Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of states with limited recognition

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JSwift49 (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 12 December 2024 (→For what reason is the Wa State not added?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 12:01, 12 December 2024 by JSwift49 (talk | contribs) (→For what reason is the Wa State not added?: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of states with limited recognition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments before commenting.
Former featured listList of states with limited recognition is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2008Featured list candidatePromoted
February 13, 2011Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 31 October 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconLimited recognition Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Misplaced Pages by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis 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:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!



Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Add Pakistan to the list

Armenia and Pakistan don't have mutual diplomatic recognition, but only Armenia is listed in the article. Add Pakistan to the list. 212.73.95.146 (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

OPPOSE Diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations are two separate things. Country A can still recognize Country B as a country without having diplomatic relations with Country B. 58.152.51.240 (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan doesn't recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state

Representative offices (unlike an embassy) means unofficial relations, not recognition as a sovereign state. There no official recognition of its independence. Sources provided also confirm this. -- Svito3 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, as discussed previously at /Archive 14#Somaliland and Taiwan, /Archive 14#Somaliland, /Archive 15#Move Somaliland to "States recognised only by other non-UN member states"?, and /Archive 15#Map out of date? Somaliland and Taiwan?. I have reverted the article change claiming otherwise. CMD (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Bloomberg article says "So far, only Taiwan recognizes Somaliland as a nation, despite the African region having declared its independence in 1991." JSwift49 11:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
"It is an official relationship in numerous respects, but not diplomatic. Put another way, the bilateral partnership is deemed official due to the signatures of two foreign ministers. On the other hand, it differs from Taiwan’s relationships with its more formal diplomatic allies."
"Somaliland’s relationship with Taiwan is based on the reality on the ground: respecting Taiwan’s sovereignty and value as a partner, while acknowledging China’s global influence. Taiwan reciprocates this sentiment by recognizing Somalia’s independence and acknowledging Somaliland as a nation based on actual circumstances." JSwift49 12:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Maybe Ethiopia recognized Somaliland? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
They have not. CMD (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Taiwan formally recognized Somaliland but reverse is de facto. Sharouser (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Like any country recognizes California as a state but not a sovereign state. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy. To be fair though Sharouser is also wrong, neither extends full diplomatic recognition to each other (which is despite its name suggesting otherwise the only kind of recognition this page is concerned with) but neither treats the other as part of another power (they aren't consulates subordiante to a head national mission, they're embassy level bodies who report directly back to the home country) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Svito3 Have you read and ?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
OPPOSE It is a one-way recognition. The Republic of China (Taiwan) has recognized Somaliland as a sovereign state, but Somaliland has only recognized Taiwan as a de facto independent political entity. Similar to Kosovo (which also has a one-way recognition from Taiwan), Somaliland's ultimate goal is universal recognition and membership of the United Nations. It can't achieve that goal without gaining recognition from the People's Republic of China, therefore it will/can not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state. 58.152.90.176 (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

In the image, Artsakh is coloured red, which is a mistake as it is not a UN member state.

It should be coloured blue. Timo2727 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's Armenia not Artsakh on the map. Artsakh no longer exists on the map. -- Svito3 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For what reason is the Wa State not added?

This is just a question. I know it says "Subnational entities and regions that function as de facto independent states, with the central government exercising little or no control over their territory, but that do not explicitly claim to be independent" are not included, but the other examples (Rojava, Puntland, and Kurdistan) aren't even de facto independent, just de facto autonomous, as they must follow civil law of their sovereign nation, unlike the Wa State. Gaza is de facto independent, but arguably doesn't fit the criteria of "efficient government" as Hamas is a militant group.

The Wa State was at one point was a group primarily reliant on their military but has since established a fully de facto independent government. This can also extend to Chinland, although Chinland's diplomatic relations are severely lacking. That can't be said for the Wa State though, as they have strong diplomatic ties to China. China and the Wa State conduct relations completely outside of Burmese sovereignty.

While it is true that the Wa State has never declared independence, neither have Cook Islands or Niue. The declarative theory of statehood never lists such a thing. Actually1a2a3a (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

What we need to include it is reliable sources calling it "de facto independent" or something similar. I think the conflict in Myanmar has gone on for a long time already so there must be scholarly sources about it. Alaexis¿question? 19:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
https://burma.irrawaddy.com/article/2021/01/25/237048.html This link is an indepth explanation of how the Wa State has discussed attaining recognized statehood, and exist outside of the Burmese government.
These lines are the most interesting, but the rest of it is also a good read:
"ဝ ဒေသဟာ ပြည်ထောင်စုရဲ့နယ်မြေ အစိတ်အပိုင်းဖြစ်ပေမယ့် အစိုးရအာဏာ သက်ရောက်ခြင်း မရှိတာကြောင့် နိုင်ငံ တကာက လာရောက်တဲ့ ခရီးသွားတွေ စီးပွားရေး လုပ်ငန်းရှင်တွေက ဝ ခေါင်းဆောင်တွေနဲ့ တိုက်ရိုက် ဆက်ဆံနိုင်ခြင်း မရှိသလို ဝ ဒေသဟာလည်း တားမြစ် ဧရိယာအဖြစ် အစိုးရက သတ်မှတ်ထားတာပါ။
မည်သို့ဆိုစေ ဝ ဒေသကတော့ အစိုးရ၊ တပ်မတော်တို့ရဲ့စွက်ဖက်မှု မရှိ၊ ဝ ခေါင်းဆောင်တွေပဲ တိုက်ရိုက်အုပ်ချုပ်၊ ဝတပ် ကပဲ ဒေသကို အပြည့်အဝ လုံခြုံရေးယူပြီး ကိုယ်ပိုင်ပြဋ္ဌာန်းခွင့်ကို အပြည့်အဝ ရရှိနေတဲ့ အခြေအနေပါ။"
"Although the Wa region is part of the Union territory, it is not affected by the government's authority, so international tourists and businessmen cannot interact directly with the Wa leaders, and the Wa region is designated by the government as a prohibited area.
In any case, the Wa region government, No military intervention, Only the leaders directly govern, It is a situation where the Wa Army has fully secured the region and has full self-determination."
https://www.lifeweek.com.cn/article/82074 This link goes over the entire history of the Wa State.
Here are some notable lines:
"其官方地位是缅甸联邦中的一部，实际上该地区由一个独立的地方武装控制。"
"Its official status is part of the Union of Burma, but in practice the region is controlled by an independent local armed group."
"佤族知识分子，无论在佤邦、中国、缅甸还是泰国，都广泛传播佤族 “真实的 ”文化和形象，为佤邦的相对主权做辩护。"
"Wa intellectuals, whether in Wa State, China, Myanmar or Thailand, have widely disseminated the “real” culture and image of the Wa people and defended the relative sovereignty of the Wa State."
https://m.jiemian.com/article/496039.html Another link explaining its sovereignty and independence
"佤族人同时拒绝过缅甸与中国两方政府，他们自愿成为野蛮人──这个区域内唯一真正独立又自治的少数民族。不论住在云南还是佤邦的佤族人，他们只对一个世界上没有国家会正式承认的政府效忠。"
"The Wa have rejected both the Burmese and Chinese governments, and have willingly become barbarians—the only truly independent and self-governing ethnic minority in the region. Whether living in Yunnan or Wa State, the Wa owe allegiance only to a government that no country in the world will formally recognize." Actually1a2a3a (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Existing outside of the control of the central government is not the same as claiming and/or exercising statehood. The situation in Myanmar is covered by many observers, if a proto-state is established there will be a lot of sources on the matter. CMD (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It is the same as achieving statehood is said entity fulfills the rest of the criteria, which the Wa State does extremely well. The page of the Wa State already explains how China and the Wa State interact diplomatically, albeit informally.
the others mentioned as “not claiming statehood” do not have any relations with other nations besides Gaza, which arguably doesn’t have an efficient government as I’ve stated.
there are also a lot of websites in Burmese and in Chinese covering the Wa State’s sovereignty. Far more than those that cover Niue and Cook Islands’s recognition.
Furthermore, it isn’t just the central government. The Wa state is independent from the entire nation as the quotes above explain. Actually1a2a3a (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The case for adding them would be more convincing if we had high-quality sources calling them an "unrecognised state" or "de facto independent" or smth like that. Alaexis¿question? 23:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/cssh/2019/09/03/the-everyday-politics-of-conscription-in-the-wa-state-of-myanmar/ Here is a source that claims it is de facto independent.
” Located along Myanmar’s northeastern border with China, the boundaries of the Wa State do not appear on Google maps. Officially part of the Shan State of Myanmar, in reality, it is a de-facto state governed by an insurgent army, and Myanmar’s national government and its army, the Tatmadaw, have no say in its internal affairs.”
here’s another one: https://www.irrawaddy.com/from-the-archive/who-are-the-wa-2.html
“ Already Myanmar’s largest rebel group with an estimated 30,000 soldiers and 20,000 auxiliary troops and a sophisticated arsenal of weapons, much of it purchased from China, the announcement renewed questions about how long the Myanmar government can tolerate a de facto independent state within its borders.”
Another (and this one is very in depth): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00141844.2021.2007153#d1e176
“ The Wa State of Myanmar is a de-facto state governed by an insurgent army, the United Wa State Army.”
Another: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/we-dont-want-to-be-slaves-meet-the-peoples-liberation-army-of-burma/
“United Wa State Party (UWSP), which now governs the de facto independent Wa State in eastern Myanmar.”
Another, this one is from Cambridge: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/comparative-studies-in-society-and-history/article/sovereignty-as-care-acquaintances-mutuality-and-scale-in-the-wa-state-of-myanmar/02ABC5B081AD0F1ADDA8C0BA5A30044A
“ The concrete examples are the relationships of care between commanders, soldiers, and villagers in the Wa State of Myanmar, a de-facto state governed by an insurgent army.
Another: https://thediplomat.com/2022/12/how-myanmars-united-wa-state-army-responded-to-covid-19/
“Myanmar’s Wa State is a de facto independent state tightly governed by the United Wa State Party (UWSP).” Actually1a2a3a (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Upon further research, I found this as well: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/30/1227828571/how-narcotics-have-shaped-everything-for-the-wa-an-ethnic-minority-in-myanmar
"It really is a world unto its own. It has its own army with more troops than Sweden. It has high-tech weapons. They collect taxes. They even issue their own driver's licenses. You won't find it on any globe. You won't find it on any map. But it absolutely functions like a sovereign nation-state." 2600:382:10B0:26EF:E188:42FF:7CFD:5A4F (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Adding more to the previous sources, here is one that calls it an unrecognized AND independent state: https://missionsbox.org/news/making-sense-myanmar-chin-kachin-shan-wa-states-uwsa/
"Wa is an officially unrecognized, independent state controlled by the communist-aligned United Wa State Army (UWSA)." Actually1a2a3a (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
SUPPORT Wa State should be included as a de facto state without any recognition. 58.152.90.176 (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Wa State has never declared independence (like Somaliland did) nor has it ever asserted that it was a sovereign country (Like Tatarstan did in 1990 and Australia did). Accordingly, it fails the declarative theory of statehood. Niue and the Cook Islands are recognized as independent by other countries, and therefore are included under the constitutive theory of statehood. If Wa state was recognized by another country as being sovereign, it too would pass the inclusion criteria despite not declaring independence. The only rebel polity in Burma to have actually declared independence was Khun Sa's Shan State Restoration Council, it controlled and held territory in the early 1990's, the Shan State Restoration Council no longer exists with a large number of its cadres surrendering along with Khun Sa himself in 1996. A rump faction led by Yawd Serk refused to surrender and rebranded themselves as Shan State Army South. I have never seen any sources which state that Shan State Army South considers itself to be an independent state or that it asserts itself to be a successor in interest to Khun Sa's "Shan State" that declared independence in 1991. No other Burmese rebel group that controls territory has actually declared itself to be sovereign or independent.XavierGreen (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
You are wrong. Kokang declared independence on 12 May 2014 with the establishment of the People's Republic of Kokang.
Source: https://www.sohu.com/a/150976246_794891 (in Chinese) 203.46.37.2 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
This page isn’t about the constitutive theory of statehood. It’s explicitly about the declarative theory of statehood. Rojava, and Puntland still follow civil law of another nation, therefore don’t fit it. Gaza lacks institutional cohesion and doesn’t have an efficient government, therefore doesn’t fit it. The Wa State fully fictions as a sovereign nation in every way, matches the criteria, and can conduct diplomatic relations. It’s a state. Actually1a2a3a (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I oppose adding Wa State for now, as reliable sources still don't say it claims outright independence from Myanmar.
  • Foreign Policy (2024) Though the state is nominally part of Myanmar, the Wa have their own political structures...
  • Crisis Group (2024) The UWSA accepts that its territory is part of the Myanmar state, but it administers these lands almost completely autonomously from Naypyitaw (also wrote an article in Foreign Policy saying the same thing )
  • Council on Foreign Relations (2022) The UWSA, by far the most powerful ethnic armed organization, controls an autonomous region within Myanmar's northeastern Shan State...
  • Nikkei Asia (2022) Bertil Lintner, a Swedish author who is a leading authority on Myanmar, said Wa leaders have made no new political demands since the military seized control in Naypyitaw, such as a push for formal independence. An informal peace agreement ... has lasted since 1989, giving the Wa self-government in return for recognition of Myanmar sovereignty.
  • Burma News International (2019) quotes leader as saying Wa State is a part of the Union of Burma and cannot be cut out of the union. We won't demand an independent Wa state or ask for secession.
JSwift49 21:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
All this confirms what I said though. That it is de facto independent but claims Burmese sovereignty. The criteria of statehood says nothing about self-recognition Actually1a2a3a (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I think intent matters here. Autonomous regions that don’t claim to be sovereign states should not be considered states, and if we included Wa State we would have to include many others. Looking at the criteria, "capacity to enter into relations" with other states would seem to be greatly diminished if you don’t actually claim independence. JSwift49 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add List of historical unrecognized states to the See Also section. Infrish 2 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The Order of Malta should be in the UN observers section

The Order of Malta fully fulfills the criteria of statehood

Territory: The territory owned by the order is legally considered extraterritorial, however it functions as a completely sovereign state. In fact, the linked source already explains this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9LDb9lFYjVPUnFkaUVjVVdVUnM/view?resourcekey=0-hw3Xj3KI7CwVF65au7CF7g

"It is worth remembering that accredited Maltese representatives to the States enjoy immunities and privileges not as international officials, but rather in their capacity as diplomatic officials, with the rank of Ambassador or Minister plenipotentiary. On the one hand, the clear territorial separation of sovereign areas that exists between the Italian State and the State of Vatican City does not exist between the Order of Malta and the Italian State, but neither can it be said that the treatment given to the headquarters of the Order (Aventine, Via Condotti) is, simply, that reserved for the headquarters of diplomatic missions accredited to the Italian State.

In fact, the headquarters of the Order have diplomatic extraterritoriality (authoritarian acts of any kind – executive, acts of inspection, judicial – cannot take place inside), but in addition, the Italian State recognizes the exercise, in the headquarters, of the prerogatives of sovereignty. This means that Italian sovereignty and Maltese sovereignty coexist without overlapping, because the Order exercises sovereign functions in a wider area than occurs in the diplomatic missions of the States for, although enjoy extraterritoriality, the guarantees deriving from the privilege of immunity are constrained to a purely administrative area; the Order, instead, makes use of extraterritoriality to meet the very acts of sovereign self-determination that are the same as the States (legislative, judicial, administrative, financial acts)."

Population: Once again, Misplaced Pages already links the fact that it has population: https://archive.org/details/reportfrompracti00sack/mode/2up

"as part of the bargain only three men – the grand master, the lieutenant grand master, and the chancellor – could be citizens there. The other S.M.O.M.ians were to be citizens of the country they lived in."

Diplomacy: This one doesn't even need sources. It is a well-known fact the order maintains tons of diplomatic relations and missions, and as this page shows, it even has full recognition from San Marino.

Government: Once again, this is a well-known fact that the Order is an internationally recognized government.

Self-recognition: I disagree with this rule being set in place to begin with, but it shouldn't matter as the Order have and do recognize themselves as a sovereign nation, even if they do not recognize their land

One example: https://orderofmaltaamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/OM174_Hospitallers_Summer2023_digital.pdf

"As a sovereign nation, we enjoy diplomatic relations with 112 countries where we have Ambassadors, and, we hope, more countries to follow…. And almost 30 years ago, in 1994 to be precise, we were granted special status as a Permanent Observer at the United Nations and we have full-time Ambassadors serving in Geneva, Vienna and in New York."

And another example: https://ukraineembassy.orderofmalta.int/en/news/the-passports-of-the-sovereign-military-order-of-malta/

"It’s also a sovereign nation, with United Nations observer status and its own constitution, but, unusually, without any land. It issues car license plates – without having any roads to drive them on – and its own stamps, currency and passports." 2600:382:10B0:26EF:4102:7068:C114:1449 (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

We already have United Nations General Assembly observers that listed that Order, anyway who claims that SMOM is a "sovereign state"? Ehh. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The order themselves recognize themselves as a nation. I provided the links already. 2600:382:10B0:26EF:A83F:1A64:31A5:37FD (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not a state. States have borders, at least putative ones. Similarly, if the Holy See didn't have a landmass where it is sovereign and that is not part of any other country (i.e., if Vatican City was just a neighborhood in Rome), then the Holy See would be a UN Observer but would not be a sovereign state. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
"On the one hand, the clear territorial separation of sovereign areas that exists between the Italian State and the State of Vatican City does not exist between the Order of Malta and the Italian State, but neither can it be said that the treatment given to the headquarters of the Order (Aventine, Via Condotti) is, simply, that reserved for the headquarters of diplomatic missions accredited to the Italian State."
" the Order, instead, makes use of extraterritoriality to meet the very acts of sovereign self-determination that are the same as the States (legislative, judicial, administrative, financial acts).""
Yes, while it is true the order has no DE JURE borders, it's status gives it DE FACTO borders in which the Italian government has no jurisdiction. 2600:382:10B0:26EF:9DA7:71B:DBD5:45CF (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Nation and state are different things. The Tibetans are a nation, but Tibet is not a sovereign state. 120.16.189.64 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
SMOM is a UN observer but not in the same category as the Holy See or Palestine. It is an observer entity similar to the Red Cross or International Olympic Committee. It is not a state since it claims neither statehood nor territory, so I think we should keep the Order of Malta in a separate category: entities recognized as sovereign that aren't states. JSwift49 21:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: