Talk:Annexation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Examples since 1949

@PBS: perhaps we could move on from the arguments about formatting and splitting, and focus on the actual content. You don't appear to care about treating other editors with respect, so I am not going to waste my time on critiquing your behavior any further.

Perhaps we can work together to fix this article instead. You added (back) in this chunk of text, so there is some form of WP:ONUS on you here.

A few points for discussion:

• 1949 - why are we only showing examples post 1949? The second paragraph of the lead and the entire "international law after 1949" sections are an extremely poor summary of a topic much better dealt with at Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war, which explains that the distinction between occupation and annexation began in the late 1700s. As a result this article is providing a very poor picture of what annexation is and was. Having all these examples from post-1949 is a WP:WEIGHT problem.
• Uninhabited vs inhabited - Why are we mixing annexation of uninhabited territories with those of inhabited territories. The international laws such as the Geneva Convention apply to protection of civilians, not to rocks, so annexation is very different when there are no people involved.
• Consistency - what points are each of these examples supposed to convey? At the moment they read as a bunch of random facts. Much of the text in there is irrelevant to the actual act of annexation. Perhaps it is the debate around the legality of each of these annexations? If so, that is interesting and we should structure it.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no onus on me (see Kautilya3 comments above), this is a WP:BRD issue, let the AfD play out.

"sections are an extremely poor summary of a topic much better dealt with at Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war", Thank you. If you had looked through the history of the articles you would see that most of the content of the sections to which you refer were written by me way back (MO diff February 2005 Annexation diff April 2006).

Have a look at the s:1911 Encyclopædia_Britannica/Annexation it helps explain why laws regarding Annexation prior to the post WWII are not much use in understanding what annexation means in the modern world. It is far cleaner for a modern understanding to keep it to the law post world war II and examples of it use since then. Including Kuwait as an example allows people to see how the UN can intervene to stop an annexation, while the annexation of Crimea is an example where it can not, and other methods have to be tried outside the auspices of the UN. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I am surprised that you point me to EB1911, having dismissed its relevance in your conversations with other editors above. I have read it, and it does not do what you say.

Your position in all the threads so far today suggests that you do not consider a de facto annexation to be an annexation. Nor do you consider a de jure annexation to be an annexation unless the law involved is international and recognized as such

Let's be clear - there are two types on annexation: de facto and de jure. And de jure can be the annexing country's law, or international law. The primary factor that has changed over the years is the legal position regarding what is needed to move between the different types of control including:

• occupation
• protectorate (per EB1911, although much less relevant today)
• de facto annexation
• de jure annexation (based on the annexing states' laws)
• de jure annexation (based on international law and recognition)

These are all different types of control. This article should cover the last two.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Some sources:

• Stefan Talmon (1998). Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile. Clarendon Press. pp. 102–. ISBN 978-0-19-826573-3.
• Yaël Ronen (19 May 2011). Transition from Illegal Regimes under International Law. Cambridge University Press. pp. 19–. ISBN 978-1-139-49617-9.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Those sources do not talk about "types of annexation". You are misreading them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: what these sources prove is that annexation does not have to be "legal" (i.e. de jure) in order to be annexation. This appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding by some editors here, and we need to clear this up so we can fix the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at the edit history here, I see that your edits in 2007 are responsible for the current state of this article. I look forward to working together to fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is not constructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes being direct with feedback can encourage improvement. It depends on the personalities of the editors. I figured it was worth a try. Before this argument today, when I tried to improve this article at the beginning of this year, I remember thinking that this is one of the worst and most unclear articles about an important topic that I have seen in recent times. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Revision history of the edits to this article since the start of this month shows that you made two edits to the page:

• 08:51, 22 March 2017‎ Onceinawhile (27,457 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (moving rockall and antarctica into own section)
• 19:18, 23 March 2017‎ Onceinawhile(10,968 bytes) (-16,489)‎ . . (→‎Annexations of populated territories since 1950: all of this text (and more) is now at List of Annexations, with the exception of Northern Cyprus (see talk))

This seems more like removing the furniture "when I tried to improve this article at the beginning of this year" -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct. My intention is (was) to focus this article, remove all the chaff, and let it grow into an article which properly explains the concept of annexation. There is no rush. My frustration as to the recent turn of events is that we are wasting time having arguments about an irrelevant question of formatting, instead of what the reader actually cares about which is substance and clarity. I think our objectives are the same, so we could have done much better here if we hadn't got off on the wrong foot. Choose collaboration, not conflict and bullying, and we will make this encyclopedia what it should be. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems with articles like this one, and lists like List of massacres (now renamed List of events named massacres), is that they are often subjects of original research, inexperienced editors frequently find some example of what they think is an annexation or a massacre and add it, often with no sources or non-reliable ones. It is a common mistake that inexperienced editors make. Like calling aircrew terrorist because the are employed in "terror bombing", words like tyrant, annexation, genocide and massacre are often used to describe people and events from a specific POV. The words used often carry emotive overtones, and are often used in sources by people who are making a point. During the troubles in Northern Ireland, US media such as CNN did not label IRA members terrorists nor did much of the US government (while the British--with the exception or Reuters--habitually did). However once the US was under attack by people using similar methods to the IRA, then those people were labelled terrorists by most of the US media and by the US government.

It took a long time to do it, but eventually myself with others succeeded in persuading the editors who frequently edit the Al-Qaeda to remove the use of terrorist from the passive narrative voice of the article and instead explain which authorities call the group terrorists. I think it is a better article for it. However there is no shortage of reliable sources that use terrorist as an adjective when referring to "Al-Qaeda terrorists".

It is for this reason that we have a link from terror bombing to the article and the section Strategic bombing#Enemy morale and terror bombing, before this was done Wikipedia had two article one on Strategic bombing and one on terror bombing that back in 2009 was becoming a list of any air attack that had ever been called terror bombing. Such a list might be useful if one was to turn it on its head and ask in each case why the claimant used the emotive term "terror bombing" instead "bombing", but even so one would probably have to restrict it to informative examples and it would be difficult to find a reliable sources that had done such an analysis so that the article/list was not OR. By its nature a list of "terror bombing" was only ever going to be a subset of all strategic and tactical bombing, although one of the reasons for strategic bombing is to break the morale of the targeted population (in emotive words terrorise them into submission or "shock and awe to use one such euphemism).

As an encyclopaedia, lists of every event that has ever been called "a something"" falls foul of the WP:NOT (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) an example I like to use is a why not create a "list of all the armies that use black boots" (WP:INDISCRIMINATE and OR). One way to help keep rampant OR/POV under control with list is to use a definition. This is why the list of massacres is now called "List of events named massacres", and why it is useful to try to keep lists in articles such as annexation under control by making it a list of examples.

In this case both of the references Onceinawhile has presented are talking about annexation prior to the changes in international law in 1949. This is not much help for someone wishing to understand what annexation means in a the 21st century. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving from below@PBS: I see from [1] this edit 10 years ago you that you don't think there should be examples here from before 1949. You made a similar comment at the AfD. Other editors in the various threads above argued against you, but you fended them all off single handedly (and apparently against consensus) with indirect arguments. Are there any policies or guidelines you can point to which support your position here? Because, irrespective of your "other stuff exists" refutation, Wikipedia common practice is relevant, and the lists at Outline_of_war#History_of_war suggest your concerns that an open timeframe "will inevitably lead to the list expanding" are not widely considered to be a problem by the community.

I have read and reread your posts above, but nowhere have you explained (a) why 1949 in particular, and not any other milestone date in the history of international law; (b) whether you really think your position achieved consensus on this point from all the discussions you had over the last 10 years on this talk page; (c) what policies and guidelines support your position; and (d) whether you really believe that your position reflects accepted community practice for important lists across the encyclopaedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: You and I share the same views and objectives on this. I have worked on a similar matter at List of pogroms, where a different but related solution was found for the problem you describe above (like List of events named massacres, it was narrowed down only to those commonly named "pogrom", with a similar set of requirements, with footnotes added against those events where the appelation has been disputed in the scholarly community).

As to the read across to this article, as I have said above and below, it appears you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the use of the word annexation. Or if not a misunderstanding, you are choosing to use your own definition, whereby an annexation is only an annexation if it is legal in international law and recognized by the international community. In scholarly sources it is not used in just this most narrow of senses.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The list is not separate you created a separate list (as you did here) and the outcome of an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named pogrom was to put incorporate it into the article Pogrom! -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a piped redirect. It is a much better use of everyone's time to focus on the content instead of these split-merge nonsense debates. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, can you please explain what you think readers are looking to understand when coming to this article? Do you think they are not interested in what annexation meant prior to the Geneva Conventions? And then please explain how you consider the prose you have added back under "examples" helps to achieve that goal. We can then remove the chaff in a consensual manner. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

First point to make is that I did not add most of these entries, and I am not necessarily in agreement with all of them being used as an examplex. But the format of text allows for an explanation and the pros and cons of the situation including the who says it was an annexation and how claims otherwise. A table tends to be far more binary in its format. I this case take the first one "A condemnation of the action by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was vetoed by the Soviet Union." this explains why the UN did not take an active role in this particular annexation.

Now for one from the List of annexations since World War II the very title states that what is included is an annexation (that is POV statement). Ogaden which I presume means British Somaliland. Who says it was an annexation and not a cession and amalgamation? -- PBS (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that you are "not necessarily in agreement with all of them being used as an examples" has rekindled my infuriation at your behaviour. Why on earth did you dig them out of four month old archives and add them all back then?! Even the Cyprus one. Four months is a long time. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert of your delete is the first step. I deleted Turkey because over and above the merit of the text, it was obviously a cut an past job just dumped into the examples and so was a copyright violation as no recent edit clear marked it as a copy (see WP:COPYWITHIN). Infact much of the text was copied from the article Northern Cyprus without the attribution (see Revision as of 12:31, 9 February 2017).

I think it would be a mistake to have reverted and simultaneously changed the text, and I do not think that significant changes should be made to the examples until after the AfD is finished (after all the list may be kept). It is you who asked at the start of this section "and focus on the actual content." which is what I am doing, and so please explain why you think "Ogaden" should be included and what are the sources for justifying inclusion. -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, British Somaliland is today known as Somaliland. It has nothing to do with the Ogaden, other than geographical adjacency and the same Ethnic group. Ogaden was annexed to Abyssinia (later Ethiopia) in the late 19th century, under the expansionist Menelik II. It later passed into Italian hands and then British during WWII.

In 1954, the British allowed Ethiopia to "reassume jurisdiction".[2]. I am not aware of any sources referring to the 1954 act as an annexation. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have no reliable secondary sources that state an annexation took place why did you include "In 1954, former British Ogaden (a Somali Region) was annexed by Abyssinia" in the list List of annexations since World War II (Revision as of 23:39, 21 March 2017)? -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Touché.

Having said which, making an oversight is one thing, whereas non-collaboration, ignoring status quo, edit warring in order to manipulate the outcome of a discussion and ignoring numerous challenges (all still unanswered) to huge amounts of text added or deleted, are quite another. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile like the Ogaden entry you added the following Karki, Barxudarlı, Yuxarı Əskipara, Artsvashen all "de facto annexed" to List of annexations since World War II without any inline ciations, what ar the reliable secondary sources that makes this claim for each of these places and is it a commonly held opinion (eg a UN resolution; or for example: an opinion held by a number of academics, or neutral news sources)? -- PBS (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This one I had researched at the time (I think only the Ogaden I overlooked because I mixed up the previous annexations of the same region). However, I will not answer your questions until you start answering mine. One way traffic is not an appropriate way to collaborate. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Shrug! "whereas non-collaboration, ignoring status quo" Please see the comments on this page by user:Kautilya3 and I would remind you that your removal of text has also been reverted by another editor user:Geohem. While you claim 4 months had gone by (and silence implies consent) it was less than than that and only two intermediate edits that did to alter the text:

• 12:06, 13 April 2017‎ J 1982 (11,005 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (added Category:Latin words and phrases using HotCat)
• 19:11, 9 July 2017‎ Tobby72 (11,594 bytes) (+589)‎ . . (add images)

Also I have explained to you why I have reverted you deletion and await the outcome of the AfD to see if the consensus is to keep it here or have a separate list.

"edit warring in order to manipulate the outcome of a discussion" presumably as no other editor was involved you are stating that you thought you were edit warring (as it take two to tango). Personally I do not consider that we were involved in an edit war.

I could go on but your recent statements seem to me to be a long way from your opening statement in this section perhaps we could move on from the arguments about formatting and splitting, and focus on the actual content. You don't appear to care about treating other editors with respect, so I am not going to waste my time on critiquing your behavior any further. So perhaps you would like to answer my question about content. --PBS (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

When I said until you start answering mine I didn't mean this argument about behavior (I disagree with a number of your interpretations above, but don't consider further debate to be a good use of our time). I meant the three bullets about content at the top of this thread.

Either way, I consider your post above to be an attempt at reconciliation. So I will answer your Armenia / Azerbaijan questions. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly my attempt to replicate my research is not coming with the literal description that "x, y and z" were annexed. There are very few, if any, true WP:RS which cover the subject of these four tiny enclaves, because they held little population and were of little significance to the wider war. What is clear is that they all had their populations expelled p.156, and they are all administered by the acquring power under their normal provinces in a manner no different to the rest of their territories. So this is definitely a de facto annexation, but I cannot find a single WP:RS which covers this matter in appropriate depth or technical language to source it directly. Better remove it then. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Per your initiation of Talk:Pogrom#RfC: Pogrom list inclusion criteria and the RfC on Talk:List of ethnic cleansing campaigns that I initiated, you must be aware that "So this is definitely a de facto annexation, but I cannot find a single WP:RS" means that inclusion is WP:OR. -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly why I removed it. It was originally drafted by @Zntrip: at List of military occupations: [3]. Zntrip, can you provide sources for this? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: What's the specific question? I apologize, but I do not have time to catch up on this discussion. – Zntrip 01:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zntrip: in [4] this edit, you added that these four Armenia/Azeri enclaves were "de facto annexed". I am sure this is correct (for example this blog [5] explains it), but we need WP:RS. Do you have any WP:RS to support your "de facto annexed" statement? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: No, I do not. I believe I was just relying on the individual articles of those enclaves for that assertion. – Zntrip 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Copied from above "I see from [6] this edit 10 years ... Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)" Far too many questions. To answer in own go but to explain the reasons for 1949. It is the same reason as why the List of military occupations starts with the Hague Convention of 1907. That is an arbitrary cut of date, but it is meaningful because those in the list are defined under the current meaning of military occupation. The further back in time one goes the more arbitrary the definition of military occupation. Likewise with Annexation. The ICRC footnotes in the section explain why 1949 is the most significant date. The examples given should help the reader understand the practical interpretation of the 1949 conventions and not be a exhaustive list. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point at all. 1949 simply changed the ability to avoid human rights protections under annexation. It did not, in itself, change what annexation is or make annexation more difficult or less legal. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Annexation in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law

See [7].

We should use this source to rewrite the article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Why? I have not come across this as a standard text. Is it used as a text book in your jurisdiction? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It is considered THE standard reference work in international law. I have added a source to the article itself.[8]. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Commentry on GCIV

@ Onceinawhile thus making it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation There was citation covering this. Removing it and then asking for a citation is strange. -- PBS (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Onceinawhile If you would like to explain what it is that you wish to change in this paragraph and why then lets discuss it. -- PBS (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sure. That goes for your removal of the tag as well please.

My points:

• The ICRC source does not say what the text says it does. I corrected this in my version (see [9])
• The ICRC source does not support the text in green in your above
• Article 49 and Protocol I relate to occupation, not annexation. Wrong article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote in a previous section: "I don't understand your point at all. 1949 simply changed the ability to avoid human rights protections under annexation" but it did change annexation. see the comemtry by theICRC

• Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.Commentary on Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories Art. 47 by the ICRC

-- PBS (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have read that many times. The entire article is about "INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS". Please quote the exact part of the source you are aiming at explicitly, so we can discuss properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

See the section on annexation in the commentary, and this sample paragraph:

It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation"

My emphasis. Annexation is part of a larger change in international law that explicitly made wars of conquest illegal. -- PBS (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The words "unlawful character of annexation" imply clearly that annexation can be done, it is just illegal. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The footnote (5) against this quote links to:[10]

In its report, the ICRC had proposed the following text: "In case of annexation of the whole or part of an occupied State by the occupying Power, the civilian population of the occupied country shall, until the signature of final peace treaties, enjoy the rights guaranteed by the present Convention". One delegate pointed out that this wording seemed to recog­ nize, to a certain degree, the legality of a total or partial annexation during hostilities. To obviate this misunderstanding it was decided to add the word "alleged" before "total or partial annexation". The Conference, going further than the ICRC proposal, considered it useful to provide also for the case of :changes in institutions or government carried out by the occupying State. The meeting was further of opinion that the expression "until the signature of the peace treaties" was ambiguous and inadequate, and that it should be deleted.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And footnote (6) links to:[11]

p.663 Mr. MEULBLOK (Netherlands) drew attention to a discrepancy between the English and French texts of the Convention..The French text covered the possibility of annexation which was not referred to in the English text. The omission was preferable, since annexation in time of war was not recognized under international law. The Netherlands Delega­ tion would suggest that if it was desired to keep the provision in the French text, the word "annexion" should be replaced by some such expression. as "infraction au statut".... Mr. DE GEOUFFRE DE LA PRADELLE (Monaco) supported the proposal of the Netherlands Dele­ gate. Certain theories tended to confuse occupation with annexation, but such theories should be repu­ diated as contrary to positive international law. It was essential that no text should be adopted which might throw doubt on the legality of occupation.
p.773 Colonel Du PASQUIER (Switzerland)... A reference to annexation, to be found only contained in the French version of the Stockholm text, had been omitted in the draft adopted by the Drafting Committee, since certain delegations had observed that a unilateral annexation in time of war was inadmissible in international law.... Mr. CLATTENBURG (United States of America) felt that it was immaterial whether a reference to "annexation" was made or not, as the Article, as drafted, applied to all cases of occupation in time of war, including so-called "annexation".
p.827 The Committee has decided to accept the text of Article 43 as it was presented to the Stockholm Conference, in place of the text adopted at that Conference. Apart from drafting changes, the text now accepted provides that no annexation. of the whole or part of an occupied territory by an Occupying Power can deprive the persons in the territory of the benefits of the Convention.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Also:

As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts.

If exchange of territory involve in a treaty then it is cession and amalgamation no an annexation.

@Onceinawhile thus making it much more difficult for a state to bypass international law through the use of annexation There was citation covering this. Removing it and then asking for a citation is strange, so why did you do it? -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Re the citation - because the citation does not support those words directly. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: the Max Planck source below should hopefully have ended this debate. Please can we now cut this section down as I proposed? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: I note you are now busy elsewhere. Now we have a source explicitly showing how international law regarding annexation evolved (not just regarding protection of human rights in annexed military occupations, I will fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

The lead included a number of unsourced sentences which I have tried and failed to find support for.

I have removed them all here.[12]

If anyone wishes to add them back, please bring a source.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Western New Guinea

I have removed this section as uncited. I have searched for sources supporting its inclusion, but I cannot find a single one describing it as "annexed". Transfer actually took place under the terms of the 1962 New York Agreement. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Examples since 1949 - starting afresh

The thread above has become too complex, and appears to have run out of steam. Please comment on the proposals below:

1. Change 1949 to 1928 - i.e. the Kellogg–Briand Pact
2. Add examples pre 1928 - to illustrate the differences (since scholars do exactly this when describing the concept of annexation)
3. Separate ininhabited from inhabited - we should not be mixing annexation of uninhabited territories with those of inhabited territories. International laws such as the Geneva Convention apply to protection of civilians, not to rocks, so annexation is very different when there are no people involved.
4. Separate legally recognized from unrecognized - this would be a useful separation for readers
5. Consistency and focus - these examples all appear to be trying to convey different things, almost as a bunch of random facts. Much of the text in there is irrelevant to the actual act of annexation. I propose we restructure this to focus on the debate around the legality of each of these annexations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am busy at the moment on other things. However

1. No, It is confusing.
2. No, there are no need for example before 1949 and they will be confusing, particularly as it includes illegal annexations by the Axis powers. All that is needed is the comment that some annexations prior to 1950 were illegal and hence the chance in international law.
3. No the examples post 49 are useful to show that a few annexations can take place because some territory is/was not territory of a sovereign state that is a member of the UN. This is part of the justification that Israel uses for some of its annexations.
4. No there is no separation post 1949, because annexation is either recognised or illegal they are illegal under international law.
5. Yes. I agree that they ought to me more focused. See for example the conversion above about Tibet.

I do not thing that long quotes in citations are needed in the article (and they are confusing), particularly as they are selctive. If they are needed (because an editor queries the content then they can be placed on the talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS:

2. What exact change in international law you are referring to? 1949 is a red herring. Also, there were a lot less Axis WWII annexations than you appear to be implying. How many true annexations do you consider there were? Also leaving out the Anschluss is excluding one of the most famous examples of annexation is world history - it seems very strange.

3. That is an interesting point and should be incorporated in this article. Please can you bring sources?

4. Can you explain further? You seem to be saying "there is no separation because there is a separation"?!

On the quotes, can we please leave these for others to comment. The term is complex - this article has misunderstood it for a decade - so the extra clarity may be helpful for readers and editors alike. I participated in a recent WP:AN discussion at which the question of quotes in footnotes was discussed. A number of editors suggested it is best practice that all articles on complex or controversial topics should aspire to.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am opposed to giving examples from before 1949 because most of the world had been annexed or otherwise controlled by the European powers. It is not proper to ignore them and talk as if the "first world" is the only thing that existed. The decolonisation after the Second World War was also pretty chaotic as the newly independent countries consolidated. It is hard to get NPOV information about these events. So, I think 1949 is a good starting point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaitilya, colonization is not the same as annexation. Annexations were comparatively rare even in the late 19th century.

If you don't believe me, can you provide a source for your claim? Proving a negative is not always straightforward, but if I am wrong you should be able to disprove me easily.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Try these references:

• Fisher, Michael Herbert (1996). The Politics of the British Annexation of India, 1757-1857. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-563920-9.
• Cook, Matthew A. (4 December 2015). Annexation and the Unhappy Valley: The Historical Anthropology of Sindh’s Colonization. BRILL. pp. 21–. ISBN 978-90-04-29367-0.
• Walker, Eric Anderson (1963). The Cambridge History of the British Empire. CUP Archive. pp. 519–. GGKEY:J4RZC934KC3.
• Marshall, P. J. (2 August 2001). The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 388–. ISBN 978-0-521-00254-7.

I don't mean to suggest that the British were the only ones to annex overseas lands, but they are the ones I am most familiar with. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right that these are annexations. But they were annexations to the East India Company, not to Great Britain itself. Colonies were rarely formally annexed to the "mother country" - exceptions such as the 1908 annexation of the Belgian Congo and the 1848 annexation of French Algeria were unusual. However, even these were rarely true annexations as we use the word today, since citizenship rights were usually not extended to the "native" population. This book gives an interesting overview:

Koskenniemi, Martti (29 November 2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960. Cambridge University Press. pp. 151–. ISBN 978-1-139-42943-6.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the topic of the page is Annexation. A Wikipedia page is supposed to cover everything reliable sources say about the topic.

I agree that, in some sense, the European nations were more sophisticated than the rest of the world in the discourse of law and diplomacy before 1949. But the rest of the world sees it merely as game-playing to cover up what they see as lawlessness. So I maintain that 1949 is a good starting point. By then a level playing field had been established in the world and we can cover events equitably. What happened prior to that should be regarded as "History of annexation", and should be covered in all its aspects, Companies or otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ok, that makes sense and I am happy with that.

Are you ok with 1945 rather than 1949? 1945 is the date of the United Nations Charter. 1949 is a misunderstanding introduced by another editor who mixed up human rights with sovereignty transfer. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No. There was no level playing field in 1945. Until the United Nations reached roughly the present size, it was still a world dominated by the European powers. As I already mentioned, 'decolonisation' would have been pretty chaotic all around the world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: see [13] for growth in UN membership. 1949 is a red herring. We need to pick a firm date grounded in whatever is most relevant. Scholarship suggests 1928 was the key date. I am proposing 1945 as a middle ground, even though the idea that there were dozens of annexations during WWII is nonsense. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the feed through the UN was slow. But many of these countries were independent for several years before they became members. For example, Ceylon was a Dominion in 1948 and "United States of Indonesia" was formed in 1949 and so on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What has that got to do with 1949? Why not 1951 or 1947, or an equally random date of 4:59pm in the afternoon on 7 February 1946? Or the date of the United Nations Charter.

This all seems like an academic discussion - what annexations between 1945 and 1949 are we actually talking about excluding/including? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

1949 is a useful year because that is the year the GCIV came about. As the ICRC Commentary on Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section III : Occupied territories Art. 47 makes clear:

4. 'Annexation' ...

4. ' Annexation ' As was emphasized in the commentary on Article 4 [Link] , the occupation of territory in wartime is essentially a temporary, de facto situation, which deprives the occupied Power of neither its statehood nor its sovereignty; it merely interferes with its power to exercise its rights. That is what distinguishes occupation from annexation, whereby the Occupying Power acquires all or part of the occupied territory and incorporates it in its own territory (4). Consequently occupation as a result of war, while representing actual possession to all appearances, cannot imply any right whatsoever to dispose of territory. As long as hostilities continue the Occupying Power cannot therefore annex the occupied territory, even if it occupies the whole of the territory concerned. A decision on that point can only be reached in the peace treaty. That is a universally recognized rule which is endorsed by jurists and confirmed by numerous rulings of international and national courts. And yet the Second World War provides us with several examples of "anticipated annexation", as a result of unilateral action on the part of the victor to dispose of territory he had occupied. The population of such territories, which often covered a wide area, did not enjoy the benefit of the rules governing occupation, were without the rights and safeguards to which they were legitimately entitled, and were thus subjected to whatever laws or regulations the annexing State wished to promulgate. Aware of the extremely dangerous nature of such proceedings, which leave the way open to arbitrary actions and decisions, the Diplomatic Conference felt it necessary to stipulate that actions of this [p.276] nature would have no effect on the rights of protected persons, who would, in spite of them, continue to be entitled to the benefits conferred by the Convention. It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation" (5). Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it (6). A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

GCIV removed a lot of wiggle room for states to annex territory (see GCIV of 12 August 1949 Articles 151-153 (page 222)). So post GCIV which was signed on 12 August 1949 and came into force 21 October 1950 ("Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949". ICRC: Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries. 23 March 2010.) is the best place to start a list of annexations under modern IHL. PBS (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Why Tibet does not belong

The Lhasa government claimed independence after the Chinese Revolution of 1911-12. But no recognised sovereign state ever accepted this. Moreover, the current Dalai Lama was installed with the approval of the Chinese government:

“The Kuomintang’s party song, which is also the Chinese national anthem, will be sung by Tibetan masses for the first time in history at the general enthronement ceremony on the first day of the festival.

“The ‘white sun in the blue sky’ flag on the Chinese government will hang in the main ceremonial hall, while the streets of Lhasa will be decorated with the flag and similar bits of bunting.

“All these, Tibetan sources pointed out, mark ‘the cordial friendship and political ties between Tibet and the central government’…

“The Chungking [Chongqing] government was quick to take advantage of an invitation to participate in the enthronement ceremonies. China hopes to establish better political and economic relations with its Tibetan provinces, and ultimately open up new trade routes making available the vast mineral resources of the area.

“Greater friendship and cooperation also is aimed at growing Japanese influence in Tibet… 100 Japanese ‘lamas’ are now studying at various monasteries. Nominally they are disciples of Buddha, but actually they act as Japanese secret service agents.

“These ‘lamas’, the Tibetans sad, have been fomenting anti-Chinese and anti-British feeling in Tibet, although ‘not too successfully’. Their activities, it was reported, had created enemies for them who are starting an anti-Japanese movement to clear Tibet of all Japanese influence."

(The Billings Gazette, February 18th 1940, found in an on-line newspaper archive. https://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/tibet/the-truth-about-the-dalai-lama/#_Toc417132734)

Suppressing a secessionist movement is not annexation.

'Annexation' only applies when the territory was not previously claimed, or the annexing country had for a time repudiated the claim. Whatever else you think about the issue, this was blatantly not the case for Tibet.--GwydionM (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything "blatant" about the issue, which is highly contested. But I agree that it is impossible for Wikipedia to decide whether Tibet was "annexed" or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People legitimately disagree about whether it was a good thing. But that it was legal is not at all ambiguous. No one ever recognised it as sovereign.--GwydionM (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

See the article Simla Accord (1914). No state recognised Tibet as a sovereign state. The last state to recognise it as a suzerainty of China was Britain which changed its position in 2008. While the sending of troops under the command of Beijing (Peking) can been seen as a breach of Tibet's semi-autonomy, it was not an annexation even if one took the British position prior to 2008. To include Tibet in this list is in my opinion to include an act that the majority of reliable sources (member states of the UN and the UN security council) do not consider to be an annexation. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of the dominant Interpretation

There are Scholars of international law who reject the Reading of an Annexation.--Janos Hajnal (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Rather than remove the section, add the criticisms, with references. Also note the lack of a regular government, see https://labouraffairsmagazine.com/past-issues/2015-magazine/2015-07-magazine/2015-07-ukraine-illegally-removed-its-elected-president/. --GwydionM (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Austrian scholar of international law Michael Geistlinger takes the line that no Annexation took place.--Janos Hajnal (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

See my reply in the section #Meaning of "annexation" "Just because a population of a territory wants the territory to be annexed,..."

If one looks at the wording of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (1815) it is startling to modern eyes just how states treated territory and populations. The best way to think of it is as farmers discussing farmland and animal herds. The developments of international law mainly pushed by American administrations post the two world wars was to emphasise the rights of nationalities to choose their own form of self-determination. This works fine when the nation state represents one nationality. It becomes much more difficult under internations law when there are several national groups within a state, because of the concepts of state sovereignty, territorial integrate of a state, and non-interference in the internal affairs by other states.

The problem with the ideas of self-determination and international law is described briefly in paragraph four of the article "self-determination", because if the state in which the national group resides rejects their right to self-determination (for any of the reasons given in that paragraph), then it runs into the older concepts of state (also called "national") sovereignty.

In an ideal world states would act like Britain did over the Scottish referendum process. Ie allowing it in the first place, and if the Scots had voted for independence then as far as the "Auld Enemy" (the English) were concerned they could fcuk off and if they wanted to join the EU then that was their business. The trouble is that many governments of sovereign states are not willing to give up territory or people, so in cases like Crimea, whether or not the people voted for it, if the sovereign state that is recognised as the holder of the territory rejects independence, and another state takes the territory, then the majority of other sovereign states are likely to consider it an annexation, either because not to do so might threaten their own territorial integrity (think of the Spanish government's reaction to the possibility of Scotland applying to join the EU), or because they see it as a means by which a rogue state could peruse an aggressive conquest of territory by stirring up unrest and under the pretence of helping minorities (think Germany 1938 and the Sudetenland) invade.

In summary I agree with GwydionM, if there is serious disarrangement (but it must meet the requirements of the WP:NPOV policy—WP:WEIGHT) then mention it. If an event post 1949 is held to be an annexation in most reliable sources/states then it ought not be removed, just because a minority of sources state that it is not. -- PBS (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Could people stop lying about Hong Kong?

The facts are simple. The core of Hong Kong was owned by the British Empire. The 'New Territories' were leased and automatically reverted in 1997.

Thatcher decided to give back even the core of this British property to China. It was anyway not viable if China had closed the border.

Then Chris Patten came along. He could not be bothered to say 'Beijing' in place of the old name Peking. He ruled a fair chunk of the world's Hakka without noticing their existence. But he had the bright idea of telling Hong Kong they would get Western freedoms - even though all of them were shut out of Britain and anywhere else they might want to emigrate to.

People seem to have forgotten that the British Empire never gave the ordinary Chinese of Hong Kong any self-government at all, until then.

Never have governed itself, it could not be annexed. Its owner gave it away and the people came with it.

People seem not to know these basic facts. --GwydionM (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Without opining on the merits of your statements, Hong Kong is not even mentioned in this article about annexations. Perhaps you meant your comment for Talk:Hong Kong? — JFG ^talk 11:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the history. Someone keeps trying to add it. --GwydionM (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@GwydionM: Howdy hello! One person tried to add it, and it was reverted promptly seeing as it was unsourced. Doesn't really seem like an issue at all to me. Until someone finds a reliable source saying it was an annexation, it won't be in the article. Oh, and Gwydion - don't forget to properly format your talk page entries by adding an increasing number of colons to each reply. Happy editing! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)