Talk:Dependent territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Jan Mayen[edit]

Are there any sources that call Jan Mayen a dependency, or treat it as such? Not all integral territories are listed here, or we'd add every area in each country. CMD (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, and the adjacent explanation is completely wrong (it has no special status, is not subject to any treaties with Russia, is militarised, and is fully subject to Norwegian law, including tax and the EEA). I removed it but was reverted by Aotearoa with no reason. Care to justify that Aotearoa? Rob984 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
In this entry a source has been attached – you've deleted it without providing any sources for your point of view. Moreover, Jan Mayen is listed as territory (with Svalbard) in ISO 3166 and by the United Nations Statistics Division; CIA World Factbook lists it as separate territory, as well as [U.S. Department of State]. So, if you propose to delist this territory, first you should discusse this issue. Aotearoa (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The source simply distinguishes Jan Mayen from the dependent territories of Norway. It does state, in relation to Norway, Jan Mayen has the same status as Svalbard, meaning both are integral territory, in contrast to dependencies (see context of statement in the source). It doesn't claim Jan Mayen has any special status. It also states:
However, the Svalbard Treaty does not apply to Jan Mayen, which means that Norwegian jurisdiction can be exercised without any considerations concerning restrictions contained in that Treaty. Or, to put it in another way: The position of the Norwegian government with regard to international research operations or any other kind of operations on Jan Mayen, is not affected by any specific obligations or restrictions in terms of international agreements or any other instrument of international law.
Archive link:
So the currently explanation is misleading given the context, as it states
"Svalbard is subject to an international treaty with some limits to Norwegian sovereignty."
Then directly following:
"The legal status of Jan Mayen is basically the same as the Svalbard archipelago"
Having an ISO code does not imply any assumptions regarding the status of a territory. The overseas regions of France (fully subject to French law) all have ISO codes. Clipperton Island does not (not fully subject to French law). Jan Mayen and Svalbard are two entirely separate territories. ISO codes seem to be assigned to any isolated territory, regardless of other factors. Again, for the CIA World Factbook, French overseas regions are listed, which have no autonomy.
I only reverted, because you did not explain you reason for reverting.
Rob984 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I made some changes. There is only a dead link for Jan Mayen and there are no sources that say it has the same status as Svalbard. Although it is generally regarded as a dependent territory of Norway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The only characteristics of being a dependent territory is the grouping with Svalbard rather than Norway in ISO, and the distance from the rest of Norway. It is otherwise just an uninhabited island of Norway, fully subject to Norwegian law. So what actually is this "Lists of other entities"? Svalbard is also not actually autonomous. Besides a unique tax status and being subject to international treaties, it is otherwise indifferent from the rest of Norway. On the other hand, the autonomous regions of Portugal are fairly autonomous, and also quite some distance from the rest of Portugal, but lack an ISO code. Northern Ireland is subject to international agreements (Good Friday Agreement), including limits on militarisation, and is also fairly autonomous. However it is quite close to the rest of the United Kingdom and also lacks an ISO code. So does "other entities" mean any other entities remotely similar to a dependent territory, or should there be a slightly more strict criteria? Rob984 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hebel, in response to your edit summary, Svalbard is an internal territory of Norway plainly because under Norwegian law, it is part of the Kingdom of Norway, rather than an external territory under Norwegian sovereignty. In practice, this doesn't really mean anything. For example, Puerto Rico is a dependent territory and does not form part of the United States, however comes fully under US federal law, like the 50 states. Conversely, the Faroe Islands are a integral territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, yet are entirely self governing, other than international matters. Under international law, there is no distinction, and dependent territories are still considered the direct responsibility of the administering state. Rob984 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Rob984, you just interpret some formal regulation about Jan Mayan, and this is only your interpretation (that’s why this is OR). Instead of interpretation we should check haw Jan Mayen is treated in reliable sources (encyclopedias, lists of dependent territories, and so on) – if majority of sources treat it as territory, than we should keep it on the list, otherwise Jam Mayen should be delisted. Aotearoa (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy[edit]

I would like to invite editors to comment at RfC proposal on Iraqi Kurdistan's level of autonomy, essentially resolving whether Iraqi Kurdistan should or shouldn't be added to the "other Dependent territories" under Asia topic.GreyShark (dibra) 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue are not territories[edit]

We should avoid using the word territory in describing the relationship between the Cook Islands/Niue and New Zealand because it incorrectly implies that New Zealand maintains a degree of legal authority. New Zealand has little more legal authority to make laws for the Cook Islands than Britain did to make laws for New Zealand up until 1986. Both the Cook Islands and Niue are commonly referred to simply as countries and are often treated as full countries diplomatically.

I'm not arguing that they should be removed from this list. (It's true that neither country is fully sovereign in some hard-to-pin down sense.) I'm just saying that we should be careful about the language we use.

Ben Arnold (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually they should be removed because their relationship to New Zealand is equivalent to the relationship between the US and Palau, the FSM, and the Marshall Islands. The status of Niue and the Cook Islands is already explained in the article Associated State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The relationship is very different from that of the USA with Palau etc. CMD (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Trick for distinguishing internal areas from external posessions[edit]

It's not always obvious whether a territory is considered a integral part of a country or an external dependency. One trick you can use is to go to the official statistics agency for the country and work out which areas they include to give the population of the country. For example:

  • French oveseas regions are included in the population total for France. but the overseas collectivities and New Caledonia are excluded
  • Australia includes Chrismas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in its population total, but excludes Norfolk Island
  • New Zealand includes the Chatham Islands and Kermadec Islands in its population total, but excludes Niue, the Cook Islands and Tokelau
  • Norway is confusing, they seem to count people in Svalbard or Jan Mayen as if they still lived at their last mainland address (if I read the commentary correctly)

Ben Arnold (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Just want to note, this is often not true... and therefore not a very good "trick" :P. Particularly federations, or pseudo-federations might exclude integral territories from statistics because a territory can be integral territory but fully self-governing (thus not of concern to the central government), as in the case of Australia and France. Or just be unpopulated and therefore not mentioned. Generally speaking, its best to look at the country's constitution, or better still a reliable secondary interpretation of this. Anyway, I think the page is pretty accurate at the moment. It's surprising that there are so few true "dependent territories", although then again, maybe not considering the distinction is irrelevant in international law. Rob984 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dependent territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)