Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:53, 3 August 2007

Adjectival form of de jure and de facto

These do not take internal hyphens when used as adjectives. They are "foreign loan words" (i.e., Latin), so they are always written de jure and de facto (and never de-jure or de-facto). Accordingly, theis article should be renamed to De jure Government of Abkhazia. Askari Mark | Talk 16:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling the Government of Abkhazia De Jure is an Unverified POV claim

I have added the tag to this article because it adds no evidence that this government is De Jure and recognized in the UN. Please see the talk page on Abkhazia as well Talk:Abkhazia#Clarification.2FMore_Details_on_Pocopocopocopoco.27s_suggestions. As mentioned it is not enough to claim that the UN supports the teritorial integrity of Georgia, therefore this government is the de jure government of Abkhazia. This could be looked upon by the international community as imposing a puppet government. Pocopocopocopoco 02:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the references inserted by Kober. The first one is clearly a bogus. The book is available online here. Page 59 only contains the following "Part 2 European Experience". Regarding the second one, it is clearly nothing, but a collection of the UN Security Council resolutions. They are all available online all the way back from 1946. So, can we just have the resolution number, allegedly recognizing the legitimacy of this entity? Óðinn 04:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the references provided by user:Taton80 in the main Abkhazia article. --Kober 04:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm questioning their legitimacy. Why don't you actually have a look at the first one? Óðinn 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There are enough sources which support the information in the article and the recognition of this government has been given long ago (as per references). Otherwise, please present at least two unbiased references which can question the reference claims which i attached to the article. Thanks. Taton80 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the possible OR tag and inserted a tag that the sources have not been verified. The first source Óðinn already discredit. The second source I haven't looked at. The third source doesn't lay any legitimacy to this government, it just goes into a brief 2 page history of Abkhazia. The fourth, fifth, and sixth sources are Georgian. Pocopocopocopoco 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the OR tag as a manifestation of bad faith. You cannot call OR something that doesn't meet your political POV and wikiagenda. However, I'm leaving the other tag for the time being until the dispute is settled.--Kober 04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts are facts and you can not manipulate them due to your own bias or POV. In this case, Georgia has full legal and jurisdiction rights to Abkhazia which is recognized by all UN resolutions, SC declarations, EU, OSCE, etc. Therefore, the government of Abkhazian Autonomous Republic which is the legal authority of this territory represents the official status. Even Russia recognized Georgian territorial integrity. Therefore, you don’t have any grounds (besides your own convictions and political agenda on Misplaced Pages, honestly I don’t believe you are NPOV judging from your contributions) to discredit the factual reality of the status of Abkhazia and its government. Also you cant disregard Georgian sources. If so, I will remove all references and its passages from Abkhazia article which was taken from so called Bagapsh web site and inserted by some Russian user. Also I will discredit any Russian source (which is overwhelmingly biased). Please present any reference or source which will indicate that this government is not legal or was not recognized by international organizations as such. Also present sources where international organizations do not recognize Abkhazia as part of Georgia. Only than, you will have credible claims. Iberieli 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a POV claim at all, but a textbook legal definition used to differentiate between disputing claimants to being the sole legitimate and authoritative goverment; the terms are assigned according to order of precedence, not upon which controls the greater percentage of territory. If the de facto government were to become generally recognized internationally or the de jure government were to be able to substantively assume control, the "victor" would then become both the de jure and de facto government – in other words, a normal government. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly correct. You have analyzed the basic concept of it and hinted the right spots. And this is NPOV analysis. When UN, OSCE, EU and Russia recognize Georgian territorial integrity and Abkhazia status within Georgia, it includes Abkhazian de jure government which existed before the war, jurisdiction (the legal authority over the territory of Abkhazia), and constitutional rights. Otherwise, according to the logic above mentioned, the so called Kadirov government is Chechnya is not legal in terms of reality (majority of people in Chechnya elected Maskhadov as the president before the war started). But Russia has the jurisdiction over the territory and the legal authority. Therefore, whatever government it appoints, it automatically becomes legal (i may not like it, but that’s the way it is). Thanks. Iberieli 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the UN and all the worlds states consider this government to be the de jure government, but that doesn't change the fact that that is still (only) a (juridical) opinion, not a fact. So while 'de jure' is widely used, it's not NPOV, especially not because the self-declared Republic of Abkhazia contests that this is the de jure government, it of course sees itself to be that. It's rather like calling torture inhumane. It is the official opinion of the overwhelming majority of the world's institutions, but we still can't call it that here, because the description is not factual. All we can do is write that the general opinion is so and so. sephia karta 18:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is all rhetoric. So far, not a single valid argument has been provided proving the non-NPOVness of applying the term "de jure" to what is de jure recognized by the whole world.--Kober 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that the autonomous Abkhaz government is internationally recognized as de jure just because other countries and the UN support Georgia's territorial integrity. We see with South Ossetia that the EU doesn't recognize Sanakoyev's government as legitimate . Why would this government get any different treatment. Also, to use a what if analogy, let's say the Iraqi government rigged the elections in Iraqi Kurdistan to put in people loyal to them, the international community wouldn't recognize the Iraqi Kurdistan government as legitimate eventhough they would still support Iraq's territorial integrity. I'm not suggesting that Georgia did that, but only that support for territorial integrity doesn't necessarily lead to support for the automonous government. As for the tags, nobody seemed to have a problem with the tags the first time I put them in a month ago, once user:Taton80 cited some references, I assumed good faith and thought this issue was closed. Now, legitimate questions have been raised regarding these references so the tags must be put back. Stop assuming bad faith with the tags, they are just tags intended to improve the article. Pocopocopocopoco 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The EU doesn't recognize Sanakoyev's government as legitimate because S. Ossetia as an entity does not have any legal or de jure status within Georgia. On the other hand, Abkhazia is a first-level national subdivision which enjoys de jure autonomy and shares sovereignty with the central government of Georgia. --Kober 03:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're evading the issue. Rather than setting it aside as mere rethoric, please to be engaging my arguments. sephia karta 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that several editors here are confusing “de jure” with “legitimate”. They are not synonyms. In fact, the terms de jure and de facto are diplomatic terms created so that disputant governments claiming sole legitimacy could be talked about and distinguished between without having to call one “legitimate” and the other “illegitimate”. It rather undermines conducting diplomatic negotiations when you use those terms, given the inherent bias in calling one “illegitimate”. No government calls itself de jure or de facto since that would be acknowledging that they lack part of what they claim to be – and what they really want to be – the undisputed sole legitimate government. Ironically, it’s de jure and de facto that are inherently NPOV. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says "The De jure Government of Abkhazia is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia". That sounds like the article is making a claim as to the legitimacy of this Government. Pocopocopocopoco 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "The De jure Government of Abkhazia is the only body internationally recognized as a legal authority of Abkhazia" is simply saying that the international community uniformly recognizes the de jure govt. as the sole legitimate govt. of Abkhazia. If Russia were to diplomatically recognize the de facto govt., then the sentence might read, “Only Russia recognizes the de facto government as the legitimate governing body; the rest of the international community recognizes only the de jure government as legitimate.” Note how de facto and de jure clarify which govt. is being referred to, while legitimacy is applied independently. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But we need to prove via citations that the international community recognizes this entity as the legitimate government. I already provided an example where the international community doesn't recognize a sub-entity while still recognizing the territorial integrity of the parent entity and I also provided a what-if example that further illustrates my point. user:Kober did offer an explanation as to why Sanakoev's government isn't recognized however I believe it still illustrates my point. Pocopocopocopoco 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right that is exactly what I take de jure to mean, 'legitimate', as in 'de jure', from the law. If according to you this is not what it means, please give an alternative definition, but note that at least the Misplaced Pages article de jure seems to support the de jure = legitimate interpretation. sephia karta 10:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on de jure is only a Latin legal phrases stub. In international law, it takes on further meaning as a technical term – and, unfortunately, Misplaced Pages’s entries on international law and diplomacy are pretty weak. A more familiar example might be the word “myth”. In general use it means a fictional story; however, as a technical term among theologians and other religious scholars, it signifies a thematic story (like a “creation myth”) and is a neutral, rather than disparaging term. A de jure government is the one with the eldest recognized claim to legitimacy; the de facto government is the more recent governing entity whose claim to legitimacy is newer and maintained because it physically controls the majority or all of the territory. Foreign governments can choose which they prefer to diplomatically recognize as legitimate. If the preponderance of nations (or of only those which matter) choose to recognize the de facto government, it can effectively become the de jure and de facto government – on other words, the sole legitimate government.

Now, if the editors here develop a consensus that they do not wish to use these terms, then they can be changed. This will mean returning to the old edit wars over what to call each government (throughout all related and affected articles), which typically were to call one legitimate and the other separatist, or the one a puppet and the other legitimate – and so far all other such options have been found to be unavoidably POV. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If indeed de jure has a technical meaning which does not imply greater legitimacy, then I'm happy to use it, and we should edit the de jure article to clarify the matter. I'm not yet totally convinced though, because you seem to contradict yourself. You say that de jure does not mean legitimate, but you do take it to mean "with the oldest recognised claim to legitimacy". That description suits the Georgian side just fine, but the Abkhaz consider themself to be the continuation of the Soviet Abkhaz ASSR and the current government in exile to be a mere "counter government".sephia karta 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations are clearly needed to show that this entity is legitimate or internationally recognized or dejure

It is obvious that we need citations and I'm not the only person that feels this way. Five out of the six citations have been discredited for this article. Why don't we just verify the one that hasn't been discredited so far. "Resolutions and statements of the United Nations Security Council (1946-2000): a thematic guide Wellens, Karel. p 289". Obviously this document is citing UN resolutions, so why doesn't someone post the UN resolutions that are getting cited and we may be able to verify it more easily as most UN resolutions are posted online. Until this citation is verified, the tags stay. In the current state of the article, it's not POV and it's not bad faith to have the tags. Pocopocopocopoco 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please there is no need of polemics and heated debates. There are plenty primary sources which are most suitable as reliable sources regarding this question. Here are the following extracts from the documents:

"...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN."

Source: Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. United Nations. Piter Boden, 3 May 1994.

"The Abkhazian Supreme Council and Cabinet of Ministers located in Tbilisi represent the legitimate governmental authority of Abkhazia."

Source: Memorandum by the Heads of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Maintaining the Peace and Stability in the Commonwealth of Independent States. 10 February 1995.

Also in: Annex to the Decision taken by the Council of the Heads of States of the Commonwealth of Independent States on Approval of the Regulations of the Collective Peacekeeping Force in the Commonwealth of Independent States of 19 January 1996.

"..The legitimate authorities of Abkhazia (the former Council of Ministers of the autonomous republic) changed its location several times between 1994 and 1998."

Source: Annex to the UNMIG Protocol # 17, Briefing of the United Nations Mission in Georgia (UNMIG) for the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict settlement to the European Commission (EC) and United Nations Security Counsel. 12 July 1999.

I will try to find more. There are very interesting collection of documents by OSCE aand EU Commission on Abkhazia. Sorry for my english. Thanks. MIGAbkhazeti 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have access to a lot of material. Would you be kind as to expedite my request above and list the UN resolutions from that particular citation I listed? Pocopocopocopoco 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop diverting the discussion. This passages are great and they are derived from UN documents. You further push your own bias and POV on this subject which only indicates your true intentions. Iberieli 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cease with your personal attacks and accusations of POV pushing. I have every right to be suspicious of the citations presented in the article as 5 out of 6 didn't pan out. I tried compromising by leaving only the second tag on the article but you don't even want to do that. Perhaps then I should put both tags back on the article? Again, in the interest of compromise, I will leave only one of the tags back on the article, I recommend that you don't remove it. As to user:MIGAbkhazeti's passages, I was only able to verify one of them:

"...Participation in the settlement of the conflict shall be defined by five subjects: the legitimate authority of Abkhazia and the Abkhazian separatist group, as participants of the conflict; Georgia, on whose territory the conflict is taking place; Russia, as an interested side; and the UN."

Was a speech by the Georgian speaker to the UN, so it doesn't prove anything other than Georgia considers this government legit. and not necessarily the rest of the world. The other two are not online so I haven't verified them. Out of nine citations that have been provided, that make 7 that are inappropriate and 2 that are unverified. Pocopocopocopoco 03:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you won't satisfied be even if we provide thousands of sources. You're quite ready to denounce everything that doesn't suit you POV as "unverifiable" or "Georgian". --Kober 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to our Georgian friends here - it will behoove you to stop your incivility. While it is sadly a common practice for certain users to be so offended by the fact that there are those who happen to disagree with them that they find it totally irresistible to start throwing accusations of bios and POV pushing a lot, it doesn't make it acceptable. A valid concern has been expressed. There hasn't been a single primary source produced to verify the claims of the Georgians. The latest sources produced by MIGAbkhazeti look dubious. The fact that they may appear in the official UN documents does not automatically imply that this is the position of the UN. Very much like this article, which is for some weird reason is used as a reference. Despite appearing on the UNOMIG website, it is clearly stated to have come from the Georgian media and as such is hardly impartial or relevant, for that matter. Which is exactly why there is that disclaimer at the bottom "THESE NEWS ITEMS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OR POSITION OF THE UN". My point being: bring in the official resolutions. Not just a quote from the annex. The whole thing. Óðinn 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

your vandalizing of the article is due to your anti-Georgian bias and intent. This will not be tolerated. Enough sources were provided. Enough. Iberieli 03:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=14488