognition,” “diplomatic recognition” and “de jure recognition” may be traced back to the secession of the Spanish provinces in South America in early 19th century." [3] That much is obvious from a Wikipedia article on Diplomatic recognition. Here's more:

• Professor of International Law at the University of Leicester Malcolm Shaw [4]
• Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Boleslaw Adam Boczek [5]
• United States Naval War College and UC Berkeley Professor Hans Kelsen, who "is considered one of the preeminent jurists of the 20th century and has been highly influential among scholars of jurisprudence and public law" [6]
• Dr. Mohammed Bedjaoui [7]
• judge Nurullah Yamali [8]
• Indian jurist S. K. Verma [9]

As you can see, it's not an "oxymoron". Kindly revert back your edit or provide a better justification that would trump professors Talmon, Shaw, Boczek, Kelsen, Bedjaoui and all other international law experts. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source was a forum thread. Enough said, really. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What "forum" thread? What are you talking about? Please kindly read the above sources that prove the so-called "oxymoron" of de facto recognition vs. de jure recognition true and correct. Please revert yourself in the article back to my version. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the reference I gave in the article comment section [10] was of an article from Arminfo news agency [11], that was simply archived on a forum.[12] I did not use it in bibliography, only in the comment section to show that the information in the article was incorrect. If you'd checked, you would have found the original article on its news agency website.

Also, the incorrect information that I changed - and which you restored - relies on a article from a forum site [13] - why aren't you removing and reverting that? It would be better if you carefully study the sources provided, and then revert yourself as you've obviously been in haste when you made a revert. Thank you. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you for providing a good source. If you expect me to somehow realise that a single post on Vbulletin powered page was from a news agency, I must disappoint you I'm afraid. Why didn't you just use the news article in your edit summary? As for the current source, I don't speak or read Armenian in the slightest, so I have no idea how reliable it is. At any rate, I still don't think the de facto is necessary. The four unrecogised former Soviet states have met many times trying to align their foreign policies and give each other mutual recognition. Your article simply asserts that they do recognise each other even without diplomatic relations, which is of course a normal thing. To use a term like de facto recognition to say they don't have actual recognition I'd want a better source. Anyway, apparently that whole letter made a big fuss in the caucasus, here is an interesting if very biased Georgian paper. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You could have asked me first, if anything was not clear. In future, I will provide the original link if possible, however, Wikipedia does not require that unless it's asked by other editors in a courteous way (i.e., not in a manner of a revert). At any rate, you don't need to speak or read Armenian - the news piece, which is in English, clearly identified the news agency, ArmInfo, and a quick Google search finds its website (which has an English option), and then from there, searching for that article finds it quickly, too. All takes less than a minute, depending on the Internet connection. Meanwhile, diplomatic recognition or de-recognition are no trivial matter, hence whether someone made a de facto recognition or de jure - matters in the world of law and politics. It is not an oxymoron. These 4 entities - not really states, but entities - are all de facto, not de jure. Even Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only partially de jure, and until they become members of at least one serious international organization, no one will take them seriously. That's why it's important to make that distinction. All these top scholars and sources I've provided say all this in unison, and we must follow them, as they are reliable and verifiable sources - Wikipedia's requirement. Thank you for editing this page, looking forward to collaborating with you in the future. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires sources for information put in the article, and all editors are perfectly in their right to revert. The armenian was for the other source ou mentioned was also a forum. I didn't know ArmInfo was a newspaper, I thought it was information for Armenians, which made sense as it was on an Armenian forum. The scholarly sources you provided simply used the phrase, not applied it in this context, and were much clearer about what they meant by the phrase. It seems unlikely that the Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations do not recognise each other. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think NKR should be removed from those entries completely. There is clearly a considerable level of recognition—if not fully official. A footnote perhaps? Nightw 06:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

http://transparency.ge/ and Vanuatu's recognition of Abkhazia

I think that Georgian sources are not really reliable in such issues. I think that Vanuatu Daily post is much more reliable than any of the Georgian sources. Please, use this source http://www.dailypost.vu/sites/default/files/Issue%203293.pdf instead of transparency.ge. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no "Georgian" sources used, at least by me (since when is Transparency International a Georgian organization?). Secondly, Georgian source is at least as reliable as any Abkhaz source (which are cited, by the way). Thirdly, Transparency International is a very authoritative and reliable organization, and their Vanuatu office's email and phone information are available for verification. So the source [14], which is a full and comprehensive analysis of Vanuatu's position made by a Vanuatu citizen for an authoritative Western organization in August (not July or June like your sources) is definitely more reliable and authoritative. It complies with all Wikipedia rules on reliable and verifiable sources. Finally, your source is from July 14, and it cites the Foreign Minister - not the Prime Minister or the Supreme Court, who are much higher authorities and always speak for the government (unlike an FM, who speaks for the government only when he is authorized by the government to do so). Please don't remove these sources and don't change the article to incorrect information. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign minister of Vanuatu is definitely more reliable than Transparancy international (Georgian division: Transparency international Georgia) in the issues of Foreign policy of Vanuatu. It is obvious for all users except you. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, a foreign minister that said smth in mid-July 2011 is less reliable than an independent Western organization wrote in August 2011. The "Georgian division" does not change the fact that TI is a Western organization, not Georgian, and the report was written by a Vanuatu Division of TI, whose name and email is in the report in case you want to verify. This is very obvious. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As the website will show, it's Georgian; it's based in Georgia, staffed by Georgians, written by Georgians. That's pretty Georgian. The foreign ministry published a statement (with quotes) from the minister on the government's website confirming recognition. As a quick Google search will show on the recent recognition by Tuvalu, the "most recent sources from an independent organisation" show that Vanuatu has indeed recognised Abkhazia. Nightw 07:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The TI is not a Georgian organization (although has an office in Georgia) and the author of the lengthy analysis is not Georgian (the author is from Vanuatu, actually). If we don't want anything "Georgian" on this page, then let's apply the same exact standards to all other parties of the conflict - Abkhazia and Russia, for starters. Lastly, all independent media clearly are very cautious: RFERL states "reportedly" [15] and Eurasia.net uses "allegedly" [16] That's what a quick Google search revealed. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does the TI overview contradict the (well-sourced) fact that after PM Kilman was re-instated, his government re-confirmed the recogition of Abkhazia? sephia karta | dimmi 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the TI's analysis and conclusion? Aside from the Supreme Court being "supreme", have you noted this: "Finally, on 26th July, the Nagriamel President announced that he, “ wishes to make it publicly known that Titam Goiset has no legal mandate to represent the Nagriamel Movement in any dealings or negotiations with the current Government to appoint herself to any foreign missions such as Russia or Abkhazia.” (Vanuatu Daily Post, No 3303, Tuesday 26th July 2011, frontpage and page 4.) The Nagriamel statement also declared that, “Any appointments as such would be solely in Miss Goiset’s own personal interests and capacity.”" Here's the original newspaper issue [17] So clearly, there is a dispute within the Vanuatu government and political movements, and thus, Vanuatu cannot be considered to be in the same league as other countries that have really recognized Abkhazia. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)