Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 8 August 2006

The Japanese news story claims Germany has recognised Montenegro. Is this right/can we find a direct source? Morwen - Talk 11:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, no recognition from Slovenia yet? Which seems odd. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the article mention that Montenegro was in a state of war with Japan and the truce was only called today? Edrigu 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Myeah. When Montenegro's independence was dissolved, surely its foreign affairs were folded into those of the wider Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes? Wouldn't the reason Montenegro has not made a peace with Japan since 1918 be that it was already done by SHS/Yugoslavia on Montenegro's behalf? QuartierLatin1968 18:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That is so much nonsense : the new Montenegro isn't the same entity as the old one. The matter would have been anyway settled after the Second World War when Yugoslavia and Japan made peace, I expect. Morwen - Talk 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Recognition and Diplomatic Relations Chart into one

I thought it would be a good idea to merge the two charts but when I tried to create one, I realize it was more trouble to maintain and more difficult to read. So, never mind.

--mnw2000

When did the United Kingdom recognise Montenegro? The other permenant members of the UN security council are mentioned but not the UK. Also Reference 1 is now a dead link... --Greeny 01:07, 29 June 2006

June 13th, 2006 (#15 on the chart) -mwn2000

Diplomatic relations with Bulgaria

There's a Bulgarian Consulate General in Podgorica and the source that says the country is recognised also mentions "declaration... to establish diplomatic relations". It's from 12 June. Are there any specific requirements so that diplomatic relations could be considered established, or is it just omitted? Todor→Bozhinov 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply supply a new source. By the way, someone red shaded Bulgaria in the first section, but did not add it to the second chart where the diplomatic relations dates are provided. Was that you? --user:mnw2000 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

International Organizations - Sports

I introduced sports into the section on International Organizations, others have added FIFA and UEFA. Since Union of Serbia and Montenegro was one of the best international basketball teams in the world, I added FIBA. There are many other international sports organizations that we could add to the list.

I thought I made an edit to split the sports organizations into a seperate chart but that change did not seem to hold. I just thought it would allow us to add more sports organizations without upseting the more relevent international organizations like the UN, EU, WTO, etc.

--mnw2000

Embassies and Mail

Is every single country that establishes diplomatic relations with Montenegro obliged to open an embassy there, or may they just create smaller representations?

In short, no. Countries are free to maintain diplomatic relations with one another. The establishment of diplomatic relations does not constitute reason for maintaining physical representation in that country.--Sir Tanx 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are stamps saying "Serbia and Montenegro" still used in mail departing from a location in Montenegro? Or did they already just say "Crna Gora" even before the country became independent? Can letters be shipped to Montenegro using just that word in the end of the address?--Tugazo 18:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Updating

Are we keeping this page as up-to-date as we should? It seems that the diplomatic relations/recognitions have not been updated in a week. I added Cuba today, but I am unable to read Serbian and I fear the Montenegrin MOFA website may have more news than is being reported on the WP page. Just checking. Thanks --Canadian Bobby

Holy See, not Vatican

In my most recent edit, I have removed the Vatican as the power that recognized Montenegro and replaced it with the Holy See. According to our article and the CIA Factbook, the Vatican does not exchange diplomats with the rest of the world. The CIA puts it this way:

The term "Holy See" refers to the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisors to direct the worldwide Catholic Church. The Holy See has a legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives. Vatican City, created in 1929 to administer properties belonging to the Holy See in Rome, is recognized under international law as a sovereign state, but it does not send or receive diplomatic representatives.

The Holy See's list of nations that have relations with lists the FRY (the list was updated in Jan 03, a month before the State Union was final). Since the FRY became the State Union, and the State Union's diplomacy was inherited by Serbia, it's logical to conclude the Holy See recognized Montenegro and not the Vatican. - Thanks, Hoshie | 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Validate info with sources

Please, make sure to add a relevant source whenever new information is added. This goes for dipl. relations, recognition and opening of new embassies etc. - the opening of new Austrian and Hungarian embassies in Podgorica is currently not supported by any external source.--Sir Tanx 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember to update the "Establishment of Diplomatic Relations" section below with dates and sources bedore updating the Embassy section.

We are going to have to redesign the "Diplomatic missions". As more countries open up embassies and Montenegro opens up embassies in other countries, this section will become quite large.

Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnw2000 (talk • contribs)

Red Shading

I would like to suggest we stop shading the countries red when they establish diplomatic relations, because it is essentially duplicating information and makes the page look cluttered. I would prefer we revert to the previous format and just leave them unshaded. Thoughts? Canadian Bobby 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to merge this two tables into one. We keep the shading and just add another column for source. --Dijxtra 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

First first attempt to merge the two tables together found it unyiedling and difficult to maintain. That is why we have the red shading and still maintain two tables. However, if a single table is desired, I have created a sample of what it may look like. I included only one country for each of the three categories (Independence recognized, Diplomatic Relations Established and Embassy Opened) for this example. Of course, maintaining such a table will be a little more difficult, but if everyone is willing, I agree on doing what I can to assist in the merging of the columns.

To see what it would look like as of now, go to user:mnw2000/Montenegro Table. --user:mnw2000 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very Good. My suggestions are - retain only the first numbering column (other numbers can be hidden next to the date) and maybe combine the multiple source links into a single column OR just put the source links next to the dates, without additional columns... 199.64.72.252 14:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to whatever you all want to do, just so long as we make this as simple as possible. Canadian Bobby 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Could someone please provide a source that confirms that Montenegro has established diplomatic relations with Bulgaria? It's shaded, but it's not listed in the second table on relations. Canadian Bobby 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New Single Chart for Recognition, Diplomatic Relations, Opening of Embassy

I have installed a new single chart with columns for the date of the Recognition of the Republic of Montenegro, the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, and the Opening of Embassy. I kept is as simple as possible.

--user:mnw2000 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should merge also the Emabssy/Mission list too. Something like: in the "Opened Embassy in Montenegro" column to put "Consulate, 11.11.2011" (if there is no Embassy) or only "Consulate" (if the date is not known yet) and in the "Montenegrin Embassy in the country" - to put "Trade Office", etc. 199.64.72.252 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that too. However, there are a few consulates already opened that did not follow a recognition of the Republic of Montenengro. Therefore, there would be no spot on the list to add this information. However, there is a situation where a country that has recognized the Republic of Montenegro which has a consulate that has been in existence before the the recognition. We could simply add a new column called "Status of Diplomatic Relations" and use the levels such as embassy (with date opened), embassy (with city in listed country located), consulate (with location), embassy branch office (which will probably become a full embassy), consulate-general (may be honorary missions without official diplomatic status), etc.). Here is an example on a possilbe change:

#	Country	Recognition of the Republic of Montenegro	Establishment of Diplomatic Relations	Status of Diplomatic Relations	Sources
13	United States	8 June 2006	10 June 2006	Embassy (15 June 2006)
14	United Kingdom	8 June 2006		Consulate, Podgorica

This leaves one other issue: the opening of the Republic of Montenegro Embassies in other countries. Should that be another column? --user:mnw2000 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

199.64.72.252: I see you are attempting to make some new changes. You are already ahead of me. Maybe the titles should be "Status of Diplomatic Relations in Republic of Monenegro" and "Status of Diplomatc Relations in country". With that change, we can remove the Diplomatic Missions section. --user:mnw2000 13:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I cleaned up the problems with the chart due to 199.64.72.252 connection problem. I have also updated the charget so it includes ALL information. Can we remove the Diplomatic Mission section? --user:mnw2000 14:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, 199.64.72.252. It now looks really good. --user:mnw2000 14:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the increasing number of countries recognising Montenegro, would'nt it be more expedient to sort the list of countries alphabetically rather than chronologically. Sir Tanx 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. However, it is a lot easier to simply add a new country to the bottom rather than trying to figure out where to put it in the middle of the list. Also, it is nice to see when a country has gotten around to recognizing a country, especially on that has already been recognized by the EU and UN. --user:mnw2000 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my over-editing yesterday, but my internet connection was realy bad and it interrupted uploading in the middle of the process, etc. I also think that we should leave the table ordered by date of recognition... 199.64.72.252 06:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that it would be easier to simply add the next country to recognise M at the end of the list, and I too frequently check the end of the list to see if any fellow-wikis have added a new country. But most people who wish to find info on Montenegro-German / French etc. relations would probably prefer an alphabetised layout over a chronological one - it would both enhance the transparency of the list and also be much more easy to find the country and the status of relations that you're looking for instead of pressing CTRL-F. Another suggestion could be to list ALL sovereign nations in the world, and just fill out the blanks, when new countries recognise / establish dipl. relations / opens consulates or embassies, albeit this would leave the list very long. Anyways, let me hear what you think about it. Sir Tanx 10:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are over 200 countries (entities) in the world. If you go to a Wikipage that has such a chart such as, you will see how large it really is. Also, the ability of being able to see what new countries have recognized M will lost if the entire list is static and alphabetic. This may be appropriate once a majority of countries have recognized M and should, probably me the norm for established countries. Maybe it is time to create template called "Diplomatic Missions" for each individual country. I would like to see one for countries that does not have universal recognition like Taiwan, Israel, Palestine, North Korea, etc.

As for this list, let's leave it the way it is until all countries have recognized M. This should take place by the end of the year. It will be interesting to see who is the last country (entity) to recognize M. (By the way, I wonder if M will exchange diplomatic relations with countries (entities) such as I mentioned above.

If fact, is there a chart of diplomatic mission with China and Taiwan? I assume that there is no country (entity) that has diplomatic relations with China and Taiwan but that is another discussion. --user:mnw2000 15:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The chart seem to be rather wide. Can we replace the term "pre-2006" with a reference number? --user:mnw2000 22:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to have such cross-reference table of diplomatic relations for each country (the 192 UN members + some "others"). To some degree there are such at: Foreign relations of the Republic of China (Taiwan), Foreign_relations_of_Western_Sahara (SADR), Foreign_relations_of_Israel, Foreign relations of the Palestinian Authority. Also the List of unrecognized countries has some "special" entities.

It should be noted that most probably there will be no "last country to recognize Montenegro" - becasue some of the small ones (pacific islands, etc.) maybe would never make such effort. Here we should make difference between "non-recognition" (as arab states do not recognise Israel) and "no relations" established, but no because of a dispute. Alinor 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Palestine and Montenegro

Does ] link say anything about Palestine establishing diplomatic relations with Montenegro? Canadian Bobby 15:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Should Palestine be number? At first it was not, now it is. Is Palestine a country or state? --user:mnw2000 18:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not, so it should not be numbered (I will change it) - see its link - it is to the Palestinian National Authority ... Alinor 07:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestine should be numbered. The Montenegrin government has established diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine, meaning that it recognizes it and considers it to be a state. Since this page is about the foreign relations of Montenegro, which includes Palestine as a state, it should be numbered and listed as sovereign. 94 countries recognize Palestine. It wasn't the ambassador of the Palestinian Authority that visited Podgorica, but the Ambassador of Palestine to Serbia. Canadian Bobby 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course All that's relevant is whether or not Montenegro considers Palestine a state (since clearly Palestine considers Montenegro a state and Palestine and Montenegro both consider themselves states); that's the definition of mutual recognition. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason to put Palestine (PNA) and the EU on the same page when it comes to numbering is becuase the UN does. The UN has given observer status to Palestine (PNA) and the EU.

However, I don't want to be the one to make this decision, so let us vote on this one. Should Palestine (PNA) be numbered? We have one vote for and one vote against. I vote against because of the reasons stated. --user:mnw2000 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote that Palestine should be numbered and listed as The State of Palestine, because that is the entity with which Montenegro established diplomatic relations. The position of the UN, EU, US or any other country is irrelevant. Montenegro and Palestine recognize each other, not Montenegro and the PNA. I think some of you are trying to unduly downgrade Palestine, which is a viable diplomatic, if not physical, entity. Canadian Bobby 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

UN and EU The UN is irrelevant; this is about Montenegro. The EU is not a state, so it shouldn't have a number. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the UN being irrelevant, but that is another matter. I assume from what you are saying is that the criteria should be what the country the article is about considers the "state" conferring recognition. Good argument. Misplaced Pages should be non-political in its reporting. --user:mnw2000 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Montenegro and the State of Palestine recognize each other as states, they recognize each other as states. So Palestine should be numbered. Same goes if Montenegro were to recognize Somaliland or the Kingdom of Redonda. QuartierLatin1968 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok with you all if I changed the designation back to "State of Palestine" and removed references to the PNA? We seem to agree on this. Canadian Bobby 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PNA and SOP and SoaP It seems like the current situation is best, but there certainly needs to be at least a link to the State of Palestine. Since the PNA are the temporary administration in Gaza and (some of) the West Bank, those relations are vis a vis PNA, but it they remain with the SOP. 149.166.137.118 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)