Talk:Landlocked country

Their is a part on here that mentions Congo being in the war in the pacific with Bolivia... False.

I just edited the raillocked section, as La Paz, Bolivia DOES have a railway connection to the Chilean coast. Watch Michael Palin's Full Circle documentary series and you'll see.

Are there any doubly landlocked enclaves or exclaves? JackofOz 01:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unlike Taiwan, Tibet is definitely not a countries (even though Western want she is a country)

Reverting vandal

I reverted past several edits by 68.104.237.69, some of which were obvious vandalism. Just to be safe, though, s/he changed 42 landlocked countries to 62, and I changed it back. Can anyone verify the real number? I also changed a few things that might not have been actual vandalism. But considering the source, it seemed safer to revert it. delldot | talk 16:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make sure we have a proper definition of what it is we are counting. Is it a list of sovereign states with no sea access from their own territorial base (regocnized or actual)? Does this include de facto independent entities? Compare the landlocked entities Nagorno-Karabakh, Kosovo and Transdniestria. --Big Adamsky 16:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article states there are 42 landlocked countries but includes 43 on the list provided.

Historical landlocked countries

In my opinion, this section should be removed. My problem is that there is theoretically no limit to what could be put there. Do we really want to see a big list of every landlocked Native American tribe, every landlocked principality in old Germany, most of the states in pre-British India, indigenous tribes in the Amazon... the list could go on and on. --Bletch 13:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point there. Since that list could potentially go on and on infinitely, it should probably either not be included, or else just be limited to a few very prominent examples. But then, which examples are very "prominent"? /Big Adamsky 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that it should just be eliminated; trying to determine "prominent" examples seems like a very tricky proposition. Mind if I do the honors? --Bletch 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. This list has been here quite some time, and it has failed to grow into anything useful. - SimonP 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Bletch 03:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about 44% of the world's lakes etc. is a bit of silly point scoring right at the begin of the article--BozMo talk 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV section

I have marked the section Landlocked sub-national and dependent territories and unrecognised countries POV because:

There is, to my knowledge, no officially sanctioned list on WP of List of sub-national and dependent territories and unrecognised countries. Bringing this up here will only lead to unnecessary discussion (eg why Tibet belongs to here but Ningxia doesn't?).
There is little information to be gained from this list. A list of, say, landlocked subnational entities may make slightly more sense but then it would be far too long. I see no reason why anybody would be interested in a list of subnational entites which are both dependent (or is an unrecognised country) and landlocked.

My proposal is thus to simply remove that section. --Pkchan 14:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, I'm just going to delete this section until a better one is made. - SimonP 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Togo

Togo has small coast in relation to its land borders, but this is also the case with Benin, Guyana, etc. Togo borders are consequense of colonial policy of a "coast capital + area around it" - as is the case with neighbooring Benin. It is not realy landlocked, it is more like a "coastal nation" (like Belize, Guyana, Suriname - they have bigger inland territories, but don't use them so much). Such coastal states are more similar to island nations. This leads to the question if we should include them in this list also... And remove Togo from paritialy landclocked (its case is much different than Bosnia, Congo, etc.) 199.64.72.252 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to have a separate section for such "coastal states" - similar to island states. In relation to this we should find better description for "almost landlocked", "coastal state", "island state", "borderless state" (see other discussions below). Alinor (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gambia

Sure, the Gambia only has a small area on the Atlantic Ocean, and so it's technically "almost landlocked." But it's a nation that's built around the Gamiba River coming out of the Atlantic Ocean. Virtually everybody in The Gambia is within miles of a river which leads directly out into the ocean. Since the whole deal with landlocked nations is that they have no access to the sea, I don't think Gambia really qualifies as "almost landlocked." The Disco King 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That makes a lot more sense! The Disco King 18:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesotho

i don't think lesotho fits the presented definition of "doubly landlocked," since south africa is clearly not landlocked. SH

Noun

I've moved this article to Landlocked country (from Landlocked, and fixed all double redirects except those on talk and user pages) because article titles should be nouns whenever possible. Since this article is almost entirely about landlocked countries, it seemed like the thing to do. - dcljr (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landlocked countries by continent

America is two continents, not one, and Oceania is not a continent at all. The three continents without landlocked countries are North America, Australia, and Antarctica, yes?

Australia is a country within th continent of Oceania, not a continent in and of itself. Of course, this gets into the nasty business of what counts as a continent, and which countries belong to which continent.91.164.136.27 11:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America as a single land mass could justifiably be called single continent, but it may also be identifyable as two distinct land masses that are connected. Oceania has the weakest claime to be a continent and is usually just a convenient geoppolitical and geographical term to tidy up the nations not on any other continent. Australia is rightfully a contient in its own right (Austalasia is we want to use the cotinental shelf ads the defintion which brings in New Zealand and New Guinea (but not the rest of Oceania). Check out the article Continent to be more confused! Dainamo (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m confused by the one of the totals in the article. “If Armenia and Azerbaijan are counted as part of Europe, then Europe has the most landlocked countries, at 16. Kazakhstan is also sometimes regarded as a transcontinental country, so if that is included, the count for Europe goes up to 18.” How does adding one country (Kazakhstan) take the total from 16 to 18? AaRH (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New country?

What about Republic of Macedonia? Babylon pride 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevance

If that is taken to be true, 44 percent of the total amount of water in the world's lakes forms the Caspian Sea. A sea that is almost landlocked is connected to the oceans by a strait only, such as the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Black Sea. This may be of strategic importance, with one or two countries controlling the entrance, and/or be relevant for tides and freshwater content

This has nothing to do with being a landlocked country.

The bit about "rail locked" countries seems a non sequitur. Rabourn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein and the Danube river?

indirect access to the sea, via the Danube river in Liechtenstein's case?

I think this part is confusing.

Austria has indirect access to the sea via the Danube river, but the river flows through Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine first. In comparision, the Rhine river flows through Liechtenstein, Swiss, Austria, Germany, France and the Netherlands.

I think the important difference is that the Rhine is not shippable from Liechtenstein. But it is shippable from Basel, so Swiss and the Rhine should be both mentioned as indirect access? Could someone please clean this up? --Ccwelt 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with Navigable access to the internationalized Danube

A "landlocked" country has no access to the sea and is therefore unable to transport goods or people without passing over the territory of another country. As most of the Danube is classified as international it is effectively a narrow inland extension of international waters. Has this not brought into question the landlocked definition of countries such as Austria and Hungary? Obviously I wish to avoid synthesis or original research here, but I would imagine notable geographers must have considered this somewhere? Dainamo (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is mentioned in the article, in 4th and 5th bullet of the "History and significance" section. I don't think some further elaboration is called for. Obviously, those countries are still landlocked, though the status of Danube somewhat alleviates it. No such user (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Island country or borderless country?

Shouldn't the intro mention a borderless country instead of an island country. After all you might reach land abroad within the same island on an island country that isn't borderless. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way things stand at Island country, "island country" is defined as a country without land borders (i.e. what seems more natural to call a "borderless country"). It hasn't always been this way (see this brief rename debate), and I would say that any definition of "island country" that excludes Brunei, Haiti or the UK is quite a weird one. But of course, all that should be a matter of how reliable sources define the term, and anyway it's fodder for Talk:Island country. If a change is brought about there, then yes, the intro of this article should also be changed. -- Jao (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (again), I was not looking at Island country but at List of island countries. They contradict each other heavily, and I will immediately add boilerplates about that. -- Jao (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings wrong

At the top of the page it says there are 43 landlocked countries, but the list is of 44 countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoobz19 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the map, Andorra is not listed although it is clearly landlocked. Mike H. Fierce! 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another doubly landlocked country

Bhutan is a doubly landlocked country... --121.72.161.155 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... no it isn't.. hehe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.161.155 (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

economic development

isn't there some research about (the problems of) landlocked economic developement that should be mentionend here.

PS: shouldn't there be a link to the article landlocked developing countries? What about an article-merger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.73.107.224 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Gaza is on the coast, but it is separated from the West Bank (bordering the Dead Sea). Should we put West Bank in the list? Alinor (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think not, because Palestine is not yet a country proper. Note that this is not an attack on its legitimacy, but merely pointing out the fact that they have not yet established themselves as a proper nation-state. Until such time, though the West Bank meets the definition of 'landlocked territory', it cannot be called landlocked. Even if/when Palestine does become a country, the debate as to whether or not it's landlocked could be interesting - but still irrelevant at this time. Arielkoiman (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contiguous"

In "List of landlocked countries", these countries are grouped into contiguous groups. Half of the groups listed, however, are not actually contiguous. The following groups are not contiguous:

South African cluster (6): Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe
East African cluster (4): Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda
Easter Asian cluster (4): Bhutan, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal
Western Europe cluster (7): Andorra, Austria, Liechenstein, Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland, Vatican City (Holy See)
Eastern Europe cluster (5): Belarus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia

82.139.81.67 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently vandalised [1]. Thanks for spotting that. No such user (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Athos

Why is Mt. Athos mentioned as a landlocked country? It is a peninsula in the Aegean Sea. Furthermore, it would seem to be more appropriately labeled as a autonomous territory than a true country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.81.51 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly Landlocked

Do we need this section? It seems pointless as it stands, and is incomplete as a list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map inconsistency (default scale/full scale)

In the article and in the image file, the map displays four small dots in Europe. They probably correspond to Luxembourg, Andorra, the Vatican, and San Marino (though Andorra would be misplaced, way too East, very close to the Mediterranean). However, when I click onto the map to see it full scale, these four dots disappear.

There also seems to be a problem in the southern part of Africa: on the downscaled map, one can see two green patches that seem to be located in South Africa, but in full size, there is only one visible (it's probably Lesotho, what would the other one be, a former township, or an underscaled Zimbabwe?).

It might only be a rendering problem on my computer, but it is quite strange.

Cheers.

Loqueelvientoajuarez (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They appear on my computer, but you could be right that Andorra is too far east. The second African one is Swaziland! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pre-1918 doubly landlocked countries

there was no doubly landlocked country in the world from the Unification of Germany in 1871 until the end of World War I.

This can't be right. For a start, some of the smaller Indian Princely States were certainly doubly-landlocked. 90.245.20.161 (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of the "repetitive" moment

These two are repetitive in my opinion. No reason to mention the split of Montenegro twice in the same article.

Serbia became landlocked when Montenegro split from Serbia and Montenegro.
The independence of Eritrea and Montenegro, brought about by successful separatist movements, have caused Ethiopia and Serbia respectively to become landlocked.

--Avala (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards.

Why is it that Kazakhstan is considered landlocked when it has acces to the Caspian sea, while Ukraine is not when it has acces to the Black Sea? There are other countries that fit this description, either they are both landlocked, or neither are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.137.106 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Black Sea is not a lake. Aaker (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

black sea gives direct access to the ocean through the Mediterranean sea. the caspian sea requires the use of man made canals

Australia

"Of the major landmasses, only North America and Australia do not have a landlocked country inside their respective continents."

This is clearly false. What about the Principality of Hutt River? Last I checked, they were completely landlocked. Arielkoiman (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Capital Territory centred on Canberra (which is a territory not a state or country) has no access to the sea, except for a non-continuous part at Jervis Bay. Tabletop (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not have a landlocked country

Hutt River really doesn't count, it is a micronation, and lists of countries don't include micronations. The ACT is a territory, not a country. There really shouldn't be any dispute, the whole major landmass is taken up by one country, so of course there are none inside. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]