Talk:Associated state

Recognition

Are associated states recognised as independent states by geographical/political associations? —RadRafe 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The constitutional status of the associated states of the US and New Zealand really are quite different. The answer to your question is yes for the United States, no for New Zealand.

Roadrunner 23:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Bringing in discussion from List of states with limited recognition . Why no for New Zealand? Cook Islands and Niue have diplomatic relations in their own name and are members of the Pacific Islands Forum, the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, etc.Ladril (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's here, one of the main reasons that I'm sure the rest of the world sees it would be this point: "The residents of those islands share citizenship with New Zealand." The others do not have that same status. So unless that link is broken & an open declaration is made on independence, then it won't be seen as the same. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First, let's try not to make unsubstantiated generalizations here (I'm talking about the "rest of the world" part). Both Cook and Niue are party to many international organizations which are only open to independent states, and they have diplomatic relations as independent states with several other states. You can't have diplomatic relations & ambassadors in other countries if you do not claim to be an independent state and are not recognised as such by others. As I said in the other page, the Joint statement between New Zealand and Cook Islands, which specifies that New Zealand does not qualify the statehood of Cook Islands and specifies its right to conduct its foreign relations as a sovereign state, is revealing. Another fact is that New Zealand, Cook Islands and Niue have exchanged ambassadors with each other, a formality which would not be needed if they were all part of the same state.

1) Citizenship. Originally a concept defined in the Greek city-states, was for a long time understood as tying the person to a specific state, but that is no longer true today. The most salient example is that today it is possible to be a citizen of a supranational entity (the European Union). However, it is also possible to be a citizen of an entity which is not a sovereign state (like Puerto Rico and New Caledonia). There are also states which extend citizenship to jurisdictions that are not part of them (the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK, but their inhabitants have UK citizenship). So in practice it is also possible for two or more sovereign states to share a common citizenship. Besides, the issue of common citizenship is not as defining as people think - New Zealand citizens from outside both the Cook Islands and Niue do not have the same rights to live and work in those jurisdictions as the nationals do.

2) Declaration of independence. Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau have never declared independence. They moved directly from UN Trusteeship to Compacts of Free Association with the US. Has that prevented them from being treated as sovereign states in the international arena? Then why is this ever-recurring argument against Cook Islands and Niue keep coming up? I'm not trying to argue that CK and Niue are formally independent, but instead that states in free association are in fact considered to be sovereign states and as such they ought to be listed as such, or else Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau should get crossed out. Ladril (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to bring a little historical perspective here. When the UN started its decolonization efforts in the sixties, they adopted Resolution 1541, which can be found in full text here. The spirit of this resolution is that territories considered to be non-self governing (such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Cook Islands and Niue, all of which were listed by the UN as non-self governing) had three choices to pursue self-government: integration with an existing state, independence, or free association. A state which is in free association with another is not a protectorate or a dependency of the other state, and thus listing Cook Islands and Niue in the List of dependent territories is not correct. Free association is not a surrender of sovereignty; it is basically an option (and an act of self-determination) for small nations which do not have the resources necessary to become viable independent states. States in free association are, however, treated by other states (their associates included) as sovereign states, because that's what they are in practice. Ladril (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So this does not get branded as original research, see this | opinion by a law scholar:

"From 1901 to 1965 the Cook Islands was administered by New Zealand as a dependent territory.

In 1965 the Cook Islands became self-governing in free association with New Zealand following an act of self-determination in accordance with United Nations decolonisation norms. The act of self-determination was the consequence of a parliamentary election in which the successful party had campaigned on the basis that it would enter into a relationship of free association with New Zealand."

"The partnership

relationship requires that the two Heads of Government consult on a regular basis in the interests of the partnership."

"The arrangement is entrenched by constitutional convention. This means that the Government of

the state of New Zealand has no power to administer or legislate for the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 was an act of denial of power. The arrangement has the approval and support of the international community as a consequence of the act of self-determination."

"The Cook Islands is responsible for the conduct of its international relations. The New Zealand

Government provides assistance when requested and where appropriate. The only constraint on the Cook Islands in the exercise of its foreign affairs is the commitment to the shared values of the common citizenship it shares with New Zealand. This means that there is on the part of the New Zealand Government an expectation of a common approach on key issues of international policy e.g. the one China policy, and respect for international human rights. New Zealand retains some responsibilities for the external affairs and defence of the Cook Islands. These responsibilities, however, confer no rights of control to the New Zealand Government and can only be acted on at the request of and on behalf of the Government of the Cook Islands."

"The distinctive feature of the Cook Islands legal situation is that the Cook Islands is not within

another state. It is a separate state but with special links to the state of New Zealand. This special relationship has arisen because of the colonial links between the Cook Islands and New Zealand. The present status evolved from the earlier colonial status.

"The Cook Islands and New Zealand share a number of things. Most visible is that they share a

Head of State. Both countries are within a constitutional structure identified as the Realm of New Zealand. The Sovereign of New Zealand is by law the Sovereign of the Realm of New Zealand. From that common starting point, the three states in the Realm have Heads of State who are identified as the Head of State “in Right of New Zealand” which means “in right of the Realm of New Zealand”. In the governing prerogative document, the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand, the state of New Zealand is identified as “New Zealand” and the Cook Islands as “the self-governing state of the Cook Islands”.

"Other matters in common are citizenship and currency. The Cook Islands has the privilege of

citizenship of the state of New Zealand. The grant of that citizenship is under the sole control of the state of New Zealand. The Cook Islands could establish its own citizenship but has not done so. The use of currency is a matter totally under the control of the Cook Islands Government. The current legislation provides for the New Zealand dollar to be legal tender.

"The Cook Islands situation might best be described as inchoate independence. The Cook Islands

governs itself both internally and externally but has chosen to have a relationship in the nature of a partnership with another state. This is not unlike the situation that would be achieved by two states through a treaty of friendship. A treaty of friendship would be a more formal way of doing what is already being done by the Cook Islands and New Zealand in a largely informal way. A treaty could deal with economic support, with mutual defence arrangements and with diplomatic representation. There is no legal reason why the Cook Islands and New Zealand could not have their relationship regulated by a treaty between them. Such a treaty would have to include provision for access to New Zealand citizenship by the people of the Cook Islands; that citizenship provision would not typically be found in a treaty of friendship.

"The Cook Islands could at any time and without consultation or approval of New Zealand

declare itself to be independent and no longer in a relationship of free association with New Zealand."

And a source written by the New Zealand government about Niue, see http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Countries/Pacific/Niue.php#bilateral :

Niue is a country “self-governing in free association with New Zealand”. This means:

- Niue is self-governing with the power to make its own laws. New Zealand cannot make laws for it, unless authorised or invited by the legislature of Niue to do so. In practice this never happens.

- The Niue Government has full executive powers;

- Niue remains part of the Realm of New Zealand, albeit a separate part, and the Queen in Right of New Zealand remains the Head of State of Niue;

- Niueans hold New Zealand citizenship and have open access to enter, live and work in New Zealand (and therefore also Australia);

- In recognition of constraints imposed by its size and isolation, the Niue Constitution states that New Zealand would retain responsibility for the external affairs and defence of Niue. By convention, these responsibilities confer no rights to the New Zealand Government and can only be acted on at the request of and on behalf of the Government of Niue. The Niue Constitution also commits New Zealand to provide "necessary economic and administrative assistance to Niue".

Ladril (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note that New Zealand and the Cook Islands released a joint statement in 2001 clarifying their mutual relationship, in which they | say:

"AND DESIRING ON THIS CENTENARY to restate the principles underpinning the

relationship of partnership and free association between the Cook Islands and New Zealand as equal States independent in the conduct of their own affairs"

"Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State of the Cook Islands is advised

exclusively by her Cook Islands Ministers in matters relating to the Cook Islands."

"In the conduct of its foreign affairs, the Cook Islands interacts with the

international community as a sovereign and independent state. Responsibility at international law rests with the Cook Islands in terms of its actions and the exercise of its international rights and fulfilment of its international obligations."

"Any action taken by New Zealand in respect of its constitutional responsibilities

for the foreign affairs of the Cook Islands will be taken on the delegated authority, and as an agent or facilitator at the specific request of, the Cook Islands. Section 5 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 thus records a responsibility to assist the Cook Islands and not a qualification of Cook Islands’ statehood."

"The Government of the Cook Islands possesses the capacity to enter into treaties and

other international agreements in its own right with governments and regional and international organisations."

"The Government of the Cook Islands has full legal and executive competence in

respect of its own defence and security. Section 5 of the Cook Islands Constitution Act 1964 thus records a responsibility to assist the Cook Islands and not a qualification of Cook Islands’ statehood." Ladril (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All these historical and legal reasons explain why Cook Islands and Niue are listed in UN websites as nonmember states or countries. Since their current status emanates from acts of self-determination and UN resolutions, the UN accept them as sovereign states (see | here and | here and many of the world's governments treat them as sovereign states. Ladril (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Those last links do not show the UN seeing them as "sovereign states", but as places getting social development. What I also meant above as 'declaration' would also be via referendum. Anyways, I'm not the one that needs to be convinced on how those 2 places are to be viewed as, but I would agree that if they were accepted as full members of the UN as the 3 'associated states with the USA', then I would personally be on your side unequivocally. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not listed as "places", they are listed as "countries", and the reason I put that site as an example here is to highlight the fact that the UN treats both Cook Islands and Niue as sovereign states. They are listed alongside all UN members, which would not be the case if they were considered to be dependent territories (besides, if you open the document links you'll find both governments refer to themselves as "sovereign states" in them). If you need further proof that the UN considers Cook Islands and Niue to be sovereign states, see this link, where they are both listed as states: http://erc.unesco.org/portal/UNESCOMemberStates.asp?language=en

On the same page, you can find that "Membership of the UN carries with it the right to membership of UNESCO. States that are not members of UN may be admitted to UNESCO, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference. Territories or groups of territories that are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members." Thus, since Cook and Niue are full and not associate members of UNESCO, they are recognized by the UN as sovereign. There is also this link: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html where Cook Islands is recognized as a state by the UN, and this UN map: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf where they are listed as states. Also this link if you need further proof: http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2009/unisl126.html

Unlike you, I do not believe that the UN membership does determine who is a sovereign state (if it did, then Switzerland was not a state before 2002, when they joined the UN, and the Holy See still isn't). I am posting here just to make it unequivocally clear that the UN regards both Cook and Niue as sovereign states. Of course, there are people who are never going to be convinced.

The main reason Cook Islands and Niue are not UN members is that they have not made an application (and my personal opinion is that if they made the application today, both would be admitted). We cannot exclude entities that are in all practical respects states just because they are not UN members, however. Ladril (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And also the Commonwealth lists Cook Islands as a sovereign state. See http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140411/140412/cook_islands/ Ladril (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See what they say. "Under the 1965 constitution, Cook Islands is a sovereign state with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and a unicameral legislature, which has exhaustive and (since 1981) exclusive legislative powers (including constitutional reform); the New Zealand House of Representatives cannot legislate under any circumstances in respect of the Cook Islands."

"Under a constitutional relationship, New Zealand may exercise, if requested by Cook Islands, certain responsibilities for its defence. Cook Islands has full constitutional capacity to conduct its own external affairs and to enter directly into international arrangements engaging its international responsibility." Ladril (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And the Cook Islands Prime Minister refers to his own country as a sovereign state here: http://www.cook-islands.gov.ck/view_release.php?release_id=1142 . "There is no question that the potential exists for greater cooperation, collaboration and integration with our Pacific brothers which, in my opinion, can only lead to improved benefits in future for each of us as small island developing sovereign states" . Ladril (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming when I mentioned about the UN: "that the UN membership does not determine who is a sovereign state", which I agree, but that this is of the situation about how the difference between those states in association are with the USA & with NZ. I'm quite certain also that if and when the Cook Islands & Niue do apply to become full members of the UN, that they will both be accepted, although their relational status with NZ may also need to be revised just prior to it's implementation (that being:

1. The Cook Islands remains part of the Realm of New Zealand (albeit a separate part), and the Queen in Right of New Zealand remains the Head of State of the Cook Islands;
2. Cook Islanders retain New Zealand citizenship (and do not have additional Cook Islands citizenship)) and likewise for Niue. http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Countries/Pacific/Cook-Islands.php

So whenever that may occur, then there will no longer be a difference between the two types of associated states mentioned here. P.S.- You also seem to be stressing a lot with the sovereignty situation, which I don't dispute, but I'm just pointing out that since they are not seen as fully independent at the moment, then that is the sticking point others are looking at when it comes to other matters for inclusion (like the List of states with limited recognition). That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The same topic is discussed here. Alinor (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

British dominions

Should British dominions be included as examples of associated states from the Statute of Westminster 1931 until patriation of their respective constitutions? JDM1991 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Patriation is a Canadian doing and the former dominions are not a good example to use within the context here. Those prior to the Statute may have been, but it would be hard to find a source to state they were in such of an agreement. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a link in the see also catagory to connect the two pages at the very least. --184.77.10.72 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging

The article List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others was voted to be merged with this. I started the process. Please contribute with it improving (not undoing) the work. Thanks. 187.36.138.78 (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Aruba and Netherland Antillies (soon to dislove by 10/10/10)

according to the dutch consitution, the relasionship bettewn the netherlands, Aruba, and the other dutch carribean islands is one of a free assosication. Therefore should it not be inculded on this list?--74.60.232.185 (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Already are listed, but will be updated after the 10/10/10 date (unless some unforeseen event occurs beforehand).That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between the Netherlands and the Dutch West Indies IS NOT that of free association. The islands are autonomous but integral parts of the Dutch kingdom. The free association option was included in the status referendums but was not selected by any of the 6 islands that comprise the Dutch West Indies (Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Saba, St. Estatitus, and Dutch St. Martin). 24.46.236.67 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

New Caledonia and French Polynesia

Should these two be listed in the 'other comparable relationships: A dependent and a sovereign state' table? Alinor (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure a lot of places should. It's highly incomplete, and I question it's value at all on this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I suggested these two in particular, because of their large degree of internal self-government. Anyway, you are right that starting such debate is like opening a can of worms... Maybe we should first have an established continuum with clear rules for integral-part/autonomy/dependency/associated/non-self-governing/etc. - and only then start to populate lists, etc. Alinor (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that states should be listed for what they officially claim to be. In this respect, the only entities which satisfy criteria for this page are the associated states of the USA, of New Zealand, and of Great Britain (none of which remain associated today). Maybe a special mention for Puerto Rico because of the wording in its constitution, and that's it. Ladril (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think giving this treatment to French Polynesia and New Caledonia would be offensive to French readers. An important principle of their constitution is that the French Republic is "one and indivisible". If we start listing parts of it as associated states we would be challenging this. For reference, note that the French Wikipedia article on Tahiti specifically states that its relationship to France is not like that of the Cook Islands to New Zealand. Ladril (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No-one thinks that Tahiti is an associated state, and no-one is saying it is. The proposal is that it is on the table of dependent territories, of which French Polynesia is one. (Although it has the official title of Overseas country) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's the point of listing it in page where it doesn't belong? Unless substantiated by reliable sources, comparing Tahiti's political status to that of Micronesia or Niue would constitute original research. Ladril (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem with the section. The inclusion of other idea is probably useful for the article, but there is a lack of sources discussing political situations (though there must be hundreds out there). I've questioned the use of the tables before, but the main problem is the old List of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others was merged into this article, and I disagree with completely deleting information. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I problem I see (rereading) you noted in that discussion! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You see? In the merge discussion I was pointing out that the merger would result in an incoherent page. Not that I advocate keeping a page of sovereign states with affairs controlled by others (I think it should have been either heavily reformulated or deleted). However, that decision left us with a mess of a page here. As in the Cook Islands/Niue case, this has shown why the wisdom of crowds often produces disastrous results. Ladril (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the dependent territory section. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC opened on Cook Islands and Niue status

RFC opened on their status here: [[1]]. Editors are invited to participate. Ladril (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cook Islands, Niue

Following recent edits it seems that the paragraph about those two maybe should be somewhat clarified to avoid similar confusions.

• Currently it's the following: The Cook Islands and Niue are not dependencies of New Zealand, and are recognized sovereign states, classified as "Non-member State" by the UN. However, unlike the arrangement between the United States and its associated states, in the case of Cook Islands and Niue there is a retained residual constitutional link with New Zealand in relation to citizenship, that is reduced to the usage of New Zealand passport and privileges for Cook Islanders and Niueans in New Zealand, but nevertheless, in constitutional terms for relations with New Zealand, the Cook Islands (since 1965) and Niue (since 1974) are formally referred to as "state in free association with New Zealand" instead of "independent and sovereign state", despite having this capacity in all other domains besides citizenship, including formal reference and recognition as "independent and sovereign state" in relations with third countries and organizations and bilateral relations of this type, in all but name, with New Zealand.
• I propose changing it to: The Cook Islands and Niue are not dependencies of New Zealand, and are recognized sovereign states, and classified as "Non-member State" by the UN. In foreign relations with third countries and organizations both are formally referenced and recognitized as "independent and sovereign state" and they have bilateral relations of this type, in all but name, with New Zealand. For relations with New Zealand, the Cook Islands (since 1965) and Niue (since 1974) are still formally referred to in constitutional terms as "state in free association with New Zealand" instead of "independent and sovereign state", because they retained a residual constitutional link with New Zealand in relation to citizenship. Nevertheless, the Cook Islands and Niue have full independence and sovereignty in all other domains, and the residual citizenship link is reduced to the usage of New Zealand passport and privileges of New Zealand citizens for Cook Islanders and Niueans while in New Zealand. The Cook Islands and Niue have established their own nationality and immigration regimes.

In the current wording everything after the first sentence is put in one big sentence and goes back and forth between independence and citizenship - repeating the same thing multiple times. The changes that I propose are mostly about arranging the text in sentences that logically follow each other and to avoid multiple repeats of the same points: CI and Niue are not NZ dependencies, but sovereign states. They are referenced as such internationally, but not when dealing with NZ. Because of the residual NZ citizenship link. In other domains there aren't such NZ links. The citizenship link is also one-way only (in NZ). CI and Niue have different regimes for those matters.

Edits proposed (see the result [2]) for breaking up and re-arranging of the second sentence:

• the first sentence remains (about dependencies, sovereign states, UN). Then come parts of the second sentence:

1. the part about international relations and NZ relations references.
2. the part explaining why the NZ relations reference is different from the regular international relations reference (e.g. because of to the residual citizenship link).
3. the part about the independence and sovereignty in the policy domains other than citizenship and about the restrictions on the citizenship link (e.g. that it's one-way).
4. moving one footnote to become a sentence to clarify the one-way nature of the link.

All of the above is done without major additions, deletions or changes to the text - only by moving sentence parts around, replacing some commas with full stops, etc. Japinderum (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The clear consensus is that these two, while sovereign and self-governing in so many elements, are not recognized as fully independent states (see archived talk at List of sovereign states, see Niue, see Cook Islands, see most any atlas or ref. book such as World Factbook, see the US State Dept. list of States and list of dependencies), etc. So any change declaring them as such (a couple of your sentences in your above proposal) conflicts with dozens and dozens of other WP articles and is not correct. In the past both have had independence as an option and voted it down; neither has declared independence.

Yes, NZ and some NZ courts have called them fully independent at times. Look back to the '80's when S. Africa did the same, declaring fully independent states within S. Africa...National Geographic even began showing them as such, but 99.9 % of authorities did not. For a "fully independent" status, or "fully sovereign" if you prefer, what one country, yes, even the "mother" country, declares, does not "cut it" as long as the rest of the world disagrees, as is the case here. Yes, the UN says that they have treaty-making rights and puts them in a special color on some of their maps....neither does that make them fully independent and in the list along with Afgh., Albania, Algeria,....etc.....And WP editors from List of Sovereign States to Niue to dozens of other WP articles agree.....a special status, yes; worthy of listing in special addendums to list of fully independent states, yes. Fully independent, not yet. Perhaps they will soon vote for independence and celebrate an independence day, yes?!DLinth (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DLinth, you copy-pasted above your reply to another comment of mine - one at User_talk:DLinth#Cook_Islands.2C_Niue - and I replied to that there, where I explain why I don't agree with you.

What I propose above is a grammatical tweak to break the sentence and an ordering tweak to remove duplication. If you have comments on grammar and ordering - provide them here, but if you want to propose some drastic changes on your own - please open a separate section and explain what do you propose. Japinderum (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording you propose above is a big improvement to the 8-line run-on sentence that is there, and improves clarity. I would just make the following changes (which deletes just two words of your whole edit, and adds two sentences (below) that I've copied from what a couple other editors wrote:

Instead of "and are recognized sovereign states", instead: "and are recognized as sovereign states in nearly all affairs." and

Instead of "In foreign relations with third countries and organizations both are formally referenced and recognitized as "independent and sovereign state", and they have....", instead: "In foreign relations with third countries and organizations both are formally referenced and recognized as "sovereign states" in most interactions, yet are not considered fully independent states, nor have full UN membership, due in part to their retention of New Zealand citizenship and the lack of a declaration of independence. (Both voted against independence previously, but have the authority to vote for and/or declare independence at any time.) Both have....." (we already have sources for that last sentence which you could delete if you thought that was necessary.)DLinth (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My wording wasn't changing the meaning, but yours does, that's why I don't agree with it (especially in a section about grammar and ordering). See below. Japinderum (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

References

DLinth proposal for changes to above revision

Instead of "and are recognized sovereign states", instead: "and are recognized as sovereign states in nearly all affairs." DLinth (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

what's this "in nearly all affairs." - in which affairs aren't they? Also, this contradicts the source following it. Also see below. Japinderum (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "In foreign relations with third countries and organizations both are formally referenced and recognitized as "independent and sovereign state", and they have....", instead: "In foreign relations with third countries and organizations both are formally referenced and recognized as "sovereign states" in most interactions, yet are not considered fully independent states, nor have full UN membership, due in part to their retention of New Zealand citizenship and the lack of a declaration of independence. (Both voted against independence previously, but have the authority to vote for and/or declare independence at any time.) Both have....." (we already have sources for that last sentence which you could delete if you thought that was necessary.)DLinth (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"... in most interactions" - in which interactions with third countries they aren't?

"yet are not considered fully independent states," - this contradicts the sources. Also, I assume discussion about this on the List of sovereign states already concluded the same and CMD confirmed they both are listed there. So, to avoid further repetition and confusion I will ask you - are CI and Niue listed at the List of sovereign states or not? Please keep in mind that it lists only "fully independent states" - if an entity is not fully independent and has only somehow limited self-governance it isn't included there, but on the list of dependent territories.

"nor have full UN membership," - there is no "not full" UN membership. And also CI and Niue do not have the ad-hoc UNGA observer status (kind of semi-official, because it's not specified in the UN charter), so this remark implying they have some sort of "not full UN membership" seems wrong. Also, the position of the UN (whether it's relevant in the first place, is another issue) is already explained in the first sentence, why repeat it here?

"due in part to their retention of New Zealand citizenship and the lack of a declaration of independence." - is this explaining the lack of "full" UN membership? I'm not aware of any CI or Niue UN application being submitted in the first place, let alone being rejected on such grounds. Also, the "lack of a declaration of independence." is not so uncommon - almost all states that weren't colonized or that haven't forcibly breaked out of foreign control lack such declarations. And more importantly states that evolved in similar manner to CI and Niue also lack such independence declarations - Australia, Canada, NZ.

when have they voted against independence?

CI and Niue, as fully independent states, of course have the authority to change their constitutions however they seem fit, including to break the NZ citizenship preferences they use, at any time they wish. Such changes are conditional only on following the procedures written in the constitution and gaining the specified majorities of parliament members and population vote. No NZ involvement is needed here.[3] If needed we can elaborate on this note further in the notes showing their independence in different policy domains - but then somebody else would want to elaborate on their judical independence, foreign relations independence, defense independence, etc. Japinderum (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The above changes DLinth proposes seem to come from the point of "CI and Niue are not fully independent" - and this contradicts what the sources show. They show that CI and Niue are actually fully independent. The only differentiation is the fact that Cook Islanders and Niueans use NZ passports and enjoy the rights of NZ citizens when going in NZ. This citizenship link is one-way: NZ citizens do not enjoy the rights of Cook Islanders or Niueans when going there. Anyway, because of these unilateral preferences the two states are referred to as "states in free association" when dealing with NZ. But only then. For the rest of the world they are fully independent sovereign states. They are such also for NZ - as clearly stated in the JCD and other sources - NZ doesn't have any rights over CI or Niue in any policy area, including foreign relations and defense, which are commonly restrained in territories that are protectorates, dependencies or "self-governing" in the sense of "less than fully independent". NZ doesn't have rights over CI or Niue also in nationality laws, where both have adopted their own separate and independent legislation. Japinderum (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cook Islands & Niue are not fully independent. Their residents are citizens of NZ. They literally voted, in the only referendum held, against an "independence" (that was the wording) option in a referendum. They have never declared independence. They have no "independence day". Your protestations and parsing of terms aside, they simply are not fully independent states.

Because they are self-governing in so many aspects, consensus among WP editors in a long debate and vote under List of sovereign states was to list them with "others" but not as fully, completely independent. Consensus among editors at about 30 WP articles listing the 190+ independent states is that do not belong in that list (except in an "other" cateogory, always in italics along with Kosovo, N. Cyprus, etc.) and that they are not fully independent. This includes the Niue & Cook Islands WP articles.

The US State Dept. does not include them in their list of independent states on line. Neither does the UN. S. Africa in the 1980's declared as fully independent states parts of their territory, and no international body nor other state recognized that, so any number of pronouncements or legal rulings from NZ have no absolute relevance. An independent state becomes such when the international community as a whole recognizes it.

Kosovo has 80+ states giving it full recognition as an independent state, yet it is not yet a full UN member and WP List of sovereign states in an "other" category, not in the list of fully independent, fully-recognized states, where we find Abhazia, Cook Is., Niue, S. Ossetia, and other states with no full UN membership and full recognition from just a handful (1 to 4 or 5) of the world's 190+ states are listed.

While dramatically different from breakaway republics like Abhazia, CI and Niue have not yet "broken away" fully from NZ and thus fall into that "other" category. The World Factbook, every single atlas publisher on line or in print, every single world map publisher that I've seen, National Geographic, Websters Geographic Dictionary, and other secondary sources (all widely used as WP references) also show CI and Niue as not fully independent, and not in their lists of 190+ independent states; all of these sources continue to link them with New Zealand as associated states. Other associated states (Palau, etc. have different, fully independent arrangements. Some state (including the US) have done treaties with Niue or CI....none of these things alone qualify a state as fully independent.

As one WP editor, I accepted 99% of a lengthy suggested edit above. For me or other editors to accept that last 1% (wording suggesting that CI and Niue are fully independent and belong in the lists of 190+ fully-recognized, fully independent states) will, I suggest, require not efforts by one or more WP editors, and not just some carefully-parsed legal distinctions emanating from NZ or elsewhere. Instead, it will require legal action/resolutions/changes by the UN and/or other international bodies and a large perecentage of states, just as has been the case for the 190+ states currently in the world community of independent states. DLinth (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

See related discussions at User_talk:DLinth#Cook_Islands.2C_Niue and User_talk:Chipmunkdavis#Niue.2C_etc..

DLinth, you repeat the same and the same again as if you didn't read my replies. I asked you about a source for that "referendum against independence". But this is not so important, because even if 40 years ago there was such a vote, things subsequently changed and now they are independent. That's what the sources show and that's what the debate at List of sovereign states (the proper place for such discussion) concluded according to CMD, who confirms that CI and Niue are listed there. I asked whether you disagree with this simple fact - are they listed there or are they not.

NZ doesn't have an independence day, just like many other states, just like CI and Niue.

Kosovo situation is irrelevant to CI and Niue, they have nothing in common.

Please, understand the following - the question whether CI and Niue are "fully independent" or not is addressed at the List of sovereign states. Entities that are not fully independent can not be listed there. That article can not include any "not fully independent" entities - in whatever category ("island states", "states with recognition problem", "other") - there are other articles that deal with "not fully independent" entities. CMD confirms that CI and Niue are listed at List of sovereign states, so for usage in other Wikipedia articles they are fully independent. If you disagree with that - please open a discussion at the appropriate place - List of sovereign states - and request CI and Niue to be removed from that list.

• Discussion about whether CI and Niue are fully independent - apparently this already happened and concluded that they are. That's why they are included in the List of sovereign states article, the appropriate place for such discussion. Bringing arguments against that here (templates, associated state) is unproductive - if you want them removed - please go there. Top, middle or bottom part of that list can not be related to "fully independent" vs. "not fully independent".

I'll try to rephrase - DLinth, you speak about CI and Niue being somehow linked to a Kosovo-like "other" category. What's the criteria for a fully independent sovereign state to be one of those Kosovo-like others? Do you agree that this is the criteria at List of states with limited recognition?

You seem to confuse "full independence" with "UN membership" and the easiest example showing you that those are unrelated is Switzerland before 2002. You also seem to confuse "full independence" with "% of states recognizing another state" - there is no such % rule and in addition commonly states don't bother to issue explicit statements about recognition of each and every other state. About the "legal action/resolutions/changes by the UN and/or other international bodies and a large perecentage of states" - the sources show exactly that - CI and Niue are accepted in the international community as regular states - by the UN, by NZ and by all states. Do you have any source for a state that has some problem or issue with CI or Niue independence (like we have for Kosovo, Palestine, etc.)?

• Number of diplomatic recognitions/relations. Applying Kosovo and Palestine logic to CI and Niue. As explained above the situations are different. Kosovo/Palestine/Taiwan are in a situation of "big international problem, sovereignty/territorial dispute" transpiring into "by default/if unknown - assume lack of recognition" - here there are plenty of sources with explicit statements for both recognition and objections to recognition. CI and Niue are not in this situation. They are like Tuvalu, Nauru, Bhutan, Monaco, Vatican City and any other small ("mostly irrelevant") state - "by default/if unknown - assume no problem with recognition" - few sources about recognition and relations and none sources about big sovereignty/territorial dispute or recognition problem.

"Full independence" means that the government has "full control over permanently populated territory". Whether other governments recognize this fact (diplomatically or unofficially) or not is a separate issue. Whether one or more governments dispute the legality of that state independence, sovereignty, existence, etc. (mostly because of a counter-claim, e.g. "Serbia says Kosovo is not a state, because it's a Serbian province and the permanently populated territory currently controlled by the Republic of Kosovo should be subject to Republic of Serbia control as an autonomous region like Vojvodina") - this is another separate issue.

"Full recognition" means that there is no diplomatic controversy about that state. The list of those controversies is at the List of states with limited recognition.

To say this in other way - there's difference between the following cases:

• a state is fully independent, is not fully (or at all) recognized, is not generally accepted by the international community because of a big dispute (i.e. Kosovo, Taiwan, Somaliland, SADR, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, NKR, TRNC)
• a state is not fully (or at all) independent, is at least partially recognized, is not generally accepted by the international community because of a big dispute (i.e. Palestine, former Government in exile cases that had some recognition)
• a state is fully independent, is not fully recognized, is generally accepted by the international community regardless of partial recognition (i.e. Israel, Cyprus, PRChina, Armenia, South Korea, North Korea)
• a state is fully independent, is fully recognized, is generally accepted by the international community (i.e. the rest, including CI and Niue)

As you can see above the UN membership doesn't come into play (interactions with the UN are part of the "accepted by the international community". But interactions - not membership. States that are not members of the UN are active participants in many international treaties and organizations - this is obvious since states, treaties and organizations exist since long before the UN). Also, you can see that "generally accepted by the international community" is not directly related to a specific number of recognitions a state has - some that have many recognitions such as Kosovo (~90 or ~44%) and Palestine (~130 or ~63%) are excluded - in contrast to some with very limited foreign relations and very small number of explicit recognition statements (such as Bhutan, Nauru, Tuvalu, etc.) who are included.

Please, don't mix up "full independence" (those that have this are included in List of sovereign states) with "full recognition" (those that don't have this are included in List of states with limited recognition) and "acceptance by the international community" (an example as of 2010 are those listed here - a treaty open only to independent sovereign states).

recap - the discussion above is out of topic here. If you want a discussion about whether CI and Niue should be removed from the list of fully independent states - please raise the issue at Talk:List of sovereign states. Instead I would propose that you find the discussion there, where it was decided to include them in the first place (I assume others already have gone trough both your and my arguments). Japinderum (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick additional example - Monaco has much less "independence" than the Cook Islands - France is much more involved in Monaco (border control, trade, tax and other regulations, etc.) than NZ in the Cook Islands. Japinderum (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall comment on page

I think this page needs more balance to accurately describe what an associated state is. For example, the claim that "Free associated states can be described as independent or not, but free association is not a qualification of an entity's statehood or status as a subject of international law." This may be true for the associated states of the U.S. and New Zealand, but does not necessarily apply to other entities. It is unclear the extent to which this applied to the West Indies Associated States or those states considered associated as part of the French Union. The page definitely needs a facelift in this respect. It generalizes too much. Ladril (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Less technical wording too perhaps. Leaving the lead to the side for the moment, we should probably break up all the states in formal association into their own sections? Perhaps grouping FSM/Palau/Marshalls and CI/Niue as lv3 headers under a lv2 header for their country, and then another section for historical ones, perhaps also subdivided into lv3, and the last section for that comparable relationship table (which I don't really know what to do with)? CMD (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a very practical solution for this page, as the number of entries is quite small. Besides, the topic of the page is those states that are in an association relationship, not sovereign states, so I don't see the point of bringing in a division from List of sovereign states that better serves the purposes of that page. If you want to write more details into the Marshall Islands, Micronesia or Palau entries about how they are UN members that's fine, but that should not be the primary focus of the article, in my opinion. Ladril (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting anything to do with the List of Sovereign states, or divisions thereof. Currently, this article mentions 5 states as being in formal association, the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue, and Palau. I was suggesting giving each of those their own detailed (sub)section. CMD (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread you. Yeah, it might be a good idea to do that. Though as you say, the third section is a mess. For starters, I don't see many sources to justify calling many of those entries "associations", and it's missing several historical cases (Iceland had a status of "associated state" of Denmark during 1918-1944, for example). I think that's a result of a decision to merge a rather bad page with this one. I would suggest focusing on the main table first, then pruning/complementing the second one as much as possible. Ladril (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The third section was a rather bad page. Interesting info, but hard to justify a list. I think historical cases that were officially associated states should be included in this page; it's not like this is a very long article. CMD (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regional variety of English

What regional variety of English is this article written in? I suggest that it either be tagged as New Zealand English or American English. I noticed a reference that the United States provides defence for its three associated states. That is a function of the United States Department of Defense. Either we should change the spelling to American English or should tag this article as being in New Zealand English. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Associated state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121015618/http://www.niue.de/index.php?did=niueabstracts.pdf to http://www.niue.de/index.php?did=niueabstracts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527152705/http://www.cook-islands.org/files/nz-cki.pdf to http://www.cook-islands.org/files/nz-cki.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728142815/http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm to http://untreaty.un.org/ola-internet/Assistance/Summary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305064608/http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/12-RJP15-Pacific-Constitutions.pdf to http://www.upf.pf/IMG/pdf/12-RJP15-Pacific-Constitutions.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160129075739/http://www.cookislands.de/index.php?did=cookisstatus.pdf to http://www.cookislands.de/index.php?did=cookisstatus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Associated state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121100604/http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf to http://unyearbook.un.org/1960YUN/1960_P1_SEC3_CH4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000423/http://www.mfai.gov.ck/attachments/068_WELLINGTON-1129712-v1-CookIslands%20%20Constitutional%20Status%20and%20International%20Personality%20%20informationpaper.pdf to http://www.mfai.gov.ck/attachments/068_WELLINGTON-1129712-v1-CookIslands%20%20Constitutional%20Status%20and%20International%20Personality%20%20informationpaper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019223055/http://legal.un.org/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf to http://legal.un.org/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

European Union

What about member states of the European Union? The European Union was a 'sui generis' supranational organisation which had 12 (later 15) member states. The member states had transferred a measure of their legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the institutions of the EU, and as such the EU had some elements of sovereignty, without generally being considered a sovereign state. The European Union did not claim to be a sovereign state and had only limited capacity for relations with other states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.37.1 (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the part about the EU not being a sovereign state means that the member states aren't associated states of the EU. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

UNGA Assembly resolution A/RES/1514(XV) does not discuss "free association".

It simply doesn't. It doesn't list any "Principle VI", nor any "principle" whatsoever. 152.115.85.150 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Denmark and greenland

Denmark and greenland are not mentioned on this page? is there a reason for this 92.3.37.93 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Greenland and the Faroe Islands are self-governing territories of Denmark, not independent states. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)