Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Palestine

it has now the recognition as UN Observer State. we can't put it in the same place with a totally non member states 3bdulelah (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure we can. It's not a member state. Observer mission or observer state, it's still only an observer and thus not a member of the body. --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?

Why we have a separated category for "Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" and "Partially unrecognised UN member states"? UN is not some sort of "very good atlas", its just some sort of organization that countries MAY want/try to join. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.189.95 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Trying to explain that for a while - most recently here, but also in previous discussion on that page such as here, here and here. This editing phenomena can be described as "UN membership POV" - and it's ironic that actually there are official sources showing that the UN itself doesn't agree with the notion that it's a gatekeeper of statehood, sovereignty, acceptance, importance or what not. Japinderum (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this page and several others was the result of a multiyear discussion which can be found in the archives of the list of soveriegn states page. I personally was in the minority and against using UN membership as a classification criteria, and instead favoured whether a state is recognized diplomaticly by a majority of otherstates as the determining factor, but i was in the minority. Your welcome to try to change people's minds about it, but the system in use now has fairly solid grounds after going through several rounds of mediation, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I will check the place you said to see if there is any discussion there, if dont find it I will ask here back for location of it. Also unlike japinderum I made an question, I am not trying to change the article (because I may even be wrong), I was just curious about it.187.58.190.246 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

US recognition of North Korea

Along with Japan and South Korea, the United States also appears not to recognise North Korea. The article North Korea–United States relations states that the US has never recognised North Korea, and this article states that, as of 2004 when it was written, the US did not recognise North Korea, and a 2012 article states that the two countries remain technically at war and strongly suggests the US still doesn't recognise North Korea. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the U.S. and North Korea were never technically at war to begin with (the last declaration of war by the U.S. was in 1942), they could not still, from the U.S. point of view, still technically be at war, could they? It was the UN who was handling that, and the UN lacks the capability to declare war. I'm would like for that guy, a Korea fellow at the CFR, to explain what he means by being technically in a war that was never technically declared. But that's just my original research. --Golbez (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked this question previously here, but ultimately found some pretty convincing evidence that they do recognize North Korea. Particularly this: "Yes, [Secretary of State] Colin Powell and the administration have gone out of their way on several occasions since early November to say explicitly, “We recognize North Korea’s sovereignty.”" [1] and this: "The U.S. recognizes North Korea as a sovereign state and doesn't plan to attack the communist nation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said." [2] TDL (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, yeah I had a look at the earlier discussion and it seems pretty convincing that the US does recognise North Korea (although 'diplomatic recognition' is a pretty abstract concept in any case, particularly in situations like this where normal diplomatic relations don't exist). With regards to the "technically at war" quote it seems pretty clear that this is a factual mistake by the writer. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

arguably a contemporary example

[3] edit changed "The recognition of the State of Palestine by over one hundred states is a contemporary example." to "The recognition of the State of Palestine by over one hundred states is arguably a contemporary example."

What's arguable here? There are plenty of sources, including 2013 ones, stating that those territories are occupied by Israel. Japinderum (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's great, but doesn't address the issue at hand of whether Palestine meets the declarative criteria for statehood. This is a question that is far more complicated that the oversimplifications you like to put forward. See here for example: "The question of whether a Palestinian state exists, as a question of fact, is the subject of disagreement." and "On one hand, in the Gaza Strip, there is at least a regime that theoretically meets the conditions of the Montevideo Convention and appears to be essentially independent." and "It is likely that the Palestinian Authority, at least in Area A (the areas in which the Palestinian Authority has full responsibility for internal security, public order, and civil affairs), also meets the aforementioned conditions of independence." You can also look at [4]: "In 2007, Vaughan Lowe opined that Palestine met the criteria for statehood as of that date." I suggest we just remove Palestine from the list entirely because it's far too complicated a situation to fit into a list of clearcut examples. TDL (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I point you to the plenty of sources about Israel control/occupation? Nobody questions that for the West Bank and for Gaza only Israel questions it (but again, Hamas is not part of SoP, so that's a moot point). The paragraph we discuss here is not about "who meets the declarative criteria for statehood", but about "entities which do not have control over any territory or..., but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state." - SoP territory is under Israel (or Israel and Hamas) control and SoP is recognized by at least one other state, so it clearly fits the situation described in the first sentence. And as the only contemporary example it's quite notable and relevant. Japinderum (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please do show me a single source that says Palestine does "not have control over any territory". And no, a source that says that Israel controls/occupies Palestine is not sufficient to back up this claim. TDL (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You understand that here "any" territory doesn't include embassies and consulates, but permanently populated territories; and "control" doesn't mean "per diplomatic conventions for embassies and consulates", but is in the sense related to statehood and sovereignty - "sovereign control" (unobstructed by foreign influence - unlike colonies, dependencies, sub-federal subjects, local administrations under foreign military occupation, etc.), "ultimate control" (as per international conventions for who's a "controlling power ultimately responsible" - for genocides and such issues), etc. So, "sources that say that Israel controls/occupies Palestine" are exactly those you're looking for. Over what permanently populated territory SoP has ultimate sovereign control? Japinderum (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is all very interesting OR, however the question remains. Can you show me a single source that says: Palestine "do not have control over any territory"? TDL (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not OR, but explanation what the sentence means. I can show you many sources that all of these territories are controlled by Israel. You said you don't want those sources, that's why I explained to you what "control" and "any territory" refers to and that the meaning of "control" utilized in that sentence precludes the possibility of both Israel and SoP having control. Besides, it's PNA that's allowed by Israel (the controlling power) to perform some actions in Areas A/B - not SoP. What do you disagree with? Japinderum (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I want a source which actually supports the text that is written, not your OR interpretation of it. So please, show me a source which says Palestine does "not have control over any territory". If you can't support this claim, I'll go ahead and remove this sentence. TDL (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Saeb Erekat, disagreed arguing that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had already declared independence in 1988. "Now we need real independence, not a declaration. We need real independence by ending the occupation. We are not Kosovo. We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence", Israel remains in charge of territories, the state of Palestine is occupied, PA official said and plenty more. Which is the territory you think that SoP controls? Japinderum (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Those sources say lots of things, but they certainly don't say that Palestine does "not have control over any territory". TDL (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One more, Israel, which exercises military rule over the Palestinian territories. So, what's the "any" territory that SoP controls? Japinderum (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another interesting one: "the mountains of Galilee constitute the highest part of Israel, reaching an elevation of 3,963 feet". But back on topic, have you found any sources which say that "Palestine does not have control over any territory"? TDL (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of those right above showing that Israel controls all of the territory, so SoP controls none. You have no sources about SoP controlling any territory, do you? Japinderum (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, those sources don't say Israel controls all of the territory. And even if you did, the conclusion you draw from that ("so SoP controls none") which isn't stated in any of the sources, is OR. Try again. Also, see WP:BURDEN. I'ts not my responsibility to prove your claim false. TDL (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but if I look at the structure of the paragraph, the first sentence is: "There are also entities which do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state". An example in that case thus would be an example of an "entities which do not have control over any territory or do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state". This is true if:

• State of Palestine does not have control over any territory (clause 1) or
• State of Palestine does not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood (clause 2)

... but have been recognised to exist de jure as sovereign entities by at least one other state

Now both of you are debating about point one, but isn't it clear that point two is valid (SoP doesn't unequivocally meet declarative statehood criteria)?, so SoP is an example of the statement in the first sentence? Whether SoP does control its area is up to debate (it's not unequivocally so), so the sentence only requires proof for "not unequivocably" meeting that requirement of statehood, which clearly has been passed. "Not Unequivocably" and "arguably" (suggesting we can still argue about the "not equivocably" part) are thus mutually exclusive in this context L.tak (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whichever clause they're listed under, it needs to be sourced. It's not obvious to me that they don't meet the declarative theory of statehood as defined by this article: a defined territory; a permanent population; a government; a capacity to enter into relations with other states. I fail to see how their could be any significant ambiguity over their passing all these criteria, so the only clause they might satisfy is number one. Which part of the criteria do you think their is ambiguity over? TDL (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"unambiguously control of territory"; depending on the definition this is, or is not within the control of the State of Palestine. So that is not unambiguous... (if we remove unambiguous from the first sentence; we can add arguably in the second of course...) L.tak (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But that's not one of the criteria this article lists in its definition of the declarative criteria for statehood. Control of territory is only covered by clause number one, which doesn't contain an "unequivocally". TDL (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave you multiple sources above (and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory you can find plenty more) that Israel is the controlling power. Not the PNA, and certainly not SoP. There are also plenty of sources (Israeli-POVed) stating "SoP does not exist", "Palestine is not a state", etc. Do you have a source about a territory controlled by SoP? Any territory? Control, unhampered by Israel ("full", "sovereign", "ultimate")?

I agree with L.tak that having both "unequivocally" and "arguably" is redundant and I think we should remove "arguably". Even if there is a SoP controlled territory (which I haven't seen a source for), for sure it's not "unequivocally" meeting the criteria. For example: "The report, written by a special Security Council committee and obtained by CNN, was the result of seven weeks of meetings. It details myriad disagreements between the council members on whether Palestine fulfills the requirements set forth in the U.N. charter for members countries."[5]. So, SoP falls in either or both parts of the sentence. Japinderum (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

TDL, If you mean by "clause 1", 1 of the clauses of declarative statehood, then I agree that that clause should be satisfied, for an entity to be "a state" by that theory. However, if we write that in certain cases the criteria are not unequivocally met, the "burdon of proof" becomes much lower then without the "unequivocally", as we don't have to be definite.

If you mean by "clause 1", the first part of the sentence that we have, then indeed that condition is (IMO) not met. However for a suitable example entity, that clause does not have to be met, as examples need to handle either of the two parts of the sentence (as they are connected via an OR-statement). Could you indicate what reasoning you meant; and if you disagree with my analysis? L.tak (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is getting quite confusing. By clause I mean which half of the sentence, ie which branch of the OR statement, the state qualifies under. (I've added this to your comment above for clarity, feel free to revert if this refactoring bothers you.)

If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that Palestine qualifies under clause 2. But using our definition of the declarative criteria for statehood, clause 2 is valid only if Palestine does not "unequivocally" meet one of the following criteria: "a defined territory; a permanent population; a government; a capacity to enter into relations with other states". Control of territory isn't covered by our definition of declarative criteria for statehood and thus clause 2. Which of these 4 criteria do you think there is doubt about Palestine passing? TDL (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why there is the word "unequivocally", so that we avoid giving a definite judgments ourselves. So, you don't argue that SoP controls territory, but that it doesn't need to control it, but only to claim it, is that so? I disagree and at Israel UN membership application criteria discussion (among other sources about what a sovereign state is, etc.) you can see that "a defined territory" and "a government" doesn't mean "a government claiming some territory without controlling it" and that control on the ground is what counts, not claims. Otherwise all GiEs and Micronations would've been included in the article along Somaliland as they all claim some territory, have governments and no recognition. Japinderum (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, keeping in mind the above and 08:26, 22 January 2013 and 10:08, 28 January 2013, I propose to remove "arguably". TDL, do you still disagree? Japinderum (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Japinderun that the part "is not unequivocably meeting declarative statehood criteria" stems from the fact that we have to link it to the "state of Palestine" (as it was declared). We could argue whether that state has a government (or is the government) of Palestine/Palestinian territory, if the government functions are performed by the Palestinian Authorities (in part). Can we think of a rephrase of this example? L.tak (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

well the problem may even be ita defined territory; a permanent population; a government; a capacity to enter into relations with other states

The government of SoP is the PLO-EC, not the PNA (see sources at SoP article). And as Israel controls all of the territory (see sources above 06:59, 29 January 2013, 08:26, 22 January 2013 and Occupied Palestinian Territory, etc.) neither PNA nor SoP control any territory. But we don't need to go in such details in the sentence we discuss - details can go in Palestine and/or Israel entries in the list below. Here we argue about the redundant "unequivocally" and "arguably". No need for the latter. Japinderum (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Japinderum, all of this is OR. If you think that Palestine "do not unequivocally meet the declarative criteria for statehood", then show me a single source that says that. If you think Palestine "do not have control over any territory" (note the lack of an unequivocally) then show me a single source which says that. Despite your claims, your sources don't say that Israel controls all of the territory. And even if they did, the conclusion you draw from that ("so SoP controls none") which isn't stated in any of the sources, is OR. I've shown you sources above which argue that Palestine meets the criteria. Please support your POV with a source. TDL (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

TDL, you request a negative proof, but haven't provided any positive proof either. Where is your source about SoP controlling a territory? I provided you multiple sources about Israel controlling all of the territory (I don't understand what do you mean by "sources don't say so". They say "We are under Israeli occupation and for independence we need to acquire independence", Israel remains in charge of territories, the state of Palestine is occupied, PA official said", "Israel, which exercises military rule over the Palestinian territories", quite clear, where do you see a discrepancy). "So SoP controls none" comes directly from that just like from "The wall is black" comes "so it's not white". You provided sources about arguably meeting the criteria, and that falls in line with the "unequivocally". There are plenty of sources (for example at 08:15, 23 January 2013) about SoP not meeting the criteria (also arguably) and those also fall in line with "unequivocally". Japinderum (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)