Talk:Annexation

Examples since 1949 - starting afresh

The thread above has become too complex, and appears to have run out of steam. Please comment on the proposals below:

1. Change 1949 to 1928 - i.e. the Kellogg–Briand Pact
2. Add examples pre 1928 - to illustrate the differences (since scholars do exactly this when describing the concept of annexation)
3. Separate ininhabited from inhabited - we should not be mixing annexation of uninhabited territories with those of inhabited territories. International laws such as the Geneva Convention apply to protection of civilians, not to rocks, so annexation is very different when there are no people involved.
4. Separate legally recognized from unrecognized - this would be a useful separation for readers
5. Consistency and focus - these examples all appear to be trying to convey different things, almost as a bunch of random facts. Much of the text in there is irrelevant to the actual act of annexation. I propose we restructure this to focus on the debate around the legality of each of these annexations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am busy at the moment on other things. However

1. No, It is confusing.
2. No, there are no need for example before 1949 and they will be confusing, particularly as it includes illegal annexations by the Axis powers. All that is needed is the comment that some annexations prior to 1950 were illegal and hence the chance in international law.
3. No the examples post 49 are useful to show that a few annexations can take place because some territory is/was not territory of a sovereign state that is a member of the UN. This is part of the justification that Israel uses for some of its annexations.
4. No there is no separation post 1949, because annexation is either recognised or illegal they are illegal under international law.
5. Yes. I agree that they ought to me more focused. See for example the conversion above about Tibet.

I do not thing that long quotes in citations are needed in the article (and they are confusing), particularly as they are selctive. If they are needed (because an editor queries the content then they can be placed on the talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS:

2. What exact change in international law you are referring to? 1949 is a red herring. Also, there were a lot less Axis WWII annexations than you appear to be implying. How many true annexations do you consider there were? Also leaving out the Anschluss is excluding one of the most famous examples of annexation is world history - it seems very strange.

3. That is an interesting point and should be incorporated in this article. Please can you bring sources?

4. Can you explain further? You seem to be saying "there is no separation because there is a separation"?!

On the quotes, can we please leave these for others to comment. The term is complex - this article has misunderstood it for a decade - so the extra clarity may be helpful for readers and editors alike. I participated in a recent WP:AN discussion at which the question of quotes in footnotes was discussed. A number of editors suggested it is best practice that all articles on complex or controversial topics should aspire to.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am opposed to giving examples from before 1949 because most of the world had been annexed or otherwise controlled by the European powers. It is not proper to ignore them and talk as if the "first world" is the only thing that existed. The decolonisation after the Second World War was also pretty chaotic as the newly independent countries consolidated. It is hard to get NPOV information about these events. So, I think 1949 is a good starting point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaitilya, colonization is not the same as annexation. Annexations were comparatively rare even in the late 19th century.

If you don't believe me, can you provide a source for your claim? Proving a negative is not always straightforward, but if I am wrong you should be able to disprove me easily.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Try these references:

• Fisher, Michael Herbert (1996). The Politics of the British Annexation of India, 1757-1857. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-563920-9.
• Cook, Matthew A. (4 December 2015). Annexation and the Unhappy Valley: The Historical Anthropology of Sindh’s Colonization. BRILL. pp. 21–. ISBN 978-90-04-29367-0.
• Walker, Eric Anderson (1963). The Cambridge History of the British Empire. CUP Archive. pp. 519–. GGKEY:J4RZC934KC3.
• Marshall, P. J. (2 August 2001). The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 388–. ISBN 978-0-521-00254-7.

I don't mean to suggest that the British were the only ones to annex overseas lands, but they are the ones I am most familiar with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right that these are annexations. But they were annexations to the East India Company, not to Great Britain itself. Colonies were rarely formally annexed to the "mother country" - exceptions such as the 1908 annexation of the Belgian Congo and the 1848 annexation of French Algeria were unusual. However, even these were rarely true annexations as we use the word today, since citizenship rights were usually not extended to the "native" population. This book gives an interesting overview:

Koskenniemi, Martti (29 November 2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge University Press. pp. 151–. ISBN 978-1-139-42943-6.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the topic of the page is Annexation. A Wikipedia page is supposed to cover everything reliable sources say about the topic.

I agree that, in some sense, the European nations were more sophisticated than the rest of the world in the discourse of law and diplomacy before 1949. But the rest of the world sees it merely as game-playing to cover up what they see as lawlessness. So I maintain that 1949 is a good starting point. By then a level playing field had been established in the world and we can cover events equitably. What happened prior to that should be regarded as "History of annexation", and should be covered in all its aspects, Companies or otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ok, that makes sense and I am happy with that.

Are you ok with 1945 rather than 1949? 1945 is the date of the United Nations Charter. 1949 is a misunderstanding introduced by another editor who mixed up human rights with sovereignty transfer. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No. There was no level playing field in 1945. Until the United Nations reached roughly the present size, it was still a world dominated by the European powers. As I already mentioned, 'decolonisation' would have been pretty chaotic all around the world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: see [1] for growth in UN membership. 1949 is a red herring. We need to pick a firm date grounded in whatever is most relevant. Scholarship suggests 1928 was the key date. I am proposing 1945 as a middle ground, even though the idea that there were dozens of annexations during WWII is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the feed through the UN was slow. But many of these countries were independent for several years before they became members. For example, Ceylon was a Dominion in 1948 and "United States of Indonesia" was formed in 1949 and so on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What has that got to do with 1949? Why not 1951 or 1947, or an equally random date of 4:59pm in the afternoon on 7 February 1946? Or the date of the United Nations Charter.

This all seems like an academic discussion - what annexations between 1945 and 1949 are we actually talking about excluding/including? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

1949 is a useful year because that is the year the GCIV came about. As the ICRC Commentary on Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories Art. 47 makes clear:

4. 'Annexation' ...

4. ' Annexation ' As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4 [Link] , the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory (4). Consequently occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory. As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts. And yet the Second World War provides us with several examples of "anticipated annexation", as a result of unilateral action on the part of the victor to dispose of territory he had occupied. The population of such territories, which often covered a wide area, did not enjoy the benefit of the rules governing occupation, were without the rights and safeguards to which they were legitimately entitled, and were thus subjected to whatever laws or regulations the annexing State wished to promulgate. Aware of the extremely dangerous nature of such proceedings, which leave the way open to arbitrary actions and decisions, the Diplomatic Conference felt it necessary to stipulate that actions of this [p.276] nature would have no effect on the rights of protected persons, who would, in spite of them, continue to be entitled to the benefits conferred by the Convention. It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation" (5). Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it (6). A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

GCIV removed a lot of wiggle room for states to annex territory (see GCIV of 12 August 1949 Articles 151-153 (page 222)). So post GCIV which was signed on 12 August 1949 and came into force 21 October 1950 ("Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949". ICRC: Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries. 23 March 2010.) is the best place to start a list of annexations under modern IHL. PBS (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Meaning of "annexation"

This article says "annexation" of one country by another refers only to coercive actions. It therefore would not include the addition of Texas to the United States, which was the result of a voluntary agreement negotiated between the two countries. Yet the article on that event is called Texas annexation and right in its first sentence it links to this article. This is a direct contradiction. I suggest that "annexation" does not in fact always imply coercion, in which case this article needs to be retitled or else expanded to cover both meanings. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It was called an “annexation”

That was in 1844.

This article is about 20th and 21st century use of the term. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because a population of a territory wants the territory to be annexed, does not mean it is non-coercive. What matters is the attitude of the state that previously possessed the territory. If the previous state accepts the transfer of the territory then it is not an annexation but a cession. Although the Texas Republic was de facto independent, as far as I can tell from the article "Texas annexation" this was not recognised as de jure by Mexico (see Unilateral Declaration of Independence and Rhodesia as another example of a state created by UDI {Texas should probably be added to the UDI examples list}). But two other considerations: Wikipedia articles are named by what is commonly used in reliable sources not the legal position; and the acquisition of the territories by the United states was a prolonged one so the process started out as a clear cut request for annexation, even if it were debatable that it was still an annexation when the United states acquired the territory. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In North America, the word seems to have a more neutral meaning (adding new territory) than the one described above. Hence "Texas annexation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFEA:170:E43F:3A29:8D81:6095 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Tibet does not belong

The Lhasa government claimed independence after the Chinese Revolution of 1911-12. But no recognised sovereign state ever accepted this. Moreover, the current Dalai Lama was installed with the approval of the Chinese government:

“The Kuomintang’s party song, which is also the Chinese national anthem, will be sung by Tibetan masses for the first time in history at the general enthronement ceremony on the first day of the festival.

“The ‘white sun in the blue sky’ flag on the Chinese government will hang in the main ceremonial hall, while the streets of Lhasa will be decorated with the flag and similar bits of bunting.

“All these, Tibetan sources pointed out, mark ‘the cordial friendship and political ties between Tibet and the central government’…

“The Chungking [Chongqing] government was quick to take advantage of an invitation to participate in the enthronement ceremonies. China hopes to establish better political and economic relations with its Tibetan provinces, and ultimately open up new trade routes making available the vast mineral resources of the area.

“Greater friendship and cooperation also is aimed at growing Japanese influence in Tibet… 100 Japanese ‘lamas’ are now studying at various monasteries. Nominally they are disciples of Buddha, but actually they act as Japanese secret service agents.

“These ‘lamas’, the Tibetans sad, have been fomenting anti-Chinese and anti-British feeling in Tibet, although ‘not too successfully’. Their activities, it was reported, had created enemies for them who are starting an anti-Japanese movement to clear Tibet of all Japanese influence."

(The Billings Gazette, February 18th 1940, found in an on-line newspaper archive. https://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/tibet/the-truth-about-the-dalai-lama/#_Toc417132734)

Suppressing a secessionist movement is not annexation.

'Annexation' only applies when the territory was not previously claimed, or the annexing country had for a time repudiated the claim. Whatever else you think about the issue, this was blatantly not the case for Tibet.--GwydionM (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything "blatant" about the issue, which is highly contested. But I agree that it is impossible for Wikipedia to decide whether Tibet was "annexed" or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People legitimately disagree about whether it was a good thing. But that it was legal is not at all ambiguous. No one ever recognised it as sovereign.--GwydionM (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

See the article Simla Accord (1914). No state recognised Tibet as a sovereign state. The last state to recognise it as a suzerainty of China was Britain which changed its position in 2008. While the sending of troops under the command of Beijing (Peking) can been seen as a breach of Tibet's semi-autonomy, it was not an annexation even if one took the British position prior to 2008. To include Tibet in this list is in my opinion to include an act that the majority of reliable sources (member states of the UN and the UN security council) do not consider to be an annexation. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the dominant Interpretation

There are Scholars of international law who reject the Reading of an Annexation.--Janos Hajnal (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than remove the section, add the criticisms, with references. Also note the lack of a regular government, see https://labouraffairsmagazine.com/past-issues/2015-magazine/2015-07-magazine/2015-07-ukraine-illegally-removed-its-elected-president/. --GwydionM (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Austrian scholar of international law Michael Geistlinger takes the line that no Annexation took place.--Janos Hajnal (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

See my reply in the section #Meaning of "annexation" "Just because a population of a territory wants the territory to be annexed,..."

If one looks at the wording of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815) it is startling to modern eyes just how states treated territory and populations. The best way to think of it is as farmers discussing farmland and animal herds. The developments of international law mainly pushed by American administrations post the two world wars was to emphasise the rights of nationalities to choose their own form of self-determination. This works fine when the nation state represents one nationality. It becomes much more difficult under internations law when there are several national groups within a state, because of the concepts of state sovereignty, territorial integrate of a state, and non-interference in the internal affairs by other states.

The problem with the ideas of self-determination and international law is described briefly in paragraph four of the article "self-determination", because if the state in which the national group resides rejects their right to self-determination (for any of the reasons given in that paragraph), then it runs into the older concepts of state (also called "national") sovereignty.

In an ideal world states would act like Britain did over the Scottish referendum process. Ie allowing it in the first place, and if the Scots had voted for independence then as far as the "Auld Enemy" (the English) were concerned they could fcuk off and if they wanted to join the EU then that was their business. The trouble is that many governments of sovereign states are not willing to give up territory or people, so in cases like Crimea, whether or not the people voted for it, if the sovereign state that is recognised as the holder of the territory rejects independence, and another state takes the territory, then the majority of other sovereign states are likely to consider it an annexation, either because not to do so might threaten their own territorial integrity (think of the Spanish government's reaction to the possibility of Scotland applying to join the EU), or because they see it as a means by which a rogue state could peruse an aggressive conquest of territory by stirring up unrest and under the pretence of helping minorities (think Germany 1938 and the Sudetenland) invade.

In summary I agree with GwydionM, if there is serious disarrangement (but it must meet the requirements of the WP:NPOV policy—WP:WEIGHT) then mention it. If an event post 1949 is held to be an annexation in most reliable sources/states then it ought not be removed, just because a minority of sources state that it is not. -- PBS (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Could people stop lying about Hong Kong?

The facts are simple. The core of Hong Kong was owned by the British Empire. The 'New Territories' were leased and automatically reverted in 1997.

Thatcher decided to give back even the core of this British property to China. It was anyway not viable if China had closed the border.

Then Chris Patten came along. He could not be bothered to say 'Beijing' in place of the old name Peking. He ruled a fair chunk of the world's Hakka without noticing their existence. But he had the bright idea of telling Hong Kong they would get Western freedoms - even though all of them were shut out of Britain and anywhere else they might want to emigrate to.

People seem to have forgotten that the British Empire never gave the ordinary Chinese of Hong Kong any self-government at all, until then.

Never have governed itself, it could not be annexed. Its owner gave it away and the people came with it.

People seem not to know these basic facts. --GwydionM (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Without opining on the merits of your statements, Hong Kong is not even mentioned in this article about annexations. Perhaps you meant your comment for Talk:Hong Kong? — JFG ^talk 11:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the history. Someone keeps trying to add it. --GwydionM (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@GwydionM: Howdy hello! One person tried to add it, and it was reverted promptly seeing as it was unsourced. Doesn't really seem like an issue at all to me. Until someone finds a reliable source saying it was an annexation, it won't be in the article. Oh, and Gwydion - don't forget to properly format your talk page entries by adding an increasing number of colons to each reply. Happy editing! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring over Tibet

GwydionM and 82.73.99.163 please discuss your issues here on the talk page. The block is a week now but if you both continue to edit after the block without a consensus you will be blocked further. If needed, please look at the dispute resolution process. Woody (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If you look back, there was a proper discussion back in 2018. That Tibet was never a recognised sovereign state is a fact, not an opinion. The entry is dishonest, but you have allowed the lie to stand.

You let the offender win the Edit War, upsetting the previous consensus.

Your choice. I have other things to be doing.--GwydionM (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Organizing sections

I'm not really sure why the article organized by the annexed territory in some parts and by annexation authority in other parts. The structure lacks consistency and it's so confusing. If no one's objecting, I will move the West Bank paragraphs concerning Israel under the "By Israel" section and add another sub-title called "Golan Heights", and create a section titled "By Jordan" for the Jordanian part of West Bank annexation. --Crazyketchupguy (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)