Talk:Plazas de soberanía
|WikiProject Spain||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Africa / Morocco / Spanish Africa||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
- It's considered included in the near city, not as an apart entity. -- Error 04:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
I believe the Island of Perejil should be included, as it has been of political importance to the relations between Spain and Morocco in the last years. Miguel
According to most Spanish scholars, Perejil is not an individual "plaza de soberanía", neither is it a part of Ceuta. Its statu quo continues, but its status is still unclear. --alfanje 03:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"plazas de soberania" don´t exist at the spanish territory since 1978
>>>antónio diz: the isle of alborán is not mentioned either, it should figure within the lot.
Plazas de Soberania vs Spanish North Africa
I note that the stub "Spanish North Africa" has been redirected to "Plazas de Soberania". I was the contributor who edited the Spanish North Africa stub to include the line that "Spanish North Africa" was an English phrase that referred to the same geographic entity as the Spanish phrase "Plazas de Soberania" (ie - it did not refer to the whole area of continental Africa that had at some stage been under Spanish administration but referred to those enclaves and islands that Spain considers inalienably Spanish). Just unsure if the two articles are actually one and the same however. "Plazas de Soberania" represents the Spanish position that these areas are an integeral part of Spain - a position that is contested by some Moroccans. "Spanish North Africa" refers to the same geographic entities but is neutral to the claims of sovereignty. While there is geographic convergence there still remains a conceptual divergence. I don't want to die in a ditch over this but just wanted to raise a query about whether consolidation under "Plazas de Soberania" can meet the test of neutrality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
Isla de Alborán
So, Isla de Alborán is technically not a Plazas de soberanía since it is attached to the municipality of Almería, and is not administered directly by the Spanish central government. Is this correct? If so, then it makes sense that Morocco has never filed a formal claim to Alborán since it's not part of the disputed Plazas de soberanía. Should this be added to the section that mentions Isla de Alborán for clarity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I noted that in the Spanish Wiki article Plazas de soberania, it is mentionned in the first paragraph that the term Place of sovereignty has fallen into disuse and that it is now used occasionally to refer to the Spanish islets and peñones off the North African coast (therefore, excluding Ceuta and Melilla). (En la actualidad la denominación ha quedado en desuso, si bien puede usarse ocasionalmente como denominación del conjunto de los islotes y peñones españoles en la costa mediterránea del norte de África.)
- I do not see the need to change anything, the second paragraph is already very clear: Historically, a distinction was made between the so-called major sovereign territories, comprising the cities of Ceuta and Melilla, and the minor sovereign territories, referring to a number of smaller enclaves and islands along the coast. In the present, the term refers mainly to the latter. Megustalastrufas (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Constitution of Spain in English, from the official website of the Parliament of Spain
- This is a link to the Spanish Constitution. It doesn't prove anything. The source is useless. No mention is made of the Plazas de soberanía
- The constitution of a country defines its territory, and considering that this particular constitution is respected by the United Nations and by the European Union, it is a perfect source with respect to what is an integral part of Spain. All the Plazas de Soberania are within the constitution; the major ones (Ceuta and Melilla) having their own place in the structure of the country.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera, 01 Mar 2014 "Melilla, which along with another Spanish territory to the west, Ceuta, has the European Union's only land borders with Africa"
- Again this article makes not reference to the Plazas de soberanía.
- Agora Magazine "Ceuta and Melilla are the most heavily guarded borders of the EU"
- Declaration No. 1. on Ceuta and Melilla attached to the Final Act of the Accession Treaty of the Kingdom of Spain to the Schengen Agreement (OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 69)
- The treaty only refers to Ceuta and Melilla. No mention is made of the Plazas de soberanía.
- Note: The full Schengen acquis applies to all Spanish territories, but there are border checks on departure from Ceuta and Melilla to Spain or other Schengen countries, because of specific arrangements for visa exemptions for Moroccan nationals resident in the provinces of Tetuan and Nador.
- This is original research. Please back this up with a source.
— Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Free movement of goods: Guide to the application of Treaty provisions governing the free movement of goods".
- The source is negative only with respect to the application of Article 34, while it does say that Ceuta and Melilla as well as the Chafarinas Islands are under Spanish sovereignty (and not an overseas territory like most others on the list). So this is a good source to prove Spanish sovereignty.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the political issues to the relevant sections, including reference to the Islas Chafarinas not being considered by the Lisbon Treaty.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the finer points of the distinction between the major and minor places. The Commission Doc lists "Penon de Alhucemas and Penon de Velez de la Gomera" and the "Chafarinas Islands" as separate items on the list, but clearly says that the treaties don't apply. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)