Talk:Enclave and exclave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Enclave and exclave is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
July 14, 2004 Featured article review Kept
December 25, 2004 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


fait accompli[edit]

As you can see, I combined Enclave and Exclave. Since each page was already awfully long with examples, I stripped most of them and created List of enclaves and exclaves. —Tamfang 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fat lot of good it did. —Tamfang (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign Military Order of Malta[edit]

Given SMOM's extraterritoriality with respect to Italy, its international recognition as a sovereign, and the (admittedly tenuous) claims it has to territorial sovereignty over its headquarters and other buildings in Rome, should it be included in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptos3 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia article about SMOM, Italy recognizes, in addition to extraterritoriality, the exercise by SMOM of all the prerogatives of sovereignty in its headquarters. Therefore, Italian sovereignty and SMOM sovereignty uniquely coexist without overlapping.[1] This fact carries weight in favor of your suggestion. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the buildings have basically the same status as any embassy buildings in a foreign capital... AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Arocha, Magaly (May 1999). "La Orden de Malta y su Naturaleza Jurídica (The Order of Malta and Its Legal Nature)". Caracas, Distrito Capital, Venezuela: Analí Archived from the original on 1 August 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2012. 

Land ceded to a foreign country[edit]

This section seems very doubtful to me. We must distinguish between property rights and territorial soverignity. The various cemeteries, tombs, etc., are still I believe under the soverignity of the surrounding country -- e.g. France gives the US some land to use for a cemetery, but its still under French soverignity; the US merely has rights of use, but not soverignity. The US has the right given it by France to use this land as a cemetery, but without the permission of France it does not have the right to use it for other unrelated purposes (e.g. it couldn't build a casino or a military base or toxic waste dump on it), nor can it alienate its rights (e.g. the US couldn't sell it to North Korea). So its still under French soverignity, because only France has full rights to deal with the land. I am sure the same applies to all the other such cases cited. --SJK 08:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "ceded" seems strange to me. "Deeded" might be more appropriate. In fact, I'd question whether these really belong in this article at all. For example, the mere fact that the United Kingdom holds the title to some land on the Outer Banks doesn't make it British territory -- the U.K., in this case, is no different than any other landowner. Should this section be deleted entirely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right. It's mainly nonsense. While "cede" can mean merely give or concede in colloquial contexts, when land is "ceded" between states, it is said to be a transfer of sovereign territory. A "cession" of land between states means that the land in question becomes the sovereign territory of the recipient state and is a territorial loss to the ceding state. Whoever the contemptible dope is that decided to use the word in this context should have his keyboard taken away. Cession is one thing, the simple grant of title to land is another, as is the granting of extraterritorial possession short of full sovereignty, and as is the merely symbolic dedication of land (which is sometimes accompanied by legally ineffective language suggesting the transfer of sovereignty). Most of the "cessions" cited in the current article are in the latter section, (perhaps combined with simple land title vested in a foreign state). Someone change the mess. I'm too tired.

well since this section is still included, i'd like to mention the German Cemetary in Cannock Chase, Staffs for inclusion as land owned by Germany in the UK, i think the JFK monument is a legal minefield that would take a team of lawyers a decade to solve, i disagree with your interpretation of the law but i'm not going to challenge the consensus on wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Removed Belgian cemetary's from this list. Although the plaque on entry of the commonwealth sites eludes to the transfer of property rights, this is not actually the case. Source: Dutch, Belgian minister of defense on property rights and/or sovreignity of foreign military cementary's: Link -- (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


I am delighted to see the merge done so quickly (and I agree with the separate list). However, I do feel that the article should be on enclave as the more familiar term - see talk:enclave#merge. But I have to admit that the Wikipedia stats do not confirm this: 330 articles link to enclave and 255 link to exclave. Anyone agree with me that the main title should be enclave? Note that there are double redirects that need fixed wherever we put the article. -- RHaworth 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the doubles. —Tamfang 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
When the merge was proposed I went to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and discussion there resulted in this policy which favours the current "X and Y" naming convention. Therefore I say leave it at "enclave and exclave". We should try to decide issues with reference to generic policies rather than special pleading (of course, there are exceptions to this ;) jnestorius(talk) 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


I am not quite sure that the use of the term 'peculiar' in the ecclesiastical context in England and Wales is quite right. A peculiar is a parish or group of parishes that were subject to an unusual form of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This might involve the local Cathedral or an indiviual prebendary having a jurisdiction that would normally belong to the bishop. Similarly some minster churches and monsteries had such jurisdiction, and (if dissolved at the Reformation, the jurisdiction sometimes passed into lay hands. The extent of the exemption varied; it is most commonly encountered in the context of the probate of wills, but might also relate to episcopal visitation. Royal peculiars differed in that they were answerable only to the king, and thus wholly exempt for episcopal oversight.

Perhaps the foregoing ought to be an aricle in its own right! Peterkingiron 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

independence movements[edit]

Someone, possibly me, had written:

Many exclaves today have an independence movement, especially if the exclave is far away from the mainland. changed it to:

Many exclaves and enclaves today have an independence movement, especially if the subject is far away from the mainland.

I disagree with both changes, and have reverted. The first, "and enclaves", is redundant: if an enclave is not an exclave, it is already independent. The second, "subject", is strange: as a noun it usually means a person, not a territory. On another hand, "subject territory" would be acceptable. —Tamfang 07:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure enough it was me (April 12). The previous version was:
Many exclaves today have some sort of ideology to become independent, especially if the exclave is far away from the Mainland.
Y'all may take into account my parental bias. —Tamfang 07:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Do islands not count as exclaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metonyme (talkcontribs) 09:11, 28 July 2006

If we did count all islands as exclaves, how many thousands of entries would this list have? More efficient (and perhaps more interesting) to count them only if they are largely surrounded by foreign territorial waters, like St Pierre & Miquelon. —Tamfang 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Islands usually don't count as exclaves since most of them can be reached through territorial waters (or contiguous zone, or even EEZ), therefore not leaving the country they belong to.
Exceptions to this, amongst others, is Isla Martín García, part of Argentina when all waters around it are part of Uruguay.
Saint-Pierre and Miquelon are connected to international waters through a tiny sliver of ocean: one can therefore go from France to there by boat without entering Canada (but you still have to leave France to do so). — Poulpy 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Paraguay is landlocked and surrounded by Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. By "a foreign terretory", does the defenition mean "one continuous froeign territory" or "a landlocked area that is foreign". If it is the latter than Paraguay should be listed as an enclave and if it is the former than the definition needs to be altered to say "one continuous froeign territory".--Dr who1975 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have looked up the defenition of enclave elsewhere and changed it accrodingly.--Dr who1975 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

United States[edit]

There are at least two parts of the U.S. (in MN and WA) that are penisulas with a land border on Canada but otherwise seperated by water from the rest of the U.S. How do these to relate to enclave/exclave? For that matter, how about Alaska? If they are not true 'claves do they deserve a mention anyway? 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

All enclaves/excalves including Point Roberts and Northwest Angle are listed on List of enclaves and exclaves which is linked to on this article (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Exclave:Denmark and Greenland[edit]

According to the current proposed definition (an exclave is [a territory] which is politically attached to a larger piece but not actually contiguous with it). According to this, Denmark would be an exclave of Greenland, as the latter is larger than the former. The definition does not take order of colonisation or location of the seat of government, if any, into account. I would propose that we discuss two territories being mutual exclaves. (The territory (island) of Greenland and the territory (peninsula) of Denmark are mutual exclaves, both being part of the state (kingdom) of Denmark. Topologically, it is immaterial which territory is larger; it is simply important that the two territories are not connected above ground. samwaltz 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition of Exclave usually excludes islands and non-integral parts of countries. Greenland is an island and a dependency (a non-integral part) of Denmark, so it is not an exclave of Denmark.
You do bring up a good point with regards to the Seat of Government. What is the main land and what is the exclave? That would be dependent on the definition. I would make the section with the Seat of Government, even if smaller, the main land. (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Choosing the seat of government as the main land may lead to some unexpected results, such as Denmark (Copenhagen is on the island of Zealand) or Equatorial Guinea (since Malabo in on the island of Bioko, the continental Río Muni being more than 100 km away). Pacific archipelago states, such as Kiribati, might be of interest, too. — Poulpy 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition is too complicated[edit]

The difference between ex and en clave is simply the point of view : Kallinigrad is the excalve of Russia and an enclave to everyone else. It's really not that complicated. To quote the OED (definition for 'exclave'):

  • A portion of territory separated from the country to which it politically belongs and entirely surrounded by alien dominions: seen from the viewpoint of the ‘home’ country (as opp. to an enclave, the same portion of territory as viewed by the surrounding dominions). Also transf. and fig.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:44, 13 November 2006

What's your point? The definition in the article (see first sentence) is more precise but no more complicated than that. —Tamfang 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue that 129.173 has isn't that the definition is complicated but rather that it's inaccurate. It is certainly true that most dictionaries give the narrow definition of exclave which excludes Kaliningrad, Alaska, Nakhichevan, etc. Many authorities explicitly say that it is incorrect to describe such "fragments" as exclaves. However, having two words for one thing and no words for the other seems inefficient, so many geographers have taken to using the broader definition of exclave used in the article. It would be good to discuss this controversy within the article; I have no references to hand with which to do so myself. I think we have made the right choice in opting for the broader definition within Wikipedia, but we need to advise readers that this is not universally accepted. jnestorius(talk) 12:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, my dictionary illustrates exclave with Cabinda. —Tamfang 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the opposite of acronym and initialism, where 2 different words have gradually come to have the same meaning. jnestorius(talk) 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
How does the narrow definition exclude Nakhichevan? —Tamfang 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The OED definitions encompass Nakhichevan as both an enclave and an exclave. The Wikipedia definitions include Nakhichevan as an exclave, but not an enclave (as it borders more than one country). On the other hand, Wikipedia includes Cabinda as an exclave, but the OED doesn't as it has a coastlin. However, some sources define enclave in the narrow way Wikipedia does (i.e. surrounded by a single foreign country), and then define exclave as the enclave viewed from its parent country (i.e. the same extension as the OED, but extending a different definition of enclave). One example is this PDF (13.5 MB):
Whyte, Brendan R. (2002, revised 2004). WAITING FOR THE ESQUIMO: An historical and documentary study of the Cooch Behar enclaves of India and Bangladesh (PDF). Melbourne: University of Melbourne (doctoral dissertation). ISBN 0-734-02208-5.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
Page 2 says: "The words exclave and enclave will be used as defined in the OED, but with the added proviso that each is surrounded by only one other dominion." jnestorius(talk) 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article merger and foreign compatability[edit]

Delighted as I am sure many people are by the merging of enclave and exclave, may I point out that this has caused a considerable hindrance to the functionality of the in other languages toolbar, as most other languages have two seperate articles. It was only thanks to two links to Spanish wikipedia (one for each of enclave and exclave, please rectify), that I could find the German article for which I was searching, namely Enklave, and I was horrified to see that there was no link back to the English version. I hope that other international, multilingual or lingual student wikipedians would join me in saying, UNDO THE MERGE, or if someone has a better solution to this problem which does not require such a drastic and controversial course of action, DO IT. --Svm2 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

picture/diagram error[edit]

In the 1st picture/diagram exemplifying de difference between enclave and exclave, it is said that "C is A's enclave and B's exclave", when, in my opinion, the capture should say that "C is simultaneously B's enclave and B's exclave", since C is a portion of B's territory, not related to A in this aception. That seems to be the same reasoning used for the capture in the second picture diagram.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gatarron (talkcontribs) 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your post on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). New comment usually goes to the bottom of the page, not top. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
From my understanding, "enclave" means a territory surrounded by another territory but not part of it, while "exclave" is a small part of a territory that is geographically separate from it. The word "enclave" is use to describe the territory in question, not its relationship with its motherland. The caption should say "C is an enclave in A, and it is B's exclave."--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another way to say it is "C is an exclave of B, enclaved by or within A." —Tamfang 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the recent wording changes by Wrude bouie improve anything. Where was the ambiguity? —Tamfang 10:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible for something to be simultaneously an enclave and an exclave of the same thing. That would mean it's part of it surrounded by other parts of it - i.e. just a normal, regular, common-or-garden part of it. JIP | Talk 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The current photos for Figure 1 and 2, do not depict B surrounding the enclaved countries, and seems to be assuming readers know 'B' surrounds the other territories. Because of this, it may take some time for people to understand the diagrams. If I'm incorrect, please correct me. To fix, either describe B as surrounding the perimeters of the other countries within the figure descriptions, or provide diagrams depicting B surrounding the other countries? --roger (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Czech territory in Germany[edit]

The Czech Republic article currently states: "The Czech Republic also possesses a 30,000-square-metre (7.4-acre) exclave in the middle of the Hamburg Docks, which was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships. The territory reverts to Germany in 2018."

Is the above true? While it may have been in the Versaille Treaty, is this still legally the position? Can any one provide a source for this? I have found one source:[1], but it is a magazine article and I would not consider it reliable. The Czech-German territory is not on the list of exclaves so if it can be properly shown that it is true, it should presumably be added to the list. The topic is also being discussed at Talk:Czech Republic. Could any one help in verifying the claim? Redking7 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I translated the article Moldauhafen from the German Wikipedia. MaartenVidal (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Enclave within an enclave?[edit]

I recently visited Dibba and looking at a map of the region, it seemed to me that there is a UAE enclave located inside a part of Oman which is itself an enclave in the UAE, located some 10 km north by northwest of Fujairah city. If that is correct, I suppose this would mean that this is an enclave inside another enclave?

Unfortunately I don't have a good printed map of the area, but perhaps someone else has and could check this? - Tournesol (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see Madha and Nahwa. Jan Krogh has some better maps and pictures. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Northern Ireland an exclave...?[edit]

It is situated within the "alien" Republic of Ireland but not completely...? -- (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not in the narrow sense, because it's not surrounded. I think it would also not be considered an exclave in a broader sense because it's easy to travel between there and Britain without passing through the Republic. —Tamfang (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not an enclave, because it is not completely surrounded.

If UK waters are continuously from Britain to Ireland, then it is not really a exclave either, any more than any other island that is part of a country but has no bridge to the mainland.

If international waters separate it, then I would say it is an exclave. No one seriously suggests that Alaska is not an exclave of the USA, evne though you can travel from California to Alaska by sea without going through Canada. (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Alaska[edit]

The article says Monaco is not considered an enclave within France (because it is accessible by sea) yet Alaska IS considered an exclave of the United States even though it is possible reach Alaska (by sea or air) from the Western United States (or Hawaii) without passing through any other countries territory. How can this be ? (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The article says that Alaska is a pene-enclave of the United States, not an exclave. Monaco is also a pene-enclave. Note that while Alaska is also a pene-exclave, Monaco is not a pene-exclave, akin to the reasoning by which Lesotho is an enclave but not an exclave.Jeff in CA (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Ireland[edit]

Northern Ireland is not an enclave however between 1922 and 1938 there were (three IIRC) UK enclaves within the Republic known as "treaty ports" (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964[edit]

Can find no trace of this act as either a public, private or local Act. ninety:one 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The inscription on the JFK memorial reads: 'This acre of English ground was given to the United States of America by the people of Britain in memory of John F. Kennedy, born 19th May, 1917: President of the United States 1961-63: died by an assassin’s hand 22nd November,1963. . . .' It seems that title to the memorial acre was given to the Kennedy Memorial Trust. This would presumably not constitute more than a gift of title to realty and not a cession of sovereignty to the United States. People will say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

the act states that theland is vested in the united states to be administered the jfk foundation as any other land vested in the united states, so i would consider it US soil79.69.235.162 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Act ( says it is to be an estate in fee simple absolute. So it seems the freehold of this piece of Crown Estate was transferred and vested in the United States, but not the sovereignty  Barliner  talk  00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) notes that the bill vests the land in the USA but to be "held in perpetuity under the control and management of the Trustees for the use and enjoyment of the public". If sovereignty was transferred then this section would not be needed as it would be for the USA to decide the land's future.  Barliner  talk  01:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re-merge exclave[edit]

If I understand the matters right, several years ago exclave was merged together with enclave to form this article and also List of enclaves and exclaves; the new articles have substantially evolved since then, but not so long ago a user (not an IP, but with small edit count) decided to revive the old version of exclave. The latter now displays some outdated arrangement in comparison to this article and moreover promotes forking etc. Shouldn't it be redirected again? (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thanks for the alert. Foolish of me (as the one who did the merge) to unwatch Exclave. I suppose I'll have to check the new content there and see whether any of it is not already included in List of enclaves and exclaves. —Tamfang (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Just one new item, which is wrong. —Tamfang (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

National railway passing through foreign territory[edit]

In the section of national railway passing through foreign territory, the train tracks in Singapore can be added. The trains running on this train track are run by Malaysia. See [Keretapi_Tanah_Melayu]. Vedabit (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that the only railway in Singapore? —Tamfang (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
However, unlike other examples in the article, the Keretapi Tanah Melayu tracks does not merely passing through Singapore; it terminates in central Singapore at the Tanjong Pagar railway station, the southern terminus of the KTM rail network. Not sure if this constitutes "national railway passing through foreign territory". The railway issue is sort of a dispute between Malaysia and Singapore. While Singapore has its own rapid transit network, the KTM railway is the only intercity (and international) railway in Singapore; the two networks are distinct from each other. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking that my example of the KTM of Malaysia running through Singapore is an equivalent example of that given in the main article "Bolivia is landlocked and has no access to the sea, but a rail route runs through Chile from La Paz to the port of Arica on the Pacific Ocean" in the section National railway passing through another state's territory. Vedabit (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong info on Kaliningrad[edit]

There is a sentence in the article: "However, the Russian coastline between Finland and Estonia is virtually inaccessible, especially in the winter, so Kaliningrad ... " This sentence is obviously wrong. The largest port of the Baltic Sea is Primorsk Oil Terminal located exactly on the Russian coastline near St. Petersburg, i.e. only accessed by travelling between Finland and Estonia. -- Avellano (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ore is ore[edit]

Due to inability to agree on a route through easy terrain, the phosphate iron ore railway in Mauritania originally had to use a tunnel near Choum to avoid the territory of Spanish Sahara.

The change from "phosphate" to "iron ore" is marked Spell.  ?! —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweden and Finland[edit]

Aren't Sweden and Finland together an exclave of the EU? Or does the Øresund Bridge count as a land connection? And if they are an exclave, then Iceland would not be the northernmost exclave if it joins the EU, as claimed in the article. Goustien (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopi reservation[edit]

Does anyone think it's worth mentioning in the article that the Hopi reservation is entirely contained within the Navajo reservation? --Blackmagicfish (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Would it belong in subnational enclaves and exclaves? Or extraterritoriality? Shannon Garcia (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Why extraterritoriality? —Tamfang (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Just thinking of tribal sovereignty; a reservation isn't a United States entity per se. Shannon Garcia (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Native American reservations are not extraterritorial to the US. They are "dependent nations" and are fully under the control and soverignty of the US. In the case of the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, for example, note that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation is the senior law enforcement agency, and that the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah exercise jurisdiction over non-Natives for offenses committed on the reservations.

Island exclaves of the EU??[edit]

This paragraph:

Some members of the European Union, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta are entirely on islands.[4] As a result, the islands of Great Britain (most of the United Kingdom), Ireland (Ireland and part of the United Kingdom), Cyprus, and Malta are exclaves of the European Union. Iceland is a possible future member of the European Union; if Iceland does join the European Union, it will be the northernmost exclave of the European Union.

seems fairly far-fetched, and perhaps a bit OR'ish. I propose deleting it in its entirety. Jd2718 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact the whole section confuses the EU with the continent of Europe. Isidore (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. Quite frankly I consider it nonsense to claim that Madeira is an exclave of Portugal just because it is an island. Similarly for the Azores. And the Canary islands for Spain. And the Balearics. Sicily? Corsica? Where does the list end? Is Crete an exclave of Greece? If so what about the other 1,000 islands of Greece? If not, QED! What about Indonesia? It is all islands? On the other hand I would argue that St Pierre et Miquelon is an exclave of France in Canada just as Ceuta is an exclave of Spain in Morocco. Oecussi is surely an exclave of Timor Leste even though it has a coastline. How can Iceland, an independent island state be remotely considered an "exclave of the EU" should it become a member? On this basis every EU country outside mainland continental Europe is an "exclave" of the EU which is patently absurd. Some serious editing is required of this article for it to make sense and to remove the contradictions. Mariscalcus (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, will someone argue against removing the islands from the article? —Tamfang (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Not me. I've removed them since no one seems to want to keep them. TDL (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
From here in my tiny little exclave, I agree that an island cannot be either an exclave or an enclave. In my experience, every good definition of enclave and exclave, as well as their shared etymology require a surrounding "foreign" territory (from terra, Latin for land). One might argue about whether an enclave must be completely surrounded by land, or whether that surrounding land must belong to just one foreign territory, or whether an exclave can border multiple foreign territories and even have a coastline (like the canonical exclave of Kaliningrad). But for both terms and in every variant, a land border between "clave" and foreign territory is a requirement. Having ethnic or social differences from an immediately surrounding neighbour obviously requires there be an immediate neighbour. A whole island doesn't have an immediate neighbour by definition. But I am unsure of the precise situation regarding part of an island as an exclave. I don't feel that Northern Ireland is an exclave, even though it is undeniably part of the United Kingdom with a geographical separation from the main part of that territory (represented by Great Britain), and it is not an island, sharing a land border with a foreign territory from which it differs socio-politically. But I am unable to provide a precise topographical and political definition of exclave that would include Kaliningrad but exclude Northern Ireland. ChrisJBenson (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The North Channel is only 13 miles wide and isn't international waters. UK de facto sovereignty stretches geographically unbroken to Northern Ireland, unlike Russia's to Kaliningrad. Surely that gives a good-enough way to exclude NI as a (semi-)exclave. (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC) Jon

Subnational highway passing through other internal territory[edit]

I've added few examples from India. --Vasant.n (23/01/2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasant.n (talkcontribs) 09:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

India's "quasi-federal republic" status or otherwise has no connection with its internal highways. Vedabit (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The information "Kota, a city in Rajasthan surrounded by territory of Madhya Pradesh, ..." is incorrect. Refer Google Maps [[2]] for Kota's location outside Madhya Pradesh. Kota is at least 50+ km from any border of Madhya Pradesh. Vedabit (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconvenient borders - United States[edit]

Does/did a railroad in the US that crosses state boundaries have to be chartered or whatever in each state that it crosses ? Tabletop (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The White Pass and Yukon Railway crosses US-AK, CA-BC and CA-Yukon territory and is therefore an amalgam of three separate companies.

In Australia, the colonies all of the same mother country and later states all of the same federation could be jealous of cross-border routes and sometimes blocked these railways or railways of particular gauges. The federal Commmonwealth government has no constitutional powers to build railways in any state except with the agreement of that state. Tabletop (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

History section[edit]

There is a lack of context. The whole article gives the impression enclaves and exclaves were born out of thin air the day before yesterday. We need a brief History section to explain what the situation was in the not so distant past as regard enclaves and exclaves.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Enclaves near Liège and Maastricht on the eve of the French Revolution

While enclaves and exclaves are now seen as geographical oddities, if only because there are so few of them, this was not the case in a not so distant past.

Enclaves and exclaves belonging to sovereign countries did not emerge in the New World above all because the various European crowns did not transplant the feudal system in their newly-acquired possessions and therefore prevented the development of a territorial aristocracy owning non-contiguous fiefs, lordships and seigneuries.

However, Europe - above all the so-called Holy Roman Empire (comprising present-day Germany, Austria and parts of adjacent countries), the Catholic Netherlands (Belgium), the Swiss Confederacy – emerged from the Middle Age with a plethora of medium and small independent or near-independent states, often made of a number of non-contiguous parts or at least possessing some detatched parts, that we would now call exclaves.

Hamburg and its exclaves in 1804

The Germany that emerged from the Thirty Years War comprised more than 350 states: secular states such kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, margraviates, baronies; ecclesiastical states such as archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, as well as about 75 Free Cities, a very large number possessing nearby or distant enclaves, often since the Middle Age.

There were arguably well in excess of a thousand enclaves and exclaves in 17th and 18th century Europe. The great majority were to vanish in the course of territorial consolidation and the abolition of feudalism brought about by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Era. --Lubiesque (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced information, and images on a map are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. I did not "delete" your information, I merely reverted your edits, and politely asked you to source your information and not to synthesize your writing from original research. If this is something that is not acceptable to you, I'm not sure what else to say. It's how we do things in Wikipedia, and it allows us to write the best encyclopedia on the planet. Taking edits personally is probably going to get you more upset than you should. Just relax, and source your information.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather ironical that after having "reverted" my edit within 5 seconds after I posted it (are you on a 24/7 watch?), you demand from me that I source my information while this article is filled with "citations needed" notices and that there is a This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article (...) inset right in the middle of this article.

In fact well over 90% of the info in this article is not sourced.

Of the 20 sources it contains, the first 2 are definitions found in online dictionaries (sigh), 3 others are dead links (6,7,19) others are irrelevant sources such as List of lingua francas, or link that lead you to the article "United Kingdom" (!?). Source 15, 17, 18 are fake sources.

"Enclaves may be created for a variety of historical, political or geographical reasons." IMO, this might be the most important statement in the article, yet it is not sourced AT ALL. When you click on "historical", "political" and "geographical" you end up with generic articles on "History", "Politics" and "Geography". So much for "sources"...

Incidentally, the inset says that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". I'm sure you agree that this applies to everybody.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because "over 90% of the info" is unsourced is not an excuse to propagate such errors. And yes, I watch every article to which I've contributed. I just click "My Watchlist", and I see immediately what changes are made. 99% of edits I watch are perfectly fine. If you're so hot to clean up this article, then do so. That's what I do, I don't come to an article's talk page, complain about how I've been treated, instead, I generally fix it without discussing it at all. So if you're knowledgeable about this field, then source your edits, and fix the rest of the article. And again, maps are not sources, just pretty images. Why? Because someone has to interpret what's on those maps, making it original research. A good source is one where we can click on the link and get confirmation of what you've written. Also, use inline citations to make it neat and reader usable. That's it, it's not that hard. But if your choice is to get upset because you don't want to try, then I have no patience. Also, one more thing. Use the semicolon to indent your replies. It keeps it neat and clean and we know to which comment you are replying. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


The lists in the present article are in danger of duplicating whole sections of List of enclaves and exclaves (which I split off in 2006). Any objection to cutting each list down to, say, three preeminent examples? —Tamfang (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

you forgot to list Llivia, the Spanish Enclave in France Tim.Bucknall@gmail.com79.69.235.162 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That is exactly what Tamfang is talking about. Llivia and many, many more are listed at List of enclaves and exclaves. Jeff in CA 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Enclaves and exclaves of the European Union[edit]

This section seems to be devoted to a concept that doesn't exist and has been imagined by a Wikipedia editor. There are no actual examples cited of non-EU territories completely surrounded by two or more EU countries, which is what the section tries to deal with. Secondly, there already exist sections that deal with national enclaves and exclaves. The European Union isn't a country or territory and the term "European Union Enclave [or exclave]" seems to be an entirely novel one. Does anyone object to the removal/redispersal of this section? -Lo2u (TC) 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Reconsideration of merge of enclave and exclave[edit]

I'd like to suggest that we should reconsider the merger of articles on enclave and exclave. In many ways this merged article is good, because the two concepts are very similar, and much of the explanation of either is to explain the differences. Whilst they are definately two different concepts, mixing them together in an encyclopedia article is fine providing it enhances rather than reduces understandability.

However the recent introduction of Wikidata and its use for recording interwiki links has shown up some limitations:

  • Because Wikidata is a database and not an encyclopedia, its data model needs to be clean. It really has no choice but to see enclave and exclave as separate concepts and hence seperate items. Unfortunately Wikidata can only link to articles (and not redirect pages), so that means it cannot link to anything appropriate on WP:EN. Arguably that is Wikidata's problem.
  • Most of our colleagues on other language Wikipedias have also chosen to write separate articles for the two concepts (see, for example, de:Enklave and de:Exklave). Again, arguably that is their choice. However it does mean that anybody looking at our article sees only a few obscure interwiki links, and is lead to think that the other languages don't cover the concepts. Whilst if you look at above WP:DE article's interwiki links, it looks as if every language covers them except English.

Now I've got feel that this means our decision to merge was wrong. But I'm far from certain. Perhaps there are other ways of dealing with it. Thoughts? -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Definitely one article for both to avoid repetition. If Wikidata cannot handle it, that, as you say, is Wikidata's problem. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikidata indeed can not handle such situations, but there is hardly anything we can do about it. Interwiki links left in Wikipedia articles overwrite Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
    • In many ways I agree with both the above comments. But are we not in danger of falling into rather a silo mentality, rather than a holistic approach to the various Wikimedia projects. And it isn't just Wikidata (that was just what caused me to notice it); the problem already existed with the in-article interwiki links. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
      • For the record, I, too, am against unmerging this article. While I do feel for WikiData (being a data guy myself), this is not a kind of problem that can be outsourced to other wikis so WikiData would have a "clean model". As WikiData grows, it will run into this kind of problems over and over again, and at some point a different solution (i.e., other than badgering other wikis to merge/unmerge/rename/move their stuff) would be needed. For now, I don't see a good reason why redirects cannot be allowed to be the targets of interwiki links—that would solve most of the problems of this kind! Leaving some of the interwikis in Wikipedia, as Yaroslav suggested, is also a workable solution. Perhaps other solutions (maybe even better ones) exist as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2013; 14:41 (UTC)

Name for entities which have to be accessed through another state?[edit]

Is there a name for a body which can only be accessed by going through another entity? I am working on an article on McKissick's Island which is on the east side of the Missouri River but is considered part of Nebraska (the beginning text of the article is in the geography section of Nemaha County, Nebraska. The island was originally attached to Nebraska but the river changed course separating it from Nebraska and only accessible by going through Missouri. It is still technically attached to Nebraska and could be accessed by boat but in practice you have to cross bridge through another state. Various articles elsewhere refer to it as an exclave but that does not truly fit the definition. These scenarios of course apply numerous times along major rivers. Thanks.Americasroof 16:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrases "practical exclave" and "inaccessible district" have been used. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The term "pene-exclave" has also been used. The article states, "Pene-enclaves and pene-exclaves are regions that are not conterminous with the main land region, that are not entirely surrounded by alien land or alien territorial waters, and that have land access only through a second country. Hence, they are enclaves or exclaves for practical purposes, without meeting the strict definition." Jeff in CA 18:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tamfang and Jeff.16:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The misery of Missouri[edit]

Where a lake meets a US state line... it can get interesting. Here's a spot in Bing Maps that illustrates an enclave. This is a part of Missouri reachable by land, but you cross into Arkansas and back into Missouri. Google Maps attempts to route the state line around the enclave!! See,-92.894042&hl=en&sll=36.497931,-92.893999&sspn=0.001095,0.002583&t=h&mra=mift&mrsp=1&sz=19&z=19 (This looks like a complete joke!)

There are many less complicated enclaves adjacent to Bull Shoals Lake because it snakes across the border. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Google maps of borders, especially when the border follows the course of a river, are very inaccurate. They frequently bisect islands in such a river that in reality are wholly in one country or the other (or in one U.S. state or the other). It appears as though Google gave a summer intern the job of marking borders using line segments on a low resolution map. ("Island? What island?") As an example, zoom in on Google maps and look at the U.S.-Canada border along the Rainy River between Minnesota and Ontario. The line segments carelessly bisect many of the islands in the river, whereas the actual boundary carefully avoids islands. The U.S. Geological Survey's GIS mapping is much more accurate. And the USGS has some very good tools at their website for viewing their GIS maps.
Jeff in CA 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You can directly compare USGS topo maps against Google maps (among others) using —Tamfang (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps I am missing something, but I cannot see that the sections on railways and roads have anything whatsoever to do with the article's subject. Interesting though they may be, they should be somewhere else. (Some of the examples seems spurious, most obviously the Korean railway.) Davidships (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There are instances of railways constituting a narrow strip of country A passing through part of a country B. in some instances country A merely assumes responsibility for the financial cost of maintaining/operating the railway while in other cases it exercises full jurisdiction. In such cases though one could argue whether the railway is an enclave (albeit a few metres wide) of country A within country B or whether country B is split into a main body and exclave by country A. (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"Enclave of (country)"[edit]

Campione d'Italia is a part of Italy that is surrounded by Switzerland. It is an exclave of Italy, obviously, but is it also correctly described as

  1. An enclave of Italy within (or surrounded by) Switzerland? (That is, an enclave that Italy "has"?) Or
  2. An enclave of Switzerland belonging to Italy? (That is, an enclave that Switzerland "has"?)

I've always followed usage 1 and find usage 2 very confusing. The article follows usage 2 in the long caption of the diagram of examples, but switches to usage 1 elsewhere.

Are both usages supported by reliable sources? If so, the article needs to say so and cite them. Or did someone just get it wrong? If so, it needs to be fixed.

And speaking of that caption, am I the only one who sees the color of A as brown rather than red? -- (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Afterthought: I wonder if that caption was written by a non-native speaker of English who does not appreciate the difference between "has" and "contains". -- (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "Enclave of Italy in Switzerland"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"one other state"[edit]

I find this definition of an enclave too restrictive, and not universally supported. On this page we can find a definition from the OED which says "alien dominions". The actual footnote to the French could be naturally take to mean "a foreign country", not "one foreign country", and it seems that that word "one" is what makes A2 not an enclave, even though that is counter-intuitive.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC) sorry, I just realized this was adumbrated above under "too complicated". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Would it be helpful to have a paragraph about Brussels? Brussels is entirely surrounded by Flanders, but is considered by Walloons as an integral (in a literary not literal sense) part of their homeland. The future fate of Brussels is one of the major factors keeping Belgium together. Walloons are not willing to let it go, and so would consider it in a divided Belgium as an exclave of Wallonia, whereas Flamands are not willing to consider this and would consider it integrally (literally) as part of Flanders. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

temporary extraterritorialities[edit]

Temporary extraterritorialities might be interesting in this article In 1943 the Canadian government declared the hospital room where Princess Juliana of the Netherlands gave birth to Princess Margriet as territory of the Netherlands so that the new Princess would have full Dutch citizenship. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This example is included in the separate and more exhaustive List of enclaves and exclaves.
Jeff in CA (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

French Guiana[edit]

To the contributor who added French Guiana, although I am not the person who deleted French Guiana, I agree with the deletion. French Guiana does not meet the criteria for any category on this page. It borders the ocean and two countries (Suriname and Brazil), not one as required, and therefore is not a practical exclave (pene-exclave). Jeff in CA (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As no one else has done it, I have now deleted this entry.Jeff in CA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Did I write this? And just this year? It seems as though my mind was clouded by a fixation on the pene-enclave concept, to the exclusion of pene-exclaves. Of course, French Guiana indeed meets the definition of a pene-exclave, as long as it is considered to be a part of France (in like manner as Alaska is a part of the U.S.). It has for quite some time properly been listed at the separate page, List of enclaves and exclaves. That page is meant to be all-encompassing, rather than the article that corresponds to this talk page, so it will suffice to leave as is. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Subnational highway passing through other internal territory (redux)[edit]

Unlike the national level instances that are listed, which involve crossing sovereign territory, it seems more difficult to wrap one's head around the examples of subnational highways passing through other internal territory. With the national sovereignty aspect absent, other factors enter the picture — access or lack thereof in the second territory, responsibility for maintenance of the part in the second territory, presence of intersecting roads that make alternate routes possible, the class of the section of highway within the second territory and the designation or name of the highway or road.

The examples for the United States, as described, illustrate several of these:

  1. Interstate 684: (a) has no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance; (c) has the highway classification pertaining to federal government primacy (no name change).
  2. New York State Route 17/Interstate 86: (a) intersects other roads in the second territory, making alternate routes possible; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance; (c) is the responsibility of the second territory for law enforcement; (d) in part, at least, has the highway classification pertaining to federal government primacy.
  3. What is known about New Hampshire Route 153 other than the fact that the road briefly passes through a second territory? Does it retain the New Hampshire Route designation there?
  4. Minnesota State Highway 23: (a) has no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance.
  5. Delaware's Hopkins Road: (a) might have no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance.
  6. Delaware's Beaver Dam Road: (a) might have no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) might not have a defined responsibility for maintenance.

Are there any defining characteristics that should apply beyond simply passing out of and back into the "home" territory?

To me, the most interesting scenario is a subnational highway or road that, while in the second territory, has no departure points that lead to alternate negotiable routes across a third border location or, obviously, to connections with the road network of the second territory. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a clear definition of subnational highways ? There are probably thousands of instances worldwide where the shortest/easiest highway route between two towns/cities in country A involve transiting via country B but the term subnational highway is generally used to describe a situation whereby such a route links fairly nearby towns and/or is the ONLY possible route. In such instances it is usually the government of country B which takes responsibility for road maintenance and policing on the stretch(es) which lie on their territory but occasionally there are instances where this is not the case. There are also instances in which a national border runs alongside or even down the middle of a stretch of road. (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


Although not recognized internationally, is Crimea a Russian exclave in practice, in the same way as Alaska is an exclave of the United States? -- (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If Russia is treating the waters of the Strait of Kerch as if they were all Russian territorial waters, then the answer is no. I do not know whether that water passage (or part of it) between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea is still considered as part of Ukraine, in order for Ukraine's ports on the Sea of Azov to have access to the Black Sea. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Boundary treaties[edit]

Since enclaves and exclaves often involve boundary treaties, should this article be so categorised? Tabletop (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Boundary treaties

Norfolk County, Massachusetts[edit]

Should Norfolk County, Massachusetts be included as a sub-national enclave? It is discontinuous in two parts. [Massachusetts counties map]

Jcronen1 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

From the map it appears that it is discontinuous in three parts. It appears that it has both an exclave and a pene-exclave. I would add it to the list. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
It is included in the page, List of enclaves and exclaves. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Only parts of countries?[edit]

I removed Gibraltar as an example in the introduction as it refers to a "portion of a state", but surely an entire state can also be an enclave? So an example of a pene-enclave would be Portugal or Canada? Rob984 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lesotho, San Marino and the Vatican are entire states that are enclaves, but they are not exclaves. The portion can be the portion of the whole. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Please review my recent edit. I have added some examples which I think will be helpful. Rob984 (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The section "Enclaved countries" says:

The Principality of Monaco is not an enclave, although it only borders France, because it possesses a coastline and territorial waters. For the same reason, Canada, The Gambia, and Portugal are also not enclaves.

I get the reason for considering whether The Gambia is an enclave, since it mostly borders Senegal; but why Canada or Portugal, whose limits are about half coastline? I've never thought of Canada as perhaps part of the USA or of Portugal as perhaps part of Spain (not to mention that such suggestions would locally be very unpopular!). Wikiain (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enclave and exclave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I set the checked parameter to "true." Jeff in CA (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Historical enclaves[edit]

I think there's a case for creating a separate section for historical enclaves - one example that's conspicuously absent is Walvis Bay, now in Namibia, which was governed as part of South Africa's Cape Province from 1977 until 1994, and part of the Cape Colony (and then the Union of South Africa) from 1878 to 1922. Yes, I know that its status in international law was debatable, but so was West Berlin's, and indeed, East Berlin's. Polemicista (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The article List of enclaves and exclaves has a lengthy section on historic enclaves, including Walvis Bay. That list was created some years ago to keep this article from becoming overwhelmed by additions. You are welcome to add further information there.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-enclaves vs. pene-enclaves[edit]

I have reviewed some of the scholarly literature searching for the use of the term pene-enclave to be described in the exact manner as it has been defined in this article. What I found leads to the conclusion that the term pene-enclave has been applied too broadly in this article. In fact, the term semi-enclave is used in the literature to describe a concept that, in this article, has been inappropriately conjoined with the altogether separate concept of a pene-enclave. To wit:

The term pene-exclave was defined in Robinson (1959): "Pene-exclaves are parts of the territory of one country that can be approached conveniently — in particular by wheeled traffic — only through the territory of another country."[1]:283 Catudal (1974)[2]:113 and Vinokurov (2007)[3]:31-33 further elaborated by citing examples, including Point Roberts. "Although physical connections by water with Point Roberts are entirely within the sovereignty of the United States, land access is only possible through Canada."[2] Pene-enclaves are also called functional enclaves or practical enclaves.[3]:31. These can include cases of continuity of state territory across territorial waters but, nevertheless, a discontinuity on land.[3]:47 Along rivers that change course, pene-enclaves can be observed as complexes comprised of many small pene-enclaves.[3]:50

The terms "semi-enclave" and "semi-exclave" are applied to areas that, except for possessing a sea border, would otherwise be enclaves or exclaves. [3]:12-14 Vinokurov (2007) declares, "Technically, Portugal, Denmark, and Canada also border only one foreign state, but they are not enclosed in the geographical, political, or economic sense. They have vast access to international waters. At the same time, there are states that, although in possession of sea access, are still enclosed by the territories of a foreign state. … In order to make it workable, we introduce a quantitative criterion: the land boundary must be longer than the coastline. … Therefore, a state is classified as a sovereign semi-enclave if it borders on just one state, and its land boundary is longer than its sea coastline. According to this principle, … Monaco, Brunei and Gambia qualify."[3]:14, 20-22 Vinokurov affirms that "no similar quantitative criterion is needed to define the scope of non-sovereign semi-enclaves/exclaves",[3]:14, 26 such as Alaska, Gibraltar, Ceuta, Cabinda and Kaliningrad.[4]

I will modify the article to include the above explanation. Jeff in CA (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There may be difficulties with their quantitative criterion due to the coastline paradox (particularly given that the land boundary will typically not have such small-scale wiggles as the coastline). Still, it is not our job to refine it. Some more examples, should we need them, can be found at list of countries that border only one other country. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enclave and exclave. 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) 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

semi-enclaves confusing[edit]

"The Principality of Monaco is not an enclave, although it only borders France, because it possesses a coastline and territorial waters. For the same reason, Canada, The Gambia, and Portugal are also not enclaves." "Monaco, Gambia and Brunei are semi-enclaves." So is Portugal a semi-enclave? If so, the definition is increasingly complicated and unhelpful. If not, why not? (which would modify again the definition I think)?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Portugal borders only one foreign state, but it is not enclosed in the geographical, political, or economic sense. It has vast access to international waters. However, there are a few states that, although in possession of sea access, are still enclosed by the territories of a foreign state. … In order to make it workable, Vinokurov introduced a quantitative criterion: the land boundary must be longer than the coastline. … A state is classified as a sovereign semi-enclave if it borders on just one state, and its land boundary is longer than its sea coastline. Portugal's land boundary is not longer than its sea coastline. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Land owned without sovereignty[edit]

The article states that a citation is needed for the following: "Argentine Military Cemetery in Falkland Islands. Land owned by Argentina without sovereignty." I have searched online extensively for a source of this information and have found none. I did learn that, after that 1982 war, Britain offered to repatriate the fallen Argentine soldiers to Argentina but that the Argentine military junta declined because it believed they were already on Argentine land. Britain then created the cemetery to inter the remains of those 237 military men. I have found nothing to suggest that Britain offered up that specific cemetery land to become the property of Argentina. In light of Argentina's refusal to accept repatriation, it would have been inconsistent for Argentina then to accept such an offer of property ownership, had it been made. Also, at, it is stated, "A sign by the entrance says that by an agreement of 1999 the Argentine Families Commission was authorized to reconstruct and maintain the site. Another sign underneath declares in English and Spanish that it is forbidden to leave any "alien elements" in the grounds of the cemetery. ... I was also told that some Argentine visitors also unfold their national flag here, even though it is by Falkland Law officially an offence." This all points to the cemetery not being the property of Argentina. Therefore, I propose to remove the mention of the Argentine Military Cemetery from the section on land ownership without sovereignty. Any thoughts? Jeff in CA (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of sources confirming this I would agree that it seems somewhat unlikely, for all the reasons you give. Since 1982, relations have never reached a position where that sort of arrangement could realistically have been agreed. And the current wording is problematic anyway because Argentina would maintain that it does have sovereignty over the cemetery (along with the rest of the archipelago). Kahastok talk 13:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Enclave and exclave. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Robinson, G. W. S. (September 1959). "Exclaves". Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 49 (3, [Part 1]): 283–295. JSTOR 2561461. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1959.tb01614.x. 
  2. ^ a b Catudal, Honoré M. (1974). "Exclaves". Cahiers de géographie du Québec. 18 (43): 107–136. doi:10.7202/021178ar. 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g Vinokurov, Evgeny (2007). The Theory of Enclaves. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD. 
  4. ^ Vinokurov (2007), p. 29, also refers to semi-exclaves as a type of "mere exclave with sea connection to the mainland."