|WikiProject International relations||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
This article really needs cleaning up, but I'm not qualified to do it. --Ed Poor
Removed - none of these are state actors
- This text has to be restored. That deleteion is grossly misleading. You are here saying that if one nation conquers another and destroys the original nation, then no territorial dispute exists, because there is no more extant state to have a dispute with. That is just playing word games. Please see the article in occupied territories. If we held by your definition, then even the West Bank and Gaza could not be listed, and probably many of the entries as well. RK
- Land occupied by the United States of America
- Historically, all of the United States of America was originally the territory of a multitude of Native American Indian tribes/nations. However, the source of this situation goes back several centuries, and includes land taken from Native Americans by the Spanish, French, Russians, Dutch, Danish and British. It is incorrect to hold that the Federal government of the USA, which only came into existence in 1776, was responsible for the initial issues. However, there is much Native American Indian territory that is currently illegally occupied by the United States; this is said to be because this land legally belongs to various Native American Indian groups due to legally binding treaties signed between the USA and particular Indian tribes, which the USA later violated.
Which ones ? Taw 23:37, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, neither Syria nor Israel officially recognise the other. This means that the Golan example doesn't fit under any of the subject headings even though it clearly belongs on the page. I'll leave this for someone else to fix. --Zero 10:37, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe Israel does not consider the government of Syria illegitimate and recognizes it, but has not engaged ambassadors as Syria does not recognize Israel. Do correct me if I'm wrong Zero. Leumi 15:00, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It would take a formal decision of Israel to recognise Syria. (Informal comments or public pronouncements don't count.) Given the state of war that has not officially been ended, there is no default position of recognition. That's why both the Israel-Egypt treaty and the Israel-Jordan treay explicitly states that the parties] "recognize and will respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence". I've never heard of such an Israeli action, and it's hard to believe they would do it without a reciprocal action from Syria. The same goes for Syrian recognition of Israel. Presumably they will recognise each other at some time in the future. --Zero 08:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I'm wondering about this statement: "International law ... allows states to use force to resolve a territorial dispute." Article 2 of the U.N. charter seems to definitively rule out the use of force in ALL international disputes. I can't find anything to support the assertion I have just quoted.
- Yeah, something needs to be done about that sentence. The only thing I can think of is that it is in reference to the right of self-defence, which is certainly recognised in international law. So if country A occupies part of country B, then country B is entitled to use force to recover the territory. --Zero 10:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have moved the above to the section 'Disputes in which both parties have some territory under control' as the Polisario have about 1 third of the land under their control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornintheguz (talk • contribs) 09:57, July 8, 2004
In 'Foreign policy of...' sections of Wikipedia, there are some entries regarding boundary disputes that are not included in this section. It would be mutually beneficial if someone could perhaps read through the various sections an add appropriate businesses in the TERRITORIAL DISPUTE section. I have limited time on a friend's PC, otherwise I would. This would add significant entires to the section currently missing. RAYMI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:27, November 13, 2005
Central Asia and Caspian Sea
Added Vozrozhdeniya Island, but this particular dispute could already be solved as of the editing day. Somebody please check. (For my may-be-obsolete sources, see links listed on Aral Sea page). Furthermore, would someone check the Caspian Sea shelf dispute between Russia and her neighbours? Is it solved already? AlexPU 12:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It probably should. Why don't you add it? Jayjg 22:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
--- Please add it in to the section about 'parties that have some control, but do not recognise each other' RAYMI 14/11/2005. Ta.
Finnish Karelia between Finland and Russia? There are a movement in Finland that keeps discussions up and it is supported by 26% (later gallup 38%) of Finns. Does this issue belong to this article? Kahkonen 14:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- It certanly does not belong here. The so called "Karelia Question" (well, only Wikipedia calls it by that name) is a purely domestic issue on the fringes of Finnish politics. It has no international ramifications, except the annoyance of the lone demonstrator distracting president Putins visits to Finland. -- Petri Krohn 23:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Plus a note in CIA World Factbook: "various groups in Finland advocate restoration of Karelia and other areas ceded to the Soviet Union, but the Finnish Government asserts no territorial demands". Kahkonen 14:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
On the CIA World Factbook entry for Kenya () there is a small area of land, seemingly part of Sudan, that is labelled Ilemi Triangle. Does anyone know what the status of this land is?
Tchnically, it's 'occupied', if being administered by the Kenyans when recognised as Sudanese. However, is it being claimed by 'Nairobi'? It should as of now be entered in this section, until further research proves it's deletion or not. RAYMI 14/11/05
Any reason why Hawaii was not on that list? Or does it have to be an actual "dispute"?
18.104.22.168 16:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
It's probably better in the 'secessionist' section. As much as the Hawaiian 'annexation' by the US may have been illegal or not, control is exercised by the US. There is a good argument for Hawaiian independence, but as Hawaiian nationalistsdo not control any territory de facto, and as there is a movement for independence/secession, as regards Wikipedia, it should be in the 'secessionist/independence' section (and is). This section should be about nations that claim territories they do not administer (UN members), or unrecognised states with territorial control over a territory that the 'recognised state' do not administer. RAYMI 14/11/2005
I think there are more land claims between them, does anyone know them? Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People
- Apparently, since the dismemberment of the Soviet Union neither emerging republic (as such creations of Stalin) actively revided historical claims dating from earlier periods; other ethnically Armenian or Azeiri areas don't have a polity that could lay claims fitting on this page
- Antarctica: numerous governments
The Antartitic treaty has all governments suspending their territorial claims.
- As the claims are NOT actually waved, and Antarctiva remains the only territory outside any state, I reintroduced it, but as a new subsection Fastifex 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Good Friday Agreement or not, something about Northern Ireland should definitely be here.
- No, the only claimant is no polity: however real the conflict maybe, it does not fit here. Fastifex 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is merit in the Northern Ireland example of a historic border dispute. Both Ireland and the UK did not dispute the other state's existance, so it wasn't an exclusive mandate issue like East/West Germany or Mainland China/Taiwan. Pre Good Friday, the Dublin Government didn't claim Basingstoke, and the London Government didn't claim Cork, so the issue was a border dispute. Indeed there are still a minor border disputes between the two states as I understand it. http://www.politics.ie/forum/foreign-affairs/173776-ongoing-unresolved-border-dispute-between-ireland-uk.html
Although that is not particularly extraordinary, since many neighbouring countries have these type of minor issues which have little impact on day to day relations, for example the USA and Canada have numerous similar minor disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Misc (previously orphaned at the top)
Does anybody know how the Peruvian zone claimed by Ecuador is called? On my map (by the Ecuadorian "Instituto Geografico Militar") the line which constitutes the de facto border of Ecuador is called "Linea del protocolo de Rio de Janeiro de 1942". The text "Tratado Mosquera Pedemonte 1830" is written at the claimed borderline by Ecuador. And the area in between (the disputed territory) is called "Zona en la que el protocolo de Rio de Janeiro es inejecutable". But has this area an official or recognised name? Guy 20:33 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)
Tibetan nationalists do not comprise a state. There is a Tibetan government-in-exile, but unlike even the Palestians or the Republic of China, it is not recognized as a sovereign state by any government.
Removed Cyprus. Neither Greece nor Turkey claims any part of Cyprus as part of their national territory.
This article needs more scope. Not all territorial disputes are related to states. They can also be applied by aboriginal peoples. For example, see Temagami Land Caution. Volcanoguy 04:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Removal of image of Jammu and Kashmir
As per 2010 UN decision, Kashmir is removed from the list of disputed territories. Following are the sources for that..
Above news sources are from both India and Pakistan. Thank you. --Human3015 19:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)