Talk:List of states with limited recognition

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
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


Should there be a section for Governments with limited recognition?

[edit]

For example, while the Taliban is controlling Afghanistan, no country has since recognized the establishment of its new government.

similarly, the new Syrian government has only been officially recognized by Türkiye as far as I’m aware.

An official Burmese government has not been officially recognized by the USA or the UK since the name change in 1989.

The Yemeni government is not recognized by Iran.

Iran is also the only country to recognize the Houthis government of Yemen.

while every country recognized the countries of Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, and Yemen, their governments aren’t fully recognized, so they don’t belong here but I think they deserve their own page, or perhaps a section on this page that lists governments with limited recognition. Actually1a2a3a (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea. I'm not aware if this topic is covered somewhere outside of the very short (one paragraph!) Diplomatic recognition#Recognition of governments, which is very poor for a topic that has dedicated books. Political legitimacy feels like another possible location, but that is also an undeveloped article, and focuses on domestic legitimacy. CMD (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Houthi Yemen does satisfy the requirements. Gorgonopsi (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of this. It does seem like a topic that deserves to be covered on Wikipedia, and this article seems as good a place as any. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to include a link to the page Rival Government, which includes governments that claim to be legitimate and maintain control over some territory such as the Supreme Political Council(Houthis) or Hamas controlled Gaza which claims to be the legitimate government of Palestine as not included in this list. Or they could have their own section and rename the page to de-facto states, which it practically already is due to Somaliland having no official recognition from a UN member or non-UN member. 2600:1009:B0C7:244:2801:C511:8BB3:ABB0 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove Somaliland?

[edit]

If Taiwan is not officially recognizing Somaliland as a sovereign state, then shouldn't Somaliland be removed from this article? I mean that this article is supposed to be a "List of states with limited recognition", not a "List of de facto states". If Somaliland is recognized by nobody, why is it still included in this article? If all de facto states should be included in this article even though they have no international recognition, then some political entities in Africa and Myanmar should be included too. We would also need to change the article title. Isn't it? 2406:3400:614:CCC0:5016:E818:81E0:BCC (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no political entities in Africa and Myanmar that are regularly regarded by reliable sources as being de facto states not on this list, or at least if there are, such evidence has not turned up during this article's existence. Somaliland is somewhat of a example de facto state in this regard. Being recognised by 0 states is highly limiting. CMD (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided tons of sources that Wa State functions as a de facto state. Stuff from Cambridge University, all the way to the UN itself considering it a legitimate government. The only argument given against it is that it never declared independence, which is rediculous cause that is not in the criteria of statehood. 2600:382:3DF2:2398:A8CB:BD0E:47D5:C02B (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only argument, but it's a pretty strong one. CMD (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the other arguments then? We've already been over that Wa State comfortably fits the criteria of statehood. Has a population, defined territory which it has full control over it, established a functioning government, and has relations with UN members.
Additionally, sources that Wikipedia frequently uses consider Wa State to be a de facto country:
New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/opinion/myanmar-ethnic-armed-groups.html
The Diplomat: https://thediplomat.com/2022/12/how-myanmars-united-wa-state-army-responded-to-covid-19/
University of Michigan: https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/cssh/2019/09/03/the-everyday-politics-of-conscription-in-the-wa-state-of-myanmar/
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
Wiley Online Library: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nana.12709
South China Morning Post: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3305834/chinese-exporters-said-be-ditching-shipments-mid-voyage-avoid-crushing-trump-tariffs?module=perpetual_scroll_1_AI&pgtype=article
Thai Examiner: https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2025/01/01/thailand-a-battery-or-conduit-for-the-worlds-largest-drug-source-the-wa-state-says-peoples-party-mp/
The only argument Wikipedia has against it is a rule not even the declarative theory of statehood laid out and I find it very bias. 2600:382:3DF2:2398:A8CB:BD0E:47D5:C02B (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The declarative theory of statehood lays it out pretty strongly in the name, "declarative". It's not listed in the specifics because it's so obvious an assumption that the criteria wouldn't apply otherwise. CMD (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real issue here is that if we are not including political entities such as Ambazonia, Biafra, Kokang, Wa State, and the Republic of West Papua, shouldn't we remove Somaliland from the article as well? I mean, even though Somaliland somewhat "functions better" as a de facto state, it is still recognized by no other countries, including fellow de facto states such as Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this article supposed to be a "List of states with limited recognition", not a "List of de facto states"? If a country receives absolutely no diplomatic recognition from other countries, why is it still classified as a "state with limited recognition"? 2001:8003:9078:2401:3169:1131:158E:4497 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is a form of limited recognition. A list of de facto states would include most recognised states as well. CMD (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Limited recognition" does not mean solely that "50 countries recognize it as a sovereign state and have full diplomatic relations with it, while 150 countries do not recognize it as a sovereign state"; it also could mean that some countries do not formally recognize a state's sovereignty but still have informal relations with it.
For example, if the few dozen states that officially recognize the Republic of China's sovereignty — and thus don't recognize the PRC as sovereign — were to switch to recognizing the PRC tomorrow, Taiwan would still meet the declarative theory of statehood and still have informal relations with over obe hundred sovereign states, so it would be correct to continue to refer to it as a sovereign state with limited recognition (the "limitation" being that it's recognition by other countries being informal rather than formal).
Similarly, Somaliland has informal relations with many countries — e.g., the United States has met with delegations from Somaliland on numerous occasions (see Somaliland–United States relations — and thus its recognition by such countries could be defined as being "limited." I think that Somaliland should remain in the article. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about Ambazonia, Biafra, Kokang, Wa State, and the Republic of West Papua? 2001:8003:9078:2401:652F:D36A:DCE4:5012 (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have a body of scholarly sources which believe they meet the declarative theory of statehood, or external recognition from a UN member. CMD (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis If you're really trusting Reuters, then they describe that Ethiopia really recognized Somaliland, cf. [1] Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the source fully, it clearly says "in due course". This has all previously been discussed. If there was a change it would be huge news, we would not have to read tea leaves in individual news stories. CMD (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that out of the places you listed, Ambazonia is the only one to claim independence and have any territorial control. The Wa State and Kokang both claim to be part of Myanmar’s territory, why would we add them if they don’t claim to be a nation? Biafra was only declared independent by some guy in Finland and the rebel groups that do control territory claimed he was not a spokesman and none of them have yet declared independence. West Papua claims independence, but no rebel groups controls any territory to enforce that claim. A similar case to West Papua is Western Togoland which also claims independence but no rebel group controls any territory to support it. Somaliland maintains territorial boundaries and actively claims independence, while Ambazonia doesn’t have solid territorial lines it at least claims independence unlike the other four examples and therefore does have reason for inclusion along with Somaliland. Furthermore if you want to stretch, the Islamic State never undeclared their global caliphate meaning that they are also technically a nation with no recognition of which not only claims independence but maintains some territorial control under its global caliphate. 2600:1009:B0C7:244:2801:C511:8BB3:ABB0 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. The declarative theory, regardless of its title, simply doesn't state one must declare independence. That is a fact.
On top of this, Niue and Cook Islands fit the criteria, but have never formally declared independence. Even the other freely associated states of the USA at least declared independence. Niue and Cook Islands simply opted for self-governance. Granted, this was a legal process, and they legally gained independence because of it, but the same is true for the Wa State. They opted for self-governance via a legal and legitimate process with the government of Myanmar. Yes, Niue and Cook Islands are recognized by some UN members which is a stark difference, but Somaliland is here, so it clearly doesn't actually matter.
As I've said, we have tons of reliable sources that claim Wa State is a de facto country, including but not limited to, New York Times, The Diplomat, South China Morning Post, and Cambridge University.
Now I know it could be seen as opening the flood gates for other de facto independent areas, and I can see avoiding the Wa State for that reason alone, but at the same time, the other ones don't really fulfill the criteria anyway. Rojava follows Syrian civil law, Gaza doesn't have an efficient government, Puntland and Chinland don't have diplomatic relations, and that problem extends to pretty much every other entity. Wa State is a clear outlier, not only in legal status, but in how news articles consistently portray it as a de facto state. 2600:382:3DF2:C301:80EA:DA34:A4F:6C4D (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think we should include Wa State. 2001:8003:9078:2401:BC90:5258:B212:812C (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @CMD and @AuH2ORepublican, and oppose including Wa State at this time. To include it I would want to see evidence that Wa State claims to be legally separate from Myanmar. It can govern itself all it wants but if it doesn't claim to be an independent country, it's technically an autonomous region which Myanmar has delegated power to.
Cook Islands/Niue are different because they have recognition as sovereign states from several countries + (arguably) the UN. Somaliland both explicitly claims to be independent and has been described as a de facto independent state by numerous sources. JSwift49 23:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wa State is only "technically autonomous" because they promised to pledge allegiance to the Burmese army and never interact with other states. Those were the conditions
https://www.dmediag.com/opinion/wastate.html
- "The UWSP says it wants to cooperate in the peace and stability of the Union with complete self-determination. UWSP leaders have said that Wa State will not secede from the Union, but the UWSP will manage their state independently except for national defense and diplomatic relations."
We know the Wa State has explicitly gone against their promises as they have established relations with China as well as openly stated they no longer pledge allegiance to the Burmese army. While not directly declaring independence, they have already gone against the promises that made them "technically autonomous", so no, they are no longer autonomous, they are fully independent. 2600:382:1234:62F9:C85D:9B1:DFA9:3B55 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseon Cybernation and Northern Cyprus?

[edit]

Just wondering if states that have only 1 UN Member recognizing them should be included. (Joseon Cybernation by Antigua and Barbuda, and Northern Cyprus by Turkey). TansoShoshen (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should, but the claim that the Joseon Cybernation is a state is tenuous at best. CMD (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s definitely not a state. Even SMOM at least has some de facto territory. That being said, it is still an entity recognized by a UN member as a separate state. There is no reason to have the non territorial states section if we aren’t going to include non territorial states. It’s just hypocritical at that point. 2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:A (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SMOM is there as a centuries old example with very good sourcing. CMD (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the sourcing that Antigua and Barbuda recognizing Joseon not good? it comes straight from the government of Antigua and Barbuda themselves?
The page quite explicitly says that a place has to fit the criteria or be recognized by a UN member. Joseon is 100% confirmed to be recognized by a UN member. It would be completely ridiculous to not add it just because Wikipedia doesn't like it. I think it's dumb and I don't consider it a state by any means, but it is recognized and needs to be added. Unlike other discussions of Houthi Yemen and Taliban Afghanistan, Joseon does indeed claim to be a separate state. Why even have the rule if it's not being abided by? just remove the constitutive theory part of the page if it doesn't matter. 2600:382:3DF4:97C5:7581:CAC1:B99C:A7A2 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a source, and at any rate primary sources are not good. CMD (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD, I don't think that applies because WP:NOTEWORTHY states that the rules for inclusion to a list are different. The primary source thing only really apply to biographical articles, of which this is not, as far as I'm aware.

Realistically, how would you ever encyclopedically reliable garner secondary sources for state recognition? This isn't a topic that most would report on. But regardless, because this situation is unique, in the case of Antigua and Barbuda recognizing Joseon, there's a primary source, this article that just looks like it was rushed or something, another primary source, a local newspaper, this article which does appear to be WP:RS, and finally this article which was commissioned, and which recognition itself is mentioned in passing.
And then really comes the issue of how to represent them in the list, whether as Joseon redirecting to Joseon Cybernation, or Empire of Korea redirecting to Joseon Cybernation, or just calling it "Joseon Cybernation". TansoShoshen (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added it to the article, any opposition to it being in the article can ping me in this thread with their concerns. TansoShoshen (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is very good and detailed, however Antigua considers the Joseon Cybernation itself to be a modern state rather than it quite literally being the Korean Empire, so I think it should just be labeled as Joseon instead. 2600:382:6700:E8B5:EDDF:DFD:6AFE:BBA8 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can you argue that primary sources are not good here? No one can confirm state recognition besides the two parties recognizing each other, and both governments have confirmed it. In a case like this, primary sourcing is the only sourcing that should matter. 2600:382:6700:E8B5:287F:EBE6:C488:B8CE (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Cyprus already is included. The "cybernation" with no territory is not included, because it is not a state. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add it to entities with limited recognition alongside SMOM. It is recognized by a UN member. There is legitimately no reason to not add considering there’s literally a whole section for non territorial states. 2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:A (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion under the name Joseon Cybernation, as otherwise the inclusion criteria for this list would have to be changed. Are there arguments against inclusion, that would not also apply to SMOM?
Kugelfisch002 (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinland

[edit]

I saw that the wa state isn't allowed but nothing about chinland

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinland Liminal Taro (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a strong supporter of the Wa State being added as it fits the criteria to a T. I am less supportive of Chinland as it has yet to show that it has any capability of entering into diplomatic relations. 2600:382:6703:F558:6CBA:5F68:7779:D512 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea is recognized by North Korea

[edit]

While it is true that the South Korean constitution denies the existence of a North Korean state, that isn't the case for North Korea. North Korea simply wishes to "reunify" the two states into one according to their constitution. On top of this, since 2023, North Korea has made it clear that they do in fact consider South Korea to be a state and foreign country, albeit a hostile one.

https://www.38north.org/2024/02/decoding-north-koreas-changing-policies-a-south-korean-perspective/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1wnxlxxwq2o

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-reports-road-rail-links-cut-off-with-hostile-state-south-korea-kcna-2024-10-16/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-kim-jong-un-calls-south-korea-foreign-hostile-country-rcna176058 2600:382:6700:E8B5:949:AA35:9C2C:D553 (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, just need somebody to update the map, since I can't do it myself. TansoShoshen (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been previously added and reverted. We haven't yet seen a source providing a clear picture of what the North Korean position means. Many sources carefully describe the changed as a denouncement of "peaceful reunification", made as part of a wider shift to hostility which came alongside threats of occupation. (The two sides remain officially at war.) I've been looking for more recent updates or analysis on the situation, but have not found anything clear or firm, although there have been a couple of incursions into the DMZ. Looking through various sources has led me to agree that the current text and entry should be adjusted in some way to reflect the uncertainty, although leaving some sort of coverage other than complete removal. CMD (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although I have found no proof that NK current does not recognize SK. Isn’t this why the page removed mentions of Japan, France, and Estonia not recognizing NK. There was not enough proof to say that they truly didn’t recognize NK as a sovereign state. Similarly, the NK constitution clearly refers to SK as a state and foreign country. I don’t think we have enough proof to say NK doesn’t recognize SK. 2600:382:6700:E8B5:A907:EAB3:683B:B3FC (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We did have a lack of sourcing to make those claims, and we had the unanimous UN votes for admittance. We do lack a lot of information either way, I'm not aware of whether the constitution has even been released publicly. We should revise "North Korea considers itself to be the sole legitimate government of Korea, and claims all territory controlled by South Korea." Perhaps "North Korea previously considered itself the sole legitimate government of Korea, however constitutional changes in 2024 reportedly abandoned peaceful reunification and declared South Korea a "hostile state"." A bit non-standard, but that may be needed until things become clearer. CMD (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think that’s fair. 2600:387:F:551B:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made that change then. If a new source pops up please bring it here, will need to keep an eye out. CMD (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türkiye recognizes Cyprus as a state

[edit]

Türkiye does indeed recognize the government of Cyprus as a sovereign state. It just doesn’t recognize that it is called the “Republic of Cyprus” as they don’t consider it the sole government of the island. They still consider “Southern Cyprus” to be a state and equal to Northern Cyprus

https://www.mfa.gov.tr/chapter3.en.mfa

Another explicit statement of Türkiye considering Cyprus to be a sovereign state: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/turkiye-works-for-intl-recognition-of-northern-cyprus-says-official/2861124#

Sure, they don’t recognize the “Republic of Cyprus” per se, but like I said, that’s just the government, not the state. The USA currently doesn’t recognize any Syrian government, nor does it recognize Myanmar, instead referring to it as Burma still. The USA still considers these two states regardless, so I don’t see how it’s any different for Türkiye calling Cyprus, “Southern Cyprus”. They still recognize its sovereignty. 207.213.219.123 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[1] and the recognition of a country is a political issue.[2]

International Courts

[edit]
  • UNSC Resolution 1983/541 is Non-Binding:

On 04.08.1986, Greece filed a case against the Council of the European Communities(supporter intervener:Commission of the European Communities). In the case, Greece first argued that the UN Security Council Resolution 1983/541 called "upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus". Greece then reasoned that since the Turkish Government recognized the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the European Community "cannot grant it the special aid without ignoring that breach and thereby itself violating an obligation imposed on it under a measure which is binding on it by virtue of the principle of substitution."[3]

On 25.05.1988, Council of the European Communities(supporter intervener:Commission of the European Communities) specified that the UN Security Council Resolution 1983/541 which is not passed under Article VII of the UN Charter is non-binding in nature, and Council of EC and the Commission of the EC stated that "It is manifest from the wording of the operative part and from the debates and the declarations of vote prior to the adoption of Resolution No 541 that the Resolution does not constitute a "decision" and is therefore not a binding measure, but a measure in the nature of a mere recommendation. Consequently, the States to which the declaration is addressed are NOT bound to comply with paragraph 7 of the resolution or to infer from the fact that paragraph 7 was not complied with the consequences which Greece claims they should infer."[4]

On 27.09.1988, European Court of Justice (ECJ) rejected all of the Greece's arguments in the Case 204/86 (Greek Republic v. Council of the European Communities(supporter intervener:Commission of the European Communities)), and punished Greece to pay all the costs, including the costs of the intervener. ECJ stated (in prg28) that the Resolution 1983/541 of the United Nations Security Council is completely extraneous to relations between the Community and Turkey.[5]

  • No prohibition of declarations of independence in international law:

On 22 July 2010, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2010 that "the Security Council in an exceptional character attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because it was, or would have been connected with the unlawful use of force" and "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence".[6]

The ICJ's ruling was expected to bolster demands for recognition by Northern Cyprus.[7][8] The decision of the ICJ has also been regarded as opening more potential options for the TRNC to gain international legitimacy.[9]
  • Legality of the acts of the TRNC's authorities:

On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention".[10]

  • The legality, independence, and impartiality of the TRNC's courts:

On 2 September 2015, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality".[11]

On 25 June 2024, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) [Ukraine v. Russia Case (Crimea); Applications 20958/14 and 38334/18] explained the reasons for the legality of the actions of TRNC laws in the north of Cyprus under the ECtHR framework (Why the situation of the TRNC differs from that of Crimea, Transnistria, and Abkhazia):

930. Whereas the Court held that "TRNC Domestic Law" was based on the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition and was therefore accepted as "law" for the purposes of the Convention, in cases concerning Transdniestria (the "MRT"), the Court found "no basis for assuming that [in the 'MRT'] there is a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova". The Court has reached similar conclusions regarding the "law" of Abkhazia and the "lawfulness" of Abkhaz courts.

932....Moreover, while the "MRT" and Abkhaz-related cases concerned the "law" of unrecognised entities that did not reflect "a judicial tradition ... similar to the one in the remainder of the Republic of Moldova" or "to the rest of Georgia" respectively, in Cyprus v. Turkey (merits) the Court held that "The civil courts operating in the 'TRNC' were in substance based on the Anglo-Saxon tradition and were not essentially different from the courts operating before the events of 1974 and from those which existed in the southern part of Cyprus". This particular aspect makes the latter case similar, yet different from the present case. The Cyprus v. Turkey case concerned the continued application of pre-existing Cypriot law valid in the territory of the "TRNC" before Turkey had obtained actual control of that territory, whereas the present case concerns the application in Crimea of the law of the Russian Federation (or the "law" of the local authorities, as its derivative) replacing the previously applicable and valid Ukrainian law.[12]

Courts of Countries

[edit]
  • The USA: On 9 October 2014, the Federal Court of the United States (USA) stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary...The TRNC is NOT vulnerable to a lawsuit in Washington.".[13][14][15]

Greek Cypriot Toumazou applied to the USA Court of Appeals. The USA Court of Appeals rejected Toumazou, too on 15.01.2016[16]

After the US Federal Court called and qualified TRNC as "Democratic Republic" and the USA Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, The United States Sectetary of State has started to describe the TRNC as the Area Administered by Turkish Cypriots[17]

References

  1. ^ BBC Archived 22 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada (2010): "International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence."
  2. ^ Oshisanya, An Almanac of Contemporary and Comperative Judicial Restatement, 2016 Archived 14 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine p.64: The ICJ maintained that ... the issue of recognition was apolitical.
  3. ^ "Developing the principle of non-recognition". Adam Saltzman. 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2025.
  4. ^ "Opinion of the Advocate-General (of CoEC and CEC)". Advocate General Mancini. 1988. Retrieved 17 January 2025.
  5. ^ "Judgment of 27.9.1988 - Case 204/86". European Court of Justice (ECJ). 1988. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  6. ^ "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Paragraph 81" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 22 July 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 August 2010. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  7. ^ Beaumont, Peter (22 July 2010). "Kosovo's independence is legal, world court rules". The Guardian. Peter Beaumont, The Guardian (UK), 22.07.2010. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  8. ^ Beaumont, Peter (22 July 2010). "Kosovo's independence is legal, UN court rules". The Guardian. Peter Beaumont, The Guardian (UK), 22.07.2010. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  9. ^ ""Can Kosovo Be A Sample For Cyprus"". Cuneyt Yenigun, International Conference on Balkan and North Cyprus Relations: Perspectives in Political, Economic and Strategic Studies Center for Strategic Studies, 2011. Retrieved 25 March 2020. After the ICJ’s decision on Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, the TRNC gained a huge advantage on the negotiation table and also an innovative Neo-Wilsonist path reopened in international arena. Can Kosovo be a sample for Northern Cyprus? According to international law, previous decisions are not become a precedent. But practically especially after the advisory opinion of ICJ in 2010, it surely will be inspirational way and another option for Cyprus and Cypriot Turks.
  10. ^ ECtHR The decision of 02.07.2013. paragraph 29
  11. ^ ECtHR The decision of 02.09.2015. paragraph 237.
  12. ^ https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-235139
  13. ^ Courthouse News Center 13.10.2014 Property Spat Over Turk-Controlled Cyprus Fails
  14. ^ USA's Federal Court Michali Toumazou, Nicolas Kantzilaris and Maroulla Tompazou versus Republic of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  15. ^ USA's Federal Court Toumazou et al v. Republic of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
  16. ^ https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/judgments/docs/2016/01/14-7170-1593754.pdf
  17. ^ https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/cyprus/area-administered-by-turkish-cypriots/
  18. ^ The Telegraph 03.02.2017 Criminals fleeing British justice can no longer use Cyprus as a safe haven, judges rule, in landmark decision

Western Togoland

[edit]

From WT's article: Western Togoland (French: Togoland de l'Ouest) is a self-proclaimed state which is considered by the international community to be part of Ghana.

It links to this article, although WT isn't listed here. Higgs In Space (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Togoland has shown no capacity to enter into diplomatic relations, formal or informal. Meaning it doesn’t fit the declarative theory. There is also no evidence that it has an efficient government either so once again doesn’t fit the declarative theory. Obviously it doesn’t fit the constitutive theory either, so adding it wouldn’t make much sense since it fits neither theory. 2600:382:8911:A59C:9936:405C:30F1:DD0F (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation of that article appears to be misleading, per the body there is no evidence it is a state. CMD (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that it even holds any territory. XavierGreen (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Use of Inference and Interpretations and Secondary Sources Regarding the SMOM and San Marino in the Wikipedia, and Regarding Italy and the SMOM

[edit]

Good day to you all. Regarding the SMOM and the so-called "recognition" by San Marino, the referenced scholar Noel Cox refers to A. Astraudo. However, Astraudo does not claim that a recognition of the SMOM as a state was included in the 1935 concordat, that I can see (cf. https://bibliotheque-numerique.diplomatie.gouv.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64638772/f9.highres). Giorgio Cansacchi (his article Il diritto di legazione attivo e passivo dell'Ordine de Malta is actually published in Diritto internazionale, 1940, by the Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale, which is not noted in Wikipedia), states (p. 65): "Possiamo pure ricordare le espressioni contenute nell'accordo - detto Concordato - del 23 giugno 1935 intercorso in Roma fra l'Ordine di Malta e la Repubblica di San Marino; dopo un preambolo in cui si afferma »che è intendimento delle Alte Parti contraenti di concludere felicemente le secolari trattative svolte fra i rispettivi governi per entrare in rapporti ufficiali» si conclude »in seguito agli accordi che col presente concordato vengono stabiliti tra il S. O. M. di Malta e la S.ma [i. e. Serenissima] Repubblica di San Marino i due Stati (si noti l'uso del l'espressione Stato anche per l'Ordine di Malta)". It is obviously an interpretation in the cited sources, based upon the wording in the short concordat ("i due Stati"), that San Marino recognizes the SMOM "as a sovereign state in its own right" (so the SMOM article and the Foreign relations of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta which uses the same sources). Wikipedia should rather use the direct firsthand source instead, i. e. the actual concordat from June 23rd 1935, readily available at https://www.esteri.sm/pub1/dam/jcr:19f68173-a6bf-4c08-aa65-6461aa8e0e43/SOM.01.pdf. Both here and in the different articles about SMOM. Should it not also be noted, here and in the articles about the SMOM, that San Marino's purported recognition of SMOM as a state actually is an inference, rather than a formal recognition of the SMOM as a sovereign state by the Capitani Reggenti of San Marino? Cf. https://sanmarinoembassy.orderofmalta.int/en/mission/.

Regarding the view of Italy, the modern legal precedents are summarized as: "Ne segue pertanto che, dal punto di vista dello Stato italiano, il SMOM è uno Stato estero." in https://iris.unive.it/retrieve/fff006dd-4db3-4230-ab75-c5623dbc38b3/04parte3.pdf p. 381. In a court ruling (1954) it was noted: "the Court notes that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a subject of international law having the characteristics of a sovereign State; to be more precise, its position is similar to that of Governments-in-exile during the Second World War [...] On the basis of the foregoing observations, there is no doubt as to the character of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta as a sovereign entity and therefore of its rights to be treated by other States as par inter pares." (https://www.google.se/books/edition/International_Law_Reports/LMHwbxwrUvsC?hl=sv&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover). Sometimes, however, the SMOM is noted as one of the other states (Stati esteri); cf. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaArticolo?art.progressivo=0&art.idArticolo=1&art.versione=1&art.codiceRedazionale=093A3690&art.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1993-07-02&art.idGruppo=0&art.idSottoArticolo1=10&art.idSottoArticolo=1&art.flagTipoArticolo=1. This should also be noted, in my humble opinion.

Maybe there is no longer any basis for claiming that any UN member actually recognizes the SMOM as a state rather than another kind of subject of international law? In that case the SMOM should be removed from this page. Perhaps these matters should be voted upon by the Wikipedia community; I am not familiar with the internal Wikipedia procedures and will not return to this discussion nor try to edit the articles myself. I lack sufficient knowledge of the Wikipedia system and the technical functions. Thank you for understanding. Sincerely//Dr. Uno H. Schneider on holiday 95.205.26.102 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with the Italy part. The San Marino part I am iffy on. While I do think the primary source should also be added, I think that referring to an entity as a state in an official treaty is a clear example of recognition unless stated otherwise. Although, I must admit I believe the same can be said for Somaliland and Taiwan. The MFA for Somaliland refers to Taiwan as a nation, and the Taiwanese MFA refers to Somaliland as a country as well as having a legitimate Independence Day. In my opinion, we should either remove SMOM or add Somaliland-Taiwan mutual recognition as the two situations are very similar. 2600:382:543:44F0:8003:4E4B:1259:693D (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of June 2025 also Andorra recognises the SMOM as as a state. "the two States", "i due Stati"./83.248.42.165 (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia and Pakistan establish diplomatic relations

[edit]

It is time to remove Armenia from the list. Armenia and Pakistan established diplomatic relations today.

https://armenpress.am/en/article/1228492 Arenrules777 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly done so, it also makes sense given the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. CMD (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Thank You. Someone needs to update the map as well. 2603:8000:7EF0:8EC0:7D2E:AD58:556A:7226 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arenrules777@Chipmunkdavis maybe this list/or another list should consist of previous examples Braganza (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a very long list, it definitely wouldn't fit here. List of historical unrecognized states claims to cover partially recognized states, but the scope of that is tricky. CMD (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the map should be changed. 176.104.177.35 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea recognition

[edit]

Neither the United States, Japan, or the Republic of Korea have ever recognized North Korea (although they do maintain informal relations). Information should include this as the US, Japan, and RoK are UN member states. https://2017-2021.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-north-korea/ 128.6.147.4 (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that South Korea doesn’t recognize North Korea, and Japan agrees with this in a treaty, the USA does in fact recognize North Korea. They simply lack diplomatic relations. The official list of sovereign states on the USA government website lists North Korea as a sovereign nation. 2600:381:EE84:A04B:45F0:2168:10B8:5805 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]