Talk:Montevideo Convention

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Uruguay Low‑importance

	Uruguay portal This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Uruguayan history. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.UruguayWikipedia:WikiProject UruguayTemplate:WikiProject UruguayUruguay
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Application

Does this treaty apply to all UN member states or only to the signatories? - Siyac

It only applies to its signatories. However, most of its contents is basically a codification of existing international law, and as such it applies to all states. - Mauco 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the signatories?--MariusM 17:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Western hemisphere at the time. See MetaWiki for details: [1] or use a new tool called "Google", my friend.[2] . Note, however, that the convention is not (and was not either, at the time) a novelty but rather a codification of existing international law. As such, it applies to all states (except for rogue states who choose to not observe international law). - Mauco 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime I checked the external link given in the article [3] - it seems there are only 19 states who signed this convention: Honduras, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Cuba, some of them with reserves. It seems is not a relevant convention for international law, the big majority of countries never signed it.--MariusM 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is merely a restatement of customary international law. It codified a set of already-existing legal norms and its principles are universal. They do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. - Mauco 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) I don't think so, it's a different treaty, therefore it has to be treated differently.[reply]

I will be glad to add references if a fact-tag (request for citation) is placed. - Mauco 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have obliged. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Customary international law

It’s not so simple. In so far as the Montevideo Convention restates customary international law, those principles and provisions would bind all subjects of international law, but there must be another authoritative source that shows this, in addition to such a treaty that’s not universally accepted. Kaihsu (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides officially for a particular proposed state if the criteria have been met ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Badinter Committee

And what do the other opinions state, not just "Opinion No 1., Badinter Arbitration Committee"? — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some problems here:

The EU doesn't recognize states; its member states do.
The Badinter Committee was an arbitration body whose opinions did not bind the EU or its member states let alone other subjects of international law. Not sure how authoritative its opinions are as statements of customary international law.

Kaihsu (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Article 1

Is there a clear definition of what "territory" is under international law? Or is the matter more open to interpretation? If anyone has an answer they can back up with evidence, I'd be happy to hear it. DerekMBarnes (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A territory is geographic region upon which population can dwell, infrastructure can be built, and resources can be harvested. It extends straight up and straight down from the ground, to the bottom of Earth's crust, up to wherever sovereign airspace ends (which is contested). It also includes territorial waters, if applicable. Contiguity is a big plus, but not a strict requirement. --70.131.112.177 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchic states and oxymorons.

Furthermore, this clause effectively rules out anarchic states from existing legally.

"Anarchic state" is an oxymoron. An anarchic territory is not a state, and is not capable of entering into negotiations with other states. Any infrastructure which was implemented to do this would be... a government. By definition. --70.131.112.177 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 11

I added a brief comment on article 11 of the Convention. Lacking of references about that article caused dozens of erroneous pages in wikipedia: according to the Convention, territory, population, government and capacity of relations are necessary conditions for statehood, but if a government rose from a foreign military invasion, we can't speak of a new sovereign State but only of a puppet state.--Cusio (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this pretty much describe the situation of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan? None of the Allied recognized any transfer of the territorial sovereignty of the Taiwan to the ROC upon the Oct. 25, 1945, surrender of Japanese troops. US, British, and French officials are on the record about this. Then in the Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was not awarded to the ROC either.

And yet on Wiki, there are many pages which claim that the ROC on Taiwan meets the four MC criteria for statehood. I believe that this is a major problem that needs to be resolved. However, I am not exactly sure about how to begin dealing with this task. Hmortar (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Tiawan didn't arise from a foreign military invasion, though, it arose from the surrender of a former occupying force. FutureDragon (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

Surely there should be a section of Micronations, i.e. states which fulfil the requirements of the convention but aren't recognized as such? FutureDragon (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I added the section. Feel free to upgrade it. FutureDragon (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Graphic?

The map of party states appears to be duplicated in the infobox and graphic in the main body of the article. Is that correct and, if so, what is the value of the duplication?--Rpclod (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

The section "criticism" doesn't seem to contain any actual criticism. I will remove the section header, letting it merge into "background". Feel free to divide it again or refactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NisJørgensen (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badinter Committee references

The external link in reference 13 appears to go to a dangerous link - it was blocked by my computer's firewall after taking me to a 404 not found page. Is there an alternative source for this?

Stellwyn (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Montevideo Convention. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Montevideo Convention's Relevance to Micronations

I would like to see someone add the effects of this convention on micronations, since most use it as their proof of statehood. It is used by many micronations as evidence that they are sovereign states, yet that effect is not listed here. It is important that viewers realize this . (If anyone actually reads this, a good source to use is MicroWiki, Wikipedia's equivalent for micronations)
Krebsjails (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]