Talk:Associated state

Recognition

Are associated states recognised as independent states by geographical/political associations? —RadRafe 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The constitutional status of the associated states of the US and New Zealand really are quite different. The answer to your question is yes for the United States, no for New Zealand.

Roadrunner 23:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Bringing in discussion from List of states with limited recognition . Why no for New Zealand? Cook Islands and Niue have diplomatic relations in their own name and are members of the Pacific Islands Forum, the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, etc.Ladril (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's here, one of the main reasons that I'm sure the rest of the world sees it would be this point: "The residents of those islands share citizenship with New Zealand." The others do not have that same status. So unless that link is broken & an open declaration is made on independence, then it won't be seen as the same. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First, let's try not to make unsubstantiated generalizations here (I'm talking about the "rest of the world" part). Both Cook and Niue are party to many international organizations which are only open to independent states, and they have diplomatic relations as independent states with several other states. You can't have diplomatic relations & ambassadors in other countries if you do not claim to be an independent state and are not recognised as such by others. As I said in the other page, the Joint statement between New Zealand and Cook Islands, which specifies that New Zealand does not qualify the statehood of Cook Islands and specifies its right to conduct its foreign relations as a sovereign state, is revealing. Another fact is that New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue have exchanged ambassadors with each other, a formality which would not be needed if they were all part of the same state.

1) Citizenship. Originally a concept defined in the Greek city-states, was for a long time understood as tying the person to a specific state, but that is no longer true today. The most salient example is that today it is possible to be a citizen of a supranational entity (the European Union). However, it is also possible to be a citizen of an entity which is not a sovereign state (like Puerto Rico and New Caledonia). There are also states which extend citizenship to jurisdictions that are not part of them (the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK, but their inhabitants have UK citizenship). So in practice it is also possible for two or more sovereign states to share a common citizenship. Besides, the issue of common citizenship is not as defining as people think - New Zealand citizens from outside both the Cook Islands and Niue do not have the same rights to live and work in those jurisdictions as the nationals do.

2) Declaration of independence. Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau have never declared independence. They moved directly from UN Trusteeship to Compacts of Free Association with the US. Has that prevented them from being treated as sovereign states in the international arena? Then why is this ever-recurring argument against Cook Islands and Niue keep coming up? I'm not trying to argue that CK and Niue are formally independent, but instead that states in free association are in fact considered to be sovereign states and as such they ought to be listed as such, or else Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau should get crossed out. Ladril (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to bring a little historical perspective here. When the UN started its decolonization efforts in the sixties, they adopted Resolution 1541, which can be found in full text here. The spirit of this resolution is that territories considered to be non-self governing (such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Cook Islands and Niue, all of which were listed by the UN as non-self governing) had three choices to pursue self-government: integration with an existing state, independence, or free association. A state which is in free association with another is not a protectorate or a dependency of the other state, and thus listing Cook Islands and Niue in the List of dependent territories is not correct. Free association is not a surrender of sovereignty; it is basically an option (and an act of self-determination) for small nations which do not have the resources necessary to become viable independent states. States in free association are, however, treated by other states (their associates included) as sovereign states, because that's what they are in practice. Ladril (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So this does not get branded as original research, see this | opinion by a law scholar:

"From 1901 to 1965 the Cook Islands was administered by New Zealand as a dependent territory.

In 1965 the Cook Islands became self-governing in free association with New Zealand following an act of self-determination in accordance with United Nations decolonisation norms. The act of self-determination was the consequence of a parliamentary election in which the successful party had campaigned on the basis that it would enter into a relationship of free association with New Zealand."

"The partnership

relationship requires that the two Heads of Government consult on a regular basis in the interests of the partnership."

"The arrangement is entrenched by constitutional convention. This means that the Government of

the state of New Zealand has no power to administer or legislate for the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 was an act of denial of power. The arrangement has the approval and support of the international community as a consequence of the act of self-determination."

"The Cook Islands is responsible for the conduct of its international relations. The New Zealand

Government provides assistance when requested and where appropriate. The only constraint on the Cook Islands in the exercise of its foreign affairs is the commitment to the shared values of the common citizenship it shares with New Zealand. This means that there is on the part of the New Zealand Government an expectation of a common approach on key issues of international policy e.g. the one China policy, and respect for international human rights. New Zealand retains some responsibilities for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands. These responsibilities, however, confer no rights of control to the New Zealand Government and can only be acted on at the request of and on behalf of the Government of the Cook Islands."

"The distinctive feature of the Cook Islands legal situation is that the Cook Islands is not within

another state. It is a separate state but with special links to the state of New Zealand. This special relationship has arisen because of the colonial links between the Cook Islands and New Zealand. The present status evolved from the earlier colonial status.

"The Cook Islands and New Zealand share a number of things. Most visible is that they share a

Head of State. Both countries are within a constitutional structure identified as the Realm of New Zealand. The Sovereign of New Zealand is by law the Sovereign of the Realm of New Zealand. From that common starting point, the three states in the Realm have Heads of State who are identified as the Head of State “in Right of New Zealand” which means “in right of the Realm of New Zealand”. In the governing prerogative document, the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand, the state of New Zealand is identified as “New Zealand” and the Cook Islands as “the self-governing state of the Cook Islands”.

"Other matters in common are citizenship and currency. The Cook Islands has the privilege of

citizenship of the state of New Zealand. The grant of that citizenship is under the sole control of the state of New Zealand. The Cook Islands could establish its own citizenship but has not done so. The use of currency is a matter totally under the control of the Cook Islands Government. The current legislation provides for the New Zealand dollar to be legal tender.

"The Cook Islands situation might best be described as inchoate independence. The Cook Islands

governs itself both internally and externally but has chosen to have a relationship in the nature of a partnership with another state. This is not unlike the situation that would be achieved by two states through a treaty of friendship. A treaty of friendship would be a more formal way of doing what is already being done by the Cook Islands and New Zealand in a largely informal way. A treaty could deal with economic support, with mutual defence arrangements and with diplomatic representation. There is no legal reason why the Cook Islands and New Zealand could not have their relationship regulated by a treaty between them. Such a treaty would have to include provision for access to New Zealand citizenship by the people of the Cook Islands; that citizenship provision would not typically be found in a treaty of friendship.

"The Cook Islands could at any time and without consultation or approval of New Zealand

declare itself to be independent and no longer in a relationship of free association with New Zealand."

And a source written by the New Zealand government about Niue, see http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Countries/Pacific/Niue.php#bilateral :

Niue is a country “self-governing in free association with New Zealand”. This means:

- Niue is self-governing with the power to make its own laws. New Zealand cannot make laws for it, unless authorised or invited by the legislature of Niue to do so. In practice this never happens.

- The Niue Government has full executive powers;

- Niue remains part of the Realm of New Zealand, albeit a separate part, and the Queen in Right of New Zealand remains the Head of State of Niue;

- Niueans hold New Zealand citizenship and have open access to enter, live and work in New Zealand (and therefore also Australia);

- In recognition of constraints imposed by its size and isolation, the Niue Constitution states that New Zealand would retain responsibility for the external affairs and defence of Niue. By convention, these responsibilities confer no rights to the New Zealand Government and can only be acted on at the request of and on behalf of the Government of Niue. The Niue Constitution also commits New Zealand to provide "necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue".

Ladril (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note that New Zealand and the Cook Islands released a joint statement in 2001 clarifying their mutual relationship, in which they | say:

"AND DESIRING ON THIS CENTENARY to restate the principles underpinning the

relationship of partnership and free association between the Cook Islands and New Zealand as equal States independent in the conduct of their own affairs"

"Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised

exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands."

"In the conduct of its foreign affairs, the Cook Islands interacts with the

international community as a sovereign and independent state. Responsibility at international law rests with the Cook Islands in terms of its actions and the exercise of its international rights and fulfilment of its international obligations."

"Any action taken by New Zealand in respect of its constitutional responsibilities

for the foreign affairs of the Cook Islands will be taken on the delegated authority, and as an agent or facilitator at the specific request of, the Cook Islands. Section 5 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 thus records a responsibility to assist the Cook Islands and not a qualification of Cook Islands’ statehood."

"The Government of the Cook Islands possesses the capacity to enter into treaties and

other international agreements in its own right with governments and regional and international organisations."

"The Government of the Cook Islands has full legal and executive competence in

respect of its own defence and security. Section 5 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 thus records a responsibility to assist the Cook Islands and not a qualification of Cook Islands’ statehood." Ladril (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All these historical and legal reasons explain why Cook Islands and Niue are listed in UN websites as nonmember states or countries. Since their current status emanates from acts of self-determination and UN resolutions, the UN accept them as sovereign states (see | here and | here and many of the world's governments treat them as sovereign states. Ladril (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Those last links do not show the UN seeing them as "sovereign states", but as places getting social development. What I also meant above as 'declaration' would also be via referendum. Anyways, I'm not the one that needs to be convinced on how those 2 places are to be viewed as, but I would agree that if they were accepted as full members of the UN as the 3 'associated states with the USA', then I would personally be on your side unequivocally. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not listed as "places", they are listed as "countries", and the reason I put that site as an example here is to highlight the fact that the UN treats both Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign states. They are listed alongside all UN members, which would not be the case if they were considered to be dependent territories (besides, if you open the document links you'll find both governments refer to themselves as "sovereign states" in them). If you need further proof that the UN considers Cook Islands and Niue to be sovereign states, see this link, where they are both listed as states: http://erc.unesco.org/portal/UNESCOMemberStates.asp?language=en

On the same page, you can find that "Membership of the UN carries with it the right to membership of UNESCO. States that are not members of UN may be admitted to UNESCO, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference. Territories or groups of territories that are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members." Thus, since Cook and Niue are full and not associate members of UNESCO, they are recognized by the UN as sovereign. There is also this link: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html where Cook Islands is recognized as a state by the UN, and this UN map: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf where they are listed as states. Also this link if you need further proof: http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2009/unisl126.html

Unlike you, I do not believe that the UN membership does determine who is a sovereign state (if it did, then Switzerland was not a state before 2002, when they joined the UN, and the Holy See still isn't). I am posting here just to make it unequivocally clear that the UN regards both Cook and Niue as sovereign states. Of course, there are people who are never going to be convinced.

The main reason Cook Islands and Niue are not UN members is that they have not made an application (and my personal opinion is that if they made the application today, both would be admitted). We cannot exclude entities that are in all practical respects states just because they are not UN members, however. Ladril (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And also the Commonwealth lists Cook Islands as a sovereign state. See http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140411/140412/cook_islands/ Ladril (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See what they say. "Under the 1965 constitution, Cook Islands is a sovereign state with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and a unicameral legislature, which has exhaustive and (since 1981) exclusive legislative powers (including constitutional reform); the New Zealand House of Representatives cannot legislate under any circumstances in respect of the Cook Islands."

"Under a constitutional relationship, New Zealand may exercise, if requested by Cook Islands, certain responsibilities for its defence. Cook Islands has full constitutional capacity to conduct its own external affairs and to enter directly into international arrangements engaging its international responsibility." Ladril (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Cook Islands Prime Minister refers to his own country as a sovereign state here: http://www.cook-islands.gov.ck/view_release.php?release_id=1142 . "There is no question that the potential exists for greater cooperation, collaboration and integration with our Pacific brothers which, in my opinion, can only lead to improved benefits in future for each of us as small island developing sovereign states" . Ladril (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming when I mentioned about the UN: "that the UN membership does not determine who is a sovereign state", which I agree, but that this is of the situation about how the difference between those states in association are with the USA & with NZ. I'm quite certain also that if and when the Cook Islands & Niue do apply to become full members of the UN, that they will both be accepted, although their relational status with NZ may also need to be revised just prior to it's implementation (that being:

1. The Cook Islands remains part of the Realm of New Zealand (albeit a separate part), and the Queen in Right of New Zealand remains the Head of State of the Cook Islands;
2. Cook Islanders retain New Zealand citizenship (and do not have additional Cook Islands citizenship)) and likewise for Niue. http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Countries/Pacific/Cook-Islands.php

So whenever that may occur, then there will no longer be a difference between the two types of associated states mentioned here. P.S.- You also seem to be stressing a lot with the sovereignty situation, which I don't dispute, but I'm just pointing out that since they are not seen as fully independent at the moment, then that is the sticking point others are looking at when it comes to other matters for inclusion (like the List of states with limited recognition). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The same topic is discussed here. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

British dominions

Should British dominions be included as examples of associated states from the Statute of Westminster 1931 until patriation of their respective constitutions? JDM1991 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Patriation is a Canadian doing and the former dominions are not a good example to use within the context here. Those prior to the Statute may have been, but it would be hard to find a source to state they were in such of an agreement. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a link in the see also catagory to connect the two pages at the very least. --184.77.10.72 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging

The article List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others was voted to be merged with this. I started the process. Please contribute with it improving (not undoing) the work. Thanks. 187.36.138.78 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Aruba and Netherland Antillies (soon to dislove by 10/10/10)

according to the dutch consitution, the relasionship bettewn the netherlands, Aruba, and the other dutch carribean islands is one of a free assosication. Therefore should it not be inculded on this list?--74.60.232.185 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Already are listed, but will be updated after the 10/10/10 date (unless some unforeseen event occurs beforehand).That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between the Netherlands and the Dutch West Indies IS NOT that of free association. The islands are autonomous but integral parts of the Dutch kingdom. The free association option was included in the status referendums but was not selected by any of the 6 islands that comprise the Dutch West Indies (Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Saba, St. Estatitus, and Dutch St. Martin). 24.46.236.67 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

New Caledonia and French Polynesia

Should these two be listed in the 'other comparable relationships: A dependent and a sovereign state' table? Alinor (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of places should. It's highly incomplete, and I question it's value at all on this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I suggested these two in particular, because of their large degree of internal self-government. Anyway, you are right that starting such debate is like opening a can of worms... Maybe we should first have an established continuum with clear rules for integral-part/autonomy/dependency/associated/non-self-governing/etc. - and only then start to populate lists, etc. Alinor (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that states should be listed for what they officially claim to be. In this respect, the only entities which satisfy criteria for this page are the associated states of the USA, of New Zealand, and of Great Britain (none of which remain associated today). Maybe a special mention for Puerto Rico because of the wording in its constitution, and that's it. Ladril (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think giving this treatment to French Polynesia and New Caledonia would be offensive to French readers. An important principle of their constitution is that the French Republic is "one and indivisible". If we start listing parts of it as associated states we would be challenging this. For reference, note that the French Wikipedia article on Tahiti specifically states that its relationship to France is not like that of the Cook Islands to New Zealand. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No-one thinks that Tahiti is an associated state, and no-one is saying it is. The proposal is that it is on the table of dependent territories, of which French Polynesia is one. (Although it has the official title of Overseas country) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's the point of listing it in page where it doesn't belong? Unless substantiated by reliable sources, comparing Tahiti's political status to that of Micronesia or Niue would constitute original research. Ladril (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem with the section. The inclusion of other idea is probably useful for the article, but there is a lack of sources discussing political situations (though there must be hundreds out there). I've questioned the use of the tables before, but the main problem is the old List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others was merged into this article, and I disagree with completely deleting information. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I problem I see (rereading) you noted in that discussion! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You see? In the merge discussion I was pointing out that the merger would result in an incoherent page. Not that I advocate keeping a page of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others (I think it should have been either heavily reformulated or deleted). However, that decision left us with a mess of a page here. As in the Cook Islands/Niue case, this has shown why the wisdom of crowds often produces disastrous results. Ladril (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the dependent territory section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC opened on Cook Islands and Niue status

RFC opened on their status here: [[1]]. Editors are invited to participate. Ladril (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)