Talk:List of sovereign states

UN-controlled article?

Unless we're declaring that the UN is the sole decider of the content of this article? The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a fact, where's the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan no longer exists. We should be reflecting what is, not what the UN wants. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I sometimes wish that it was the case that the UN be sole decider, life would be so much simpler. As it stands though, the criteria are clearly NOT based on the UN deciding who's in and who is out. In fact, if a single UN state were to recognize the Emirate, it would be in as I understand it but we are still waiting on such an event.Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As discussed above, I feel we should be doing whatever the article at Afghanistan does. It makes little sense to me that we should take a different view, since there is no particular circumstance that applies here that does not also apply there.

This argument is rather undermined by the fact that the status quo there is based on a consensus at Talk:Afghanistan that is on pretty dodgy ground. That consensus is based on an RFC that was closed by the person who opened it after less than two days.

There is a current RFC at Talk:Afghanistan, and I would invite interested editors here to contribute to it. However, that too is limited narrowly to the flag in the infobox, explicitly excluding the name, which would still be listed based on the flawed RFC. So I don't actually think that resolves the problem. Kahastok talk 21:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources, not the desires of the UN, which is a political body. RS state that Taiwan is sovereign and the government of Afghanistan is the Islamic Emirate. There is no reason why our list of sovereign states shouldn't reflect that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

But that perspective is not accepted by any other government on the entire planet. And based on WP:WEIGHT, there's at least a reasonable argument that says that that POV is significant and needs to be taken into account. Kahastok talk 20:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Taliban are in control of Afghanistan, now. It's simply a fact. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

U.N. Seats Denied, for Now, to Afghanistan’s Taliban and Myanmar’s Junta De facto and de jure are different though.Selfstudier (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

---

List of sovereign states → List of countries – The definitions of country, nation and state are often controversial, somehow arbitrary, but not all countries are sovereign states (and viceversa). The current naming convention is countries (e.g. Lists of countries, Category:Lists of countries, Lists of countries and territories), which I consider to be more appropriate. Therefore, in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines, especially our article titling policy and the guideline on disambiguation and primary topics, I propose to rename this page List of countries, which is currently a redirect. Thanks in advance, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Around a decade ago we had a number of moves towards titles including "state". This was due to continuing disruption regarding the additions of England, Scotland, and sometimes Wales and Northern Ireland to such lists. The phrasing "not all countries are sovereign states" in the opener above is a reminder of that disruption, and specifically confusing with regards to this RM as it seems to imply a goal of having more entries in this list than we currently do. CMD (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose We have Sovereignty, Sovereign state and defined inclusion criteria for this article based around those. One could try to make a separate list of countries based on Country and some other criteria but why disturb this one? Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sovereign state is much more WP:PRECISE than country or nation which can be non-sovereign. --Heanor (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Countries are not necessarily sovereign. Dimadick (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• To Dimadick: That's what I said.
  @Chipmunkdavis, Heanor, and Selfstudier: IMHO, 'Sovereign states' should be a section of List of countries. There's no point in creating a duplicate for such a small difference; we could better work on a single List of countries with two sections (Sovereign, Non-Sovereign). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Est. 2021: the problem is that is a Sovereign state is a good-defined subject, a non-sovereign state is not. Depending on the context, the term non-sovereign nation, non-sovereign state or non-sovereign country, could mean many things. The subject non-sovereign state/nation/country is not well-defined. --Heanor (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The question "why disturb this one?" remains. If we include other entities that do not fit the inclusion criteria for this list, then we would have to change the title, the inclusion criteria and the format for no obvious benefit. Member states of the United Nations has 193 entries, all sovereign states, a "small difference" compared to this one so it is not an issue to have different lists with different inclusion criteria. Why not include dependencies as well? Selfstudier (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)]
• Oppose this is a list of sovereign states and not all countries are sovereign states such as UK countries. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This edit demonstrates amply why this move is a bad idea. The proposal here is that Wikipedia should not have a list of sovereign states - a list you would expect to find in any reputable encyclopedia - but instead should replace it will an arbitrary list of whatever somebody has decided counts as a "country". Our experience on this and other articles is that everybody believes that they know what a "country" is, and believes their definition is universal. But no two people have the same definition. And nobody is able to provide a source that backs their definition. Kahastok talk 18:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a "List of sovereign states" not all states are sovereign in the world, there are many un-sovereign & self-declared states. Ytpks896 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donetsk and Luhansk (again)

These two entities have been brought up ad nauseam, but especially given recent developments, I figure they deserve a closer look. There's two things I think are worth examining:

1: The prospect of Russian recognition. The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) are currently only recognized by each other (which is irrelevant) and by South Ossetia, itself not recognized by the UN or most nations. But recently, Russia's legislature passed a law that recognizes Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. The law has not taken effect yet, since President Vladimir Putin has yet to sign or veto the law. But in the very possible scenario that the law is signed (or the legislature overrides a Putin veto), would that not be sufficient to consider adding both entities to the list of non-UN states? They'd be the only entities recognized by any UN member state not considered by this article to be sovereign states (except the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which controls and claims literally no territory).

2: A source discussing the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood. Previous attempts to add Donetsk and Luhansk to the list of sovereign states were shot down because no academic or otherwise reliable source described either entity as specifically qualifying as de facto states under the declarative theory of statehood. However, a 2020 issue of the Washington University Global Studies Law Review (more specifically pages 13-21) explicitly examines whether Donetsk or Luhansk meet the declarative theory of statehood set up by the Montevideo Convention. Here is what the source concludes regarding the four criteria, though if you're curious for context you can read it yourself:

• A permanent population: "...both proto-states satisfy this criterion."
• A defined territory: "Because both breakaway regions have maintained fairly well defined borders with Ukraine (and firmly fixed borders with Russia, their only other neighbor), they likely satisfy the second Montevideo criterion." (bold emphasis mine)
• Government: "...the DPR and LPR possess sufficient governments de jure and de facto to suffice for Montevideo statehood analysis."
• A capacity to enter into relations with the other states: "[Donetsk and Luhansk] satisfy the formal independence requirement," but aside from an alleged email leak implying direct Russian control over the separatist governments (which Russia denies), "evidence of Russian influence in the DPR and LPR is extensive, but circumstantial as regards direct control of governmental functions," although "given the principle that the Montevideo factors should be applied flexibly, such sparse circumstantial evidence may not undermine the argument for DPR and LPR statehood." (bold emphasis mine)

The source concludes that "the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics plausibly meet the Montevideo criteria for statehood" (bold emphasis mine). Some of the language used is definitive, particularly for criteria 1 and 3, but clearly there is room for interpretation with the wording used. Still, I would argue that the source makes clear that Donetsk and Luhansk qualify as de facto sovereign states under the Montevideo declarative theory of statehood, and that their inclusion into this article should at least be reconsidered.

Also, given the recent growing intensity of the information war of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and the timing of this post, I should probably add that for anyone concerned, I'm not pro-Russia, and I think that the separatists are repressive, illegal, warmongering Russian proxies that do not speak for the people of Donetsk or Luhansk. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, I believe there is a general consensus that an explicit recognition would be enough to cause inclusion on this list based on the existing inclusion criteria consensus. (The less nuance in that recognition and in secondary sources reporting on it the better, for example the recent Somaliland-Taiwan situation is not easy to place.) Regarding point 2, that is an appreciated paper, the sort we have been looking for. I do not think by itself is enough to change the list, not least due to the author's hedging, but it is a good start towards building the case. CMD (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As a side note, even for "established" states with limited recognition, the sources usually stop short of saying that they fully satisfy the fourth requirement, as most of these states depend to a large extent on other states (Russia, Turkey, Armenia). Alaexis_¿question? 08:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

We cite a source that is pretty unequivocal on this point for the three cases where it makes a difference:

three other territories that have unilaterally declared independence and are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria for statehood but have not been recognized by any states: Transnistria, Nagorny Karabakh, and Somaliland.

In most cases it doesn't make a difference because there is recognition from at least one UN member state.

The source noted above is not new, and has been discussed before at the states with limited recognition page. The problem with it is that doesn't demonstrate that they are generally regarded as having met the Montevideo criteria, or even that the author believes they meet the criteria. Only that they might be argued to meet the criteria, a far weaker statement.

As per CMD, if Russia does actually recognises them as sovereign states, then that makes a difference. In that case, the current consensus inclusion criteria would require that we include them. Kahastok talk 18:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Putin has signed the decree, meaning that Russia now officially recognizes the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk. I’d say they should probably be added to the article now. AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Russia now officially recognizes both as independent, the declarative theory discussion is therefore moot, as recognition by a UN member (which Russia is) satisfies the inclusion criteria. [1]XavierGreen (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per the news today that Russia has recognised the states. They've also been de facto states on the ground for some time, albeit that that may not have satisfied the criteria until today.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. Paradox NiteOwl (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above discussion. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Include both: The recognition by Russia clearly satisfies one of our established criteria. We don't need to waste our time assessing the declarative theory, which is always a murky and time-consuming process. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo

Kosovo should be moved to the main list, the one that has Israel, North and South Korea and the like. This is because reliable sources are unanimous in their verdict that Kosovo is a fully fledged sovereign state. Own flag, own anthem, own custom, one control of 100% of territory. Recognized by majority of UN. So all that is required is a purple tag saying "partially unrecognized" to show Serbia's disapproval (and its backer Russia, I don't think there are any important countries that don't recognize Kosovo). --Thelostranger (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo is not UN member state  Rafael Ronen  17:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be. Only in 2002 Switzerland only joined the UN. So, are you claiming Switzerland pre-2002 was not sovereign? --Thelostranger (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The top list is "UN member states and General Assembly observer states". It should therefore not include entities that are neither UN member states of General Assembly observer states.

If your argument relies on stating that the likes of China, Brazil and India are not "important countries", then I suggest you reassess it. Kahastok talk 09:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

OK I see from the layout Kosovo does not belong on the UN list for the time being. I'm sure it is a matter of time before Serbia recognizes it because ordinary Serbs so desperately want to put the past behind them and join the EU and NATO. Still, that is not my discussion point. I don't believe Palestine should have better standing than Kosovo, and I oppose Kosovo sitting in a box with illegal states such as Artsakh. Basically, Kosovo controls all of its territory. Palestine does not. Plus Kosovo has far more recognition than Artsakh. So dumping Kosovo in the offender's table is a breach of NPOV. --Thelostranger (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If you search the archives for Kosovo, you will see that both Kosovo and the way the list is put together have been discussed before, ad nauseum. If you have another suggestion for splitting the list, what is it? Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I could think of two things. First forget about the UN. You don't have to be a member or an observer to be a sovereign country. Switzerland wasn't before 2002, so where would one have put them if the page was created before then? Kosovo needs its own proivate box, for sovereign nations mostly outside of the UN. It should not be, and it is offensive that it is, in the same list as Artsakh and Abkhazia, Two fake Russian-held territories. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why should we "forget about the UN" to accommodate Kosovo or any other similar? Switzerland was an observer state prior to full membership. Specify the criteria for the "private box"?

Perhaps you could create a new list, List of sovereign countries, define some criteria for membership of the list in such a way as to guarantee the inclusion of Kosovo and you have solved your problem without the need to disturb this list. Then many people would likely come to complain that one or other should or shouldn't be in that list. You see the problem? Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I hardly know where to begin, but let's see.

• Has own anthem
• Has own flag
• Has own government
• Has own police force
• Has own army
• Has own constitution
• Controls all of your claimed land
• Member of IOC
• Member of FIFA
• Have own international telephone code
• Have own national bank
• Are recognised by more than half of the members of the UN
  

We will do a test. When a country meets all of the above, they can be in category 1 as top level sovereign. If you have less than six, you are not sovereign. If you have between six and eleven (out of twelve), you can be in a "mid-table". Reckon we can use this to get a wider consensus? Thelostranger (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thelostranger: See Claimed by Serbia as the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (under UN Security Council resolution 1244)  Rafael Ronen  15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you please source that list please? Specifically, we need academic or legal sources that use this precise list as a means of determining whether a state is "sovereign" or not, and that use a count of attributes based on this list as a means of determining the level of sovereignty.

Note that none of the Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council is fully sovereign by your standard. Neither are countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or India. Kahastok talk 18:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

PS. About the list I created, just to prove I am not an anti-Serb (as Serbia would not qualify as "sovereign" since it claims Kosovo but doesn't control it). To be fair to Serbia and to Serbs, by admitting Kosovo as sovereign, we as a result will carve out Serbia's true shape thus saving it from demotion. --Thelostranger (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

PS. Palestine would be knocked out of the new list. Basically sovereign would mean: The UN, the Vatican & The Republic of Kosovo (195 countries of the world is highly sourced). Thelostranger (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to explain that the chance is remote that you will get a consensus to toss out the current list criteria/layout, for that you would need to make a new list article. The criteria are up to you to decide. Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Note canvassing by the OP here and here. This question appears to arise from an RFC at Talk:Kosovo. Kahastok talk 18:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They removed the post and I won't be canvassing anybody again. Nor will I talk to them for that rude reply that bordered onto UNCIVIL. A pity, because they have the intelligence to come on here and get the right change needed. --Thelostranger (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A microstate, or perhaps an organised rebel group, could meet as many of these as the United Kingdom meets. Such lists are essentially unworkable for that sort of reason. CMD (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The United States, China, North and South Korea, Ukraine and Georgia do not control all of their claimed land. Canada, Australia and New Zealand did not have their own constitutions until the 1980s. Canada did not have its own flag until the 1960s or anthem until the 1990s. Countries did not have their own national banks, telephone codes or membership in the IOC and FIFA until the 20th century. FIFA includes countries, such as England, that have no self-government. TFD (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget that the United States, Russia and Canada do not have their own international telephone codes.

Most US states can manage 7/12 of these (flag, anthem, government, police, army, constitution and control all their claimed land). Which is the same number as the UK has (government, police, army, IOC, telephone code, central bank and recognition - note that the commonly-used UK national flag and anthem are unofficial). Kahastok talk 17:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

At Talk:List of states with limited recognition#Niue, Cook Islands there is a discussion of the apparent contradiction of these two being included here as sovereign states (Other states) but not included there. It seems that they should both be included (my preference based on a Duck test) or both excluded (the argument being that no-one really knows their status). Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have initiated an RFC at List of states with limited recognition about this issue.Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)