How to divide the list of states into sections. Presently there is "widely recognised", argued to be a
weasely term, and "other states".
Should the states of
Cook Islands and
Niue be included on the list, and if so in what section?
Secondary issues
Whether membership of the
United Nations (UN) should be used to evaluate sovereignty.
Background: There are two states with observer status, the Vatican and Palestine. However, they differ drastically in both the universality of recognition and in the simple fact of sovereignty: Palestine does not have control over its borders, and so is de facto not a fully sovereign state regardless of recognition. I see no problem with including the Vatican with the UN member states and leaving Palestine as 'other'. Two suggestions, though: (1) Remove the silly phrase "Widely recognized member of the UN", and leave only a note on the Vatican being a permanent observer. (2) Order the 'other' states by how many UN-member states recognize them: Palestine (~100/192), W. Sahara (81), Kosovo (70), Taiwan (23), Abxazia & S. Ossetia (4), etc. If need be, add the Vatican to the top of that list with 178 out of 192; there would still be no need for a third list.
What constitutes "widely recognised" and whether having one large list of recognised states is appropriate. For instance, France and Palestine would under some proposals be listed as equal, despite one being a fully-recognised state and one being an entity with limited recognition and no control over much of its claimed territory).
Background: Converting the table to a sortable one with a new parameter meaning that each country would be categorised as 'UN-Vienna', 'Non-UN Vienna', or 'Others'.
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to
sign your post. Extended comments should be made on the talk page of this request.
Agree, so long as the mediators are well versed in political science in order that they may understand the concepts and various terms used througout the discussion and debate.
XavierGreen (
talk)
17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Agree. Please note that I will be travelling until January, and will be unable to actively contribute to the discussion. Nightw15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)reply
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be
accepted or
rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
XavierGreen: It will not be possible to accommodate that request, as, so far as I know, no active mediator has knowledge of that topic area. I have qualifications in that area, as it happens, but as Chair I don't mediate cases. In any case, mediators are neutral third parties and nothing else (see
WP:MC/P#What mediators are not), and their role is to direct and facilitate discussion, so an intimate knowledge of the topic is unnecessary and may indeed be disadvantageous.
AGK21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)reply
If I may comment here, I think it depends what Xavier means; for example, it would be reasonable to expect the mediator to understand the difference between
de facto and
de jure sovereignty, but the mediator isn't going to be an expert in this topic area.
PhilKnight (
talk)
22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)reply
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.