Talk:Diplomatic recognition

Untitled

What about Taiwan? -- Taku 07:52, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Is this article about "diplomatic recognition" or about "legitimacy"? It seems to have a pretty narrow focus. Nobs01 00:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article had been tagged for cleanup since October 2005. As of yet, there is absolutely no discussion happening. Thus, I have removed the tag. If someone wants to put it back up there, I would suggest that they also make a discussion regarding it on this page. Furthermore, be sure to put it at the top of the page, and not in the references section. Thanks. Oscabat 22:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Israel and Palestine

I thought they should be included to the article radiant guy (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup still needed

The section titled "Recognition..." needs to be copyedited by someone with a greater level of familiarity with the topic than I've got. There are a couple of ambiguous points created by grammatical errors that seem to alter the meaning of the section: It's just hard to tell whether the changed meaning was desired.

Expansion would also be nice. I'd like to request the addition of more precise and illustrative language about the impact of derecognition, in particular.MrZaius^talk 07:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some Cleanup Done

I've cleaned up the "Recognition" section some and added a few article links. Someone please take a look at it, and we can discuss whether or not to remove the tag. Thanks. user:Polyglottalstop —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

History and Origins

When did this definition, or system, of diplomatic recognition come into existence? What previous systems existed? Does the discipline of international law acknowledge them, or does it insist that the current, modern system is the only system?

What were the first countries to be recognized, and how did other states come to be recognized? Was, for example, China, despite its power and incredible historical significance, not able to formally recognize other states until it was recognized by a Western power, say, Britain or France?

The List of sovereign states by formation date lists some states as having been founded millenia ago. As a historian, I would agree with this view, but I am curious what the discipline of international law would say about this.

Basically, all of this stems from a discussion I had with a friend, me taking the historical point of view, and him a student of international law. He claimed that the Kingdom of Hawaii and the Ryukyu Kingdom (yes, I know I'm talking relatively obscure references here, not Britain and France, but bear with me) were completely different, because while Hawaii was formally recognized by various powers (e.g. the UK) before being annexed by the United States, Ryukyu was not. Well, I don't know if any state officially formally stated in so many words "We formally recognize Ryukyu as a sovereign state", but Britain, France, the Netherlands, and the US signed treaties with the kingdom, and China, Korea, and Japan had certainly acknowledged it as an independent kingdom within their own terms (i.e. Sinocentric World Order) for centuries.

So, again, the question is, when did this all come into play? When the Kingdom of England (and Wales) absorbed Scotland and became the United Kingdom in 1707, did France or some other country have to formally recognize the new state before it could be considered a state by, um, well, by the world community? How far back in history does any given state's sovereignty extend, legally, such as to be fully formally legally acknowledged under the current, 21st century system of international law? 221 BC? 1648? 1707? Or not until the formation of the League of Nations, United Nations, or some other such organization?

How far back in history can we go that today's legal concepts of what does and does not constitute legal annexation (for example), apply?

I think it would be great if any or all of this were addressed in the article. I've poked around a number of other articles, such as International law, and have not found the answers I'm looking for... Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the Peace of Westphalia (1648)is sometimes given exaggerated importance, it established the principle of equal states (particularly the freedom of religion for each, that is, for each prince to determine the religion of his subjects). Although international law has much earlier beginnings, this established the basic principle of rulers not being subject to any higher authority (emperor or pope). This was, of course, only a regional principle (for Europe/Christendom), but it was the European system of international law (with new rules and principles added to it) that eventually was extended over the world with the acceptance of other members of the "family of nations." I have not fully answered the question about when questions about "recognition" emerged, but hopefully what I am saying helps. Eleanor1944 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)