Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alinor (talk | contribs) at 08:25, 25 March 2011 (→definition of control). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Article

This is the new sovereign state article. Please don't move it without discussing it first. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Im getting lost here, we have articles everywhere right now. Ive just found that the State (disambiguation) is different to state so its missing certain options. Does State (disambiguation) need to become a redirect to State???

Also i see there is ALREADY an article on State (law), i didnt notice that existed before and we still have Nation state which i dont understand how is really any different to some of the other "states" we have. State (law) seems to cover the sorts of things State (polity) now covers.

Im glad there is an article on sovereign states still and all the tags have been removed, but the setup still seems a complete mess. far too many articles, thank god we dont have to pay per page. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

State (disambiguation) should redirect to State as long as that is a disambiguation page. I think it ought to be; there are at least three different meanings of state as "government", and a half-dozen mathematical/chemical/statistical senses. None of them is primary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

State (law) deals with private international law; this article should deal with public international law; State (polity) covers domestic law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, although I say State (polity) deals with the state in sociology and political science, and its development as understood in these disciplines. This article deals with the state in public international law and international relations. The rules on state recognition belongs here and clearly no where else. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I propose that this article, which is much more encycolpedic than Sovereignty, be merged with that one, and be made to follow more the outline of this article. Hires an editor (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best approach. I don't think there's any harm in having separate articles on the sovereign state and sovereignty. If the latter is such a bad article we could just delete all the crap bits. If that means reducing it to a stub, so what? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dated and doctrinaire material

The Misplaced Pages articles on states read like something out of the colonial era. This article needs an additional section to explain the fact that many countries dropped the declarative and constitutive debate half a century ago, and no longer practice "recognition". The US was a latecomer but it started saying that the question of recognition does not arise back in the early 1980s. harlan (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge

There's an article called State (polity). Isn't a state by definition itself sovereign? If that is so, to call a state 'sovereign' is redundant. Plus the fact that the article talks about virtually the same thing as this article, I'm starting to think that these 2 articles are talking about the same thing essentially and that one should be merged into the other. A couple months ago, I brought the issue and discussed it on the other article, but the lad just stopped replying. I hope the same will not happen here, and we can finally come to a final resolution. Liu Tao (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the first five articles of the UN's "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States" ; The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ; and the Inter-American system of International law states are juridically equal. For example:

• Article 4 of the Montevideo Convention said "States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one does not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law."
• Article 10 of the OAS Charter said: States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law.

harlan (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge. This article is specific to international law and the state within that context. Outback the koala (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If the definition is specific to international that should be in lead and text to make it clear there is a difference. Otherwise merge would seem best move. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Merging these articles will create more confusion than it will solve. It is quite common for international treaties to refer to sovereign states as "States", but they're not talking about Ohio, hence why we use the adverb. Part of the reason this article was created was that lots of editors were writing ] ]s in articles as they realise the English word "state" can apply to both Ohio and France, but wanted to just about about states like France. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blue. Outback the koala (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The other option is to remove all the general info that belongs under the State (polity) article (which is better explained there anyway) and make this refer only to the international definition and then have mention of the international definition in the first paragraph of the State (polity) article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

national capital

Edinburgh is the capital city of the Scottish nation but it is not a sovereign state's capital so the statement in the article "...the adjectives national and international also refer to matters pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital,..." is not correct. -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed this is a problem and needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it did say "also refer" and not "always refer". I've tweaked it a bit. Any better now? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A question on states which no longer practise recognition

In the recently introduced paragraph it say that:

'Repeatedly, the State Department has responded to inquiries with the statement: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."'

This strikes me as a reference to the practise of no longer formally recognising the governments of states, rather than the states themselves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The following article

Current developments in monetary and financial law, Volume 4

By International Monetary Fund. Legal Dept, IMF Institute

makes the distinction quite clear. It even cites one of your sources on page 79 to demonstrate that the US doesn't government recognition any more. But this is quite a different thing to state recognition as the article itself makes clear on page 78. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Treating an entity as a state

I'm aware of the difference between state, government, and diplomatic recognition. However, the State Department has not restricted its statements to those situations involving recognition of governments. The corollary to the practice of deemphasizing recognition of governments is the longstanding practice of "treating an entity as a state", in lieu of formal recognition. I'll use Palestine/Israel/Jordan as examples, since they demonstrate nearly every aspect of state practice.

The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States recites the four Montevideo criteria for statehood verbatim and notes

• § 201.(h) "Determination of Statehood. Whether or not an entity satisfies the requirement for statehood is determined by other states when they decide whether to treat that entity as a state."

For example, Palestine was a mandated state that was recognized by United States government. See Kletter v Dulles, United States District Court, District of Colombia - in Elihu Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, Volume 20, Editors Elihu Lauterpacht, Hersch Lauterpacht, Cambridge UP, 1957, ISBN 0521463653, page 254. ; and the governments of Spain and Italy

§ 201 Reporters note 3 says "The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist."

In 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said "The use of the term "Palestine" is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its "revived usage enrages" individual Israelis". Crawford said "It is difficult to see how it "enrages" Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, in a de jure sense, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. That it was not a simple matter since there was a quota nationality, in regard to which U.S. legislation and regulation continue to employ the term Palestine. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341; and US immigration law, U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions, "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.

§ 202 Recognition or Acceptance of States says

• (I) A state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state but is required to treat as a state an entity meeting the requirements of § 201, except as provided in Subsection (2).
• (2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.

Comment

• a. Recognition or treatment as state. Recognition of statehood is a formal acknowledgment by another state that an entity possesses the qualifications for statehood as set forth in § 201, and complies a commitment to treat that entity as a state. States may recognize an entity’s statehood by formal declaration or by recognizing its government, but states often treat a qualified entity as a state without any formal act of recognition.

• Thomas Grant provides an example: Israeli forces had shot down a British aircraft over Egypt in January 1949. Despite nonrecognition, Britain addressed to Israeli authorities Britain's intention to seek compensation. Britain dealt with unrecognized Israel as if the country possessed international legal personality. See Thomas D. Grant, The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) page 20
• The Washington Post recently interviewed Mark Regev and reported that "Israel maintains that it was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying any state has the right to blockade another state in the midst of an armed conflict." Regev cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea. Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law expressed surprise, because that article only applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force.
• In December of 1948 the mayors of almost all towns of Palestine held by the Arabs met in Jericho and declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine. The Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of Arab Palestine. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Page 1706; Kadosh, Sandra Berliant, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252, especially 246; and Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 2, US State Department (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963) pages 1163-68
• On January 21, 1949 Transjordan officially changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. See Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, Vol. 4, Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, ISBN 0-415-93924-0, page 2354
• The United States extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume VI, Page 713
• In 1978 the U.S. State Department published a memorandum of conversation held on June 5, 1950 between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and Abdel Monem Rifai, a Counselor of the Jordan Legation:

  In response to Mr. Rifai's question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department's position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn-that the US did in fact recognize the union.

Recognition of Government vs State

Stefan Talmon explains the difference between recognizing a government (conditionally) and a state (unconditional) "With regard to US recognition of Israel, Dr Jessup, Deputy US Representative in the Security Council, informed the Security Council on 17 December 1948 that 'so far as the Provisional Government of Israel is concerned, the United States did extend de facto recognition to that Provisional Government of Israel.' In this connection it is also of interest to note Dr Jessup's telegram of 13 July 1948 to Secretary of State Marshall stating: 'it is our understanding that US recognition of State of Israel is unqualified, that is, de jure, while our recognition of PGI was a de facto recognition of government that state. Is this interpretation correct?' The Department, on 15 July, stated its agreement with New York's understanding and set forth its belief that 'in case of recognition of new states as distinguished from new governments no question of de facto as against de jure recognition is involved'. --Stefan Talmon, Recognition of GoHistorical revisionism (negationism)vernments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 62

State Recognition vs Diplomatic Recognition

Talmon illustrates that recognition of a state is not the same as diplomatic recognition: "Another case concerning the recognition of Israel is also informative. On 25 January 1964 the Republic of Ireland disclosed that it had granted de jure recognition to Israel 'some time ago'. However, it was not until 12 December 1974 that the Irish Republic and Israel announced that they had agreed to establish diplomatic relations." --Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 72

In 1987 the United States repeatedly criticized the Soviet Union for withholding 'diplomatic recognition' of Israel. Diplomatic recognition in this context referred to the unwillingness of the Soviet Government to re-establish diplomatic relations which had been severed in 1967. The USSR had been the third State, after the USA and Guatemala, to recognize 'officially' the State of Israel and its Provisional Government on 17 May 1948--a recognition which had never been withdrawn.--Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) page 111 harlan (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Harlan you're putting way too much effort into this. All this shows me is that states suit themselves as far as state recognition is concerned. The reality is that when Kosovo declared independence countries either recognised Kosovo or they didn't. I can't remember anyone saying that they didn't do state recognition any more. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, § 202 Recognition or Acceptance of States says explicitly that

"A state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state"... "States may recognize an entity’s statehood by formal declaration or by recognizing its government, but states often treat a qualified entity as a state without any formal act of recognition."

Misplaced Pages articles do not reflect the fact that in controversial cases, or in cases involving belligerents, states often choose to accept and treat qualified entities as sovereign states without any formal act of recognition. See the examples of Israel and Jordan cited above.

In fact, Misplaced Pages has several so-called "List" articles that place a great amount of stress upon attempts to count the number of states that have not yet made any formal declaration with regard to specific entities. During oral arguments in the Kosovo case, the Serbian Ambassador used a similar argument from silence to suggest that most States around the world opposed Kosovo’s independence. The representative of the British Foreign Office quickly countered that argument by pointing out the silence meant there was no widespread opposition to Kosovo's independence. He said that "In all likelihood, the vast majority of States that have not recognized Kosovo have no firm view on the matter, are hesitating in the face of the chilling effect of the present proceedings, or do not engage in formal practices of recognition." harlan (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Treating a state as a state is an act of recognition, all this says is that states may not engage in formal acts of recognition any more. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the sources say. On many occasions, the State Department has said that "the question of recognition" does not arise. The decision to treat a state as a state is separate from any of the formal or tacit forms of recognition listed in the Restatement. In many cases, it has been an internal government decision, that was not communicated to the target state, and in the absence of any intention of establishing relations. Implied recognition can only be deduced from the existence of diplomatic relations or other dealings with a state, but the Restatement says that determinations of the existence of statehood are based upon decisions to treat an entity as a state. In the case of co-belligerents, that might only mean the application of the rules of international armed conflict - not a desire to enter into relations. harlan (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

All I'm really asking for here are clear sources. Your source which says that the State Department says that "the question of recognition" does not arise, clearly refers to recognition of governments not states. Please find an unambiguous example of them referring to states. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you sources, I just interpret them differently. To me a formal process is indicative of the constitutive theory of statehood where being a state is dependent on other states acknowledging statehood. While treating a state as a state is indicative of the declaratory theory where no formal process of recognition is required as statehood is self-evident. I'm not surprised the Restatement includes both possibilities. The problem is that many Western states, including the US, clearly do continue to formally go about the process of recognising states as many of them did with Kosovo. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The US did recognize the provisional government of Kosovo, but that was an exceptional case. US practice has never been entirely explicable by using either of the classical declarative or constitutive doctrines, e.g. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan exercised effective control and should have been on the State Department's list of States that sponsor Terror. In any event, the Bush administration and congressional attempts to escape the application of the Geneva Conventions have not turned out well. Conversely, putting states on the State Department terror list is relatively simple. Despite being "international persons", they have no due process right to be removed from the list, or to ask how they were selected for the application of sanctions in the first place. In practice, treating a state as a state operates more on the level of applying the customary rights and duties of states to the entities, with emphasis on responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and pursuing claims. harlan (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

States or governments?

It seems that the Blue-Haired Lawyer has misunderstood something – or then I am just unable to follow the argumentation. Finland is an example of a country that does not recognize governments. It will deal with who ever is in power. It will give formal recognition of independence of states. The last time this happened was most likely after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The United States is the opposite. It uses the recognition of governments as a political tool to interfere in the domestic issues of foreign nations. When recognition of governments i.e. "diplomatic relations" is so paramount, the question of recognition of states becomes secondary. Also, it may be argued that by not recognizing states the U.S. avoids giving support for self-determination; recognition of governments can be undone.

I am reverting the deletion of content. If I have totally misunderstood the issue, please explain it to me in words even I can understand. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I too wish for further clarification. What I saw Blue talking about before was de facto recognition(a very legitimate argument), however, this is something completely different. Outback the koala (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm becomming a little confused here myself. There are two issues here.

The first issue: I recently tried to delete the following two sentences:

'Since 1970 the United States has moved away from its older recognition practice. In recent years, U.S. practice has been to deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition. Repeatedly, the State Department has responded to inquiries with the statement: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."'

because both sentences, and the sources which support them, clearly refer to the recognition of governments and not states. It's dubious because its wrong. No one has contradicted me on this point.

Yes, I agree that the sources are about "recognition of governments and not states". This is exactly why the text needs to be included; the U.S. sees no need to recognize states as it can simply recognize the governments and have all the added benefits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We still appear to be at odds. The source say the US does not recognise governments. You keep saying that the US recognise governments and not states, when the reverse is true. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I now finally understand your point. My understanding of the issue is the exact opposite. Do you have access to the cited sources or are you just making this conclusion based on the short quote in the text? Besides, the sources seem quite old (1974, 1975,1977), and may no longer be relevant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I cited an article at the beginning of this whole discussion which explicitly referred to Harlan's source as evidence that states were ceasing the previous practice of recognising governments. In any event I don't think I need sources to remove material from the article. If some wants to re-introduce material they can find sources. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand the sentence to read as follows: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."

It seems that you read it as follows: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government."

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Continued below

The second issue is whether of not state formally recognise each other any more. There are abundant sources which prove that this process is alive and well:

• Finland recognises Kosovo
• The UN recognises East Timor
• The EU recognises Montenegro
• China recognises Montenegro
• the EU and the US recognise Bosnia and Herzegovina

  "Recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina's independence by the United States and the European Community occurred on April 6-7, and Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted to the United Nations on May 22, 1992."

• Montenegro

  "Since the 2006 declaration of independence, the European Union, Serbia, and all permanent members of the UN Security Council have recognized Montenegro."

• The EU and the US recognise Slovenia

  "1992 - The EU recognises Slovenia's independence, followed by the US. Slovenia joins the United Nations."

• China recognises Slovenia

The US state department even provides a handy list of places it considers to be independent states. They even provide as definition of independent state which is "a people politically organized into a sovereign state with a definite territory recognized as independent by the US." If US practise has been to "deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition", why do they produce a list which does the exact opposite? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign Equality of States vs Sovereign States

First of all, some of you have conflated two different subjects. I cited the Kosovo case with regard to states that do not practice recognition. The text does not say that the United States does not practice recognition. It says that it now deemphasizes it. §202 of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States has always provided that one way the US can recognize a state is by recognizing its government. The US is distancing itself from that practice and readers should be informed about that. Blue-Haired Lawyer may have a point, but Misplaced Pages doesn't even have proper articles on recognition of statehood and recognition of governments. It confuses both with the related but legally separate topic of Diplomatic recognition.

Nonetheless, the FRUS contains examples where the US did not publicly announce recognition of new states. The union between Arab Palestine and Transjordan is an example. The US released declassified documents decades later which indicated the State Department's position that it was not the custom of the US to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area, e.g. and The first declassified document indicates that even the officials of Jordan had not been made aware of the US decision. The State Department's handy list may need considerable revision when today's documents are declassified in 30 years time.

I've already pointed out that the United States Government Printing office has produced lists of States with Limited or Restricted Sovereignty for decades and that Misplaced Pages editors ignore them when creating articles or Lists of sovereign states, e.g. Compare List of sovereign states in 1919 and Talk:List of sovereign states in 1919#Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy The State Department still lists Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty

A UNESCO-sponsored collection of essays on international law highlighted the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of the term state:

there is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision which depends on the judgment of the recognizing government. The underlying factors, nevertheless, are not solely legal, but in many cases they are mainly political.

Editors also seem to be blind to the difference between the racialized concept of sovereignty from the colonial era and the modern concept of sovereign or juridical equality of states contained in article 4 of the Montevideo Convention ; Article 10 of the Charter of the Organization of American States.; and Articles 1-2 of the UN Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, 1949 "Sovereignty" and "independence" are basic entitlements of every state. They have never been an Article 1 requirement for statehood under the terms of the Montevideo Convention.

The US is a contracting party to the Montevideo Convention. See page 450 of United States Department of State Treaties in Force, A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2010 The US State Department Digest of International Law says that independence is NOT a criteria for statehood:

A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties" See Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223.

As a matter of state practice, the United States and many other countries have recognized dependent and protected states. Those states have enjoyed foreign sovereign immunity for their acts of state in the US Courts, e.g. Clayco Petroleum Corporation and Bruce Clayman, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental of Umm Alqaywayn, Inc., and Armand Hammer, Defendants-appellees Footnote 1:

This court has held that the government of Umm Al Qaywayn is a foreign sovereign for purposes of the act of state doctrine. Occidental v. Buttes, 331 F.Supp. at 113. This determination was made when that nation was one of the Trucial States; the sheikdom is now part of the United Arab Emirates. This change does not warrant a redetermination of the sheikdom's status.

Statehood has always been a criteria for membership in the United Nations. But representation in the United Nations cannot be confused with recognition of statehood. See S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning "Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations" When Israel applied for membership in the UN, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements for a State as used and defined in international law. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador (and ICJ Justice) Jessup said:

'we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one's own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership.... ...The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term "State", as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term "State" as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law." see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948

I believe this information should be reflected in Misplaced Pages articles. harlan (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The longer it takes it to respond the more it just looks like you're doing original research. If the US was distancing itself from the practice of recognising state in the 1970s, I have evidence of the exact opposite for the 1990s and 2000s. I cited Kosovo because (according to some) it is the world's newest state, and there's lots of statements on the internet by governments recognising it. Frankly your source on Kosovo stinks. A assertion by a lawyer in legal argument is hardly evidence. The other side undoubtedly said the opposite, and I don't believe the court itself actually ruled on the matter. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

States or governments? (cont.)

"The recognition of a new government is quite different from the recognition of a new state." Put another way, it is not possible to recognize an entity as a country's government without recognizing the territory the entity as a country. However, it is possible to recognize a country but not recognize any government for that country.

For example, to avoid problems of imputing legitimacy to entities that come to power by extra-constitutional means, many countries have sought since the l970s to deemphasize the concept of "recognition of governments" in their public statements. These countries focus, instead, on whether they would be willing to "deal with" an authority as a government. This distinction leads to more than just political nuance. It can be the source of much confusion because some countries take pains to emphasize that dealing with an entity as a government need not imply recognition.

The controversy over imputing legitimacy to governments became quite contentious during the middle of the last century with conflicting doctrinal positions, espoused by two Latin American statesmen, at the center of the debate. On the one hand, the Tobar doctrine contended that no country's government resulting from a revolution or coup should be recognized until that country's people have established its constitutional legitimacy. On the other hand. the Estrada doctrine contended that one country could not pass judgment on the legal capacity of another country's government as this was derogatory to the dignity and sovereignty of the other country. Instead, a government, at its sole discretion, should simply maintain or recall its diplomatic representatives to another country and accept accreditation of that other country's representatives. See Whiteman, supra note 4, at 84-89.

See e.g., Digest of U.S. Practice in international Law 12 (stating that the U.S. State Department's repeated response to queries on the issue was "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government"). Similar practices have been followed by many other countries since the l980s, for example, Australia, Belgium. Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. See also Shaw, supra note 1, at 307; and Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, l998), at 275-35 (setting out responses received to questions on recognition practices from The Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Dominica, Finland, Ghana, Greece, Iran, Italy. New Zealand, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland).

See, e.g., 3d U.S. Restatement, supra note 3, § 203, comment b (stating that treating "a regime as a government includes accepting its acts as creating international rights and obligations; it does not require according to the regime the prerogatives commonly accorded to recognized governments, for example the right to sue in domestic courts").

I think when you see the context, the statement can be understood as meaning: "The question of recognition does not arise: we are conducting our relations with the new government." — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ pleadings are routinely and reliably published. No counter-claim was made which advanced the proposition that a rule of law exists or that all states practice recognition. §202 and §203 of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States provide that a state is not required to accord recognition to other states or governments.

I've supplied exact quotes from reliably published sources which say that the United States is deemphasizing recognition and that, since 1970, it has been in the process of moving away from its former practice. You are the one who is attempting to perform a WP:Synth analysis of the meaning of that material in a way that suggests it can only be relevant to the recognition of governments. However, I've cited the relevant portion of the ASIL Restatement which explained that the methods the US has previously employed to recognize a State included formal announcements of de facto or de jure recognition of its government. So, any possible move away from those methods is relevant to an article about recognition of states in any event.

You are certainly welcome to cite other relevant views and subsequent examples of recognition. However, in the absence of a clearer published policy statement, I don't think you should reword or delete sourced relevant quoted material. Moreover, I've supplied documented examples in which the United States did not disclose its recognition or acceptance of a political union to the resulting entity, and kept the matter classified for several decades. So, there are unambiguous cases in which it conducted business and kept its internal decisions with regard to significant constitutional changes in makeup of foreign governments, their populations, their boundaries, and the jurisdiction of their courts all to itself.

I noted above that many source books on international law say that all states are juridically equal. The argument that "Sovereign state" is a notable topic that can't be merged with State (polity), because they are separate subjects under international law is doubtful. I've supplied two sources above which say there is no agreed upon legally binding definition. Both of those sources say there is general agreement that independence or the complete freedom to control foreign policy has not been a requirement. This article currently employs a synthesized construct for a definition that is not in agreement with either of those published authorities. Misplaced Pages articles must either include all of the significant published views on the topic, or be clearly identified as an article whose topic is a POV - complete with cross-references to articles on other appropriate points of view. See for example the guidance in Articles whose subject is a POVharlan (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult, if not impossible to maintain two different discussions with two different editors at the same time. You are again ignoring the difference between recognising state and recognising governments. You are also failing to see the difference between state practice regarding the recognition of state and what it is to be a state. You are the one engaging in WP:Synth. That you "supplied documented examples in which the United States did not disclose its recognition or acceptance of a political union to the resulting entity" has no relevance to the present discussion. In fact I agree. There is no requirement, in international, for state to recognise other states. I have never argued that sovereign state and state (polity) are "are separate subjects under international law". Every article on Misplaced Pages has to have a lead that has to try and define its subject-matter as best it can. This article's lead is sourced. That it is not universally agreed, is irrelevant. US practice is not the same as international law. There is nothing stopping you from nominating this article for deletion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not failing to see anything. I said I was familiar with recognition of states, recognition of governments, and diplomatic recognition. That does not mean that all of the published sources are in agreement with one another on all of those subjects. According to the American Society of International Law, one of the methods the United States used to employ to recognize a "state" was to formally extend de facto or de jure recognition to its "government" (in which case there isn't a bit of difference between recognizing states and recognizing governments).

The idea that there is a difference between "what it is to be a state" and "state practice regarding the recognition of states" has never been a universally accepted theory or POV. Even Montevideo Convention states, like the US, apply constitutive principles when they say that determinations regarding the existence statehood are ordinarily made by other existing states when they decide to treat an entity as a state. See § 201 of the Restatement. Actual fulfillment of the Montevideo criteria is a moot issue in our courts unless, and until, one of the political branches has recognized the entity as a state.

James Crawford concluded "It is sometimes suggested that the ‘great debate' over the character of recognition has done nothing but confuse the issues, that it is mistaken to categorize recognition as either declaratory or constitutive in accordance with some general theory. According to Brownlie:

in the case of 'recognition', theory has not only failed to enhance the subject but has created: a tertium quid which stands, like a bank of fog on a still day, between the observer and the contours of the ground which calls for investigation. With rare exceptions, the theories on recognition have not only failed to improve the quality of thought but have deflected lawyers from the application of ordinary methods of legal analysis. See Crawford, James R., "Creation of States in International Law", Oxford University Press, USA; 2 edition (April 27, 2006), ISBN: 0198260024, page 26

With regard to sovereignty, Ersun Kurtulus performed a critical assessment of three explanations in relation to the question of which types of entities actually enjoy sovereign rights. He concluded that two of these - constitutional independence and legal criteria of statehood - are empirically untenable. He then focused on a third, more plausible answer: recognition as a state. He pointed out the almost consensual attitude toward the issue adopted by political scientists and found the two doctrines of recognition formulated by international lawyers to be imbued with logical inconsistencies. He concluded by remarking on the impossibility of discovering any clear pattern of state behavior. See Kurtulus, Ersun N., "Sovereign Rights in International Relations: A Futile Search for Regulated or Regular State Behaviour", Review of International Studies Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 759-777. harlan (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

39 European states in 1815?

Where is this number coming from? There were 39 members of the German Confederation alone in 1815, plus at least 15 other states I can think of off the top of my head (UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sardinia, three Italian duchies, Papal States, Two Sicilies, Denmark, Sweden-Norway, Russia) - I suppose that personal unions might lead us to remove Hanover, Luxembourg, and Holstein, but that still leaves us with 51 distinct states, not counting Monaco, San Marino, Andorra, or the Ottoman Empire. I suppose you might decide not to count some of the smaller states in the German Confederation as fully sovereign, but if you remove the 4 free cities and 10 principalities, you're down to only 37 states total, and I'm not clear why you would do that, anyway. I'm not aware of any particular grounds on which Saxe-Meiningen would be considered sovereign, but Lippe-Detmold would not. john k (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this is what the source does say. I'm guessing the German Confederation was counted as a single state. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand everywhere else I look does seem to confirm that there were 39 states in Germany not Europe. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Country

I have removed the following:

The term country is often used colloquially to mean sovereign state, although it is not correct usage and merely refers to a geographic area rather than a political territory.

Mainly because there is no reliable source to back this statement up, but also because it appears to conflict with the lead. --Hm2k (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty is irrelevant. The US Code and Federal Regulations on Free Trade Zones and Country of Origin Markings, e.g. CFR 19 § 134.1 Definitions, say that a “Country” means the political entity known as a nation. Colonies, possessions, or protectorates outside the boundaries of the mother country are considered separate countries. --

US immigration law says self-governing dependent entities are regarded as separate foreign states: U.S. TITLE 8, CHAPTER 12, § 1101. Definitions says "(a) As used in this chapter— (14) The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states. harlan (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

definition of control

The 'declarative theory of statehood' basically says "a state is an entity having control over permanently populated territory". But the question arises how to define "control". I propose that we add to the article two things from : "Definition of a state: A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. States are ephemeral and originate and disappear with the stroke of a pen (e.g. the end of the U.S.S.R., December 25, 1991)." and "Definition of an independent state. A specialized type of political organization characterized by a full-time, specialized, professional work force of tax-collectors, soldiers, policemen, bureaucrats and the like that exercises supreme political authority over a defined territory with a permanent population, independent from any enduring external political control and possessing a local predominance of coercive power (always supplemented with moral and remunerative incentives as well) great enough to maintain general obedience to its laws or commands within its territorial borders. The first known states were created in ancient times in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mexico and Peru, but it is only in relatively modern times that states have almost completely displaced alternative "stateless" forms of political organization of societies all over the planet. (Roving bands of hunter-gatherers and even fairly sizable and complex tribal societies based on herding or agriculture have existed without any full-time specialized state organization, and these "stateless" forms of political organization have in fact prevailed for all of the prehistory and much of the history of the human species.)"

Of course not word-by-word and arranged in appropriate way. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The declarative and constitutive theories were unsuccessful efforts to establish a basis for statehood in international law. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that all peoples have the right to determine their own political status. The ICJ has affirmed that political right repeatedly. Most sources accept it as jus cogens, a peremptory norm, and an erga omnes interest of all states.

So, in actual practice the basis for statehood is mainly political. There is no definition that is legally binding on the community of states and each one gets to decide for itself. See for example Judge Benqt Broms essay, "IV Recognition of States" in International law:achievements and prospects, UNESCO Series, Mohammed Bedjaoui (editor), Martinus Nijhoff, 1991, ISBN 9231027166, pages 47-48 and S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning “Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations”,

Some scholars, such as Professor James Crawford, argue that the creation of states should be governed by law and not political whims, but no such law or declaration has ever been adopted. During its first session in 1949, the International Law Commission (ILC) was asked to codify the legal requirements for statehood. There were objections that there was a danger in returning to the doctrine of legitimism by which a few colonial empires had virtually controlled the existence of other states by simply refusing to recognize them. The ILC concluded

that no useful purpose would be served by an effort to define the term 'State'... In the Commissions draft, the term... is used in the sense commonly accepted in international practice. Nor did the Commission think that it was called upon to set forth... the qualifications to be possessed by a community in order that it may become a State. -- See James R. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198260024, page 31

Prof L.C. Green explained "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government." See Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 1989, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory eds., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-7923-0450-0, page 135-136 Albanian, Polish, Czech, and Namibian states were granted the legal rights reserved for sovereign states without a government, defined territory, or effective control.

As for conquest, in 1963 Robert Jennings, the editor of Oppenheim's International Law, wrote "conquest as a title to territorial sovereignty had ceased to be a part of the law." The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 RN 3 says "The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist." Article 17(3) of the Rome Statute also continues to treat a signatory as a State if it is unable to carry out its own proceedings due to "a total or substantial collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system".

McHugo and Schofield explained

"If acquisition of a territory by conquest had not already ceased to be legal at an earlier date, it became so with the establishment of the United Nations and the adoption of the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Oppenheim is of the view that war "waged for the purpose of acquisition of territory has probably been unlawful since Article 10 of the League of Nations Covenant. In addition, in 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact made war illegal as an instrument of national policy." -- See John McHugo, Clive H. Schofield, "How to prove title to territory: a brief, practical introduction to the law and evidence", Boundary and territory briefing, IBRU, 1998, ISBN 1897643292, page 3, footnote 5.

The Restatement (Third) of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States §202(2) says A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualification for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.

So, the entity you described above probably would not be considered a state if it came into existence today. harlan (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, I haven't described any entity - I just pointed to a source that includes two definitions of statehood describing "control" in more detail than the current text of the article. What I propose is that in addition to current text of the article we add the explanation from the source I pointed above. Do you have some objections to that? Alinor (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be "about the subjects of international law", not the Dept. of outdated Political Science. The LoN criteria on recognition included territorial integrity and governmental effectiveness, but specifically excluded recognition of military conquest and occupation. They said that Article 10 of the LoN Charter provided for mutual defense in order to secure the independence and territorial integrity of all countries. See the Official Journal of the League of Nations, 1931, p. 2051-2053. There are many states which do not maintain a standing army, so that isn't necessarily part of a "definition of control" in any event. harlan (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Alinor: I wholeheartedly reject your first suggested definition. You quote a source which says that a state is:

"A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy."

This appears to be the definition of an empire rather than a state. There are plenty of states which are built by secessionist movements rather than conquest. There are pluralists and multicultural states where there is no single set of ideals or single culture. There are federal states without a single set of laws. And there are homogeneous states which don't have other "nations" to force their culture or ideals on. The source cited appears dubious and frankly the definition seems somewhat anarchistic. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Harlan: You might consider submitting your essays to a more worthy destination. In any event the more words you appear to express your point the less I'm convinced. Forgive me if I prefer using the orthodox definition but in my humble opinion that's what encyclopedias should do. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, maintaining of standing army has nothing to do with having control over permanently populated territory. You can have such control even without a single policemen - if everybody present there abides by your rules. Of course in practice this is highly unlikely, but as you say - many states function without an army - and this is because their societies are peaceful enough and rule-abiding enough so that a reasonably sized police force is sufficient for ensuring public order and security. Alinor (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, I don't say that we 'change' the article to point to the definition you object, but that we mention it. Maybe in historical sense. And please take a look at the second definition (on the bottom of the source I gave) - it's more interesting, because it describes what 'control' means. In addition the source gives examples of past stateless societies - and such information can also be added in the "History" section. Alinor (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Blue-Haired Lawyer, the Yearbook of the 1st session of the International Law Commission, 1949, contains many discussions about this subject of sovereignty and states. The commission concluded that sovereignty, independence, and legal equality were exactly the same thing under different names. Mr. Brierly and Koretsky said the phrase "sovereign equality": ..."which appeared in Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, had been a novelty in international law when it had first been proposed at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Much discussion had resolved the question of its meaning into the exact equivalent of "legal equality", a definition which would be found in the reports of the Drafting Sub-Committee of the First Committee at San Francisco."

Koretsky noted the report of the Secretary general and said "The concept of sovereignty had been much in the minds of the drafters of the Declaration, as was shown by the sentence on page 43 of document A/CN.4/2: 'The manifestation of sovereignty in tangible form is jurisdiction'."

They also agreed that states were no longer completely free to do as they pleased within their own jurisdictions, and were busy drafting a declaration to codify their fundamental rights and duties. They considered including text from the Bogota Charter (A/CN.4/2, p. 51) on the topic of conquest, namely that "the right of each State to protect itself and to live its own life does not authorize it to commit unjust acts against another". Eventually, they decided that the prohibition against the use of force in violation of the UN Charter covered that subject adequately. The definition we are using in the lead is a somewhat archaic one from the 19th century. I've simply been suggesting something in-line with modern sources. harlan (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

harlan, excuse me, but again (as in the other article where we are in discussion) - isn't this already mentioned in the article? What changes do you propose?

And all this doesn't contradict with my proposal to include in the history section the top definition and to mention somewhere else the bottom definition as explanation of what means "control". We can have all three things at the same time - your explanations above (if they aren't already included), an example of historical definition, an example of explanation of "control". Alinor (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles