Talk:List of states with limited recognition

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)

You seem to ignore my point: How is it not a legal conflict if some parties consider these entities legally independent states and others don't? sephia karta | dimmi 13:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If you had a point, then please elaborate on it. Who considers which states legally independent and others not? More importantly, once again, where is the "a conflict in international law" which you alleged? --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo is considered to be legally independent e.g. by Germany, Albania, the U.S., but not by e.g. Spain or Serbia. Northern Cyprus is considered to be legally independent by Turkey, but not by India, Greece or China. Abkhazia is considered to be legally independent by Nicaragua, Tuvalu and Russia, but not by Poland, Belgium or Georgia. sephia karta | dimmi 09:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

and once again, where's the "conflict in international law"? What you've shown is conflicting views between sovereign nation-states, but there is no conflict in international law. The international law and system recognizes the difference between a sovereign nation-state that has de jure recognition from all or majority of other such nation-states, and between some de facto entity that is vying for recognition. I've listed a ton of references to top legal scholars who underline that the international law sees a difference between de facto and de jure recognitions. So there is no "conflict in international law". --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the difference between de facto and de jure recognition, which is irrelevant here. All these states recognise Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, etc. de jure. According to Germany, Kosovo is an independendent state in international law, according to Spain it is not. They have different views of the international legal situation here. That is the conflict I am talking about. sephia karta | dimmi 16:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They can have different views, that's normal, but there is no conflict in international law. There is a conflict in views between different nations, but it's a prerogative of a nation-state to either extend a recognition or not. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Call it a conflict or not, the point is that the different actors have a different view of the international legal situation. We cannot choose sides, so calling the two points of view claims is not inappropriate. sephia karta | dimmi 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "we cannot choose sides" - in some things, of course we can, as we must go with the legal and most authoritative side throughout our lives, as well as online, on Wikipedia. If someone bombs your house, he/she is a criminal, there is no second way of looking at it. If someone surfs the Internet and downloads underage porn, he/she is a criminal, no second way of classifying that. If police asks your help, you cooperate. If an enemy attacks your country, you can be called to defend it by your armed forces. You abide by laws every single day, every hour, every second. Wikipedia abides by laws, too, specifically, by U.S. laws, by the laws of the State of Florida - so please keep that in mind. In of international law, it is made by the UN Security Council, so you and all abide by that. Thus, if the UN SC has stated something, has taken a position on the issue, then anyone who says the opposite claims so. But sometimes, the UN SC has not taken a position, and in that case it's more complicated, we have to look at a wider number of sources, and perhaps even assign the same level of trust and weight to both sides' claims/positions. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis' revert

Chipmunkdavis, why have you reverted here [1] 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." [2] 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 [3]
• Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor Boleslaw Adam Boczek [4]
• 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" [5]
• Dr. Mohammed Bedjaoui [6]
• judge Nurullah Yamali [7]
• Indian jurist S. K. Verma [8]

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 [9] was of an article from Arminfo news agency [10], that was simply archived on a forum.[11] 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 [12] - 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 [13], 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" [14] and Eurasia.net uses "allegedly" [15] 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 [16] 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)

What is "Nagriamel President" and "Nagriamel Movement"??? I think that it is absolutely irrelevant to this article. We are speaking about Republic of Vanuatu - not about this movements. Transparency International, Nagriamel Movement and so on have no relevancy to this article. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh, so again, how does this contradict the fact that the government re-confirmed recognition of Abkhazia? Your quote is from a dispute between two people (Patunvanu and Goiset) who claim to be the president of the Nagriamel movement, which is about traditional leadership. ...nothing to do with the government. You seem to be drawing your own conclusions from this piece. All this shows is that there is a (very minor) political party in a leadership dispute whose claimants are disputing each other's actions. Nightw 09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When and where did the government of Vanuatu "reconfirm" its recognition of Abkhazia? We only have the FM saying that in June and July, that's all. Nothing since then. The "government", which is President, PM and Vice PMs, have not said anything to my knowledge. The article posted on their website is from June and is once again citing the FM. Considering how fast things change in Vanuatu, anything can happen and can be expected. But in Wikipedia, we are supposed to move carefully, after all sources have been studied, verified and researched. As the UN General Assembly is in session right now, with all diplomats meeting, I think we will have clarity in the coming days. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the government is the cabinet, composed of the prime minister and his council of ministers (including the foreign minister). Find a government source that contradicts the statement by the foreign ministry, or leave it be. Right now, you have three editors disagreeing with you and even the source you've provided doesn't say what you want it to. If you can't find a source that does, but still feel strongly about it, you can take the matter to a content noticeboard. Nightw 10:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the foreign minister gave a reconfirmation that's pretty solid. In addition, recent sources discussing Tuvalu note relations exist with five other countries, sometimes explicitly naming Vanuatu. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The FM is not the Prime Minister or President of Vanuatu. And he reconfirmed it several months ago, with no additional news. Considering how many things have happened since then, and how fast things change in Vanuatu itself, a confirmation from an FM from July is not 100% proof. However, since there are no disputes from other Vanuatu officials up to this point, I guess it makes sense to add Vanuatu to the list of nations that recognized Abkhazia. Vanuatu is supposed to speak at the UN GA next week, maybe there will be more clarity there from its delegation to the UN. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Vanuatu speaks at UN General Assembly - nothing on Abkhazia recognition

So the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, who is the head of the cabinet and the most powerful politician in the country, spoke at the UN General Assembly. While he mentioned Timor Leste and South Sudan twice, there is no mentioning of recognition of Abkhazia. It's very telling, because South Sudan became a UN member July 14, 2011 - same date as the Foreign Minister of Vanuatu unilaterally recognized Abkhazia - whilst Timor Leste became a UN member in 2002. Here's what he said in this context:

• "Mr, President,

I would also like to profit from this occasion to congratulate the Government and People of the Republic of South Sudan on the birth of their new nation on 9th July this year. Vanuatu recognises the sovereignty of South Sudan and offers the young nation our full support."

• "Let me at this juncture acknowledge the work of the peace keeping and nation

building missions of the UN in supporting new countries like Timor Leste, South Sudan, and others in their nation building."

So he mentioned these two nations, one of which declared independence and got recognition exactly around the same time as Abkhazia, but did not mention Abkhazia. Now, he didn't deny anything either, keeping it deliberately ambiguous, to maximize on benefits being offered by Russia and Georgia, but still, it's quite telling: so far, there is no full recognition of Abkhazia by Vanuatu. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Him not mentioning it isn't proof of non recognition. Perhaps he only wanted to mention UN member states? Perhaps he didn't want uselessly create a giant controversy (or several more colourful descriptors) over a political point that was rather irrelevant to him? He wasn't there to speak about Abkhazia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I did write "Now, he didn't deny anything either, keeping it deliberately ambiguous, to maximize on benefits being offered by Russia and Georgia, but still, it's quite telling: so far, there is no full recognition of Abkhazia by Vanuatu", so I didn't say its definitive proof. Meanwhile, he was in the UN GA to talk about all the issues concerning his country and the international community. The fact that he talked, unprovoked, about Timor Leste and South Sudan, means he was ready to talk about new states. Most others didn't talk about these nations (I've listened to several speeches, none said, but of course, there are 193 (well, 190) member-states, I can't listen to them all). And of course Abkhazia is not irrelevant to him - as you can see from the TI analysis, it caused problems domestically in Vanuatu, with Supreme Court case, an Ambassador recalled, a whole government fired, then making a come back, etc. Anyways, this just proves the point that it's kept deliberately ambiguous by Vanuatu government. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)