Talk:List of sovereign states

I know Liberland is treated as a joke on Wikipedia, and for good reason as it is practically just a crypto haven. That being said, I think Liberland objectively fits the Montevideo Convention's criteria extremely well.

Firstly, I am well aware of the fact that Cambridge made an article about Liberland and why it is not a state, however that article heavily relied on the fact that the territory was uninhabited at that time. This however is outdated now. As of August 6th, 2023, Liberland has had a de facto border opened and has been able to settle on the actual territory.

https://total-croatia-news.com/news/travel/croatia-liberland-border/

https://www.context.news/digital-divides/breakaway-balkans-micronation-dreams-of-crypto-future

https://peekarticles.com/niko-omilana-croatian-government-opens-the-border-to-liberland/

https://total-croatia-news.com/news/travel/visiting-liberland/

https://dailycoin.com/justin-sun-envisions-liberland-as-new-beacon-of-freedom/

So Liberland clearly fits the criteria for defined territory, government, and as of August 6th, 2023, permanent population. Next is diplomatic relations, but they clearly have this with Haiti, and Malawi (Worth noting that Malawi engaged with them as an aid foundation rather than a state, but the diplomacy still happened regardless).

https://malawi24.com/2023/01/03/malawi-in-diplomatic-relations-with-tiny-country-not-recognised-by-un/#google_vignette

https://www.elcolombiano.com/internacional/haiti-y-malaui-los-otros-paises-que-han-entablado-relaciones-con-liberland-CA19089847

https://www.colombia.com/actualidad/internacionales/liberland-no-solo-ha-entablado-relaciones-manizales-tambien-haiti-malaui-373537

They also have full recognition from Somaliland, which Wikipedia considers sovereign, and even have an embassy in Hargeisa

https://archis.org/volume/liberland/

https://liberlandpress.com/2018/04/14/liberlands-3rd-anniversary-conference-plus-exciting-new-developments/

https://medium.com/@everywhs/liberland-micronation-recognized-by-somaliland-7726bbcbadc8

They also seem to have some form of diplomacy with Ghana

https://liberlandpress.com/2022/12/13/diplomatic-success-in-ghana/

On top of the diplomatic relations they have, they also have support from the president of Javier Milei, who even met up with the Liberland ambassador, Pol Victoria

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Javier-Milei

https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/world/liberland-the-libertarian-micronation-building-bridges-with-javier-milei.phtml

And have been shown support by the president of El Salvador

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/el-salvador-childrens-hospital-receives-over-1-bitcoin-donation

Not to mention, the State of Illinois has also shown support for Liberland and have even urged the USA to recognize Liberland

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=91&GA=100&DocTypeId=HR&DocNum=1301&GAID=14&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session=

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1301&GAID=14&DocTypeID=HR&LegId=113636&SessionID=91&GA=100

In conclusion, I think Liberland pretty clearly fits the declarative theory of statehood, and even if it doesn't get added to this page, I think the extreme downplay the entity gets on its own page needs to be fixed. It doesn't even have an infobox. 2600:382:10B2:EE61:3821:23C4:25ED:79E0 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:you are taking sources that discuss Liberland as a topic and trying to claim that such discussions grant some sort of notability or implied statehood. you are wrong. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::Please expound on that. Every source backs up the claim I am making. 2600:382:10B2:EE61:75F3:1FED:6ABA:8105 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::there's nothing to expound on, what I said was plain english. ValarianB (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Would also like to note that the links I provided have actual statements from government officials (I.e. the president of Argentina and the president of El Salvador, alongside the official government website of Illinois) 2600:382:10B2:EE61:75F3:1FED:6ABA:8105 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{tq|Not to mention, the State of Illinois has also shown support for Liberland and have even urged the USA to recognize Liberland}} So what?

:{{tq|And have been shown support by the president of El Salvador}} So what?

:Etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::That was just supporting evidence alongside all of the other stuff I mentioned. Ironically enough, you don't try to debunk the actual claims I made about the Montevideo Convention, its settlement, alongside Liberland being recognized by Somaliland.

::Once again, my argument here isn't to get Liberland onto this page, but to stop the obvious downplay it has on this website. 2600:382:10B2:EE61:75F3:1FED:6ABA:8105 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Try List of states with limited recognition first, without all the extraneous nonsense, or it will not be taken seriously. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't see how extra support from actual legitimate governmental entities is extraneous in the slightest, but okay. 2600:382:10B2:EE61:75F3:1FED:6ABA:8105 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

::::the very top of that article reads "Not to be confused with Micronations." so this trifle may not be applicable there. ValarianB (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I realise the Afghanistan issue was already discussed at the time of the takeover, however, unless I've missed something, it seems that on this page there was only really one discussion. So hopefully it's alright to bring this up. If I'm being an idiot and there's no room for rediscussion, please let me know and I'll drop it.

Really, I'd just like to point out the inconsistency, which I haven't seen addressed (again, if I've missed something please tell me). Simply put, the page for Afghanistan is about the Islamic Emirate. It's a completely normal country page, where the Islamic Emirate is treated as the government. The Islamic Republic has its own page, and is treated as a historic state that no longer exists. And so my question is, how can it violate WP:NPOV to assign a flag and official name to Afghanistan here, but it's not a violation for the Afghanistan article to make such a definitive statement on the current government?

I understand the need for neutrality, and I'm not going to argue for or against any specific solution. However, I do think that at the very least we should be consistent across the encyclopedia. What exactly that looks like will have to be decided. But I just don't see how this page can be prevented from choosing one government or the other because of neutrality issues, when that's clearly not an issue for the topic's two most important pages. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:I believe it's past due for reconsideration, the comment left in this article to leave both in was a stopgap while the issue was being decided on pages related to Afghanistan. Consensus has moved decidedly in one direction on that through RfC in multiple places. For example, at the time, {{tlx|Flag|Afghanistan}} was being switched back and forth but is now locked in to the IEA. And you are right that it has only been discussed here once. I would put the IEA as the primary in the left column, and leave the note about the UN and the IRA on the right, because the UN view is still significant. UN member states also needs to remain the same way because it's the UN that matters for that list. TEMPO156 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Seems reasonable to me. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

{{col-begin|width=760px}}

{{col-2}}

"Membership within the UN System" column legend

{{legend|white|UN member state}}

{{legend|#ddf|UN General Assembly observer state}}

{{col-2}}

"Sovereignty dispute" column legend

{{legend|white|Undisputed sovereignty}}

{{legend|#fcc|Disputed sovereignty}}

{{col-end}}

{{sticky header}}

{{Reply to|TEMPO156}} Is something like this what you had in mind? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. Though I’d suggest simplifying the note to “The ruling Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, in power since 2021, remains unrecognized by the United Nations. The defunct {{flag|Islamic Republic of Afghanistan}} remains recognized.” Which brings it in line with the phrasing at UN member states. TEMPO156 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Okay. I'll wait a little bit to let other people contribute to the discussion if they so wish, and then I'll go ahead and change the article. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Why this list contain two dependent territories of New Zealand but not contain dependent territories of other countries? (e.g. Greenland and Faroe Islands (of Denmark), Collectivity of Saint Martin and French Polynesia and French Guiana (of France), Guam and Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa (of United States), Hong Kong and Macau (of China), Bailiwick of Guernsey and Anguilla and Bermuda (of United Kingdom), Aruba and Curaçao and Sint Maarten (of Netherlands), etc.) 220.132.216.52 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:Because the consensus was that they meet the criteria to be considered sovereign states, albeit very unusual ones.

:This is the discussion that resulted in their inclusion, but it's very long, so to summarise:

:*Although they haven't outright declared independence, they do claim to be sovereign in a couple of places.

:*Despite their strong constitutional ties to New Zealand, they do have full internal self-governance and full control over their international affairs, in a way that other dependent territories don't. New Zealand does retain some rights, but it can only exercise them with the consent of the Cook Islands and Niue.

:*They've been recognised as sovereign states by quite a few countries, most notably the United States.

:All together, it was felt that these properties were enough to classify the Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign states, rather than dependent territories. I will grant, though, that they very much are in a special position and that they do exhibit some properties of dependent territories. I find it's helpful to think of sovereignty not as a binary thing that an entity either has or doesn't, but as a spectrum. The Cook Islands and Niue are probably towards the middle of the spectrum: sovereign, but not quite fully sovereign like, say, France or Brazil. For example, they don't have their own citizenships. Instead, all Cook Islanders and Niueans are citizens of New Zealand. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::This is also true for Hong Kong in China, and for Greenland in Denmark. 220.132.216.52 (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Nope, not even close. Hong Kong has almost no real autonomy, much less sovereignty, and Greenland, while more autonomous, does not have actual sovereign powers. The Cook Islands and Niue have the power to enter into treaties and are members of various UN agencies. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So Hong Kong and Greenland:

:::*claim to be sovereign,

:::*can stop China and Denmark from making certain decisions about their internal affairs,

:::*have full control over their international affairs,

:::*and have been recognised as sovereign states by another country?

:::TheLegendofGanon (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Puntland has been acting independently of Somalia's federal government for nearly a year.{{Cite news |url=https://www.tvcnews.tv/somalia-puntland-refuses-to-recognise-fg-after-disputed-constitutional-changes/ |title=Somalia: Puntland refuses to recognise FG after disputed constitutional changes |access-date=15 September 2024 |archive-date=22 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240422164905/https://www.tvcnews.tv/2024/04/somalia-puntland-refuses-to-recognise-fg-after-disputed-constitutional-changes/ |url-status=live |work=TVC News |date=3 April 2024 }}{{Cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-01/puntland-to-operate-independently-from-somalia-after-law-change |title=Puntland to Operate Independently from Somalia after Law Change |work=Bloomberg News |date=1 April 2024 |access-date=2 April 2024 |archive-date=1 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240401203339/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-01/puntland-to-operate-independently-from-somalia-after-law-change |url-status=live |url-access=limited |last=Ahmed |first=Mohamed Omar}}{{Cite news |url=https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/04/somalia-state-of-puntland-rejects-constitutional-amendments-and-withdraws-from-federal-government/ |title=Somalia state of Puntland rejects constitutional amendments and withdraws from federal government |access-date=15 September 2024 |archive-date=8 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240408134809/https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/04/somalia-state-of-puntland-rejects-constitutional-amendments-and-withdraws-from-federal-government/ |url-status=live |work=Jurist News |date=1 April 2024 |last=Ben Mariem |first=Salma}} And Jubaland has been acting independently for several months.{{cite news |title=Somali leaders face reciprocal arrest warrants over disputed regional election |date=28 November 2024 |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/somali-leaders-face-reciprocal-arrest-warrants-over-disputed-regional-election-2024-11-28/ |url-access=subscription}}{{cite news |title=Somalia's Jubbaland government suspends ties with federal administration |date=28 November 2024 |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/somalias-jubbaland-government-suspends-ties-with-federal-administration-2024-11-28/ |url-access=subscription}}{{cite news |title=Somalia pulls troops out of Lower Juba after clashes with Jubbaland forces |last=Sheikh |first=Abdi |date=12 December 2024 |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/somalia-pulls-troops-out-lower-juba-after-clashes-with-jubbaland-forces-2024-12-12/ |url-access=subscription}} Should they be counted as sovereign states? ToaKraka (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Do they have any diplomatic relations? That is one of the criteria and I’ve yet to see any proof of either establishing formal or even informal relations with any country. 2600:382:1232:662:6444:C1B3:3D28:164D (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::The criterion is "a capacity to enter into relations with the other states", not actual relations.

::Jubaland apparently has been collaborating militarily with Ethiopia.{{Cite web |title=Ethiopian and Jubaland forces seize Dolow after deadly clashes with Somali army |url=https://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2024/Dec/199495/ethiopian_and_jubaland_forces_seize_dolow_after_deadly_clashes_with_somali_army.aspx |access-date=2024-12-25 |website=www.hiiraan.com |language=en-US}} And Puntland has expressed a desire to "engage directly with the neighboring countries [and] international partners".{{cite web |url=https://x.com/Plstatehouse/status/1776201330706571674 |title=Press release |date=2024-04-05 |author=Puntland State House}} ToaKraka (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:States are added to this list only if 1) reliable sources refer to them as sovereign states, or 2) we have well-sourced evidence another country has recognized them as sovereign states. We do not assess 1 ourselves. CMD (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Nice4What, the edits that you've made were already discussed on the talk page when you first proposed them. I'll grant that there was limited engagement, but the general consensus of the discussion seemed to come out against them because of a lack of sources. At the very least, there was certainly no consensus that they should be added. These are relatively major changes, so to make them you need to ensure that the consensus supports them.

I will admit that at the time I was very weakly in favour, but I did say then that you still needed sources, and after doing some more research and looking at the available sources I'm now firmly against these changes.

Looking at the PDF that you linked, it explicitly says that the WTO is "separate and independent from the United

Nations." Membership in the WTO is about as relevant to the UN as membership in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is listed on this article as an equivalent to a specialised agency, but the IAEA reports directly to the UN General Assembly and Security Council. The WTO does not. Interestingly, it seems that there are other organisations that are in a similar position to the IAEA, so perhaps a discussion is needed about these pseudo-specialised agencies and their relevance to this article. But I don't think the WTO meets the requirements however you look at it, unless every organisation that has some kind of working relationship with the UN is equivalent to a specialised agency.

And being recognised as the representative of a people is irrelevant to statehood. It doesn't come with any associated membership in any organisation whatsoever, it simply means the UN recognises the Polisario Front as a legitimate party to negotations. It's certainly not equivalent to being an actual member of a UN specialised agency. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The UN has consistently listed the WTO and other related organizations as part of the UN System. It is not up to us to define what that system is. If the UN counts the WTO as being part of the UN System, then it is part of the UN System and the article should reflect that — why would we go against the organization's own definition of the term? You pointed out that the PDF lists the WTO as "separate and independent from the United Nations", but it also says that for the UN specialized agencies that grant Niue/Kosovo/CI that special green shade in the table... have another look. The WTO is also a [https://unsceb.org/board-members member] of the UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, the "highest-level coordination forum of the United Nations system", along with the IAEA, IOM, and specialized agencies.

:As for Polisario, I think readers would like to know that though the SADR is not viewed as a state, their government has been recognised as somewhat legitimate in the eyes of the UN. I understand not creating a new category for this legal quirk so it can remain in the Notes column, but I would at least like to readd the note clarifying that this recognition isn't equivalent to the observer status granted to previous liberation groups (I don't believe this is contentious). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)