Talk:List of countries without armed forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured list star List of countries without armed forces is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
March 10, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Why is Japan here?

They still have a military.-G

Also, whoever added it forgot to update the country counts. Pbevin 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sending troops to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq is no "self-defence", "peacekeaping" nor "internal conflicts", I can tell.
Could someone please explain why Japan is on this list?
--190.48.106.236 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican?

100 people in the Swiss Guard, but the population's only 925... Per capita, I'd think that'd be hypermilitarized, not lacking an army. 209.6.230.71 03:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point of view ! They still have a police mission, not a military one ! CB

They use military ranks apperently. Military units have often been tasked with police missions in the past. What do they define themselves as? ---130.208.189.147 21:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The swiss guard protect every day te person of the roman pontiff also during is visit outside vatican so they are really an armed force.They also use asspult weapon.Italy provide security only for the part of Saint Peter Square that is part of the Vaatican State the other part of the state are under security duties of the Vatican armed corps.


I maintain. The Swiss guard in vatican, though they have a militsary training (they all have been soldiers in the swiss army) is a a simple police force. CB07

[edit] New changes

Hello, I've been working on the matter for some time ! Western Samoa is not american Samoa, though indeed they are neighbours ! CB


Hi, There is no defence agreemment between Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Would violate the neutrality of both. Switzerland even left Liechtenstein defenceless during both world wars.

Similarly, Itlay has no defence treaty with Vatican (wich is neutral) and San Marino.

And Mauritius no known agreement with India. CB07.

[edit] Samoa

It's Samoa, not Western Samoa. The name change occurred in 1998.

Thanks, good info ! CB

[edit] Source

"Palau - The only country with an anti-nuclear constitution". Source, please. I believe Germany, Japan and Brazil also have anti-nuclear Constitutions. Doidimais Brasil 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Brazil, an "anti-nuclear" republic? You must be kidding, with all nuclear plants the Brazilian state has. And I'm reading the whole German constitution and it doesn't seem an "anti-nuclear" one. So, if you want sources, why you don't show 'em? --Nkcs 03:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
New Zealand decleared itself Nuclear free in 1985. No Nuclear weapons or power is allowed in New Zealand --dmmd123 03:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Germany it's not anti-nuclear, it just passed a law few years ago to dismantle gradually its nuclear plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.199.143 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-nuclear constitutions

For Japan : The constitution article 9, stipulatse that the country shall have no army, though it does. There was a debate, and I think a succesfull one, to ask USA not ot come in Japan with Nuclear weapons, but I am uncertain. However, there is nothing in the constitution. For germany : I do not know for the constitution for sure. But I doubt it. The nuclear power plants, though bound to be shut in 2020 (and no new ones build) are still in function. And US had, if not has, nuclear weapons stationned there. For Brazil : I have no clues. It wouldn't take that long to read these three texts, and to control if the ascertion I made, based on documents regarding Palau being the only state with an anti-nuclear constitution, is correct or not. Just now I lack the will or the time. But I am open to any details. Thank you. CB

The Army of Japan is charged only with national defense duties; although the Constitution literally prohibits the right to initiate a war, it doesn't deny the obligation to defend a country. And neither Brazil and Germany have "anti-nuclear" constitutions, please include sources if you think so! --ShiningEyes 04:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides prohibiting the right to wage war, or to use war in international realtions, the Japanese constitutions (article 9, paragraph 2) clearly stipulates no armed forces, no navy, no air force. The gorvernement has been violating it's own consitution for half a century or so. Predsently if I am right, Japan has the third biggest military bidget in the world. The right to defend, is vested in the United Nations charter, but there is no say on whith witch means. It can be civil defence ! CB

The Palau constitution is availbale on the net. CB http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/pau28362.pdf

[edit] Nauru

The possibility of Nauru having an "unformal" agreement with Australia is slim. I'd like to know more about this. However, it is very seldom that governements enter into "unformal" agreements. There is too much uncertainety, and one way or the other, they do not lack lawyers to do the job. On the other hand, there has been strong ties between Nauru and Australia, the later establishing refugee camps in Nauru, i.e. So a military defence agreement is not unlikely. Really, Id' like to know the source of this info. And I leave the page unchanged till confirmation is given. Thank you. CB

I'll second that. That "informal agreement" caught my eye - very unusual in International Relations, unless it's a secret one, but a secret defense treaty makes no sense. Nicolasdz 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The clue exists on the Nauru page, but is not sufficient to me. So I changed the line. CB07

Secret treaties are illegal following WWI, perhaps there is wide spread speculation and even an assumption that Australia and/or the UN would protect Nauru's sovereignty. If this is the case, there might be evidence of it. Rds865 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dependent Areas

I went ahead and removed any items on the list that are not sovereign and independent in and of themselves. I also removed Sealand from the list because its status is disputed. See: List of sovereign states. D. Wo. 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Formally, I would agree. But Niue and Cook Islands, that have "free association" deals with NZ, do have sole responsibility for international relations and defence. So if you agree, I will put them back ! CB07

[edit] Cleanup

User:Roitr has been going around adding some pretty outrageously inaccurate stuff, so this needs a cleanup. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micronation

How about micronations? -- Zondor 00:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Micronations are not countries, read both articles. --Nkcs 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hum... All small countires have become menber of the UN (as countries) in the nineties. Except Niue and Cook islands. So, so to speak the is no Micro-nations left without a clear legal status but these two. CB07

[edit] Liechtenstein

According to the page on Liechtenstein their defense is the responsibility of Switzerland: "since the Army was disbanded in 1868, Defense is also the responsibility of Switzerland." -- Sölvi Úlfsson 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainely not, as SWitzerland is premanently neutral, it can not defend another country. CB

Well, the CIA's World Factbook has this to say:

defense is the responsibility of Switzerland

However, I haven't been able to find anything more authoritative than this. Silverhelm 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

The CIA factbook is simply wrong. Yes, as horrible as it seems. I am Swiss, am a lawyer and after reading some of the wiki articles simply had to find out more about this. Found nothing. Not even on this page here. I shall dig through the UniGE law library once the opportunity presents itself (best law library this side of the Alps), but I fear the CIA factbook is wrong. ~Michael

  • Apparently, I have to insist. Switzerland is NOT responsible for Liechtenstein's defence. Switzerland cannot even move troops through the country, as testified by this here event. The CIA Factbook is wrong, plain and simple. ~Michael, the unhappy Swiss lawyer. Message left on 03/03/2007

There is a treaty between Switzerland and Liechtenstein (http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/de/home/topics/intla/intrea/dbstv/data55/e_20040755.html) That allows for mutual assistance in case of catastrophes (earthquake, flooding ...) According to: http://news.search.ch/inland/2006-11-10/schweizer-armee-beschuetzt-liechtenstein This treaty allows for the swiss military/security forces, to assist during Euro'08 in securing the safety in Liechtenstein. Only as late as 2000 a treaty was created (http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/de/home/topics/intla/intrea/dbstv/data50/e_20000850.html) in which the usage of Liechtenstein airspace was allowed for swiss military airplanes provided: - No military materials are transported (weapons, munition ...) - Its deployment is not aimed at preparing or assistance of a military operation. So the unhappy swiss lawyer is correct. Defense is not the responsibilty of Switzerland, not has it ever been.

Apparently the edit war has been going on for quite a while. As such, I hope I have come up with a sort of a consensus formula. However, I am on the side of those who support that Switzerland is not responsible for the defence of the tiny principality. Russoswiss (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe a citizen of the countries in question could write an official, and ask them. Rds865 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the Liechtenstein article's talk page. Russoswiss (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Cook Islands and Niue

Both the Cook Islands and Niue are formally sovereign, and so belong in this list. I have therefore edited it to reflect this.

New Zealand's responsibility for their defence is required by an Act of Parliament, and is also entrenched in the other two countries' constitutions; but there is nothing to prevent any of these countries from unilaterally deciding to take the legal steps necessary to put an end to the arrangement.

Silverhelm 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC).

They may be formally sovereign, but not "fully". Until they are, then they will be treated like any other place under another nation's control.That-Vela-Fella 22:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Formally, I would agree. But Niue and Cook Islands, that have "free association" deals with NZ, do have sole responsibility for international relations and defence. So if you agree, I will put them back ! CB07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.13.12 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Marino

Should it be here? It seems to have an army, just one that can't do much because of the country's small size... --Imajin 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Their military Corpi MIlitari Uniformati appearently consist of Corpo della Gendarmeria, Guardia di Rocca, Compagnia Uniformata delle Milizie and Guardia del Consiglio. Of these units the Compagnia Uniformata delle Milizie is no doubt a military unit. Meanwhile the other ones might be more described as para-military perhaps. But this opens up the question, are countries with official military forces that aren't very big or modernly armed, without armed-forces? And are countries officially without armed forces but have a big warfighting capabilites resting in their large and capable para-military forces, truly without armed forces? In fact I believe all of these countries have armed forces. Every sovereign country has at least a single policeman with a club or stick or a baton or some weapon and are thus armed. But that might not necessarily mean that this list is worthless, it simply needs to be more clearly defined. ---130.208.189.147 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree since they got a budget for it, as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures That-Vela-Fella 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not agree. Just go there and you will see there isn't much of an army... Or a place to hide one... And moreover, they do not have a defence agreement with Italy. Anyone proving otherwise is welcome to do so, but I did research the matter sufficiently to change that. CB07

There shouldn't be any confusion here. San Marino DOES have an army; it is well armed and considering the size of population it is a large military force. It does include the Gendarmerie (which is militarised), but not the civil (municipal) police force. Additionally there are several other military units, some largely ceremonial, but others (Guard of the Rock, Army Militia, etc) largely operational. I don't believe San Marino should be in this list at all. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For future reference Eastern Caribean(independent states) are under the RSS.

Just for future reference the independent states of the Eastern Caribbean area under the CDERA and the RSS. Not- the United States.

CaribDigita 22:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

Japan only has self-defence forces which only engage in peacekeaping operations and in internal conflicts. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Good point It's constitutional. They should be on here. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 05:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say Japan does not have armed forces? It has one of the biggest militaries in the in its region (not to mention spending). Are we just engaging in sophistry by saying it has no armed forces. Does the Japanese Self Defence Force just carry around broomsticks? 60.226.236.214 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We should mention in the introduction that this is a list of countries that formally doesn't have armed forces. Japan certainly has, though the SDF is formally not military. "only engage in peacekeaping operations and in internal conflicts" doesn't really matter either. So does Sweden, but nobody claims that Sweden doesn't have armed forces. --Apoc2400 11:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
And as I said above (sorry I just saw this) I'm having a hard time trying to understand how invading Iraq can possible be a "self defense/peacekeeping/internal conflict resolution". So unless Japan have sent boy scouts to Iraq they to have armed forces and they actually invaded a foreign country with them; so why are we keeping Japanese "Self Defence" Forces on this list? Doesn't make any sense. --190.48.106.236 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Japan DIDN'T INVADE IRAQ. If you actually read the article on their deployment, then you'll see their presence was focused on reconstruction. They had soldiers there to protect the workers.--KrossTalk 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


What about listing Japan somewhere on the page, with a special note that while Japan formally has no standing military and only "self-defense forces" (about which constitutional debates are ongoing in Japan right now), in actuality it has one of the largest defense budgets in the world and has sent troops on out-of-area missions, albeit in a peacekeeping/peacemaking role... Nicolasdz 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Fact is that Japan has a de-facto military forces, even if its offical legal description might state otherwise. In this list we have both countries with official military forces that are so small that they aren't considered armed forces here and countries with de facto armed forces not described as such. So which is the description for countries without armed forces in this article? --130.208.189.147 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maldives

Do these islands really belong here? According to the CIA world factbook they spend $45.07 million on military matters or 5.5% GDP which is more than most NATO nations even. And they have "National Security Service: Security Branch (ground forces), Air Element, Coast Guard" According to the CIAWFB and according to wikipedia "On 21st April 2006, during ceremony of its 114th anniversay the NSS was renamed as the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF)." And it certainly looks like a military...... --130.208.189.147 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armed forces?

I find this article to be poorly conceived. Armed forces should include the military of those countries which have as their stated aims a defensive rôle.

Recent annual military budgets of those countries with the greatest military expenditure.
Recent annual military budgets of those countries with the greatest military expenditure.

I have included this chart to present to you the folly of including Japan in this article. Any discussion? Ozdaren 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also the name "Armed forces." Is there any country that doesn't have an armed police? A band of policemen with rifles would be and have been used for defence against external threats over history. Perhaps it would be better to term it countries without standing armies. And Japan certainly has armed forces, even though they are few in numbers. Even Iceland has a de facto army although not many would like to admit that... -130.208.189.147 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe Iceland's army is only 100 men, whose purpose is to participate in NATO operations, that denotes special attention. I agree Japan does have a military, as do most of the ones listed here. Such as Costa Rica, Monaco, as well as arguably other countries on the list, some who use the police for an Army, and have an Air Force and a Navy. Rds865 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barbados

Barbados' "military" unit is called the Barbados Defense Force - while not constitutionally prevented from warfare (their true capabilities are a state secret) they as a unit have never taken part in any wars since independence. If Japan is on this list, then Barbados should be as well.

Actually no. Japan doesn't have a military officially, but has one in reality. Barbados seems to have an official military no matter how puny or useless it may or may not be. --130.208.189.147 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Barbados was involved in Grenada, and Haiti (1995 and 2004). CaribDigita 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I don't think this title is fitting. "Armed forces" are any non-police, non-intelligence agency, defense force. This list would be more appropriately named "list of countries without an army", as some nations have no army, but still have a military (such as Iceland, Monaco, St kitts and Nevis, and Panama). QZXA2 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


The swiss guard protect every day te person of the roman pontiff every day also during is visit outside Vatican so they are really an armed force.

I think the Swiss Guard is more of a bodyguard then an army, and I think non-police is not accurate, because an armed force could have dual purposes. Also Armies have intelligence agency. Really what this article is about is sovereign nations with out an official armed force. Any significant group of soldiers who work for the government constitute an official armed force. The Swiss Guards are soldiers, but they act as bodyguards when Swiss Guards. Rds865 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No army

Hey, a "country without armed forces" is a "country without armed forces". Half of the cases on this list are countries who actually have an army, but they say they are pacifist or their military is crappy. That's exactly like Japan, who has been removed. You can't list here Vatican, since Vatican does have an army, as well as at least half of the nations here, who are not elegible for this list, and should be reintegrated in the other armed countries lists.

193.253.199.143 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein

There is debate at Talk:Liechtenstein#Liechtenstein_Military_Defense_and_Obligations_of_Switzerland_and.2For_Austria about whether the defence of Liechtenstein is or is not the responsibility of Switzerland. It would appear that reliable sources generally say it is (rightly or wrongly, but at Wikipedia we trust reliable sources and don't publish our own theories). For now, I've added a {{Fact}} tag. Indeed, I suggest it might be better to remove the claim altogether. --kingboyk (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, a follow up. I see it's already debated above. I see also that the sources are generally disputed by one guy called Michael. I'm gonna change the article per the reliable sources; if anyone wishes to challenge it they need to provide their own reliable sources. --kingboyk (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to change this list

If you take 5 minutes to read some of the preceding comments, it quickly becomes clear that there is widespread doubt about this list in its current form. Maybe it is time we did something about it? For example, the discussion above concerning San Marino appears to me to arrive at a clear and large majority opinion that San Marino should not be in this list. There seems to be a similar majority opinion concerning the Vatican, Iceland, Japan, and Monaco.

Perhaps the solution is two lists:

  • List of countries without armed forces
  • List of countries with limited armed forces

These two lists could still be on a single page, if desired, though it would probably be neater to have two pages, clearly linked to each other.

Timothy Titus Talk To TT 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your plan is the best way to fix this page. St. kitts & nevis, iceland, san marino, panama, monaco,and the vatican should be listed as having limited armed forces as all of those nations have some kind of military force. "ANK" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.58.127 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps the list should be broken into groups. nations without any armed forces, nations relying on other nations for defense, nations with limited military, etc.

That sounds good, but why doesnt anyone just go ahead and change the list? Its not like there is any controversy that might start an edit war! This list is very misleading. St. kitts and nevis should not be on this list at all! It very clearly has a Defense Force Which is a joint army/coast gaurd complete with armoured vehicles. Sounds like a full scale military force to me! It is just very small. An Iceland, it doesnt have an army but it does have an armed force that isnt part of its police (coast guard, crises response unit), therefore it has a military of some sort. And Panama, it abolished its army, but the PSF is not part of the police (though it includes it), it has several non-police defense groups, and that means it has a military. The same goes for San Marino and. Monacco And also, the titke is misleading: acountry without armed forces is a nation with absolutely no military, just a police. The countries I have mentioned all have a military force besides their police! A nation without armed forces would be Micronesia of Andorra. This list needs to be fixed. -ANK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.49.175 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Iceland should just have a "honorable mention" but the other nations you mentioned will be removed. Rds865 (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I left some that have a coast guard, although that is defined as an armed force by wikipedia, and I am not sure about paramilitary police forces or Gendarmerie. The question is not whether this are called military units, but whether they act like them. That is why I left the Vatican City, as the Gendarmerie is described as only preforming police duties, and the Swiss Guards are body guards and not part of the state. Rds865 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is an Armed Force

Most of these nations have something. The Regional Security System seems to be unbalanced, with most nations on this list. Even if some of these forces are nominally police forces, some could be preforming military duties. we need to come to a decision and what make something a armed force. Rds865 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, I looked ar the Regional Security System, and it list the police forces of the member states except for the two that have defense forces. In part it is a police/coast guard cooperation, but there is a mutual defense clause. I interpret this as meaning the police forces would serve as an army, if war was declared. Even if this is the case, as I am sure that it is, does that make the police force an armed force, or an inactive militia? Rds865 (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Haiti has a police force said to "replace" the regular armed forces, and according to the CIA World Factbook, the regular army may exist on paper. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html
Mauritus has a SMF that may be an armed force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Mobile_Force
Rds865 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palau

I notice Palau's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau#Nuclear-free_constitution article says the anti nuclear cause was repealed. Rds865 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite errors

There are a heck of a lot of citation errors in this list now... can we get this fixed? - 203.134.166.99 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid an edit by Rds865 and that has fixed the cite errors, although later I noticed in this edit summary Rds865 says "The reasons is several people agreed these places do have armed forces." Personally I don't know about it one way or the other. But if those countries are removed again, whoever does it should also remove the other refs that refer to those countries (like <ref name="costa rica"/> , <ref name="iceland"/> , <ref name="monaco"/> , <ref name="rss"/> , <ref name="san marino"/> ). --Pixelface (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
how do I do that?Rds865 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If you remove this text from the article
  • | {{flagcountry|Monaco}} | Renounced its military investment in the 17th century because the advancement in artillery technology had rendered it defenseless. Defense is the responsibility of [[France]]. Two [[Military of Monaco|small military units]] protect the [[Prince of Monaco|Prince]] and judiciary, and provide Civil Defense coverage. |align=center|<ref name="monaco">{{cite web|accessdate=2008-02-27|url=http://www.monaco-consulate.com/news_1024.htm|title=Monaco signs new treaty with france |publisher=Monaco Consulate }}</ref>
Then the following citation will show up as an error in the References section:
  • <ref name="monaco"/>
because it calls that reference named "monaco" and it won't be found.
If that URL ( http://www.monaco-consulate.com/news_1024.htm ) is valid for other material in the article (but you want to remove the text that precedes the full reference), the reference should be moved elsewhere in the article (by replacing one instance of <ref name="monaco"/> with the full reference <ref name="monaco">{{cite web|accessdate=2008-02-27|url=http://www.monaco-consulate.com/news_1024.htm|title=Monaco signs new treaty with france |publisher=Monaco Consulate }}</ref>
If you remove these references:
  • <ref name="costa rica"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="iceland"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="monaco"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="rss"> blah blah </ref>
  • <ref name="san marino"> blah blah </ref>
and if those references don't support any other text in the article, you need to find the following text and remove it as well:
  • <ref name="costa rica"/>
  • <ref name="iceland"/>
  • <ref name="monaco"/>
  • <ref name="rss"/>
  • <ref name="san marino"/>
But it looks to me like some text in the intro would have to be rewritten (because it cites the monaco ref) and that text was in the intro when this list became a featured list. Why do you think Costa Rica, Iceland, Monaco, Dominica, and San Marino need to be removed? Do those countries have armed forces? This list defines "armed forces" as any government-sponsored defense used to further the domestic and foreign policies of their respective government. --Pixelface (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why have a page on countries without armed forces

Well, I am very happy there is one. It shows it can be done (a country living without a defence force) and this is a great progress for peace !
Now we can argue almost endlessy on where the limit between armies and police lay, and therefore waste a lot of time putting countries on or off this list.
However, this list has evolved from 27 down to 23 countries. 27 is the number in C. Barbey's book. He used 3 criterias :
1° Constitutional or legal choice not to have an army. Usually it shows clearly where the country stands. Haiti is the exception, they disbanded the army, but did not change the constitution so far.
2° Absence of heavy weapons. There also is exceptions there, mainly for cost guards that have usually small canons on their boats.
3° So a third criteria has also been used. Is it a civilian force or an autonomous force ? Distinction can lay at various levels: mission of the force, own ministry, common personal civil status or all forces in the police.
Now a bit of history and discussion of our page : - Have been removed first Niue and Cook islands because they are not fully independant or recognized as such, not sovereign accoridng the terminology in use here. That's true and I'll let be, even if factually they are solely responsible for their defense and international relations. However, we could have them in a special category on the page, they are more independant regarding defence than Monaco, Micronesia, Palau and Marshall islands.
- Was also taken off recently, Maldives, and I have little to say about that. Saddly, they have been militarizing in recent years.
- The removal of Vanuatu, done without explanations, is a bit more strange. True as St-Kitts, they have a small defense force for internal reasons (there was secceeding risks at independance in both). Both have around two hundred men with barely no heavy weapons (criteria 2). However, unlike Antigua and Seychelles (that do have the same number of men) they are both (Vanuatu and St-Kitts) under civil authority, not forming their own "administrative" entity (criteria 3).
- Both in Monaco and San Marino, ceremonial guards are definitely not armies, no heavy weapons.
Final comments :
On the long run, what will really count is the peace prone attitude of these countries.
We, APRED, [1] are preparing a new list of countries organized differently : "Countries non-militarised and peace proactive" "Countries demilitarized" "Countries at risk of militarisation".
It can also be noted that none of the recently new countries have made that choice : Timorleste, Montenegro or Kosovo. Too bad...
For today, good enough. Thanks for intelligent and sound debate. May peace prevail. CB08 (Ex CB 07)

To "CB08" - please respect talk page guidelines by always signing your comments. This is done by typing four tildes. It doesn't just identify authorship, but also assists in communication between editors. Just writing your name in plain text at the end of comments really isn't the same thing! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find it hard to agree with almost any of the above by "CB08". To answer just a handful of your points -
  • Go and speak to the people of San Marino! They are VERY proud of their army, which has a very ancient history. To suggest that it is "merely ceremonial" is both incorrect and offensive to the people of that nation. The same guards (Guard of the Rock) who perform the daily "changing the guard ceremony" at Palazzo Pubblico are on armed border patrol that same evening; and there is still immense pride in Sammarinese families through having family members enrolled in the Army Militia.
  • The "absence of heavy weapons" is a ridiculous standard for judging whether a unit is military or not. Have you never heard of light infantry or special forces? Two examples of military units which pride themselves on having no heavy weapons, and an enhanced operational capability as a result.
  • Notwithstanding your own political opinions, declared through your self-identification as part of APRED, this is not really the place for expressing such views. However, since you have already made your "too bad" type references to decisions by Montenegro and Kosovo to maintain armies, common sense is bound to respond with the simple question "Have you ever heard of Serbia"?!! Luckily this is an encyclopedia, so the facts of the matter are easily to hand.
I do not wish to appear offensive to you, or your views on world peace, but this list MUST be a factual account of which countries have armed forces, and which countries do not. It would be quite wrong to make it simply a mirror of the list published by a group like APRED (with a clear political agenda), or indeed to use it to try and advance your own theories on how to create world peace - that would be unencyclopedic, and I think would probably amount to original research too. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Kitts and Nevis must go!

Unless anyone says otherwise I am going to remove St. Kitts and Nevis from this list entirely within the next three days. It is clearly an armed force despite it lacking heavy weapons or manpower. There is no reason why it isnt an armed force. I may also do the same with San Marino too as they have an Army Militia amoung other forces that are armed forces even if they only have limited combat capabilities. And I think a seperate list for countries that have no armies but armed forces (Iceland, Monaco, Panama) is long overdue. Please let me know if you disagree. ANK 71.244.156.126 (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree - on all your points. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Countries with no Standing Army, but having limited Military Forces. Costa Rica?

Since when Civil Guards are considered Armed forces?. I strontly disagreed with the editing of categorizing Costa Rica or any other country as having limited military forces. The Civil Guard in Costa Rica has many divisions to ensure laws are enforced inside the territory such as; ilicit drug trafficking, special police forces, or to assist in case of of a national natural disaster. This will be as to say that the DEA, FBI,CIA and Secret Service are US military forces. Definitely non-sense.

With regard on whether a country has military forces or not according to the posting previously published. I want to point out that Costa Rica meets these as follow;

1° Constitutional or legal choice not to have an army. Usually it shows clearly where the country stands. Haiti is the exception, they disbanded the army, but did not change the constitution so far.

ARTICLE 12. The Army as a permanent institution is abolished. There shall be the necessary police forces for surveillance and the preservation of the public order.

Military forces may only be organized under a continental agreement or for the national defense; in either case, they shall always be subordinate to the civil power: they may not deliberate or make statements or representations individually or collectively.'

2° Absence of heavy weapons. There also is exceptions there, mainly for cost guards that have usually small canons on their boats.

The Guardia Civil operates 11 aircraft on government support, law enforcement, and paramilitary duties.

How can the above be considered heavy weapons?

3° So a third criteria has also been used. Is it a civilian force or an autonomous force ? Distinction can lay at various levels: mission of the force, own ministry, common personal civil status or all forces in the police.

Presidential Guard Northern Border Security Battalion aka Border Patrol (Patrulla Fronteriza)- 750 men operational on the Nicaraguan border, formed in May of 1985 by combining 1st and 2nd companies.

COIN or Counterinsurgency Battalion Special Intervention Unit (Unidad de Intervenciones Especiales) (UIE). Established in the mid-1980's and is between 60 and 80 men strong. Tasked with hostage rescue, VIP protection and conducting high-risk criminal raids and arrests. The unit makes use of 11-man assault teams, each divided into subteams of 3-4 men each. In addition, they have a small sniper element used for observation and fire support. The UIE is located in the 1st Civil Guard facilities in San Jose. They have received a great deal of training from a wide variety of sources, including Israel, Panama, USA, Argentina, and Spain.

Coastguard of 250 with several patrol boats Air Unit with a dozen light aircraft and helicopters There also is the 3,000 man National Reserve, the General Staff and enough equipment, mostly small arms, for 10,000 reservists.

Also the 10000 stated in the article is not correctly cited. It refers to reservists. I wonder which country in the world does not have some sort of Civil Guard("special forces").

The whole concept of "Countries with no Standing Army, but having limited Military Forces" is just non-sense. Either a country has armed forces by definition or does not.

Eao1970 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're fully entitled to your opinion, though personally I find the simple act of reading your own comments (immediatley above) sufficient justification for the new layout. I do think anyone reading your comments on Costa Rica would think that you were talking about a military force, and not a police force! Read some of the cited external articles about Costa Rica, which state that it is hard to tell the difference between a Costa Rican Civil Guard and a member of the US Army! Also that the Civil Guard is designed to be the national army in the event of an invasion by a third party. In any case, please read the section entitled "Time to change this list" (above on this talk page) which is where this change was discussed, with widespread support. In fact, I don't remember reading ANY objections when it was discussed there, and we waited quite a long time after opening the discussion before any action was taken. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again the only point I'm making is that is incorrect to say that there are military forces in Costa Rica. I could agree that there are around 8500 police forces which some have received some paramilitary training to become part of special units. But that does not mean they are for military purposes. The reference about the 10000 military style personnel is totally incorrect taken into consideration that out of the 8500 police forces are included your regular police officer that will give a ticket for speeding and everyday citizen’s violations. With regard of the cross relation with US ranks, this is just for reporting purposes, it does not mean they are equipped with the same heavy weaponry than their counterparts in the US. I just feel that the article is misrepresenting the cited facts. is not the same to say and I quote "there are over 10,000 military-style personnel" than "enough equipment, mostly small arms, for 10,000 reservists". One thing is equipment and other personnel. The cited source states that there are around 8250 police officers and yes many of them are part of special units and have received paramilitary training but the vast majority are just your regular UK or US police officer.
All I ask is that if an article uses sentences of a cited source, then the article must reflect the information from the cited source and not twist its sentences to have a different meaning. This unless you can reference a source stating that, there are 10000 active troops serving as Civil Guard.
Since I don't want to appear rude or violate Wikipedia guidelines. I'm just asking that the article reflects the information contained in the cited sources. I can't see in any of the cited sources a reference to "there are over 10,000 military-style personnel"
Eao1970 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)