Talk:List of unrecognized countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of unrecognized countries article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Featured list star List of unrecognized countries is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Five tiny proposals for titles of sections and subsections

[edit] 1

support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it self-evident? Alæxis¿question? 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
When it looses control over the territory, it becomes a government in exile. IMO, a state by definition exercises control over some territory. :Dc76 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
support:Alæxis¿question? 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
oppose Non-explicit title. Acceptable only as a sub-section of a new section States, with reminder of the definition of a state. --Juiced lemon 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Surely "Palestine" could be described as a "partially recognized state," and it does not have de facto control over its territory. john k 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No, exactly this is the counterexample! At least in my understanding. It is called "Palestinian authority", not "Palestinian state". It is a government, a form of self-rule, not yet a state, because it does not have control over the teritory, Israel does. The states that recognize Palestine, regard PLO (and by continuation the Palestinian authority) not just as the local govenment (as it is at least for now; obviously it will eventually be a state), but also as the legitimate government of that territory.
P.S. If Hamas would organize now a government in Gaza, and control the little territory it has, and 34 states recongnize it as a separate state, that would be a "partially recognized state". IMHO.:Dc76 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Er, no, not the Palestinian Authority, which is not a state at all. The State of Palestine, which is recognized by various countries as a sovereign state, but has no de facto control over any territory. john k 22:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, you mean the State of Palestine declared in 1988, not the Palestinian Authority. Let me understand its situation beeter: the State of Palestine has no goverment, and it controls no territory; it is just a proclamation, and that proclamation is recongnized: "More than 100 states recognize the State of Palestine, and 20 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition." (from its article) Among these 100 are listed Argentina, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey, Ukraine.
I am only questioning one word: can it be called a "state". May I make a hypotetical supposition: suppose the local authonomous government of Catalunia declares a State of Catalunia, but does nothing more to act in the name of that state - it continues to act as a local authority as if the declaration never happened. Wouldn't it be simply a desire by a local government to obtain more sovereignty? Of course, the comparision is a stretch:
  • Palestinian authority started in 1992, 4 years after the proclamation of the State of Palestine
  • the "two state solution" is an acceptable thing in the international diplomacy, and noone doubts that that will eventually (in 10 or in 100 years) happen.
So, can we call it a "sovereign state without de facto control over its territory" or a "declaration of a state". The State of Palestine has no government, no president, nothing - as I understand it is just a declaration to foster cohesion among supporters of a palestinian state. So, I suggest to list it separately from anything else, since it is not a state but a proclamation.:Dc76 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't all this about Palestine be actually under #2 below? That-Vela-Fella 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2

support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
support :no big difference Alæxis¿question? 19:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
oppose: illogical. A government cannot be “on disputed territories” when he don't control any territory. Therefore, this is not a government, but a state. --Juiced lemon 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
So, are you saying that when it controls territory, you call it "government", and when it does not, you call it just a "state"? If it is so, than you POV differs from mine only in the interchanged usage of the two words. In that case, maybe we can find a linguist to explain us the words and settle it. :Dc76 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3

support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What's the point in the words and governments here? If it weren't there I'd support it. Alæxis¿question? 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
My reason for introducing the word "governments" there is that in my proposal we have "1.2 states" and "1.3 governments", i.e. for the sake of the completeness when one looks at the TOC. Actually, I did not think about possible implications of introducing this word. Is there a potential problem?
I also agree that "with (OR without) further territorial claims" as per User:That-Vela-Fella sounds better.:Dc76 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
There are no unrecognised governments among the 2 entities listed in that section so imho the word 'governments' should be removed. Actually I think that unrecognised governments shouldn't be in the list at all (as a rule, with occasional exception) since they neither control anything (otherwise they'd be classified as unrecognised states nor should rule some territory according to the "law" (de jure). So I'll support your proposal with Vela-Fella's and my amendments. Alæxis¿question? 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is just a government, not a state, in my understanding. Please, note that is the title for the whole section, which would contain two subsections.:Dc76 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I hear about it for the second time in my life so I'm not an expert but it looks it's described as a state sometimes. ([[1]]). If you move Waziristan to governments though and leave the other entities in the states subsection I'll support it.
support. Alæxis¿question? 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
oppose. According to Montevideo Convention, control over some territory is essential, recognition is incidental. Combination of states and governments is nonsense. --Juiced lemon 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That is one oppinion. IMO, they are equally important. Also, what is "Islamic Emirate of Waziristan", government, state? :Dc76 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4

support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
support: --Juiced lemon 21:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5

  • historic states vs historic governments. I stared at the titles of the two subsections 5 minutes until I saw states vs governments (the only difference). The new titles makes this more clear to read. Slight variations also possible.
support :Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
support :Alæxis¿question? 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
“Unrecognized or partially recognized” is also superfluous. You can specify that in a note after the title of section 2. “Governments” as a subsection of Historic geo-political entities with de facto control over some territory is contradictory. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess you prefer title of section: "Historic geo-political entities", first sentence "This is a list of historic geo-political unrecognized or partially recognized entities with de facto control over some territory." Title of one subsection "states". Title of second subsection "governments". Please, note that this says no more and no less than the current verstion says, only that one does not have to read several times to observe what is the difference between the two subsections.:Dc76 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] about the whole proposal

I seem to be more inclined to go with the proposal since it'll be under better defined headings. Only thing I would suggest for 1.4 are the "and (not) claiming more" parts of it. Would be better sounding if it says "with (OR without) further territorial claims". That-Vela-Fella 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

=== Proposal ===

The moral of this changes is: compare the TOC in the current version with that in my proposal, and see which one is more neat and clear? (:Dc76 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

current

1 Present geo-political entities
1.1 Partially unrecognized states
1.2 Partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory
1.2.1 States that are recognized by more than one country
1.2.2 States that are recognized by only one country
1.3 Partially recognized states existing on disputed territories
1.4 Unrecognized states with de facto control over their territory
1.5 Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory
1.6 Internationally administered territory
1.7 Partially recognized governments in exile
2 Historic geo-political entities
2.1 Historic unrecognized or partially recognized states with de facto control over their territory
2.1.1 Europe
2.1.2 Asia
2.1.3 Africa
2.1.4 Americas
2.1.5 Oceania
2.2 Historic unrecognized or partially recognized governments with de facto control over their territory
3 Notes
4 See also

or proposal

1 Present geo-political entities
1.1 Partially unrecognized states
1.2 Partially recognized states
1.2.1 States that are recognized by more than one country
1.2.2 States that are recognized by only one country
1.3 Partially recognized governments
1.3.1 Partially recognized governments existing on disputed territories
1.3.2 Partially recognized governments in exile
1.4 Unrecognized states and governments
1.4.1 with control over some territory and not claiming more
1.4.2 with control over some territory and claiming more
1.5 Internationally administered territories
2 Historic geo-political entities with de facto control over some territory
2.1 Unrecognized or partially recognized states
2.1.1 Europe
2.1.2 Asia
2.1.3 Africa
2.1.4 Americas
2.1.5 Oceania
2.2 Unrecognized or partially recognized governments
3 Notes
4 See also


Further simplification of the last proposal:

1 Present geo-political entities
1.1 Partially unrecognized
1.2 Partially recognized
1.2.1 Recognized by more than one country
1.2.2 Recognized by only one country
1.3 Unrecognized
1.4 Internationally administered
2 Historic geo-political entities
2.1 Europe
2.1 Asia
2.1 Africa
2.1 Americas
2.1 Oceania
3 Notes
4 See also

Explanations:

  • The article is titled to deal with "countries" so we should concentrate on them
  • If there are some exiled governments, that can be dealt with as a country, if it controls a territory
  • "Geo-political" already means somebody in control of a territory
  • Whether the unrecognized countries claim more land than they control, seems not to be a part of the topic
  • "De facto" and "control" are also interchangeable
  • "Territory" is a "geopolitical entity" also. --Drieakko 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me You're right; the title headings are pretty silly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Another option is that we put all the information to a table. It could have the following columns:
  • Name
  • Current status
  • Declared independece
  • Recognized by
in which the "Current status" is a brief description of the latest situation, "Declared independence" the date when the country claimed to be independent (if ever) and "Recognized by" either the names of the countries that have recognized it or their number.
The same could be done for the list of historical unrecognized countries, with the following items:
  • Name
  • Past status
  • Period
  • Current status. --Drieakko 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me of a suggestion of mine long ago, a list of who recognizes whom, plain and simple. No chance of POV issues. Doesn't matter if there is territory, isn't territory, or if territory is disputed. Even mutual recognition of the frozen conflict zone territories by each other, and no one else, is clear.
     From a syntactical standpoint, are not "partially recognized" and "partially unrecognized" equivalent to the glass is half full versus the glass is half empty? They all qualify for the article by being partially unrecognized... it might be clearer to indicate "Recognized by a majority of countries and authorities" versus "Recognized by a minority of countries and authorities". Just a thought. (Emerging from the Wiki-woodwork, apologies to those that haven't seen me in a while...)
     Unfortunately, these heading titles don't make much sense for an article about unrecognition, but "Unrecognized by a majority..." and "Unrecognized by a minority..." don't bode well for simplification. :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will carry out the move to a table format for the entire article soon, unless anyone objects. --Drieakko 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is this going to be done or what? That-Vela-Fella 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Patiently waiting for comments, if any are still coming :) --Drieakko 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Out of interest, where are you going to get official/authoritative figures on the number of countries that recognize any specific state? Will partially-recognized countries' recognition be counted, or only ones that have a seat at the UN, or what? Vizjim 03:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't plan to introduce any new data during the "operation", just to clean-up the way the data is presented and give it a more list-like appearance. --Drieakko 03:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems like there might be some problems with this, both in terms of practicality and format. I understand that you don't intend to introduce any data during the changeover, but the end result will require that new data to be found nonetheless, won't it? Vizjim 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite likely it will. The main purpose of the first step is to formalize what this article is about. Unnecessary or missing information is best revealed by a table structure. --Drieakko 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that this will create a WP:OR-baiting article, and probably shouldn't be done unless we can first find a satisfactory way to collect the required data. (And, just to be clear, I've had a search around and can't find any such source of data that would seem neutral to all parties). Vizjim 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table proposal

Here is a rough cut of the table. Kindly comment.

Name Disputed Since Recognized by Unrecognized by More information
Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Independence 1974 Turkey Other countries Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Independence 1976 45 countries Most countries, Arab League, UN Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Flag of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Nagorno-Karabakh Independence 1991 None Recognized as part of Azerbaijan
Flag of Somaliland Somaliland Independence 1991 None Recognized as part of Somalia
Flag of Abkhazia Abkhazia Independence 1992 None Recognized as part of Georgia
Flag of South Ossetia South Ossetia Independence 1991 None Recognized as part of Georgia
Flag of Transnistria Transnistria Independence 1992 None Recognized as part of Moldova
Palestinian flag Palestine Statehood 1988 103 countries Israel, United States, United Nations Proposals for a Palestinian state
Flag of the People's Republic of China People's Republic of China Statehood 1949 167 countries 24 countries PRC's diplomatic relations
Flag of the Republic of China Republic of China Statehood 1949 24 countries Most countries Political status of Taiwan
Flag of Cyprus Cyprus Statehood 1960 Only Turkey See Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Flag of Israel Israel Statehood 1948 157 countries 34 countries Foreign relations of Israel
Flag of the Vatican City Vatican City Statehood 176 countries Notably People's Republic of China Holy See
Flag of the Republic of Macedonia Republic of Macedonia Name 1992 Over 100 countries Greece, international organizations Macedonia naming dispute
Flag of Burma Myanmar Name 1989 Most countries, United Nations United States, Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom Names of Burma/Myanmar

--Drieakko 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, and I drop my objections. I just couldn't visualise it before. This allows for explanations and nuance (so for example you could include the recognition of the TRNC by the Organization of the Islamic Conference), and it works very well. Vizjim 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another proposal for the past unrecognized countries, containing just a snapshot:

Name Period Continent Today Notes
Alsace-Lorraine 1918 Europe Part of France
Template:Country data UnknownBanat Republic 1918 Europe Part of Romania, Serbia, and Hungary
Template:Country data UnknownBaranya-Baja Republic 1921 Europe Part of Hungary and Croatia
Bavarian Soviet Republic 1919 Europe Part of Germany
Belarusian People's Republic 1918 Europe Independent Belarus
Carpatho-Ukraine 1939 Europe Part of Ukraine
Chechnya 1996-1999 Europe Part of Russia See also Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

--Drieakko 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also lovely. By the way, would it be possible to create another column of the table just for sources? It would be good to promote sourced edits in a disputed article such as this one... Vizjim 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. For sources, IMHO Wikipedia:Footnotes is a clean way. --Drieakko 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks similar to other setups on other articles and sources done with references at the bottom of the page. I'd go with this cleaner looking format. That-Vela-Fella 06:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your wisdom. Vizjim 06:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea s quite good. I think we should have a(nother) column that has links o each 'entity's section for further information. In my opinion we should not have Macedonia/FYROM and Myanmar/Burma, those countries are fully recognized. We can list them in a see also section. DenizTC 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The column "Disputed" attempts to indicate the element that is not recognized. For Macedonia and Myanmar, the name of the country remains disputed, making the countries only partially recognized. --Drieakko 12:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that. There are certainly name disputes, so we have the relevant articles (hence I said we can have a see also for them), but these don't make them partially recognized. Myanmar is fully recognized since 1948. There is even an embassy of Myanmar in US and Australia, two countries which make Myanmar unrecognized according to some people here. DenizTC 13:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If a country can not get recognized by the name it wants to be recognized as, it is then IMHO partially recognized. --Drieakko 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't matter. Anyway I made some changes, please check. I went ahead and inserted the table combining recognition and non-recognition, also the table is sorted ('statehood' above 'independence', and then temporal order; don't know whether we should put Vatican on top). I commented out Myanmar and Macedonia for now. 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You also did not seem to matter to wait for the discussion to close before carrying out major edits. Anyway, good points. I further simplified your edits. This article is a list, nothing else, and all information is available in additional articles that need not take their arguments here for any other than just the basic facts. --Drieakko 21:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about not waiting much. To avoid any deadlocks any further, I decided to just be bold and do the edit. DenizTC 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican

Is Vatican really not recognised by China as an independant country? I know they have no diplomacy, but all countries that have diplomacy with Taiwan (ROC) have no diplomacy with China. I've read a book from China, about flags and coats of arms of the countries around the world. Vatican is shown in the book, and also those like Paraguay, Gambia... but no Western Sahara/SADR, Abkhazia... --Edmund the King of the Woods! 11:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as with any other nation(s), it's only a diplomatic recognition involved with this topic. It obviously sees it existing as an independent country, but just not in friendly terms due to the Taiwan issue. That-Vela-Fella 18:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If we should emphasize on DIPLOMACY, then countries such as Paraguay, St Lucia, Gambia, Honduras, Guatemala... should also be listed, because they have no diplomacy with China (due to diplomacy with Taiwan)

The very notion of "recognition" is, by definition, "diplomacy". It's not emphasis on, it's what it is. So, yes, there would be a (reciprocal) list of all countries which mainland China does not recognize because those countries recognize Taiwan instead. (Sorry for not using PRC and ROC, I see enough acronyms in my day job!)
     In the end, it would likely be a single list, that is, countries which recognize Taiwan instead of China = countries China does not recognize (because...). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Only thing missing in the table now is when it all started. I'm sure it must have been once it got it's 1st recognition as an independent state again in 1929? That-Vela-Fella 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, I don't think it should really be there since 176 (a huge majority) of nations recognize them. Anyone think as to why they are listed, otherwise it should be removed soon. That-Vela-Fella 12:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But it appeared to be a "partially recognised state", so how many countries recognise it, it's not important. The most important is - is there any country doesn't recognise it as an independant country? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's the thing, is there? Just because out of the 192 in the UN, only 16 don't have diplomatic relations with them constitute non-recognition? I'm sure a few other nations in the world fit in that same situation, like Bhutan for example. That-Vela-Fella 09:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are 192 UN members, and only 176 recognise the Vatican City, who's the remaining 16 members? Why single out the PRC in particular?--Huaiwei 09:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not singled out by itself, but cause it's not part of the UN, thus is mentioned as one of the nations involved with the two China issue. Btw, I found what 16 nations are not DIPLOMATICALLY with the Holy See (proper term as it's not really the Vatican itself). It's listed here: [2]

The ones missing are as follows (btw, it has a 'special' relationship with Russia): Afghanistan, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, P.R. of China, Comoros, N. Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Myanmar, Oman, Somalia, Tuvalu, & Vietnam.

But like I said before, Bhutan (for example) should be listed also then as it's in a very similar situation. That-Vela-Fella 03:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

I did have a look at the archives but the discussion is thin. Kosovo is not an unrecognised country because it does not presently claim recognition. That's the bottom line.

It is, of course, the subject of a long-running dispute between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians but that is not the same. Kosovo Albanian parties did announce a Republic of Kosovo in 1999 (only Albania gave recognition), but when the United Nations took over administration an agreement was reached (the Constitutional Framework) under which all parties agreed to contribute to the interim civilian administration; the Republic of Kosovo was (quietly) dropped at this point and you will find no further reference to it anywhere.

Kosovo Albanians still desire and seek independence, for which they are contributing to UN-backed status negotiations. They may get it. This is in no way the same as being an unrecognised state. There is no putative state to which recognition could be given. The Kosovo Albanian parties seeking independence are in this way no different from (say) the Scottish National Party in the UK which desire and are working for independence and are in control of the devolved administration: yet no one is claiming that Scotland is an unrecognised state.

I'd be interested to hear opinions, but it is pretty clear to me that Kosovo belongs on lots of other lists, but not here. DSuser 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As there is no established sovereign de jure authority or controlling de facto authority (or, more specifically, international forces are the de facto authority), I would agree with you on this point. I'm sure good references can be found on this. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Here, here Kosovo clearly doesn't belong. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored Kosovo on the list. They first voted for independence in 1992. Today, native Kosovo administration continues to insist full independence as the only viable solution to the current situation. As for the international administration, that really does not change the situation. For example, the de facto ruler of the Turkish Cyprus is the army of Turkey, but here they are on the list anyway. --Drieakko 18:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the UN "rule", it is today mainly limited to the matters of military and foreign relations, while all else is in the Kosovian hands. --Drieakko 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Worth reading Constitutional status of Kosovo and Kosovo status process, and indeed referring to our past discussion on the Kosovo talk page. Kosovo remains sovereign Serbian territory under interim UN administration. Local, provisional institutions of self-government have authority only under that of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and only those powers devolved to them by UNMIK; all of those powers could be removed at a moment's notice. This is a territory run by the UN and thus not applicable for this list. Please see also United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244. Representatives of Kosovo Albanians declared independence in the 1990s but the UN renegotiated a political settlement one they took over such that the Kosovo Albanians no longer claim independence or seek international recognition as a state. That is not to say that Kosovo Albanians might not prefer independence; it is definitely what they are negotiating for. But they have not declared independence and do not seek recognition: therefore Kosovo does not, definitively, belong on a 'List of unrecognised countries'. To do so would be to claim recognition for them that they themselves do not seek, which is not our place in an encyclopaedia. Think of Scotland, for example: the devolved administration is presently run by the Scottish National Party, whose main goal is independence from the UK, but they have not declared independence and do not seek recognition, and so (also) do not belong on this list. DSuser 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly note that Taiwan or Palestine have not declared independence either. --Drieakko 11:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be difficult for the Republic of China to declare independence as it was never part of any other entity; it was forced from the mainland by the Communists in 1949. It claims itself an independent state and seeks recognition from other states. This is not the case for Kosovo or Scotland. The Palestinian Authority is not a territory controlled by the United Nations, has not declared independence and it does not claim or seek international recognition. The Palestine listed on this list is not the Palestinian Authority but the Palestine Liberation Organization which has received international recognition (including UN observer status as 'Palestine') as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people'. The PLO claims and has received such recognition; Kosovo and Scotland have not and do not belong on this list. DSuser 13:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De jure part of Serbia

Whatever position you personally take regarding Kosovo - should it be recognized or not - the objective facts are that it is AT PRESENT (i) a self-declared republic, (ii) recognized by certain states, (iii) de jure still a part of Serbia. This last fact keeps getting edited a way, now this is just not fair folks! Legally, that is according to international law, Kosovo is still a part of Serbia. This is objective fact, so why edit it away?

But for the love of god, stop changing it! It's a fact, it's not just "considered by some to be" it's objectively de jure a part of Serbia just like Abkhazia is de jure a part of Georgia but de facto independent. And if you change it, give us a reason why! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.236.219 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
According to UN resolution 1244 (1999) Kosov is not mentioned as part of Serbia but as part of Federal Republic of Yougoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.0.254.46 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

I'd remove Islamic Emirate of Waziristan from the list. The area is not seeking international recognition so listing it here is rather pointless. --Drieakko 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure Its an unsourced "some people say" line. Some people say lots of stuff. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

{{WPTRNC-Invitation}} Till 21.07.2007, the phrase "UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's 2004 Report (after referenda in both sides of the island) writes the urgent need to remove the isolation of TRNC" is located in the TRNC section. It was deleted on 25.07.2007 without any explanation. 2 days later (27.07.2007) some explanations for removal has written. All are inplausible of course. Notes: 1. This phrase is a consensus, this phrase was in TRNC description till 21.07.2007. It is not an opinion of one or two people. It is the consensus of Wiki writers. 2. This phrase extends the TRNC section only one line and TRNC section becomes 4 lines instead of 3 (Still, Macedonia, Myanmar: 7 lines, Safrawi: 6 lines ). So length objections are completely illogical. 3. This phrase is NOT POV. This phrase is written on the Annan's 2004 Report. United Nations Report is NOT POV, but an info, a data.

Everyone surely understands the importance of Kofi Annan's statements. They are just not within the scope of this article. --Drieakko 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Kofi Annan's comments do not make any difference to the non-recognition of the TRNC, and as such do not belong within an article section about this. Vizjim 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
That's right, it should be if anything a footnote or link to the source only. That-Vela-Fella 07:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
They are within the scope of the article, and Kofi Annan's comments was the consensus among Wiki writers till 21 July 2007. Somebody removed Kofi Annan's report without the allowance of Wiki community. Kofi Annan's report on Cyprus added to TRNC paragraph upon long discussions of Wiki authors. Now, the link of Kofi Annan's Report added finally. Consensus cannot be removed with the thoughts of a couple of writers. Wiki consensus is crucial.TruthTeller 18:04,30 July 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above, the consensus is that it is *not* within the scope of the article. It seems that you attempt to force a POV that Kofi Annan's statement and TRNC's recognition are somehow connected, which is incorrect. --Drieakko 06:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensus existed after almost a work of 1 year. See the 21.07.2007 or earlier modifications. It is within the scope of the article and this fact became a consensus. This consensus destroyed in 25.07.2007 without any explanation. If, as you claim, it was the outside of the scope then explain why it was within the scope till 21.07.2007. Vista2010 10:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please do not go into this creation of a new user name for each post. --Drieakko 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to find out exactly when the change was made, but the Annan comments were not there six months ago. Even if they were, that would not mean that consensus existed, simply that an editor had put them in and nobody had objected until now. There is a clear consensus here that the comments do not belong within a list of unrecognized countries: there would be an equal consensus that they DO belong in the linked TRNC article. It is not that there is anything unreasonable in general about noting Annan's comments, nor indeed the European Union's position or similar international bodies, just that it is unreasonable to do so in this article. Vizjim 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so to introduce myself, I'm Greek so please consider me an "involved party" in saying this, but I didn't spot any other relevant comment above: The Annan reports and comments are numerous and for various issues. Indeed, the anon/polyonymous user is right: the comment exists in one report. But the selection and isolation of the particular comment, with the other comments excluded in the same time, is in my view POV. Selective information falls within WP:UNDUE in my view. I would argue that it is impossible to include an adequate summary of Annan's comments (let alone whoever else's involved for that matter). NikoSilver 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Annan's report upon cyprus referendum is clear: 28 May 2004. Hyperlink was given in the article. Kofi Annan's 2004 Report (number: S/2004/437) I would hope that the members of the Council can give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies, to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development You cannot close your eyes till infinity 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kofi Annan writes in his Report on Cyprus dated to 28 May 2004 (Report No: S/2004/437) that I would hope that the members of the UN Security Council can give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies, to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development. So, Annan's comments on Cyprus is not numerous as NikoSilver says. 83.66.22.10 06:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

He has made numerous comments himself apart from this, and he is not the only authority in the world making comments either. Plus it's irrelevant. NikoSilver 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Judging purely from the excerpts reprinted here, Annan is merely saying that the present situation must end, not that the unrecognised state should be recognised. The situation could equally end with a federated Cyprus, or with the re-absorption of the breakwaway pseudo-state by the Republic of Cyprus. I think virtually everyone agrees that the present situation must end, but 99% of the world's states do not presently think it should end with the recognition of a separate state of Northern Cyprus. Which is why the country should appear on a list of unrecognized states, and why Annan's comments simply do not contribute to this page of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Vizjim 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • NikoSilver, I have seen the 2006 United Nations Report of UN Sec. Gen. as well. I will give its hyperlink in a short while as well. In that report - presented to the Security Council of UN - he again stress the illogical isolations toward TRNC once again. To Vizjim, present situation will result in de jure independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the light of many perspectives (the last one is Kosovo; previously Check + Slovakia). The TRNC President was confronted in Sweden official ceremony that is applied to presidents. Greek cypriots rejected unification of TRNC and Rep.of Cyprus in 2004 referendum. Hence, the process is impossible to end not only with re-absorption but also with federation. Federation rejected by Greek Cypriots in 2004 referendum. I do not know in which planet you are living, why dont you watch TV or read newspaper for what is happening in the world!! 88.228.7.188 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some facts for those who still do not know what the Cyprus is: For TRNC (North Cyprus) and Rep. of Cyprus (South Cyprus):

Race: North Cyprus: Turk South Cyprus: Greek; [contrary to Federal Germany and D. Germany & North Korea and South Korea] Language: North Cyprus: Turkish South Cyprus: Greek; [contrary to Federal Germany and D. Germany & North Korea and South Korea] Religion: North Cyprus: Muslim South Cyprus: Christian; [contrary to Federal Germany and D. Germany & North Korea and South Korea] Democracy: North Cyprus: Many parties, democratic South Cyprus: Many parties, but party ideologies are synonymous of each other. Is there anybody who observed something in common? There is: Both North Cyprus people (Turks) and South Cyprus people (Greeks) (the whole island) was ruled by Turks from 1571 to 1872!! 83.66.22.10 09:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Classification TRNC Rep. of Cyprus (shapeless entity)
Race Turk Greek
Language Turkish Greek
Religion Muslim Christian
Democracy Many parties, democratic Many parties, but party ideologies are synonymous of each other
Culture Turkish traditions Greek traditions

As a result of the above table; the number of marriages btw Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots (multi-etnic marriages) btw 1960 and 2007 is only 5 !! Justice Forever 07:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide references to back this up? I don't doubt it, but I would like references. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This User:Justice Forever, with his additional IPs and multiple usernames, is just attempting to hijack the article to promote his TRNC agenda. --Drieakko 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed. Perhaps a report on AN/I? ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 17:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Already reported, they block his sock puppets as they appear. --Drieakko 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I see he was blocked a few hours ago. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 17:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Greek Cypriot Vandalists are contiously destroying the TRNC-related materials and blocking those who prevent them. The words of today is from Angela Merkel: We made a very big error by taking the Greek Cypriots in to the European Union (2007) Truth1Continusly 07:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for that quote? I doubt it. And don't pretend that Turks don't vandalize Greek articles--Waterfall999 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nagorno-Karabakh

The article says "It declared its independence based on USSR constitution and according to international forms." I should note that this statement is quite blatantly incorrect or at the very least highly disputable. Former autonomous republics of the USSR had no right to declare independence, while Union Republics did have such a right. Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous oblast (not even an autonomous republic) within Azerbaijan and therefore had no right whatsoever to declare independence from the USSR. This is a quasi-legalistic trick (more properly a propaganda lie) used by the NK separatists to justify their claims. Any lawyer with a working head will confirm that what I said is correct. And what is meant by "international forms"? Well, to sum up, this whole sentence makes no sense, conveys wrong factual information and, therefore, should be deleted.

I removed this POV claim. Check the Iternational status section in the Nagorno-Karabakh article, specifically what Council of Europe says. "NKR" is considered illegal entity by international community, so the facts should be presented fairly. --Grandmaster 10:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The passage as is needs clarification, but there is indeed some sense behind it. There was a law that said that in the event a union republic secceeded (Azerbaijan), autonomous entities had the right to determine their own future. Thus NK decided to stay in the SU and when the latter was dissolved, NK became independent. And I believe that NK was the only autonomous entity to explicitly appeal to this procedure at the time.sephia karta 10:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the procedure only gave the autonomy a right to remain within the USSR, but not to declare its independence. So it was actually a violation of USSR laws. Grandmaster 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It did stay within the SU, but the SU then disbanded, didn't it? Anyway, I'm not saying that this legitimises their independence because in the end, that is down to personal opinion, I'm just saying that the argument is not void and that, if presented tastefully, it can have a place here. sephia karta 11:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this article should avoid making any additional comments on the countries, as it is clearly better to have the discussions on their respective talk pages than here. --Drieakko 12:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

USSR disbanded, but NK was not one of the 15 Soviet Republics. Soviet constitution granted the right of secession only to the 15 Soviet republics. In any case, I agree that it is better to keep questionable interpretations out of this article and mention only indisputable facts. --Grandmaster 12:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims of independence/sovereigny/countryhood of any of the frozen conflict zone territories is WP:OR. All started by editors claiming that part of part of the Montevideo criteria narrowly applied should be the Wiki-basis to imply "de facto" sovereignty (an oxymoron to boot). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Recognition is no less OR than Montevideo unless explicit sources are provided. It just is not that clear cut. sephia karta 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "partial control" vs. "complete control"

What is this distinction meant to signify at present? Neither the TRNC, nor Nagorno Karabakh, nor Somaliland controls all of what it claims. If the classification is instead meant to indicate the degree of control with which the unrecognised states control their territory, then we really need sources to back this up. sephia karta 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

  • TRNC controls all of the territory it claims. It controls %37 of the Cyprus island and claims this %37 portion only. If you go to Northern Cyprus the only flag you will see is the TRNC flag. Can you tell me even a single km2 territory that TRNC claims but not control? Legal status of buffer zone (%3 of the island) that seperates TRNC and Rep. of Cyprus is currently ambigous but certainly should be claimed by TRNC as well as Rep. of Cyprus in the future (after UNICYP withdrawn)OfficialDocument 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. Because the TRNC does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus, I took that to mean that it claims the whole island, but that of course does not automaticaly follow. sephia karta 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The Republic of Cyprus does not control all of what it claims, because 37% of the island is occupied by Turkey. OfficialDocument, can you name one good reason why Turkey should occuppy the buffer zone as well? You have no right to occupy any of Cyprus. Cyprus was Greek for thousands of years, yet the Turks didn't arrive there until 1570. The population of Cyprus was only 18% Turkish in 1974, and yet you took 37% of the land, and are so hungry for more blood that you also want the buffer zone, you should be ashamed--Waterfall999 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess that every place that ever was ruled by or was home to Greeks should just relinquish their sovereignty and submit to Greek rule because it was Greek land thousands of years ago. Forget the Megali Idea, let's just bring back Alexander's empire! As for the Turks, they're just all squatters on Greek land they conquered between 1071 and 1453. They should go back to the steppes of Asia where they came from. Sarcasm mode off... Jsc1973 (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FARC in Columbia.

Unrecognized states with partial control over their territory.

Wouldn't this definition apply to the teritory control by the FARC in Columbia? They have their own government, and control over massive parts of Columbia. Should they be reconized as a "Unrecognized state with partial control over it's territory" ?


Darkfalkon 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know too much about the FARC, but the difference could be that they don't claim to be an independent state. Of course, if they claim to be the only true government of Columbia, then their case would be similar to the ROC, and they ought to be listed.sephia karta 10:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
True, nothing says that they are wanting to divide the nation & having it's own. All FARC wants to do is overthrown the present government. That-Vela-Fella 11:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ROC

It has been edited in the article that Republic of China would be in de facto control over the territory it says it represents. Since ROC claims, and is treated as such also by the countries that recognize it, to be the sole representative of China, that would mean it would be in control of all China. As that is not the case, stating ROC to be in de facto control over its territory is not correct. --Drieakko 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just state in control of what it actually has in possession presently rather than it's claim. That-Vela-Fella 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is similar to Syria's past claims on Hatay. 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denizz (talk • contribs).

[edit] Negros

The Negros Republic link should go to Negros Revolution. Also, the dates on both articles don't match. --84.20.17.84 08:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually got it fixed to show the article to now says in relation to, but not only, the revolution itself. Also fixed the date it had listed. That-Vela-Fella 12:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea's

The Korean war hasn't ended yet. Do we have anything arising from this that we should be mentioning on the main page, what do you think? DenizTC 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it related to this article? That-Vela-Fella 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I was just asking whether someone knows about it. They are still at war, so no finalizing treaty has been signed yet, and there is a military demarcation line instead of a border. We have a special situation there. Also North Korea claims the whole territory. I guess I'll just add Division of Korea to See also's. One question might be should we add them to former partially recognized ones for the period between 1953 and 1971. DenizTC 21:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure many know about it, but that link doesn't say anything or sourced as to them having been recognized or not during that time period. (It does though touch on that the South also claims the whole territory.) Just putting that link to the See also section without prior mention of it makes it pointless for now. That-Vela-Fella 11:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I see now that I might have been misunderstood above. What I was talking about was, whether someone among us, the contributors to this article, knows anything related to recognition arising from the complex situation of Koreas, eg. the one I mentioned: whether they were fully recognized between 1953 and 1971. I think having them under the See also section should be fine (though it would be better if they were 'hinted' in the text). See also's don't repeat the wikilinks. DenizTC 22:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical section

Shouldn't this be in a different article? Æetlr Creejl 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. One concern might be whether it will be notable enough to have its own article. I think it is notable enough. DenizTC 01:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
List of past unrecognized countries? --Drieakko 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the discussion was about 'historical' not 'partially'. Anyway, as some editors suggested, we do have that 'title' problem, unrecognized vs partially recognized. The latter one would make us exclude likes of Karabakh. One problem with adding the historical ones is incompleteness. We should be able to make this list complete. I also don't see much point adding them here. We can create a new list, or have them listed in a category. DenizTC 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion for the name of the new article was for the PAST, not PARTIALLY unrecognized countries :) --Drieakko 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
lol losing sleep for wiki is not a good thing I guess DenizTC 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll create that and move the stuff right now. If anyone has any objections, leave a note on my talk page. Æetlr Creejl 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutan

Why is Bhutan in this list? Æetlr Creejl 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably it should not be on the list. Lack of diplomatic relations does not imply non-recognition (too many negatives). Is there a 'country' that hasn't recognized Bhutan yet? DenizTC 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Same goes for the Vatican, see above. That-Vela-Fella 11:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Vatican specially non-recognized by P R China? DenizTC 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Them & 23 other countries, due to the "other" China. If this wasn't a problem, then this wouldn't even be an issue. It's all a diplomatic mess. That-Vela-Fella 02:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
All of the countries explicitly not recognizing some other countries probably do have some rationale. I don't think we should care about that here now, as long as we point to the relevant article. I think what you said is covered in the relevant article given in the last column. DenizTC 06:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the Vatican and the other countries still recognised by the PRC, although they don't have any diplomatic relations with each other? Recognition is not the same thing as lack of diplomatic relations. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Cyprus

I think its a bit ridiculous for Cyprus to be on this list, since it not recognized only by the country that occupies it, but nevertheless, in the table is says Cyprus has been disputed since 1960, but Turkey recognized it in 1960 did it not?--Waterfall999 07:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct: I've made the alteration. Vizjim 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usefulness of page?

Of what use is an apparently unordered and unsorted list which lumps together Nagorno-Karabakh and the People's Republic of China? AnonMoos 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And what possible usefulness is List of countries which lumps together Andorra and Congo? --Drieakko 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is of interest to many students of separatism, secession, decolonization, decentralization, etc. to be able to track which countries have or are having problems being recognized. It's not the size that counts but the level of political legitimacy in the eyes of other nations.
Carol Moore 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
In the current list, the level of political legitimacy of Nagorno-Karabakh and the People's Republic of China do not appear to be clearly distinguished. AnonMoos 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In the third column, the number of countries that recognize each country is given. The distinction is there clear between a nation recognized by 176 countries, as the Vactican is, and a nation recognized by no countries. Vizjim 08:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but there appears to be no ascertainable criteria governing the order in which nations are listed in the table -- which makes things more confusing than they should be, and means that you have to visually scan backwards and forwards and left and right in the table to figure out what's going on, a lot more than would be necessary if the ordering of nations made some intuitive sense... AnonMoos 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You can re-order the table as you prefer: I have them in alphabetical order at the moment. It's difficult to order them by "number of countries recognizing..." or "order of legitimacy" as that gets you into all sorts of debates about what constitutes a country, the sort of argument that spawned this list in the first place. Vizjim 09:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It sure doesn't seem to be in any kind of alphabetical order to me: -- AnonMoos 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Israel
  • People's Republic of China
  • Republic of China
  • Cyprus
  • Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
  • Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  • Palestine
  • Nagorno-Karabakh
  • Somaliland
  • South Ossetia
  • Abkhazia
  • Transnistria
  • Vatican City
  • Bhutan


It's not a big table, although a note is missing that I will add so as to see it in what ever order one wants to see it. I'm sure it was done by year though. That-Vela-Fella 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The data in the table use to be several sections that were not resorted after being combined into a table. I have sorted the by name to make it more useful-- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was sorted chronologically. The alphabetical order is more 'neutral' and 'user-friendly'; the chronological order is more 'informative', but possibly misleading (subsequent events being related to each other, etc). It does not matter much, no need to have this debate, imo. Are we still keeping Bhutan? DenizTC 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requires massive cleanup or else deletion

The list of unrecognized countries enumerates those geo-political entities which lack general diplomatic recognition

Fine. So then why are Bhutan, Cyprus, Israel, the PRC, and the Vatican in the list? These entities are generally recognized. I don't see the point of this article in the first place, though, since "general recognition" is a weasel phrase. Recognition by whom? To what extent? Etc. --76.249.135.25 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to be conflicting in many ways. I'll look at getting it fixed so as to be more coherent, since the word general is to open-ended. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea?

If the People's Republic of China is listed here, shouldn't also North Korea and South Korea be listed here?

  • North Korea isn't recognised by South Korea, the US, Japan, France and some other countries.
  • South Korea isn't recognised by North Korea, and possibly not by some other countries either. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC))
Looking into this matter, they should be included also as said above. As for those 2 below, it once was put in, but reversed & explained dealing with the lack of criteria under the Montevideo Convention. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
NK and USA While it is the case that North Korea and the US don't ave normalized relations, they recognize one another; that is how they can negotiate on nuclear disarmament, for instance, or have six-party talks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What defines an unrecognised country?

"The lists of unrecognized countries enumerates those geo-political entities which lack some form of diplomatic recognition, but wish to be universally recognized as sovereign states."

This sounds a little ambiguous to me. If I were to claim the area around the chair I'm sitting on as a Sovereign State of Chairs, would it then have to be added to this list of unrecognised countries? I would have full control of the claimed territory (one square metre or so).

The Principality of Sealand has full control of its claimed territory (a platform in the North Sea), and so has the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (a house in Rome). The latter even has some kind of recognition from a number of states. Yet neither is mentioned in the lists of unrecognised countries on this page. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Lakota?

Should they be listed here? Zazaban (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

NO, it's a tribe. This is for countries. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikinews, they declared independence -- someone should look into this, I think. [3] —Nightstallion 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
An unelected activist from the tribe declared independence, not the elected leader of the tribe. At best it should be considered a micronation, not a country. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 19:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit fuzzy on what are the exact standards to differentiate a micronation (of which there are many) from "unrecognized countries," but IMHO Lakota is better considered a micronation than a country, and should be removed from this list. --Elonka 16:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think that Lakota (or Lakotah) qualifies as a country yet. According to Montevideo convention, a country needs a territory, a population, and a political authority. According to statemets by Russell Means, the proposed country lacks all three of them. Even the claim of current borders are not yet precisely set, so we cannot talk about a territory. He said he doesn't know yet if the "whites" will work with them, therefore we can not talk about a population (We even don't know if all the american indians will support him). And we definately can't talk about a political authority. (Is this Russell guy a king? an elected President? How does he represent the people to begin with?) I'd say that Aerican Empire is more of a state than Lakotah under current circumstances. Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion, and it ties into the subject right above. What are the criteria for being listed here. The argument for removing my entry of Lakotah was that it does not control its desired territory. But my question then is: Does West Sahara? Actually: Does Kosovo? It is de facto under UN control, not Kosovan control - and parts of the country are not places the Kosovo-Albanian leadership would want to visit (Mitrovica). But I grant that that could not be a criteria: Some fully recognized states have areas they do not control. Anyway: If control is the main criterion, one may argue that West Sahara should be removed and suddenly Sealand has a claim to be here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.137.7 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (entry by --Misha bb (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Kosovo doesn't matter - it *has* recognition, so it can go on the partially recognized list, regardless of anything else. Lakota lacks everything, recognition, control, anything. Furthermore, they haven't made any attempt whatsoever to unseat the authority of the United States in their claimed land, while all of the other separatist areas have. Western Sahara is partially recognized, so again, its actual control doesn't matter, it belongs on the list. However, they do have exclusive control over part of their claimed territory, as does Tamil Eelam. The Lakota do not. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So then the criteria would be: (a) An entity goes on the list of unrecognized self-declared states if it has some control, (b) An entity goes on the list of partially recognized self-declared states even if it has no control. I see how that is an orderly way to do things, so one does not end up with having to list every "state" some joker sets up in his/her back yard. I am now going to say something rarely said on internet debate: You are right, I was wrong. Lakota is out. --Misha bb (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, no problem, it did help - we figured out another criteria for the list! :) (This brings up an interesting question, though... is the exiled government of Tibet recognized by anyone? Gotta go check... whew, no, not recognized. That would have complicated things.) --Golbez (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UN recognition

I think there should be a division in the list between members of the UN, and nations which are not recognized by the UN as being part of the UN shows that the international community in general recognizes the state. For example, Bhutan as part of the UN and in general is recognized as a country. On the other hand, Nagorno-Karabakh is not part of the UN and is not generally recognized as a country. Does anyone have any objection to this? --Lesouris (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that can also be done by expanding the table. But I wouldn't be against a seperation. Why is Bhutan is on the list anyway? Is there any country that doesn't recognize it on purpouse, or it just never got into formal relations or what? For example what would happen if I wanted to walk in Bhutan as a citizen of a country that it never had diplomatic relations? Weird... Kerem Özcan (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

The article says that Israel is "recognized by 158 countries, not recognized by 34 countries" with a link to Foreign relations of Israel where it is said that 34 countries do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. I want to point out that not having diplomatic relations does not mean unrecognition. For example Israel did not have diplomatic relations with the USSR for some time, but the USSR always recognized Israel as a state. There even was an Israeli consulate in the USSR and vise versa. Some of the counted countries had embassies in Israel, but closed them in 1990s or 2000s. I think closing embassy is not equal to rovoking recognition.--Dojarca (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there at least some countries that explicitly don't recognise Israel? So maybe we should just replace the current passage with 'has no diplomatic relations with 34 states'. Alæxis¿question? 08:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are, but the number is likely much smaller than 34. Replacing the passage would be not much useful because this article explains diplomatic recognition, not diplomatic relations or good relations or friendship or cultural exchange or any other possible type of relations.--Dojarca (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So what do you propose to do? Alæxis¿question? 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the number should be replaced with the correct one or noted that the correct number is unknown.--Dojarca (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I can but agree with you. Alæxis¿question? 11:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

After looking in this matter more in-depth & with the above statements, I took it to correct a few problematic areas. A few were more into actual 'diplomatic relations' rather than what this article was meant for. Unless someone has a source for any nation not recognizing the nation of the Vatican City, etc., then it should not be included here. I did also adjusted some of those to reflect more on the actual subject at hand.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil Eelam

Should Tamil Eelam be put on the list? It does have it's own de facto control over it's self. Yet is entirely unrecognized. However the government that runs the country is recognized as a terrorist organization by 23 countries. So where would it fit in here? Jordan (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it fits in this list... In order to prevent future disputes some source should be found confirming that it's really de facto independent country. Alæxis¿question? 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
it fits, sure. They control territory currently. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It has partial de facto control, and that control changes; it hasn't even declared independence, according to our own article. I would say it belongs no more than Chechnya does. --Golbez (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam is a de facto independent country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinothan2 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC) "However a majority of the land, including the claimed districts of Jaffna, Ampara, Trincomalee, Batticaloa and Puttlam, is controlled by the government of Sri Lanka." That doesn't sound independent to me. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update in Taiwan status

I just want to bring to attention that Taiwan is now only recognized by 22 nations plus the Vatican City after Malawi dropped relations with Taiwan last month. I don't know how to do the editing and the source citing so I thought I would just bring it to the community attention instead.

Subzero961 2/17/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzero961 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct & will be now updated. Was also sourced in the respective articles (ie: [4])That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazia=

I changed the year from 1992 to 1994. Abkhazia was not declared as a state until 1994. Up until then declarations had focused on (a) changing affiliation from Georgia to Russia within the USSR - which does not constitute secession; (b) becoming a very autonomous republic within Georgia.

[edit] Confederate States of America

The Confederate States of America should be added to the list of limited recognized nations since the Vatican and the Pope himself, which is a head of state recognized the nation officially.

Dixieparty (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Actually It should not be on this list, as it does not exist, but there is a list of former unrecognized countries, as I recall. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Well I notice that the CSA is on the list of former countries, but it should also be on the current list as well since it is an Occupied Nation that never surrendered to the Americans following the 1861-1865 War. Also my main point was that it was recognized by the Vatican, how many nations have to recognize a region before it is considered valid?

Actually to stop a long, drawn out argument over the Confederacy which could ensue, how about adding a list or adding a new article which will list Occupied Nations? Is there any disputes over us creating this list?

It would feature the Occupied Nations of the CSA, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Quebec, etc. To qualify for Occupied Status there would have to be people still around that identify with the former nation. For example in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and in the South people refuse to be called Americans and insist on being called Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, and Confederates. Also in each of these regions there exists various forms of resistance movements seeking to regain control of their former nation.

You can not say that the Confederacy or Kingdom of Hawaii does not still exist, and its people are no longer here. I'm a Confederate, not an American, and as long as 1 person claims to be a person from that former nation then it is still around. Nationality is a mind set which can not be stomped out by military force, or glossed over by ideology.

Dixieparty (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Since the Confederate government dissolved in 1865, with no continuing claim by any party to its presidency, the government (and thus any partial recognition it had) has ceased to exist. This list also only includes unrecognized countries with de facto control over their territory, which clearly the CSA, Kingdom of Hawaii, et.al. lack. You can claim to be a Confederate, but you have no government under the constitution of the Confederacy, and sorry to tell you, that nation ceased to exist 143 years ago. I could claim to be Assyrian - does that mean we can add it to the list? You're confusing "nation" with a "state" - a nationality can exist without a state, just ask the Kurds. But just saying it doesn't make a state exist. The CSA can only be occupied if there is a significant government in exile claiming such, as there is with Tibet; there is no such government.
So, long story short: The government, and state, of the Confederacy (and Kingdom of Hawaii, independent Quebec, independent Puerto Rico, etc.) has ceased to exist. These cannot be included on the list unless they either establish de facto control over their territory, or significantly (i.e. with the potential to have de facto control) declare independence. The best it could be included in is "List of historical partially recognized countries" or something like that. --Golbez (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Now before I continue let me throw in this disclaimer, I'm not trying to argue or be argumentative, all I want to do is establish dialog with Wikipedia, so please don't misunderstand, just trying to discuss the matter to see what can be done to please the Confederate people and Wikipedians regarding a new more defined status for the Confederacy and her people with in Wikipedia.

The Confederate Government, Military, etc. did dissolve in 1865, very true, but it dissolved not by failure, but instead as a result of the military invasion of Dixie by America's armed forces.

For example, allow me to clarify our peoples view on this issue, we Confederates consider the Confederacy no different then Poland while under Occupation by the Soviet Union, or for that matter any Soviet Bloc nation during the Cold War. If Wikipedia existed back during the Cold War what would wikipedia consider Poland to be?

You see they like Dixie had no exiled government, but yet the Western World considered them to be an occupied nation despite the fact that it remained under Soviet Rule from 1945 to 1991 with no legit form of opposition or exiled government; if Poland is given this special treatment, then why not Dixie, and this is why we Confederates insist on being treated in the same manor as Poland.

Also the Confederacy does have an "exiled" government, with over 50,000 members and growing...

http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/

In addition to the above government which now is spreading through out Dixie like wild fire, take our party, the Dixie Party (web site to come 02/04/09) has 8,616 members in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina; and we just received a $150,000.00 donation. The Confederate movement is growing and is much larger then Poland's was during any point of the Cold War.

I like the idea of adding the CSA to the historic list of "Partially Recognized Countries" that is a start. What about creating a current / historic list for Countries that are under occupation that have legit resistance movements. Also check Wikipedia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and yes even Vermont all have Separatist groups with over 5,000 supporters; the Puerto Rican Liberation group has 45,000 supporters. In my book that makes them all valid as well.

I look forward to your response.

Dixieparty (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia would consider Poland to be a de jure independent nation under the massive influence of the Soviet Union. However, local, unintimidated rule was returned to the southern states around 1872, as evidenced by their voting patterns; no one would consider them occupied. Having a website does not a government make; it's a nice fantasy, but it has zero bearing in the real world. Compare with actual occupied countries - the exiled government of Tibet has recognition and diplomatic relations around the world, Iraq is clearly occupied and not a part of the United States, Kosovo has declared independence *and has the means to do so*, unlike 50,000 random members of a website. Simply having a group means nothing, it has to be able to do something, either by holding ground, or by getting other recognized entities to recognize them. The groups you note cannot, and deserve no special mention on a reputable encyclopedia. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Well Dixie is no different then Poland; explain why Poland gets special treatment and Dixie, Hawaii, etc. gets nothing? The same circumstances apply between the 2 nations, both were occupied by force, both governments were dissolved against the will of its people by force.

I also have to disagree with your view of Dixie in 1872, the former leaders of the Confederate States were not allowed to return to power, and in most cases Confederates in general were prevented from running in elections. Take the State of Tennessee for example while under the control of Gov. Brown he used American Soldiers to force State Senators to sign anti-Confederate laws. This scene was repeated through out each Occupied Confederate States. The South in 1872 onward is no different then Occupied Poland, the "elected" officials were de facto candidates because Confederates were not allowed to run; thus why I see no difference between 1872 Dixie and 1950 Poland. The will of the people was silenced by the occupiers.

Also the exiled Confederate Government, Puerto Rico Independence Movement, and Kingdom of Hawaii Liberation Movement all have confirmed buildings, property, and structures they own, which makes them more then just a web site groups. I also would have to disagree with you on the "random" member part, these people have to pay $50.00+ membership dues to belong, and have joined their respective movements to further the cause for their peoples independence.

I still don't see why Dixie, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, etc. are both being ignored when they are no different then Poland. The circumstances are the same regardless if people want to admit it or not.

Dixieparty (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


I never thought I'd be saying this in my whole life, but ya know what, this Confederate is 100% right!

After reading what this guy has said I did a little research o my own and came to the same conclusion that he did about the Confederacy and the other ones too, Puerto Rico, yada yada yada.... Both nations were taken over by another country, and both governments were dissolved by the other countries military. Also in both cases the dissenters were rounded up, jailed, etc. In the USSR they were killed and in America they were jailed and in Tennessee with this Brown dude they were shot as well. Also in both cases the VP managed to escape and form an exiled govt in another country, in the case of Poland the Polish VP went to England, and in the case of the Rebels it was Brazil. I think Wikipedia needs to extend the classification to the South as it did to Poland.

Also not too go off topic, Hawaii is also fitting the bill for another "Poland" type situation. Heck we invaded them under the guise of a diplomatic mission and over threw their government by military force for no reason other then to have a port in the Pacific so we could expand.

Lastly I know Wikipedia has a duty to uphold credable information so that itself can remain legit, but excuse me if I'm wrong here why in the hell can't Wikipedia allow these people to create articles for their "Sepratist" movements. This way they can show that they exist, and if they succeed in growing bigger then they can up grade the South, or Hawaii to the list of unrecognized countries?

Take this for example... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Sovereignty_movements&action=edit

and or this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secessionist_towns_and_cities

Also if you guys can allow freaking LaRaza and Aztland ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secession) to have undisputed categories and articles, then you dang well need to allow these decent guys to do the same. This is freaking America and while I honestly don't like to recognize dissenters or rebels like Confederates or angry Hawaiians!!?? whom don't like America I respect their right to say "We want out". If they can do it then more power to them, there not evil people for wanting out and its there right per the founding fathers to leave if they deem the government to be "oppressive". If not, and they end up failing, then at the end of the day then they can finally admit defeat and get on with their life's and support America.

Would this make you Rebels happy?!?

Bostonpatriotsrule (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Why yes this does sound like a nice and honest alternative to just being ignored and oppressed. We will go ahead with preparing links for the "Secession Movements" Category. Also since we Confederates, don't consider ourselves to be seceding again since we consider our nation under occupation, thus we may try to adjust the title to reflect a more accurate tone.

I feel that "Separatist Movements" is a more accurate title for what we are, and what the Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, Alaskan, Texan, etc. are as well.

thank you for this data and I hope to reopen this topic in about 5 years once the Confederate movement has succeeded in building a more viable resistance effort. Dixieparty (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Hey I don't see anything wrong or incorrect with the term Separatist Movement, you guys are trying to "separate" your selfs from America so I don't see how anyone could dispute that.

Also I want to say that these other guys are right too, the CSA has not really done anything since the Civil War so I can see their point as well.

I'm being very Teddy Roosevelt today :) Bostonpatriotsrule (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet ??? Can somebody do an IP check. -- Tocino 01:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Since they haven't edited in over a month, I see no point. (though I do agree) --Golbez (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tamil Eelam (2)

I've hit the 3RR limit, but so far as I can tell, Tamil Eelam does not belong on the list. They don't have control over their claimed territory; the others do. They haven't even declared independence; the others have. And it's disingenuous for the editors to put it into the limited recongition section, as no one who matters has recognized it. How can you "self-recognize"? --Golbez (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

However, while Tamil Eelam does not control all the area they claim (as many recognized countries do, like say, Georgia) there is a definate where thay have complete de facto control of. So while they may have area not self-controlled, I still believ that they should be on the list. Jordan (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of China only controls a very small part of the area it claims, nor has it ever declared independence. Yet, the RoC is listed on this page. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
That's a different matter, since it (at least considers itself) the successor to an earlier state. However, I've yielded a bit; but the ROC has held control over its territory for over 50 years, whereas control over Tamil Eelam is still morphous. My main problem was when it was being added with too much information to the limited section. -Golbez (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The essential question is whether they consider themselves an independent state, rather than merely something like "provisional authorities". As long as they permanently control some territory, the fact that they claim more is irrelevant. Their being a de facto independent state depends on there simply being a plot of land with people in it for which they claim to be and act as the state. sephia karta 15:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
There are many independence groups that have de facto gain control over some territories and act as the independence state, for example, many ethnic minorities in Burma, although they aren't rule over all of their claimed lands. I believe that if you use this standard, there will be many many territories to be added in this list. So I support to move Tamil Eelam out. 2 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.159.0 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
But these groups don't claim to represent independent states, that's what I'm trying to say. This doesn't necessarily mean I support Tamil Elam's inclusion, I don't know what they claim. sephia karta 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed Tamil and added the following statement to the introduction: "Every country listed here are self-governing with their own federal government systems." I hope that helps to clear some of the debate up? If not, feel free to further clarify the criteria required to be listed in this article. Let's try and make the criteria as strict as possible so that there is no argument necessary for any country on the list. Gary King (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

I have requested Peer Review. Please criticize freely :) Gary King (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illustration

The entire area of Somalia and Moldova are highlighted on the illustration. This is incorrect. Somalia and Moldova are widely recognised; areas contained within their borders that claim independence aren't, but they are smaller. When I viewed the image, my reaction was more or less "wha? since when is Somalia unrecognized?"

I also don't understand why Sri Lanka is indicated as unrecognized considering it is not mentioned in the current version of the article at all. I am guessing this is related to the Tamil Eelam issue, but without a mention in the article the indication should be removed. --99.236.163.79 (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the caption. I withdraw my first paragraph. (Though the lack of intuitivity in the illustration may be something to think about.) --99.236.163.79 (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Tamil Eelam was part of the list when the image was made. --Golbez (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see this from this page or from the history of the article. Most readers would not consult either of these. The image is outdated and as a result not a valid illustration for the article. --23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.163.79 (talk)

[edit] SMOM and Palestine

I see here that palestine is listed as a recognized state when this is not the case, it is merely recognized as a soveriegn enity under international law similar to the way the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is. If Palestine is to be recognized as a state in this article then it is only fair that the SMOM be recognized as such also. Or another option may be placing the two in a seperate category of soveriegn but nonindependent. Or merely a footnote should be added? Any else have ideas? XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point... though I think the difference is, Palestine makes a claim on territory, whereas the SMOM does not. Do we have any data that SMOM is recognized as an independent nation? From our article: "it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state." That's from the SMOM itself. The SMOM itself does not have sovereign territory; its land is operated on the principle of extraterritoriality, not sovereignty. Whereas in the Palestinian territories, a much stronger argument for sovereignty - at least challenged - can be made. So, that said, SMOM fails the fundamental part of being a state (claiming territory) so I don't think it goes on the list, any more than the United Nations itself would go on the list. --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The SMOM website (http://www.orderofmalta.org/attdiplomatica.asp?idlingua=5) states that they have diplomatic relations with 100 states doesn't that mean that their recognized by those 100 states?

XavierGreen —Preceding comment was added at 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If we accept the Montevideo Convention as a statement of customary international law, it follows that the SMOM cannot be a state because it lacks a defined territory (and arguably, a permanent population as well.) One might argue that SMOM falls into the category of "sovereign non-state entities", and that the countries which it has diplomatic relations with have those relations on this basis. (Frankly, I think SMOM would be the only member of this category, but its existence must be viewed as a bit of a historical/legal anomaly, a holdover from the Middle Ages which no one has challenged because no one has any real reason to.) --SJK (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Image:Unrecognized countries.png shows the entire island of Cyprus (except for UK's military bases) in green. Shouldn't there be something yellow on that island too?

Oh, and Mongolia should be green (because of the Republic of China). (212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

I know this isn't what you asked, but that's a good point - should Mongolia be on the list as unrecognized by the RoC? --Golbez (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, that's ambiguous because of ROC's current status. However, as far as I know, some of the 23 states recognising the Republic of China don't recognise Mongolia, so Mongolia would at least need to be green because of those states. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
Actually, it appears the RoC does recognize Mongolia: [5] and has since 2002. --Golbez (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hm...

[6] seems to suggest that Flag of Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Kitts and Nevis recognises several defunct states (e.g. Flag of the Soviet Union Soviet Union). Should they be listed as partially recognised countries? Should their successor states be listed as partially unrecognised countries? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Hah, surely that's simply using really out-of-date data. Strangely, it is post-Czechoslovakia, but it still has Yugoslavia, but none of the other post-Yugoslavia states, so I assume it means the old Yugoslavia, but that dissolved before Czechoslovakia did... and of course, Czechoslovakia dissolved before the USSR did. It also includes Zaire, which became past-tense in 1997. Very strange. Even weirder? It includes Upper Volta, a name which ceased to be used in 1984. Which leads me to believe that this list - excepting Czechia and Slovakia - dates from the independence of St. Kitts and Nevis in 1983, and apart from that change, they've never bothered to update it. --Golbez (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe some of the smaller countries in the world haven't bothered to recognise new countries, preferring to spend their efforts on more important things? Does that make new countries partially unrecognised? Take the Flag of Upper Volta Upper Volta case, for example. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
A website is not the final arbiter, we can't say they recognize a country because its name is on a list of visas. --Golbez (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange map

Can anybody please point out why all Georgia and all Azerbaijan are painted red in the map?--Dojarca (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I can't draw very well. I just use the 'fill' tool to draw in the countries. The floor is open to whoever can draw better than me. The caption at least covers this problem somewhat by saying that the colored area may contain the region rather than it being the region itself. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Lakotah

And what about the Republic of Lakotah?--DanSlovakia (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed a few days ago. Check the Talk page first. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Majority recognition

The majority recognition table needs some changes. Most importantly, some consistent criteria are need for including or excluding countries from the table. North Korea and South Korea are both there, but for each one, only one country is listed as not recognizing them. But there are at least 22 UN members that the PRC does not recognize, why aren't all of them on the list? Readin (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PRC recognises all UN members. PRC doesn't have particularly good relations with countries recognising the ROC; however, PRC still recognises those countries. (130.237.227.200 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Liechtenstein, Czech Republic and Slovakia

I find the claim on this page that Liechtenstein does not recognize Czech Republic / Slovakia and vice versa to be very doubtful. The fact that all three are members of the European Economic Area would prove conclusively that they extend recognition to each other. Now, they may lack formal diplomatic relations, but lacking diplomatic relations is a distinct concept from recognition. --SJK (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we find several international treaties to which all three nations are party -- the 2004 EEA Enlargement Agreement, the Statute of the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Charter, and I'm sure there's more -- if the three states have entered into a treaty with each other (inter alia), that is clear evidence of de facto recognition. So I will remove these entries. --SJK (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I decided not to remove them, because of the press release of the Czech Foreign Ministry linked to. However, the issue remains -- even if they claim not to recognize each other, there seems to be little doubt that they recognize each other in some de facto sense. --SJK (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Being parties to an international treaty or organization doesn't seem to require recognition. For example, both Koreas are part of the same organizations, as are Turkey and Cyprus, and Iran and Israel, etc. However, within Europe there's a lot more interaction, so it is strange that these would be considered unrecognized. --Golbez (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that while the Czech Republic and Slovakia recognize Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein does not recognize them. I copy the declarations the three states made at the occasion of the signature of the agreement enlarging the EEA of 14 October 2003: "DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Liechtenstein Government assumes that all Contracting Parties respect the Principality of Liechtenstein as a longstanding sovereign and recognised State which was a neutral State during the whole of World War I and World War II.

DECLARATION OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC CONCERNING THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION BY THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Czech Republic welcomes the conclusion of the agreement between the candidate countries and members of the European Economic Area as a significant step towards overcoming the past division of Europe, as well as towards its further political and economic development. The Czech Republic is ready to cooperate within the European Economic Area with all member states, including the Principality of Liechtenstein.

In relation to the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Czech Republic has since its establishment shown a clear interest in establishing diplomatic relations. As early as 1992 it sent the governments of all countries, including the Principality of Liechtenstein, requests for recognition as a new entity in international law with effect from 1 January 1993. While the response of practically all governments has been affirmative, the Principality of Liechtenstein was until now an exception.

The Czech Republic attaches no legal effects to declarations which are not related to the object and purpose of this Agreement.

DECLARATION OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC CONCERNING THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION BY THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Slovak Republic welcomes the conclusion of the agreement between the candidate countries and the members of the European Economic Area as an important step towards further economic and political development in Europe.

Since its foundation the Slovak Republic has recognised the Principality of Liechtenstein as a sovereign and independent state and is prepared to establish diplomatic relations with the Principality.

The Slovak Republic attaches no legal effects to declarations which are not related to the object and purpose of th::is Agreement." MaartenVidal (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Wouldn't non-recognition normally require that the non-recognising country believes another country has sovereign rights over the territory concerned? That seems to be the case with all the other countries on this list. Most countries believ Cyprus controls the area Turkey designates as the TRNC, China thinks it has sovereignty over Taiwan, some countries think Morocco has rights over Western Sahara, etc. Does Lichtenstein believe that it or a third party country should have control over the territory currently occupied by Slovakia and the Czech Republic? If not, surely this is as case of no formal relations, rather than actual non-recognition? Vizjim (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You supplied a notable exception to the rule: The United States, like many others, recognizes neither Morocco's nor the SADR's claim to the land of Western Sahara. I suppose to them, it is unclaimed land? --Golbez (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In this 2004 speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, it is stated: "It is within this field of tension between constructive participation in the efforts of the international community and the defense of our vital interests that our demand was and is situated for recognition by the Czech and Slovak Republics of our State sovereignty, which was established nearly two hundred years ago."
If I understand it well, Liechtenstein does not want to recognize the Czech and Slovak Republics until they recognize that Liechtenstein was a sovereign and neutral state during the Second World War, which implies that the expropriation of the Prince of Liechtenstein as a "German" was illegal. Yet, it seems that the Czech and Slovak Republics only want to recognize that Liechtenstein nowadays, is a state, without pronouncing themselves on its status in the past. This is also corroborated in the speech held at the occasion of the 2003 signature of the EEA enlargement :
"It is with regret that the Principality of Liechtenstein has to take knowledge of the circumstance that the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic do not accept the fact that has been undisputed within the community of States, including the European Union, namely that the Principality of Liechtenstein has been a longstanding sovereign and recognized State which was neutral during the whole of World War I and World War II.
Taking up such a position, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic carry on without interruption the policy of non-recognition pursued vis-à-vis Liechtenstein by their predecessor State, Czechoslovakia. While Czechoslovakia had recognised the Principality of Liechtenstein in 1938 as a sovereign State, the recognition was not maintained in 1945. This policy of non-recognition has mainly manifested itself when the property of Liechtenstein citizens was confiscated without compensation in 1945 based on the allegation that it belonged to the German people, and such confiscation constituted a breach of international law already in force at the time.
The Principality of Liechtenstein has to state that the lack of respect for the sovereignty and the inherent rights of one of the EEA-States, shown by two future members of the EEA, is neither in accordance with the spirit and principles of the European Economic Area nor with the generally accepted principles of international law. However, in the interest of a continuous multilateral cooperation within the framework of the European Economic Area, the Principality of Liechtenstein has decided to sign the Agreement. Irrespective thereof, the Principality of Liechtenstein reserves the right to examine the possible political, legal and economic consequences the Principality of Liechtenstein will have to draw in view of the Czech Republic’s and Slovak Republic’s position.
I would like to express my hope that it will be possible to find a solution of this open issue and other bilateral problems between the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic in the future enabling a fruitful and beneficial cooperation between all of the members of the EEA."
I don't find any speech on the ministry's website that mentions an eventual solution of the dispute. MaartenVidal (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Land doesn't have to belong to any country. In 1945, Flag of Japan Japan renounced its claims to Karafuto/Sachalin and Chishima/Kuril Islands, giving the area to the Flag of the Soviet Union Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union never signed the treaty, and so the Japanese don't recognise Soviet sovereignty to the areas. Yet, they don't recognise Japanese sovereignty either, claiming it to be terra nullius.

Maybe Flag of Liechtenstein Liechtenstein recognises Flag of Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

I find this discussion of weather or not Liechtenstein recognizes the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic completely irrelevant to this list. As they are both members of the UN I find this implies a de facto recognition by the international community, after all Montenegro has far less formal recognition then these two states and we do not list it here (see Foreign relations of Montenegro#States that have explicitly recognized the Republic of Montenegro). Listing these two countries clouds the objective of this article. Yes I agree that it is interesting that these members of the EEA refuse to recognize each other, but I think we should all agree here that any state that is a member of the UN should not be noted non this list and should only be included on the List of sovereign states Wiz9999 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I think we need to find sources that actually say Montenegro is not recognized, rather than having a lack of sources saying it is. Until you can find affirmation that it is not recognized, it doesn't go on the list. Furthermore, the following nations are in the UN: Cyprus, Turkey, North Korea, South Korea, Israel, and Iran. Should we remove all of these from the list, since they only lack recognition from another party in that selection? --Golbez (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but i still think that it is stupid to note countries that lack recognition by 1 state. Maybe only Cyprus, the Czech Republic, North Korea, South Korea, and Slovakia should be removed. Wiz9999 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegro

It says here : Foreign relations of Montenegro , that only 94 countries recognize montenegro , shouldnt it be here as well --Cradel 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that when dealing with a majority-recognized state or member of the UN, we need active lack of recognition, rather than passive. That is to say, if we have no source saying they are recognized, that is not sufficient; we need a source actually saying they are not recognized. For example, if I could find no source online that Tonga recognizes Ethiopia, that doesn't mean Ethiopia is partially recognized; however, if I found one that specifically said "Tonga does not recognize Ethiopia", that counts. --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puntland

They declared indipendence in 1998, so is an unrecognized state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.190.45.37 (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Stanza13 (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they have since stated they want to be part of Somalia as an autonomous state. —Nightstallion 11:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I know but...Abkhazia and South Ossetia wants to became autonomous states in the Russian Federation...But they are listed...So I tink also Puntland have to be listed! Stanza13 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both of those have declared independence, motivations notwithstanding; Puntland has not. "South Ossetians nearly unanimously approved a referendum on November 12, 2006 opting for independence from Georgia." "On 23 July 1992, the scessionist Abkhazian regime declared effective independence from Georgia" Our article on Puntland says it declared "autonomy" in 1998. Unless you can find a good source that says 'independence' instead of 'autonomy'... --Golbez (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Abkhazia doesn't want to become part of Russia of any kind actually. Alæxis¿question? 07:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok!Stanza13 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian National Authority

when the majority of the superpowers in the world do not recognise it, it is therefore a limited one, not a majority one.... also, most of the 108 are either arab/muslim... it's not enough "spread" of a "majority" recognition. 79.176.138.190 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority means more than half. 108 is more than half of 192! Are you suggesting we have a different definition for majority (more than half the population? Half the security council?) I think we should include PNA in majority. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority says that 97 (and not 108) States recognize Palestine as a State, including the Holy See, which means that only 96 Member States of the UN recognize Palestine as a State, i.e. exactly half of UN membership. This is a draw, neither minority nor majority, and could hence more accurately be qualified as "limited recognition". MaartenVidal (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that qualifies as "majority". —Nightstallion 11:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority failed to provide references for a number of allegedly recognizing states. Whereas I could provide one for Montenegro and Serbia, I could not for Syria. We therefore only have evidence for recognition by 95/192 UN member states and the Holy See. MaartenVidal (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the states recognise the State of Palestine, which appers to be different from the Palestinian National Authority. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Looking at the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, "Ninety-six states recognize the State of Palestine, and 12 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition" I presume 96+12=108 that was referred to previously. As we are talking explicitly about recognition, I guess we should exclude these 12, and as the 96 includes the Vatican, that makes it 96/193, which, I'm afraid, is less than 50%! Based on this, I'd have to change my opinion and say it was (at present) a minority. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the heading

Can we change this heading to "Non UN member states". There is no clear definition as to which state falls into this "partly recognized"category. I think that "non UN member" is a better description since there are many countries that are not recognized by every country, Croatia for example is not recognized by Namibia, Burundi, Liberia and so on: http://www.mvpei.hr/MVP.asp?pcpid=1621 --Tubesship (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

With majority recognition states, I think the meaning of the list should be to show those with active unrecognition - that is, belligerence. That a country like Bhutan hasn't gotten around to recognizing Croatia, in the greater scheme of things, doesn't matter too much. However, if they refused to recognize Croatia because, say, they recognize (hypothetically) Serbia's claim over the region, THAT would make it worthy of addition. But if we open this door, we're opening the door for every country who either hasn't gotten around to recognizing all others, or the ones who haven't updated their websites accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
and that is exactly why the heading should be renamed to non UN members. Otherwise we need to come up with a definition on how recognized does one state need to be in order to be excluded from the category of partially recognized states. I am very much in favor of having a non UN member heading. Jawohl (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 23 more countries to be added

Since 23 countries recognise ROC not PRC, that means these 23 are not recognised by PRC. Therefore are only partially recognised. These 23 and should be added to the list in majority regonition. [7] Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say the lack of recognition is reciprocal? --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
PRC recognises all of these 23 countries. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
Are you sure? I thought the politic of mainland China is not to recognize countries that recognizes Taiwan and that that is the reason why for example the US and other major countries do not recognize Taiwan?! --Tubesship (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand PRC has a policy of not having diplomatic relations with countries that recognise Taiwan. Alæxis¿question? 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
We'd need a pretty solid source on that, though. --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax problem

I tried to link to the Japanese and French Wikipedias in footnotes to the DPRK section in the "majority recognition" table, but something went wrong with the syntax. Can anyone help fixing the links? (Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Ah, figured it out. (Stefan2 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] DPRK unrecognized by US?

We need an English-language source on this. --Golbez (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western Sahara?

Should a Western Sahara country be added to the list of partially recognised countries? I seem to understand that a lot of states recognise such a country. The fact that there is no Western Saharan government should be irrelevant: most (all?) countries also recognise Somalia, despite there being no Somali central government. (Stefan2 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

That's odd There is, but for some reason, it didn't actually mention Western Sahara. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolia

the ROC'c minister of foreign affairs has actually made rather strong statements to the press re. Taiwan's recognition of Mongolian independence, and the MOFA statement is quite clear, too ("Based on the principles of equality and reciprocity", "The government of the Republic of China and the government of Mongolia", " This decision is based on the two countries` desire to improve their bilateral substantive relations"). Given this, the claim that "Taiwan does not recognize Mongolia" is just that - a claim, not a fact. Whether non-recognition by a generally non-recognized state would warrant inclusion in this list is yet another matter. Yaan (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, apparently Taiwan's lack of recognition of Mongolia is constitutional - which means, despite any de facto change, it remains de jure, at least at a basic level. That makes this a more complicated case than we'd prefer... [went to look at the constitution] wait a minute, it only prescribes for delegations and representation from Mongolia - it never specifically states, "Mongolia is part of the RoC and is not independent." It's pedantic, but still. In that case, I agree, we should go with saying it's recognized. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Sealand

Should the Principality of Sealand be on this article as it is an unrecognised state and is recognised as a part of the UK? Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem not to include micronations; if we included Sealand, we would also have to include Seborga and Hutt River, and possibly any of the many apartment-based micronations. Sure, Sealand (and Hutt River) have the strongest claim to independence, but I suppose in this case it hinges on if we include only land, or if Sealand counts; if boats count, then anyone could be included on this list just by declaring independence when afloat. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
But Sealand is different from other microstates as it has de facto recognition from the UK and Germany. No other microstate as that recognition. Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Rhodesia?

Why isn't Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) on that list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.4.25 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What evidence have you got to suggest its not a fully recognised state? Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "partially recognized"?

What is "partially recognized" and where did the term come from? Did a Wikipedia editor create it?

The article uses it to describe Taiwan, however this is inaccurate. Nations don't recognized only part of Taiwan, they recognize the whole thing.

I spent some googling "partial international recognition" and "partial recognition" but I didn't find much. The most authoritative source I found was quite old, "The Institutes of the Law of Nations. A Treatise of the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities". My understanding from reading the text is that partial recognition occurs when a nation recognizes another nation, but refuses to see it as an equal and does not put faith in that other nations laws, practices or legal decisions. I guess examples of this would be when an Asian country convict an American, European, or Australian of a crime and sentence the suspect, but Americans, Europeans or Australians protest the decision and put pressure on that government change it. If my understanding is correct, then "partial recognition" does not apply to Taiwan.

"Limited recognition" would convey the meaning better, in my opinion.Readin (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a country. It is an island, claimed by both the PRC and ROC. Only a few nations recognize the ROC; by virtue of that, they also recognize the ROC's claim to all of China, regardless of how accurate such a claim is. Likewise, many more nations recognize the PRC, and its claim to Taiwan. No nation recognizes both claims, nor does any nation recognize both governments independent of the status of the island. You're obfuscating terms; we use 'partial recognition' to mean 'recognized by a part of the international community', not 'only half-way recognized by a country'. Limited might be a better term, but to me it's identical. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I was, of course, using "Taiwan" is it is normally used, as the common name for the country whose official name is "Republic of China".
Where are you getting your definition of "partially recognized". It contradicts an authoritative definition, and we can't just make up a definition that contradicts known definitions leading to confusion. So where your definition coming from? If "limited" is identical except that it doesn't carry the problem of contradicting an established definition, then "limited" should be used.Readin (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Partially recognise" means only some states only recognise a particular country, not that states only recognise a certain portion of territory belonging to a particular country. Kransky (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)